[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4727-H4751]
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 210 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2620.
{time} 0904
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
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,
with Mr. Shimkus in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, July
26, 2001, the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce)
had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 33,
line 5, through page 37, line 9.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development--home investment partnerships act'', strike
``That of the total amount provided under this heading,
$200,000,000'' and all that follows through ``as amended:
Provided further,''.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, one of the popular and successful
innovations in Federal aid to housing in recent years dating back to
when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) was the Chair of the
committee is the HOME program. The HOME program is one of the few
programs now existing, perhaps the only one, which allows
municipalities that feel the need to do housing construction. Many of
us feel that we have a terrible problem in this country because of the
increased price of housing, particularly in areas of housing shortage.
While we are strong supporters of the section 8 voucher program, there
is a large consensus, which you saw in the bipartisan witnesses before
our hearings, that the voucher program alone is not enough, that it
does not deal with the situation increasingly common in many of our
areas, metropolitan areas and others, but particularly metropolitan
areas, where economic pressures have driven housing prices so high and
where production is so difficult for a variety of reasons.
[[Page H4728]]
The HOME program is the premier general production program. It is
strongly supported by elected officials. The President proposed to take
$200 million of the HOME funds and restrict them, restrict them in a
way that they have not previously been restricted. The HOME program has
been a genuine block grant with complete flexibility. One of the things
you can do under the HOME program if the municipality or the consortium
of municipalities wants to is to do a homeownership program. But it is
not mandatory. This is part of a flexible approach. The President said,
let's take $200 million of this plan and make it mandatory that they
use it for that and only that. Now, the committee increased the
funding, but it increased the funding by picking up this restriction.
What my amendment does is very simple. It has no offset because it
needs no offset. It does not change the dollar amount of the bill, of
the HOME program or of anything else. It simply removes from the HOME
program as put forward in the bill a restriction on the use of $200
million which restriction would be imposed over the objection of the
mayors. It is a restriction which takes a first unfortunate step
towards converting a genuine flexible, successful, local-oriented block
grant program into a partial categorical program. I stress again that
the category which is earmarked in this bill at the President's request
is an entirely permissible one. We are not preventing those
municipalities that want to do it from doing this. We are saying that
if the municipality wants to do it, it should be able to do it, but if
it does not wish to do it, it should not have to do it. That is the
critical point here.
I want to stress again that this is important because this bill,
which fails because of the tax reductions having taken away the revenue
that we need to be responsible, this bill fails entirely to deal with
the production problem. We do have some money in the 202 program for
the elderly. We just had testimony that there are nine people on the
waiting list for every section 202 elderly unit. If you want to know
whether these programs are successful or not, look at that consumer
satisfaction. Older people, 9 to 1, want to get into what is available.
But that is only for the elderly. We have the low-income housing tax
credit which does some good. But the primary program by which we can
today do production is the HOME program. This bill fails as I said in
not responding to the needs for another production program.
The problem of course is that no such program was on the books and so
you cannot expect it to be appropriated before it is authorized. I hope
we will in this Congress create an increased production program. But
one way to do production--the only way--is to increase home funds. So I
want Members to be very clear. The only way you can meet even a small
part of the need for increased housing production, particularly in
those metropolitan areas where the housing shortage makes vouchers
unusable, is to free up the money in HOME. A homeownership program
might be a useful one in some municipalities. My amendment does not in
any way, shape or form restrict the ability to do that. But to impose
that and to say to a city, here is a chunk of money that you cannot use
for production, you cannot use for rehabilitation, you cannot use for
anything else, you can only use it for homeownership, when that city
might prefer to do it in different ways is a reversion to a way of
thinking about congressional imposition on municipal flexibility that I
had thought this Congress was beyond and I thought my friends on the
other side were beyond.
So I hope the amendment is adopted. Now, there are other potential
uses of the $200 million. We will have that conflict. But at this point
I hope we can free this up and let the mayors spend this money as they
see it, including on production.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment. The President and the Secretary have made
increasing homeownership opportunities for low-income families a top
priority, one I believe each and every one of us can and should
support. My experience as a city council member in Syracuse and city
council president was that the strongest neighborhoods are the ones
with the highest percentage of homeownership. Anything that we can do
to promote homeownership, we should do.
The program that the President has asked us to support would provide
funds for individuals and families to make a down payment in order to
get a mortgage on a property. As most of us know who have bought homes,
the hardest part is that initial stretch, to meet those initial monthly
mortgage payments the first several years, but also to get that money
for the down payment. It is essential to the equation of homeownership.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have made dramatic changes in this
country in recent years through welfare reform. Thousands and thousands
of families who have been chained to welfare over the years have now
benefited by moving from the strictures of welfare into the workplace.
The efforts of the Congress and the administration, in both parties,
has given them hope, given them the opportunity and pride of being
productive citizens. The next critical step to giving Americans the
opportunity to really get a piece of the American dream, is
homeownership.
This is a very critical program. This is the President's major
initiative in this bill. So while the Administration request proposed
an earmark for this initiative out of the HOME program, we did not do
that. Instead, we have provided a $200 million increase over the
request for the initiative. I want to make sure Members are aware that
the down payment assistance is already authorized as a part of the HOME
program. In fact, many States and localities are already using their
HOME funds for this purpose. However, given the priority that many of
us believe should be placed on homeownership, we have targeted the
increase provided over the last year for homeownership as the President
requested.
While down payment assistance is an authorized HOME activity,
targeted funds would require some authorization changes to preserve the
prerogatives of the authorization committee on which the gentleman from
Massachusetts serves as ranking member by requiring those authorization
changes to be made before targeting the funds. Should those changes not
be made by next June, which I certainly hope will not be the case,
States and localities can use these increased funds for any authorized
HOME purpose.
{time} 0915
The debate over what changes should be made to bolster home ownership
is not an issue for this bill. We leave that to the authorizing
committee. However, I believe we should support the President and the
Secretary in these efforts.
Mr. Chairman, if this program is implemented properly, we have the
opportunity to help over 100,000 American families move from
tenantship, rentership, to ownership. What a marvelous concept that is.
What better way to use taxpayers dollars than to help people get their
piece of the rock, to fulfill their American dream. Anyone who knows
the rights and the responsibilities of home ownership knows there is a
special feeling that goes with that.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a clarification
question?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point that says authorizing
legislation has to be adopted, but it says until June 30, 2002. The
appropriation, I assume, begins October 1st. Does this mean no money
can be spent between October 1 and June 30, or that the mandate would
not be in effect from October 1 until June 30?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my understanding is that
the requirement is that the authorization committee do their job this
year, pass the authorization. If they do not, then those funds would
revert to the States and localities, as with the rest of the program.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, there
is a time gap, because the appropriation kicks in October 1.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Frank, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Walsh was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
[[Page H4729]]
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. My question was just this: Since the appropriation begins
October 1, but the lapsing of the mandate kicks in June 30, 2002, what
happens if the authorizing committee and the Congress do not pass the
legislation then as of October 1? Is the mandate in effect and it ends
on June 30, or does it never go into effect?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the authorizing
committee does its job, there is not a problem. We would expect the
authorizing committee to do their job. If they do not do their job,
then money reverts back to the States.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, could I ask the distinguished chairman a question,
please, because I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts; and I thought
he made good sense. And I heard the chairman, the gentleman from New
York, I thought he made good sense.
Is there a disconnect here that has not been made clear to me? I did
not hear the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) say anything about
what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said. I would like to
yield for the gentleman to explain that.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, my response was that this program is not
authorized. We expect it to be authorized. If it is not authorized, the
money would revert to the States as the rest of the formula for the
HOME program already does.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we can authorize it
ourselves. Do we not have at least that much power? I thought we could
do that. Who is this supreme authorizing body in Washington, D.C., that
I do not know much about?
Mr. WALSH. If the gentleman would yield further, I would hope that
the authorization committee would respect that this is the President's
number one priority in housing this year and honor that request by
doing the authorization.
Mr. CONYERS. So that is the gentleman's only reservation? That is the
complaint?
Mr. WALSH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we would expect
the authorizing committee to get their work done. There is sufficient
time in the year.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, there is a technical point and a more
substantive one. The technical point is this: the gentleman from New
York says that if the legislation is not authorized, then the money
does go back to the recipient municipalities the way my amendment says.
The problem is that that does not happen in the bill until June 30,
2002, and this appropriation becomes effective on October 1. So from
October 1 of 2001 until June 30, the money will be mandated and not
available freely. The gentleman said well, he would hope, recognizing
it was the President's priority, they would authorize it.
I know that motivates many on the gentleman's side. But the
President's priority was not to have the Patients' Bill of Rights of
Ganske-Norwood-Dingell, and the President's priority has been a
different campaign finance reform.
I am pleased to say from time to time this House constitutionally
differs with Presidential priorities, and the argument that something
is not a Presidential priority, as my friend from Michigan has said, is
not an argument.
So I think if the gentleman concedes that we should not be doing this
without authorization, then he has it backwards, because his amendment
language says as of October 1, if my amendment does not pass, there is
this mandate and the mandate stays in effect for most of the fiscal
year. I think that is the wrong way to deal with it.
Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, I do too. I think the subcommittee
chairman is of good heart and great cheer and wonderful spirit, and I
think the Frank amendment to this, notwithstanding what the President
wished and wanted earlier on, maybe if we went back to the President,
he would say this is not such a bad idea either. I do not know if we
have time to do that, but I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) has come up at least with a good idea.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend from Massachusetts's
amendment to strike the earmark for the Down Payment Assistance
Initiative program in the HOME program. As a member of the Committee on
Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,
on which I serve with my friend from Massachusetts, I believe that the
President's proposal for low-income down-payment assistance must be a
top priority.
When I read the Frank amendment, I was a little surprised, since I
know my friend from Massachusetts to be a knowledgeable individual on
issues concerning housing. Hence, I assumed he would realize the down
payment assistance program is already an authorized purpose of the HOME
program and is one that is in current use in towns and cities across
the country.
In the past few months, we have both participated in a number of
hearings on the lack of affordable housing in our Nation. We have been
told again and again of the crisis we face.
The HOME program is important to housing production. It is an
important housing production program, and I believe the gentleman from
Massachusetts wants to facilitate as much new housing as possible.
However, I also believe my friend from Massachusetts would recognize
the real need to help low-income families with their down payments for
their purchase of first home.
Let me be clear: the down payment initiative is not a solution to all
the problems we face, but it is one important step that will greatly
assist the families who use it.
In addition, in order to target this excess $200 million solely to
down-payment assistance, we are required to take this issue up in our
committee to target the assistance. I will do everything possible to
work with my friend from Massachusetts and all of the other members of
our committee to ensure we make these changes. However, if we fail to
do this by next June, the funding will be utilized as regular HOME
funds would.
With this in mind, I would hope that my friend from Massachusetts
would withdraw his amendment so that we can join together to work on
this issue and craft a program in the committee. I believe that our
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity has a solid
bipartisan approach to the housing programs that our Nation uses. This
initiative will require us to work together to bring it into reality.
I also hope that my friend and all of our colleagues on this
subcommittee will join us in working on this issue. As the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is the ranking member of the committee,
I hope he will work to help craft a program to help more people own
their own homes.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, first, I would point out the ranking member
does not set the committee agenda. The committee has been in existence
since January or February. The majority has not brought this item
forward for us to debate.
Secondly, I thought the gentlewoman was making my argument. Of course
I understand it is already authorized. That is why I do not think we
need to force communities to do it. It is fully authorized. Some
communities are doing it.
The difference between us is not whether this is not in some places a
good idea, but whether Congress should retreat from the notion of a
block-granted HOME program with reliance on local judgment and take for
the first time the wrong step, I think, of mandating the specifics.
I would be glad to have the committee bring it up, but I do want to
point out to the gentlewoman, she is a member of the majority. It is up
to them to bring something forward.
The problem is this says the committee and House and Senate. It is
not only up to the committee. If we do not
[[Page H4730]]
get legislation through as of October 1, this gets mandated and the
communities cannot enjoy the previous flexibility, and that is what I
object to.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe very strongly
that this is a program that we must authorize very quickly. I believe
very strongly that this is a program that will allow people to own
their own homes. The more people at the low-income level that are able
to do that, the better we all are, for our communities and across the
Nation.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK. 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 Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) will be postponed.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendments
numbered 44, 45 and 46 may be offered at any point during further
consideration of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I
reserve the right to object only to explain the purpose for this
unanimous consent request is to try to help us get an organized
schedule today so we can move along expeditiously. This would simply
allow these three amendments to be taken up early in the day. They will
tend to be the more controversial amendments. We would like to get this
process organized.
In addition, I would like to suggest that Members that have
amendments that they wish to offer really should let us know what they
are quickly, so that we can try to organize the balance of the day so
we can complete this legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have first a question and then a comment.
If this request is granted, it is my understanding that this in no
way affects the rights of other amendments to be offered, even though
when we consider some of these amendments we would be moving ahead in
the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman
is correct. However, as we proceed through the bill, I think the
gentleman and I both agree that Members that have amendments at a
particular place in the bill should be here to offer them, because, as
we announced several days ago, we are not going to be able to go back
to the bill once we have passed that point.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I will
simply reemphasize that. If Members have amendments, they have a
responsibility to be here in a timely fashion. It is not the
committee's responsibility to protect Members who are not protecting
themselves.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 44 Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment concerning the Public
Housing Drug Elimination Program.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 44 offered by Ms. Kaptur:
At the end of title II, insert the following new section:
Sec. 2__. For carrying out the Public and Assisted Housing
Drug Elimination Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 11901 et seq.) and
the functions of the clearinghouse authorized under section
5143 of the Drug-Free Public Housing Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C.
11922), and the aggregate amount otherwise provided by this
title for the ``HOME Investment Partnerships Program'' is
hereby reduced by, and the amount provided under such item
for the Downpayment Assistance Initiative is hereby reduced
by, $175,000,000.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am proposing would restore
a program that the majority party has zeroed out in this legislation
for the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. This program has been
in operation since President Reagan signed the legislation in his last
administration, and was first appropriated, funds were first let around
the country, by the first Bush Administration back in 1988.
Our amendment has been scored by CBO as budget neutral, both in
outlays and budget authority, because of offsets from the HOME program
and the Down Payment Assistance Initiative, which has not been
authorized.
Last year Congress provided over $310 million to over 1,100 housing
authorities across the country for this very, very successful program,
which aims at keeping criminal activity down in some of the most
vulnerable neighborhoods in our country where seniors, low-income
families, and the disabled live on a daily basis.
{time} 0930
It is a worthy program; it is a successful program that has been
supported by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Frankly, I
am rather perplexed, I am mystified, as to why any administration or
any subcommittee would zero out a program with this rate of success.
Over 118 Members of this Congress have signed a letter to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) supporting the continuation of this program,
and with me here at the desk I have a list of Members' districts that
include over 1,100 Housing Authorities where this program has been in
operation and so successful.
Now, there is no question that crime has dropped nationwide and, in
particular, in some of the most vulnerable areas of our cities, so let
me explain what used to happen. What used to happen is that drug lords
in places like Chicago literally controlled the roofs. I was in the
housing field long before I was elected to Congress. I know what it is
like to stand on the roof of a building and watch as mothers cannot
leave a housing project to go buy milk because the drug lords control
the streets, and if they had a deal coming down, you could not live
your life.
This program aims to get rid of that, to set up police substations in
many of these housing projects in some of the most dangerous parts of
America to let the children in those areas have a chance at a decent
life. This is a program with a track record, and it is a good one, and
it should not be zeroed out.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to thank the
gentlewoman for her enormous effort with regard to this program.
I am in support of this amendment. This amendment will help make sure
that children living in our Nation's public housing, over 1 million of
them, have safe and secure environments in which they can grow and
succeed. They deserve this opportunity.
This amendment restores funds to the Public Housing Drug Elimination
Program. These are programs that are disparate all across the country.
Local authorities use these funds to supplement law enforcement
activities in some cases, while others create drug intervention
programs and new social support services. This program has a sterling
record of success.
One reason is it allows housing authorities to tailor their programs
to fit their individual needs and the needs of their residents. All
over the country, children living in public housing who have
participated in drug prevention activities have higher self-esteem,
higher grades and fewer school absences.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman talks about this program coming into
effect under Ronald Reagan and being administered by President George
Bush and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp. Earlier this session, the gentlewoman
pointed out that more than a quarter of us, from one end of the
political spectrum to the other, signed a letter to the
[[Page H4731]]
leaders of this subcommittee to ask to continue funding for this
program. That is because I suppose, in the end, children are not a
partisan issue. The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program has never
been a partisan issue, and neither is this amendment. Many Members have
indicated their support for continued funding for this program. The
amendment gives us the opportunity to show our support. It is drugs,
and not this effective undertaking, that needs to be eliminated.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman from Akron, Ohio (Mr. Sawyer), thank you so very much. The
gentleman was mayor of Ohio long before he was elected to this Congress
and understands the importance of this program. He took time from a
markup in another committee to be here this morning. We thank him so
very, very much for his leadership and interest on this issue.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to begin my portion of this debate by
stating that I am not aware that there has ever been a study to show
that this drug elimination program is successful as a national policy.
There are lots of anecdotal comments and individual programs around the
country that have had some degree of success, but this program has
never been declared a success by the Federal Government.
I am also not aware that there is a higher degree or a higher
percentage of drug use or drug abuse in public housing than anywhere
else in this country. I think, to a degree, it is a negative statement
about the Federal Government's view of public housing to have a program
specifically for drug elimination in public housing.
Having said that, the HOME program, as I have said before, will help
Americans to move from tenantship, rentership, to homeownership. I
think it is important that we provide specific funds for that purpose,
and I hope the authorizing committee will make this authorization a
reality.
Let me just talk a little bit about the drug elimination program.
First of all, the program has $700 million of unspent funds. When this
program began 13 years ago, it was funded at $8 million. It was
designed to address a gap in services that State and local governments
were not filling for public housing. A lot has changed since then. The
crime bill, for example, provided somewhere in the neighborhood of $9
billion to States and localities to hire over 100,000 additional police
officers, to fund 1,000 new Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing, as
well as a variety of other juvenile crime prevention activities.
State and local governments have been provided the resources in
public housing. Residents should be receiving the benefit of those
Federal programs like everyone else.
Currently, less than one-third of all public housing authorities
receive drug elimination funds. Just four of the public housing
authorities in the country are receiving 25 percent of all of these
funds. In New York City, where they receive somewhere in the
neighborhood of $35 million to $40 million, half of the money, half of
it, is going to pay the salaries of New York City police officers. That
is what the crime bill was for.
So they are getting Federal funds through the crime bill to hire
additional police. They are also using these drug elimination funds to
pay police salaries, and that just is not what these funds were for.
All of the PHAs that have received money have not been able to spend
it. The gentlewoman's hometown of Toledo, Ohio, is only now in the
process of spending 1999 funds. In my hometown, in Syracuse, there is
about $2 million in the pipeline for drug elimination programs. They
can continue to use that money under this bill if they have pipeline
funds and they have a program that they believe is effective. In
Syracuse there are several that they believe are effective, so they can
continue to use those funds.
In addition, we have increased the public housing operating fund by a
little more than 8 percent, a very substantial increase. Under the law,
public housing authorities can use those operating expenses for drug
elimination programs or, basically, for any other program that they see
fit. So they have the flexibility there to continue to do this sort of
activity.
Secretary Martinez and President Bush asked us to eliminate this
program. Secretary Martinez is a new Secretary. Just as we did with
Secretary Cuomo when he had policy initiatives, we tried to honor those
public policy initiatives; and the Congress, in most cases, complied. I
would ask my colleagues to comply with Secretary Martinez. He does not
believe that criminal justice is part of the core business of HUD. He
wants HUD to get out of the criminal justice business.
As I said, if individual public housing authorities want to continue
the programs that they feel are effective, they can use the pipeline
funds, and they can use their HUD operating expenses which we have
provided for a very strong increase.
Mr. Chairman, to close, I have a letter here signed by the Enterprise
Foundation, the National Council of State Housing Agencies, the
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties,
National Community Development Association which says, we need these
home funds. We do not want them used for any other program. So they
would oppose this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the tragedy in this whole HUD bill is that it is
underfunded. I rise to support the amendment to keep the Public Housing
Drug Elimination Program in operation.
Last night we discussed until 11 o'clock that there is $640 million
cut out of the Section 8 Program. There is $240 million cut out of the
Community Development Block Program. There is $445 million cut out now,
in this budget, out of the Housing Modernization Program. There is $97
million less this year in the Homeless Assistance Program, and now we
come to the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, which has not been
cut back but eliminated.
This program was started and signed into law in 1988 by President
Reagan. President Bush won and continued the program. President Clinton
increased the program, and last year it had a $310 million
appropriation. This budget gives it zero.
So not only have we reduced those other categories of housing needed,
one of the most-needed categories behind education and health in our
country, moderate safe, clean housing does not exist for many
Americans, and what this Republican Congress does, it has decimated
that in this HUD budget even more.
What my colleagues need to also know is that last week this Congress
passed a bill that gave $675 million to Colombia. Last year, this
Congress gave $1.3 billion to Colombia, where it is documented that 90
percent of the cocaine and heroin comes from.
So I say to my colleagues, this drug elimination for public housing
program, which does work well; and, the chairman ask for a study, do
not zero it out. It is doing marvelous things. It is hiring people who
live in public housing to take care, to guide, and to monitor their own
living conditions so that the children can be safe, so that the seniors
can have opportunity.
On the one hand, we can give Colombia $2 billion and cannot find $175
million for those who live in public housing to try to eradicate drugs,
keep drugs down, and keep their housing safe. Something is wrong with
that equation.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for introducing the
amendment. Our offices have worked closely on this. This is not the
time to cut public housing funds. Perhaps we should send the money to
Colombia so we can stop the interdiction, but, quite certainly, we also
ought to have treatment on demand, which none of these budgets address.
Quite certainly, we ought to have a minimum of $175 million for people
who live in public housing, again, not to eliminate the program. We
need to ask for the testimony. We have testimonies to tell the
gentleman that it works, and the study will prove that, too. It works.
Mr. Chairman, $2 billion to Colombia, and we cannot give $175 million
to public housing who want to help themselves, to do what it takes to
live in clean and safe housing. I think we can do better than that as a
Congress. We are a much better Nation than that.
[[Page H4732]]
All of us do not agree with the Andean Colombia program, but we do
support eradicating drugs in our society. The way we do that is to stop
the flow, yes, and also treatment on demand.
When somebody who is addicted, whose life is in chaos finally gets
ready for treatment and goes to a center in my district, they say,
okay, fine, we are glad you are here. Come back in 3 months, and we
will find a slot for you.
Come on. That is not how it works, America. My colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, they have it in their districts, and I have it in
mine. It is an American problem. We cannot give Colombia $2 billion on
the one hand and not give a few million for the American citizens who
Colombia has strung out.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that we adopt this amendment. It is
important that we talk about what is really happening here. The HOME
Program is a marvelous program. We want the Downpayment Program as
well. The most important thing a person can do, a family can have, is a
home. The stability, the consciousness, the being somebody really is
defined in America by their home and their home conditions and how they
live.
So I hope the Congress will think deeply about this amendment. Mr.
Chairman, this is $175 million, on top of all of the cuts I already
mentioned in Section 8, community development block grants, housing
modernization and homeless assistance. We are going in the wrong
direction. Vote ``yes'' on the Kaptur amendment.
{time} 0945
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to strike the $200 million from the
President's down payment assistance initiative and add it to the drug
elimination program.
This amendment would make two changes to this legislation we have at
hand. I believe they are both wrong.
The amendment strikes down the President's proposed $200 million down
payment assistance initiative. To strike this funding takes the
legislation in the wrong direction.
As a member of the Committee on Financial Services' Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity, we have held several hearings on the
current affordable housing crisis we face in this Nation. We have heard
again and again that affordable housing is not available, and many
families cannot afford market rents. HUD has declared further that a
fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in my area of Westchester
County is $1,144 a month. That is higher than in New York City.
What we have to do is to help these families get out of the rentals
and into their own homes so they can build equity in their home. To own
their own homes means they can also build equity into our communities.
That builds stronger communities for America. The President recognizes
this need, and that is the purpose of the down payment assistance
initiative.
First-time home buyers need all the assistance we can give them. It
comes down to the fact that when one owns one's own home, they are
vested. They are vested in the interests of the neighborhood, the local
schools, and the community.
Unfortunately, this amendment seeks to strike this valuable
initiative in order to fund the drug elimination program. In past
years, I was a strong supporter of the drug elimination program. I have
heard positive programs that are run with drug elimination funds. But
this year, I have come to the conclusion that this program should be
ended.
Let me just read some of the abuses from the Miami-Dade Housing
Agency:
The money was spent before receiving the grant. Overtime money was
paid to officers to bowl and play basketball. Janitorial services were
done at elderly developments; and that is a good thing, but they bought
phones and beepers and copiers, shirts and clocks, recreation
equipment, journal vouchers. A lot of money was wasted instead of doing
drug elimination.
I believe that it is very important that we try. I think Secretary
Martinez has put it best when he testified before our Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity this spring as to problems inherent
in the program. He told us HUD does not have the resources to enforce
and ensure that these funds are spent properly. He asked us to add
additional funding to the public housing capital fund rather than to
the drug elimination grant fund.
Since then, I have looked into the use of the drug elimination grants
and I have been greatly saddened at the waste, fraud and abuse that has
occurred in this program. I have found these funds have been spent on
things like trips to Washington, D.C., a board retreat to St. Simon's
Island in Georgia, renovations to kitchens that never existed, and
consultants that pocketed a lot of money. The list goes on and on.
Worst of all, $800,000 was approved for creative wellness programs
that are considered on the outer fringes of alternative medicine. This
program involves God-Goddess typing according to an individual's gland
activity. It also involves gemstones and colors for each personality
type. This is not what the drug elimination program was meant to do.
These abuses need to stop. We must ensure that HUD funds are spent on
housing, not incense.
How do we start? I think it is very important that we join together
in voting against the Kaptur amendment.
One last thing that I think is important to point out, this current
appropriations bill has $34,000 new section 8 vouchers. That is twice
as many as the Senate has in their bill.
The appropriations bill is a good bill for housing, and it is good
for America. My friend, the gentleman from New York, has a good bill;
and I ask my colleagues to join together in voting against the Kaptur
amendment.
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic and fervent support of the
amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to fund the Public
Housing Drug Elimination Program.
It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, or it reminds me, it is reminiscent of
the mathematical maxim that the whole equals the sum of its parts. We
want safe communities. We want productive and mature and healthy
children. We want public housing to thrive and to ultimately move those
residents out into the economic mainstream. We want to continue to work
on ways where we can reduce the size of the jail population,
recognizing that the majority of inmates in jails in my district, and
certainly around the country, are there because of drug-related
offenses, which bears a humongous cost to taxpayers.
The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program has successfully enabled
housing authorities to work cooperatively with residents, local
officials, police departments, community groups, boys and girls clubs,
drug counseling centers, and other community-based organizations to
develop locally supported anticrime activities.
There is good public housing in Indianapolis. The Indianapolis
housing agency, under the leadership of Bud Myers, has demonstrated
expertise in administering the system. They received $2.2 over the last
4 years to help them in their work of drug elimination. The housing
department has set up youth programs that focus on building self-esteem
and reliance, and primary preventative kinds of activities to stop
housing residents from getting involved in drug activities in the first
place.
It is up to us as civic leaders and responsible citizens to instill a
sense of value, dignity, and pride in today's youth. It is impossible,
Mr. Chairman, for these people that work in the community to eliminate
drugs, for people who work in public housing to do this without proper
support.
Using the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, our housing agency
has been able to reduce criminal activity by 60 percent since 1995. The
grants from this program have enabled IHA to implement a visible
community policing effort, and thus has enabled these properties to be
among the safest in the city. Imagine public housing safe in the city.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's statement
and yielding to me.
[[Page H4733]]
Mr. Chairman, I have just lifted myself off the floor when I heard
the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), say that there
is no proof that public housing has more drug abuse. When the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) said there was no proof that public housing
has more drug abuse than anywhere else, this has to be put in some
context.
I ask of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), where has the
gentleman been? There is public housing, and this is not a condemnation
of all public housing, but there is some public housing in which there
is plenty of drug problems. I do not know what kind of proof the
gentleman wants about that. Any inspection would tell the gentleman
that. Ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), or ask any of us in
any major city.
For the gentleman to be the chairman of the committee that determines
what kind of protection we give to the people in public housing, and
over billions of dollars controlled Federally, and for the gentleman to
tell us that there is no indication that some public housing has more
drug abuse than anywhere else, many of the public housing is in places
where everybody has a high level of drug abuse all over the place.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. It is my understanding, and we do have some communication
on this and I will try to locate it if I can, from public housing
directors who say to us, ``We think that Members should know that there
is no higher level of drug use or drug abuse in our housing than there
is in the neighborhoods around our public housing authorities.'' We
have provided billions of dollars to the criminal justice system.
Mr. CONYERS. If the gentlewoman will yield further, has the gentleman
not gone out to a public housing project himself?
Mr. WALSH. I have. Absolutely. In my hometown, that is not the case.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, there is an interesting argument going on. We have a
disagreement here. Someone said or we say there are no studies that
demonstrate there is a problem. We talk about abuses. I have a list of
abuses that I have no question about.
On the other side, we talk about a need for funding because there are
criminal elements within public housing. I do not disagree with that. I
am going to accept that argument, and from some facilities I have seen,
I think the Members are accurate in that argument. I had one in the
city of Upland that had a problem, and with additional funding, they
reformed that problem.
I am willing to accept the argument from my colleagues on the other
side that there is a problem in public housing and we need drug
elimination funds to eliminate and deter these problems. But the
problem with government is that rather than addressing the problem, we
continue to put a Band-Aid over the sore. The problem is, we have
forced people into public housing projects with section 8 vouchers
because there is no place else for them to go.
A good friend of mine owns one of the largest nonprofits in the
United States, and they have probably made 25,000 loans to low-income
families to get them into housing. The name of the company is Hart. If
Members go into Hart's buildings, every one of the employees in there
were single parents, single women formerly on welfare. Every one of
them today is in a home. They helped them get into homes. They provided
buyers' assistance, down payments with zero government funding.
The problem we have here, Mr. Chairman, we have an administration and
a Secretary of HUD altogether different than the previous Secretary of
HUD that we had. For the last 2 years, I have spent more time battling
with HUD, trying to make sure nonprofits could continue to operate to
help poor people, because HUD did not like the competition.
Our Secretary today is different. How do we resolve this problem? Is
there a problem with the criminal element within the public housing
projects and drugs? I believe that is the case. How do we resolve that
problem? Let us help people get out of public housing and into homes.
Let us allow them to take the section 8 money and place a down payment
on that home. Let us even let them take the section 8 vouchers that we
force them to use to live in a dwelling, to use that to pay part of
their payment to become productive parts of the community and
established parts of the community.
Guess what is going to happen when we do that? I think my friends on
the opposite side of the aisle have a different problem with this than
I do. In 4 to 5 or 6 years, they will have built up enough equity in
that home they are likely not to need the government's assistance to
live any longer. To some people, that is scary. To me it is not.
So what do we do? We say we have a problem with housing projects that
are funded by the government, but let us force people to live in those
housing projects, because we will not let them use the money to buy a
home. That just does not make sense to me at all.
Last year some of my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle
said on the drug elimination program money, when we finally start to
succeed and eliminate the problem, let us cut their money off. What we
are doing then, we were saying that we are only going to give money to
communities that fail to solve the problem, and those that work hard
and diligently and succeed in resolving the problem, we are going to
cut their funds off, so they have to look to the local law enforcement
to deal with a problem that tends to be generated by public housing.
If there was not a problem, address this question: Why do not funds
provided by local government adequately deal with the problems within
these housing projects? Because every community hires police officers.
They manage to protect the rest of the community without assistance
otherwise than what they receive in funding.
What we do is we say that is not adequate. We need to give them
additional funding because there is a problem that is worse and needs
Federal assistance than the rest of the community is experiencing.
That in and of itself is a problem. In this country, we have not been
able to provide affordable housing for people, nor have we been able to
provide housing stock for most people to move out of affordable housing
into the next level.
{time} 1000
Because the average home owner, when they buy a new home, realizes
that 35 percent of the sales price of that home is directly attributed
to government. Not indirectly through taxation of others; but direct
assessments against the developer in order to get a building permit, 35
percent of that sales price goes to government. That means that if a
young couple wants to but a $100,000 home, guess what? $35,000 of that
$100,000 went to government.
Then, on the other hand we say, why cannot people in this country
afford a home? The government is the problem. The government will never
resolve the problem unless government does something to let the private
sector work.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Let me speak in support of the Kaptur amendment. Let me say a couple
of things. First of all, I have heard we should eliminate the drug
elimination program because of waste and fraud. I cannot seem to recall
a Member on the other side of the aisle ever wanting to eliminate any
program in the Pentagon's budget because of waste or fraud. But any
social program, any program focused at helping particularly
disadvantaged communities is subject to this attack.
What we have is, for the first time in the country's modern history,
the crime rate has gone down 8 years in a row. The majority party says
let us try to interfere with that. Let us eliminate the COPS program.
Let us make sure we do not have the gun buy back program. Let us
eliminate the drug elimination program. Let us find those initiatives
of the past administration that helped move the country in a downward
trend in terms of the crime rate and let us remove them out of the way.
Somehow, it would seem to me, that we would all, both parties, both the
majority and the minority, be celebrating an 8-year decline in the
crime
[[Page H4734]]
rate in our country and that we would want to reinforce those
initiatives that have been proven to be successful.
We just heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller)
speak. I do not know where some of the Members here have been; but in
any major city in our country, the police department proudly proclaims
that they will not go in and provide protection in these public housing
developments. It is unfortunate, but in our city it has been this way
for a very long time. It is this way around the country.
It is the Federal Government's unfortunate burden since we are the
landlord for these families which are mainly women and children, and
rather than provide some assistance to them so they can live in safety
or require the local community to provide adequate law enforcement, we
want to wipe our hands of both this program in any other
responsibility.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield, unlike your colleague who would not yield to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would not tolerate that in my hometown.
Mr. FATTAH. The whole world is not your hometown.
Mr. WALSH. I understand that, but if we took some aggressive action
with the local police, they have to go where the city council and the
leaders of the community tell them. If it is in the city, it is their
responsibility.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, we have a situation right now in the
home city of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), Cincinnati, where
the police department has refused to police in parts of the community.
We cannot sit and ignore the fact that as a Congress we are saying, in
these communities with a 99 percent of population of women and small
children in which the Federal Government is the landlord, that we are
not going to do anything to make sure that these communities are safe.
And we are going to eliminate this program, and ignore the fact that,
in our country, we have finally seen a major decrease in crime.
Maybe the majority party is not happy with that. I do not know. Maybe
it is not politically helpful that there is a reduction in crime. Maybe
that is why we want to pull the rug out of the COPS program and the
drug elimination program and the gun buy back program, but I think that
is an unfortunate way to proceed. I would hope that people would
support the Kaptur amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for bringing up the important point, that in
many communities across this country, until this program was enacted,
local police were not policing. In fact, in many places in America the
local police had no relationship with the authorities. This program has
drawn in local policing, whether it is county, State officials, local
police, on-site resident management that are trained now in working
with the local residents.
The relationship locally with the authorities was not always a good
one. In many cases, and I cited Chicago in particular, which I never
forgot after visiting there, the authorities were completely out of
control. They were neglected. They neglected areas of our community.
I want to thank the gentleman for pointing out the importance of this
program in creating an appropriate bond with local authorities so that
now there is security, and crime has gone down all over this country
including in these very important neighborhoods.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have a similar amendment that I will withdraw. As I
listen to this debate it seems to me that we are talking about two
different worlds. It does not seem to me that we are talking about the
one United States of America. I come from the city of Chicago, the
third largest city in the country. I also represent 68 percent of the
public housing in the city of Chicago. I want to invite the President
and the Secretary of HUD to come and look at what public housing is
like in the largest urban centers.
I also listen to my colleagues who do not seem to understand the
differences between communities. And nobody created them exactly the
way that they are; but if we look at the causes for drug addiction, the
causes for drug use, I represent a district that has lost more than
140,000 manufacturing jobs over the last 40 years; 140,000 solid good-
paying jobs have gone as a result of our trade policies.
I come from a community that represents the last wave of migration
for people trying to escape what was a South that they could not
tolerate and refused to continue to live in.
When we talk about public housing, in many instances we are talking
about thousands of people stacked on top of one another. I have a
stretch of public housing that goes from 2200 South to 5700 South,
straight down what we call the State Street Corridor.
The second poorest urban area in America. And so if my colleagues
tell me that we do not need drug elimination efforts, there is nothing
the residents of public housing have liked more than to be able to
establish their own drug prevention program on site right where they
are so that, in spite of the conditions under which they live, children
can understand that they can, in fact, grow up with the idea of doing
more than standing on the corner hollering ``crack'' and ``blow'' or
looking for a nickel bag or a dime bag.
So I really do not know where my colleagues have been or what it is
that they are talking about. I invite all of my colleagues to come to
the big city public housing developments and see what the policies of
this Nation have created and then to tell me that we cannot find a
little bit of money; that because of some fraud and abuse, that we are
going to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of any program, any activity where we
have not discovered some fraud, some abuse. But we did not stop making
airplanes because there was fraud and abuse. We did not stop
manufacturing automobiles.
So I would urge us, Mr. Chairman, that we rethink our position. That
we take another look. That we support the reconstitution of this
program. And I too would commend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur)
for all of the work and the tenacity with which she has pursued this
issue.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his
eloquent statement. I thank him for giving us a snapshot of places in
America where programs like this make an enormous difference. I thank
him for his leadership, and I just wanted to place on the record the
fact that HUD did do a study in 1999. In fact the inspector general of
HUD did a study. They found no abuse in this program.
In fact, all HUD said, the inspector general, the inspection side of
HUD merely said they ought to do some more studies around the country
on how the program is working. They only asked for more paper
reporting.
But on the ground, on the ground where people live every day, this is
a successful program.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to use this moment also to say to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), my good friend, who I really do
not think his heart is in opposition on this program, but I want to say
in my own town he said the money was not being spent. I would have to
say that is not an accurate statement. In fact, over $700,000 of
Federal and local money is being spent every year and is being spent
according to the allocation formulas from HUD on schedule.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I say that
we will either pay now or we will pay later.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I was unable to be here when there was a
debate on the Frank amendment earlier this morning. As the chairwoman
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I want to
repeat my opposition to the Frank amendment and repeat what I stated in
the general debate as of yesterday. That is the reference to the
President's downpayment assistance program.
[[Page H4735]]
As I stated in the general debate, this is really a compassionate
program so that we can help low-income people achieve the American
dream. And that is what that program is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I want the Members to know also, because there was some
discussion about the authorization of this legislation. As chairwoman
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the
authorizing subcommittee, I stated in the general debate that I would
make every effort to assure that this important initiative would be
authorized before the June 2002 deadline that is outlined in this bill,
and I recommit myself to that publicly here.
Again, I think this is a compassionate effort. The President's
program is an important one that will allow low-income families to
share in the American dream of homeownership, and we should support it.
In that context, as I stated in the general debate, I would,
unfortunately, have to oppose the Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the gentlewoman's chairmanship
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity has been a
very constructive one, because we have been building, I think, a very
important record on the importance of housing and moving forward.
I do have to say on the specific question of authorization, I
mentioned it only because the gentlewoman from New York who is no
longer here said, ``Well, I was the ranking member, we could do this.''
And my response was well, I am ready. Because I would say this to the
gentlewoman, while there is a June 30 date in the bill which says we
must authorize by June 30, or the funds revert, the funds start being
subject to this restriction on October 1.
So I would ask the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), could
she then schedule a hearing and markup? We probably cannot pass it by
October 1, and we are about to go out. But I would hope as soon as we
come back in session we could have such a markup so we could get this.
Mr. Chairman, the reason is this: This will be going to conference in
September. I would hope the conference committee, which will have to
ultimately decide whether to earmark it or not, would have the benefit
of at least some committee deliberation on this substance.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will make that
commitment to the gentleman, regarding expediting a markup as soon as
possible. But I do not believe that it is a reason for us to eliminate
this provision in this appropriations bill.
As I pledged in my statement during general debate, I will move to
expedite consideration for legislation. I believe the President's
program is an important one that allows low-income families to share in
the American dream of homeownership. This is evidence of the
President's commitment to compassionate care for all our people.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring this debate back to where it
started. We were in the midst of a very important debate on drug
elimination grants. I rise in support of the Kaptur amendment and want
to emphasize how important this program has been.
This program provides resources for public housing authorities to
fight crime and drug use, an incredibly targeted and flexible program
for that purpose. Many will say that that is not the proper role of
public housing authorities. And while this may be true in the ideal
world, the practical experience shows that local law enforcement
authorities are not always up to the job. We know that housing
authorities have crime problems that are indigenous, that are rooted,
and we need programs which focus on that and go to those roots.
{time} 1015
Why do we propose reducing funds that they receive to fight crime, to
hire law enforcement, to construct fences, to remove debris from alleys
and to help residents break drug addiction? If we have problems with
how some of the funding has been used, then we should address the
inappropriate use of the program. Eliminating the entire program is not
the answer. We really should be adequately funding drug elimination
grants. This amendment, the Kaptur amendment, is an excellent start.
By supporting this amendment, I do not want to give the impression
that the homeownership initiative she seeks to reduce is unworthy. It
is not unworthy. It is a good proposal and should be considered. It is
a new start, it is a new initiative, it is the President's. It has not
gone through the authorizing process per se, but localities are already
permitted to undertake downpayment assistance programs with funds that
they receive through the normal HOME program allotment process.
This is simply a case of priorities. Drug use in public housing is a
problem so great that it merits priority attention. The drug
elimination grants program merits support.
I remember when Secretary Martinez appeared before our committee, he
did not say, or I do not remember him saying, that this program was a
bad program, the drug elimination program. He did not say that there
was not the problem in housing authorities. What he said, as I remember
it, was that this is not the right jurisdiction, this is not the proper
place to fund this program, maybe it should be in the Justice
Department.
Mr. Chairman, I serve on the subcommittee that funds the Justice
Department. The Justice Department says that they are not into
prevention programs, they are into solving crimes. So they say that
Justice is not the proper place to fund drug elimination grant
programs. So this bill is where the program is. This is where the
program has been funded. This is where the program has been successful,
however many hiccups it has had.
The problem still remains. We hope that the program has been
successful so that the problem is on a downward trend line. But it
still remains, the program is still viable, and the program should be
funded.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment and
commend her for her efforts in this area.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. First of all, I would like to thank the ranking member
for his strong support in clarifying why HUD is the proper
administering authority for this program and the distinction between
the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
I thought I would also like to place on the record a comment made by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) a little bit earlier. His
time expired, but in other comments that Secretary Martinez made before
the Subcommittee on Housing that the gentleman from Massachusetts is
the ranking member of, he mentioned that Mr. Martinez said that, in
terms of money available to HUD this year, that the Department of
Energy estimated that utility costs would be going down; that before
the Subcommittee on Housing he actually stated that the Department of
Energy had told him to tell us that utility costs would be going down.
I find that incredible. The operating funds that exist in this bill
will not be sufficient if you look at what is happening to utility
rates across this country.
So this program is even more necessary in order to keep the cap on
crime, keep arrests up, keep neighborhoods more safe and help with the
prevention programs that the gentleman from West Virginia has so aptly
described.
I thank him for yielding to me and for his support of this program.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to
address some comments that were made earlier.
I have the greatest respect for every Member who has spoken. I think
these are heartfelt statements that are being made, but I wanted to
just add some additional data to the arguments.
The gentleman from Chicago, who represents a very large public
housing authority that he spoke about, their
[[Page H4736]]
budget for drug elimination is approximately $8 million per year.
Based on our analysis and HUD's audits, the Chicago Public Housing
Authority has right now close to $19 million on hand to provide for
future drug elimination programs. We do not say you cannot use existing
funds. What we are saying is that, from this bill forward, we are not
going to specifically appropriate funds for drug elimination. That
means they can use those $19 million.
We provided an increase in funds for operating expenses across the
board to public housing authorities, an 8 percent increase. In the case
of Chicago, that would mean about a $15 million increase. That means
they could take half of that operating fund increase and dedicate that
for drug elimination if they saw fit for the future.
The gentlewoman who is about to speak I believe represents the
Cleveland area. The Cuyahoga County Public Housing Authority has about
$7.5 million available for drug elimination. They spend about $2.5
million per year. That would provide about 3 years' worth of drug
elimination funds; and the operating fund increase for Cuyahoga County
would be about $3.5 million per year, which is in excess of what their
annual operating expenses are for drug elimination.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Would the gentleman repeat that, since he was
talking about my congressional district? I did not quite hear what he
said. Would he say it again?
Mr. WALSH. I would be happy to. In Cuyahoga County, which encompasses
Cleveland, I believe, the public housing authority funding for drug
elimination in 1999 was $2.4 million. That will not be spent out until
next year. Those are 1999 funds. In 2000, $2.5 million was
appropriated. That has not been spent, either. In 2001, another $2.5
million has not been spent. So there is approximately $7.5 million of
unexpended funds in the drug elimination program.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. This is as of today, what he is reporting from?
Mr. WALSH. As of today.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I would like to see it when he is done.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. I would point out that many housing authorities around
the country have a similar situation where drug elimination funds
appear not to be spent because a large number of those dollars are used
to recruit and hire police officers.
As the gentleman knows, right now in the country we have a phenomenon
from coast to coast that there is a decline in the number of people
that are coming forward to take these positions. In most cases, New
York City being one of them, those funds have already been allocated.
Mr. WALSH. For example, New York City receives in the neighborhood of
$40 million a year in drug elimination funds. Half of that money is
going to pay salaries for police officers. Under the crime bill and the
COPS AHEAD bill, New York City has received a half billion dollars to
hire police officers. The drug elimination funds were not a supplement
to the budget of the New York City Police Department. These funds were
supposed to go for public housing authorities.
So the fact is, Mr. Chairman, there are lots and lots of dollars in
the pipeline for drug elimination. If public housing authorities wish
to use their operating fund balance to continue these programs, as my
public housing authority in Syracuse has chosen to do, they can.
But what we are saying is we are not going to continue to fund this
program because the Secretary of HUD, our new Secretary, has asked us
to say we want to stick to our core business; we do not want to be in
the criminal justice system; let the Justice Department fund this. And
they do fund juvenile crime programs into the hundreds of millions of
dollars. We think that these funds for the HOME project are far more
important and far more in line with the core business of HUD. Let us
help Americans to buy homes with these funds.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, to the people of the United States,
the argument that you are hearing this morning is the real reason why
we should not have had a tax cut. We should not be standing here
arguing about whether we fund a drug elimination program or we fund a
homeless downpayment assistance program. The reality is that both of
these programs need funding, and there are dollars in the U.S. budget
to fund them both. But, instead, the United States policy on housing is
such that we have to argue over $20 million for each of these programs.
Let me just switch for a moment to a discussion as to whether or not
we should fund drug elimination programs in public housing. Before I
came to Congress, I served for 8 years as the Cuyahoga County
prosecutor. Many of you can stand up here and say what you think works.
I can tell you what I know works. I know it works because it was my
responsibility to have oversight over the Cleveland Police Department
as well as oversight over the Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing
Police Department. It took the effort of both of those departments to
diminish and eliminate the drug problem at the Cuyahoga Metropolitan
Housing Authority.
See, when we start talking about the importance of law enforcement,
it is important to understand that the people get to know who the
police officers are. You can stand in a vacuum and say that the City of
Cleveland or the City of New York or the City of Chicago ought to fund
police departments, but we as a government, the City of Cleveland is
part of the United States Government. The City of Chicago is part of
the United States Government. HUD housing is Federal housing. It is
public housing. And the people there, regardless of who funds it, need
to be able to live in safe housing.
Let me talk a little bit more about how law enforcement has moved
from ``lock them up and throw away the key'' to some point talking
about prevention. Part of prevention is using innovative programs to be
able to talk to young people, to talk to older people about how you
eliminate an addiction and begin to live in a wholesome housing
situation. In fact, the public housing neighborhoods across this
country have begun to be able to do that. It would seem to me that it
would really be in the best interests of these United States, of the
Federal Government, to talk about saving programs that are working.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York letting me
know that Cuyahoga County has $2.5 million in the pipeline and $2.5
million that might be available next year. I would like to ask him to
give me more than $2.5 and to suggest to him, after having talked to
the director of the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority less than
an hour ago, that maybe as of today's record there is not showing an
expenditure but those funds are in fact ready and have been expended
for purposes of that program. I am not sure how their accounting works.
Let me further say that some of the programs may not be what you
traditionally believe are programs to deal with drug elimination, but I
find it hard to believe that any of us who have not had the experience
of working in drug elimination can stand on the floor of the House of
Representatives and talk like we are experts. Those of you who have not
had the experience owe it to yourself to go visit a housing authority
to understand what you may in fact be funding.
I am heartened because, when we did in fact have a Subcommittee on
Housing hearing and the Secretary of Housing came before the
Subcommittee on Housing, I was dismissed as being out of line when I
said to the Secretary of Housing, after he said there are no drug
problems in elderly public housing in the United States, to ask him
what country he had lived in in the past 10 years. I meant no
disrespect. Mr. Secretary, if you are listening this morning, I mean no
disrespect this morning. But what I need you to be able to understand
is the problem that exists.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind Members that remarks need to be
[[Page H4737]]
addressed to the Chair, not to the listening audience and not to anyone
else observing this proceeding.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I apologize to the Chair.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Before my comments, might I ask a question of the ranking member?
{time} 1030
I am just curious. I hear lots of discussion that communities can use
their operating subsidy to fund this program. If we look at the current
year's budget for the operating subsidy and the drug elimination
program, and compare it to the projected request for operating subsidy
for next year, including all the increases in energy costs, does that
amount exceed what we appropriated this current year for these two
programs of operating subsidy and drug elimination?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is
asking. He is asking is there a net increase or decrease of the funds
out of which the drug elimination grants could be funded last year, as
compared to this year.
Mr. SABO. That is right.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. There is a net decrease of $47 million as I compute it.
The drug elimination program was funded at $310 million in 2001, and
eliminated this year. $263 million was added to the Public Housing
Operating Fund, and that resulted in a net decrease, or a net cut. And
drug elimination grants were authorized to be activities to be funded
out of the public housing operations up to $110 million. So the overall
net cut is $47 million.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is an actual cut in
funding from what is appropriated for this current year, at the same
time that these housing agencies are also going to be required to pay
significantly higher energy costs?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the answer is obvious
what we should do with the amendment proposed by the gentlewoman from
Ohio: we should support it. But let me make a few other comments.
I think this debate is very useful, because it highlights the
importance of housing. Over the last several years, I have been
disappointed to the degree that housing has been off the agenda for
both parties, and if there is any area where the Federal Government has
played a primary role for decades, it has been in the development of
housing policy in this country, whether it is through tax programs,
through insurance programs, or through direct expenditures.
We have a crisis in the availability of low- and moderate-income
housing in this country today, and I would suggest to my friends that
while we have our extensive debates on education policy, that the
Federal role in providing for low- and moderate-income housing in this
country, in my judgment, is of greater importance to education policy
in this country than many of the things we are doing in the education
bill.
But if we have limited resources, what should be our priority?
Clearly the first priority has to be that we are funding and operating
in a decent and efficient manner the housing that exists. That means
that we have to have sufficient appropriations for operating subsidies,
that we deal with unique programs and problems, like the drug problem
in public housing throughout this country. Next we should move to make
sure that the housing that we have today is maintained through our
rehab programs. Again, we find that those programs are funded at a
grossly inadequate level in this bill.
Then we should move on to production, and we desperately need a
production program in this country. We are not close to beginning to
deal with that problem. I would love to see us doing it. But if we have
to make choices, the first choice has to be that we fund in a
sufficient fashion those programs that simply keep the existing housing
supply operating in a safe manner for its residents, where they can
enjoy life.
For some people to suggest that as part of that process of running
large public housing projects we should not provide for security, I
think flies in the face of reality.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we adopt the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have the highest respect for my chairman. I think he
is a very fair man. He has operated this committee in a fair manner.
But he is faced with a daunting task, which I do not think is
defensible. He cannot defend the fact that the drug elimination grants
have been worked out of the program.
Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the amendment offered by my good
sister from Ohio. Her position is one of a white woman who has come to
this arena to defend a program which has been eliminated which pretty
much helps low-income people. The gentlewoman is not a lower income
person. There are very few of them in this Congress.
I stand today to represent those neighborhoods which many of you have
never seen. I stand today to talk about Peaches, who was killed in the
housing project. I stand to talk about Little Bit, who was killed in
the housing project, by drug dealers who live in the housing projects,
who come in the housing projects and prey on the children, because they
know they are hopeless residents of these areas.
Now, it is pretty good to talk about what is in the pipeline, and
that is the argument which my good chairman has used. But it is a
specious argument, in that it cannot be made for public housing, in
that last year this Congress, of which I am a Member, appropriated $1.3
billion for Plan Colombia, the anti-drug program that was supposed to
stop the flow of drugs from South America to this country. $1.3
billion. Yet I stand today trying to defend a program which we know is
needed for the young people of our country.
Our good President wants to leave no child behind, but if he
eliminates this program, he has already left behind the many youngsters
in public housing who will be unprotected from the drug dealers that
our police department overlooked for years because they did not have
the manpower nor the ability to come in to public housing and fight
this real ominous enemy we have in there, the drug dealers.
Now they have their own situation, where they can collaborate with
the police department, where they can work with local agencies and
bring a network to work against drugs in public housing. Public housing
is good. It is the people that come into public housing and the people
who come off the street and come in to hurt our children that are bad.
The Washington Post also reported that only about 5 percent of Plan
Colombia's money has been spent, only about 5 percent. Yet we argue
against $175 million which this good gentlewoman has asked for. Does
the Congress zero the amount for Plan Colombia out of this year's
funding bill? I repeat that question. It is not a rhetorical question,
it is a true question.
Does the Congress zero them out, Plan Columbia, in this year's
funding bill? No. Earlier this week we voted to add another $676
million to the program of Plan Colombia. That shows that the argument
is specious that is used by my good chairman. So all this money that is
supposed to be in the pipeline, it remains in there for Plan Colombia,
but it does not remain in there for the poor residents of public
housing. We must begin to respect these people. We must begin to note
that it is the Government's job to respect them.
So I must say, if you do not fund this program, you are showing this
Nation that you have turned around a program that works. Regardless of
the party that you are in, you are doing the wrong thing for the
American people, and it is indefensible. So anyone who stands up to
defend this knows it is wrong.
It is so important that we understand, these are very small grants.
They are not large. If one reads the report of our committee, you will
see very large grants. But these grants, some are less than $25,000. A
few million dollars they get for public housing. They are a small
amount compared to the problem in New York, a small
[[Page H4738]]
amount compared to the problem in California, a small amount compared
to the public housing in Dade County-Miami. It is a small amount of
money. Some of them are as small as $25,000.
We must slow the relationship of violent crime in public housing. You
do not need a statistical report to see this. You read the paper every
day, you listen to the radio. You see how it is rampant.
There is no report, and this again goes against something my chairman
said, there is no report, statistical or not, that supports the claim
that the drug elimination program is not effective. There are no
reports. But there is a body of information that points to the success
of the program, including the Best Practices Award given to them by HUD
and organizations like public housing that recognize that the person-
to-person, life-to-life success of this program is successful.
My point is, it is a specious argument. Let us pass this amendment
offered by the good gentlewoman from Ohio, and let us go on with this
good program.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the
subcommittee, and I believe if we had an allocation that was sufficient
this subcommittee would not have chosen to make this cut.
In the 1980s, we had a debate in this House and in this country about
ways to make housing programs more efficient. I thought often that
debate was mean-spirited. But the mantra was over and over again
throughout those years, let us keep what is working and let us
eliminate what is not. As a result, unfortunately, that meant cuts in
the modernization program. It meant cuts in operating assistance.
In 1988, Ronald Reagan famously said our barest responsibility to the
residents of public housing is their safety, and the drug elimination
program was born. Since that time, we have had nearly a 30 percent
reduction in crime in public housing. The program has been a success.
Now, you should not take my word for it, although when I was in the
New York City Council I was the chairman of the Committee on Public
Housing. Listen to what some Republicans have said.
Listen to what Secretary Martinez said earlier this year in response
to a question from a Member of the other body. ``HUD's Public Housing
Drug Elimination Program supports a wide variety of efforts. Based on
this core purpose, I certainly support the program.''
A short while ago the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller)
stood up to oppose this program. Let me tell you what he said on April
6 of the year 2000. ``If the public housing are unable to continue the
drug prevention efforts, the problems will return. Will we only allow a
doctor to give enough medicine to reduce illness, or will we give
enough medicine to cure the disease?'' This is what he said in support
of the program that supports public housing in Upland, California.
We have also heard from the former chairman of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach.)
``This type of program is necessary if we are to make public housing
developments decent and safe communities.''
Mr. Lazio, the former Member of this House from my State, also said,
``The drug elimination program has funded many important and worthwhile
items that have resulted in protecting people in public and assisted
housing.''
For a moment I would like to address some of the criticisms to this
program raised by the opponents of the gentlewoman from Ohio. First, it
is that crime reduction is not the primary mission of HUD. True enough.
But that does not mean we do not fund modernization programs for better
security systems. It does not mean we do not fund modernization
programs and operating assistance for security guards. It is absurd to
say that simply because it is not our primary mission, that we should
walk away from a program that works.
Secondly, there is this weird Alice in Wonderland argument that says
we are reinforcing the perception that drug problems are bad in public
housing by having a program that has reduced crime problems in public
housing.
I can tell you as a matter of fact, in New York City we have
something called the COMSTAT program where you can see block by block,
address by address, where the crime problems are.
Before the drug elimination program came into effect, there was a 30
percent difference the moment you crossed the street into public
housing as opposed to the other way, and the reason is we used to have
police precincts that were divided from the housing authority police
division so we could see that.
If you think that the program is not working, all you have to do is
look at the State of Texas. In the State of Texas, in the Austin
Housing Authority, they had a 10 percent reduction compared to outside
the housing authority because of the drug elimination program. In San
Antonio, there was a 31 percent reduction in crime in the housing
authorities, while the crime outside the housing authorities went up.
So we not only know as a matter of fact that there is a problem, but we
also know as a matter of fact that the problem is being solved by the
drug elimination program.
Finally, because New York City has been mentioned so many times in a
pejorative sense here, let me explain why it is that New York City is a
slightly different creature than other places as it relates to the drug
elimination program.
Unlike other places that throughout the eighties were tearing down
their public housing, New York City was investing in it, so much so
that it not only did not neglect housing authorities, it created its
own police department specifically for the housing authority projects,
unlike other municipalities in this country.
{time} 1045
Later on, a decision was made under Mayor Giuliani, and, frankly,
when I served on the city council, to merge the police departments; and
the Housing Authority and HUD said, under Republicans and Democrats
alike, that that does not mean that New York City should then have to
walk away from the assistance it was getting, simply because it made
its police department more efficient.
One final point. This is the point about why there is so much money
in the pipeline, and I tried to make the point earlier. We have a
fundamental problem in this country, and we are seeing it in law
enforcement programs throughout, that there is a backlog in the money
we are allocating to police officers and when those dollars are hitting
the streets. We saw that same spurious argument used against the COPS
program, but every city supports it and, frankly, every Housing
Authority supports this program.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for this amendment, but,
most importantly, I want to thank the gentlewoman of Ohio for thinking
about me.
Mr. Chairman, as I hear people talking about the drug elimination
program and hear people talking about those who live in public housing
and I hear people talking about the American dream, let me tell my
colleagues, I lived in public housing. I lived in public housing until
I graduated law school. I have a relative that lives in public housing.
Just because I am a Member of Congress does not mean I can get all of
my relatives and friends out of public housing who live there on a
daily basis. I visit them every time that I go home.
Not only do I represent public housing, I have relatives, I have
lived there, and I would not be here if it was not for public housing.
We can build all the prisons we want, and they will come. They will
fill up if we do not do anything.
When we talk about medicine today, we talk about preventive care. We
talk about how we have to stop it early. We can stop them and kill
diseases early so that we do not have to worry about disease.
What the drug elimination program is, it is preventive care. If we
are talking about preventive care everywhere else, why can we not take
care of America's poor? Because America's poor, like I, want to live
the American dream; and the first thing in public housing that we see
young people
[[Page H4739]]
today, what they want to do is, indeed, that: just live. They are
worried about their lives, when we talk to 15-, 16-year-olds; and they
say they may not live until they are 18, 19, 20 years old. They just
want to live. And what the drug elimination program does is give them
the opportunity to have hope to live for tomorrow.
Why are we playing reverse RobinHoodism? Why are we taking away from
the poor to give to the rich? What makes this country great, or what
should make it great, is how we take care of the least of these.
The drug elimination program and the money that we are talking about
really is just a drop in the bucket. We have got to have a conscience
in this body.
When we talk about security and I think about my childhood, security
happens in two ways. Security happens when, in fact, one has law
enforcement there. One puts up gates. They put up these gates that help
prevent crime. But it also beautifies the area for the people, the
residents that are living there, and that presence helps, and it gives
a relationship between the individuals who live in the complexes and
the police officers.
But, most importantly, let me tell my colleagues why I could be a
Member of the United States Congress today, because without certain
programs of public housing, I doubt that I would be here. But it has
programs that teaches and encourages young people and gives them hope
and keeps them out of trouble. It has programs that has the opportunity
and the ability to transcend one who is living among drugs and keeping
drugs out of public housing. That is what this is all about.
So when we talk about a mere $175 million when we have over $7
trillion budget, a mere $175 million to save lives.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a big discussion about people receiving
these tax cuts of $300 or $600 in a few weeks or a few months or
whenever it comes. Do we know that that $300 or $600 will not save one
life? It will not save one life. And what we are talking about here is
saving lives, something that no one can ever recover. We must save
lives so that people have the opportunity to live so that they can have
hope for the American dream. And taking this money away, we are taking
away people's hope, we are taking away their dream, and that is wrong.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak this morning. I know that
people are all poised to go home, and we wanted to see if we could
expedite the proceedings today so that we can get out as early as
possible. But I could not help but come to the floor to speak on this
issue.
I cannot believe that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle
who define themselves as law and order, who would have us believe that
they have some values that are better than others, who would have us
believe that they are the only ones who care about crime in America,
who would have us believe that we do not pay enough attention to crime,
would dare come to this floor and support the elimination of a drug
program in America's public housing projects.
America's public housing projects, for the most part, are poor people
and some working people who are living basically in congested areas on
top of each other, having to deal with some of the most difficult
problems any human being could ever envision.
We have a lot of young people who are attracted to the lifestyles
they see on television, who want to go to the concerts; a lot of young
people who want the cars; a lot of young people who want what we tell
them America can afford. No, they do not have the kind of support
oftentimes that will ensure that they keep going and they get educated.
Many of them are dropouts. Many of them are coming from families who
are in trouble. But they are all stacked into many of America's public
housing projects; and, yes, the dope dealers and others come into these
places.
Mr. Chairman, we need the opportunity to educate, to prevent, to
teach, to say to young people, there is another way. But Members on the
other side of the aisle will tell us on this floor that we do not need
to have a drug elimination program. Drugs are not a problem in the
housing project, is that what they are telling us? No, what they are
saying is, it is a problem, we know it is a problem, but we do not want
the public housing project management to take the responsibility for
the elimination of the drugs in public housing. What we would rather do
is have the police run in, catch a 19-year-old with one rock crack
cocaine and send him to the Federal penitentiary for 5 years on
mandatory minimum sentencing. No prevention, no rehab, no inclusion of
drug elimination in the management.
It is so outrageous to say this is not our core program. This is not
what we do. We would not tell a high-paid co-op in New York, we would
not tell the resident, we do not have anything to do with your security
and drug elimination; we do not have anything to do with making sure
this building is safe and you are not at risk. And we are not going to
allow you to say that here today. It is absolutely hypocritical to talk
about eliminating this drug program in public housing.
We know that many of us can talk from experience. We heard the
previous speaker, the gentleman from New York, talk about his life, his
experiences. Well, I want my colleagues to know many of us in the
Congressional Black Caucus represent most of the public housing
projects in America. They are part of our districts. We work there. We
advocate for them. We try to make them safer. We try to give people
hope. We try to give them a way by which they can get up and get out.
But when our colleagues come to the floor and they tell us that they
do not care enough to support the idea that we can eliminate drugs, we
can eliminate crime, that we can provide some security in public
housing, then we must come to this floor and we must take our
colleagues on and take our colleagues on our will.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Members of Congress from both
sides of the aisle on this vote to forget about the fact that somebody
told them they do not want to do this job. I do not know this new
Secretary, but I am hopeful that is not the message that he sent to
this floor. I am hopeful that somehow the gentleman is a little bit
confused about the message.
I would ask that we support the amendment, and I thank the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for putting this back on this floor
so that we could have this debate.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
offering this amendment and really allowing us the time to debate this
issue and to talk about those that we never have a chance to talk
about, those individuals in our districts who are really just hanging
from a cliff in terms of the basic substance and in terms of their
income and in terms of the housing conditions in which they live.
This is just another example, this elimination of the public housing,
drug elimination program, is just another example of really how
shortsighted both in terms of policy and in terms of funding that this
bill really is.
Mr. Chairman, now one-third of all residents who live in public
housing, I want to remind our colleagues that a third of our residents
are elderly. They are elderly. Local police officers do not patrol
public housing. So if one does not support this amendment, one is
really also in fact allowing thousands of elderly people to live in
unsafe environments. How ironic, Mr. Chairman, that as my colleague so
eloquently laid out and so clearly laid out, my colleague from Florida,
how this Congress will support billions of dollars to be spent on drug
interdiction in Colombia and in Peru, a policy that many of us know
does nothing to stop drug abuse in this country, but this Congress just
this week sent a message and now again, unless we support this
amendment, will be sending another message, unfortunately, that we do
not support a few hundred million dollars for drug elimination and
patrol right here in our own country, in our own communities.
This is just downright wrong. This hypocrisy is really unjustified. I
do not know how my colleagues go home and explain this to their
constituents. I just do not know how they do it.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate also that this bill cuts a total of
over
[[Page H4740]]
$1.7 billion from our national housing programs. This is no time to cut
any funds to the HUD budget, because the Federal Government of the
richest country in the world should and must provide a safety net at
least for decent and safe shelter. When the richest country in the
world has a growing homeless population, a working population where
individuals work sometimes 80 hours a week to afford just a modest
place to live, not spending valuable quality time with their children
and families, then we really are not that rich after all.
This is really not the time to cut in real terms funding for
community development block grants and home formula grants and public
housing capital funds and, now, the drug elimination program. This
whole budget really is a sham and a shell game, and it is a disgrace.
It places this $2 trillion plus tax cut for the wealthy square on the
backs of the homeless, public housing residents, the working poor. It
is a real cynical ploy I think to pit all of these groups against each
other so that they cannot come together and demand that this Congress
finally stand up for them.
{time} 1100
They do not have a lot of lobbyists here. Our public housing
residents may not have one representative here to really look out for
them the way that they should.
But I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and Members here
today who are fighting drugs in our own country by fighting to restore
this drug elimination program. It makes more sense than sending the
money to Colombia and Peru for anti-narcotics efforts that really are
not working.
Mr. Chairman, this VA-HUD bill cuts $493 million from public housing
programs including the complete elimination of the Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program. It is just another example of how short sighted--
both in terms of policy and funding--this bill really is. I thank my
colleague from Ohio for offering this amendment and for her leadership.
Mr. Chairman, let me remind you that one third of all residents who
live in public housing are elderly. Local police officers do not patrol
public housing. If you do not support the Kaptur amendment, you are in
fact also allowing thousands of elderly people to live in unsafe
environments.
How ironic, Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Florida so eloquently
and clearly laid out that this Congress will support billions to be
spent on drug interdiction in Colombia and Peru--a policy that many
know does nothing to stop drug abuse in this country--but this Congress
will not support a few hundred million for drug elimination and patrol
right here in our own country. This hypocrisy is unjustified and wrong
and I don't know how you explain this back home
Mr. Chairman, I reiterate, this bill cuts $1.7 billion from our
national housing programs.
This is no time for any cuts to the HUD budget because the federal
government of the richest country in the world must provide a safety
net, at the very least, of decent and safe shelter. When the richest
country in the world has a growing homeless population and a working
population where individuals must work 80 hours a week to afford a
modest place to live, not spending valuable quality time with their
children and families, then we really aren't that rich after all.
This is not the time to cut in real terms the Community Development
Block Grant, HOME formula grants, and public housing capital funds and
the Drug Elimination Program. This budget is a sham and a shell game.
This bill places the $2 trillion plus tax cut, of which working
families will see pennies on the dollar of the tax cuts realized for
the wealthy, square on the backs of the homeless, working poor, middle
income, and public housing residents. It is a cynical ploy to pit these
groups against each other. Fighting drugs in our own country makes more
sense to me than sending billions to Colombia for anti-narcotics
efforts that are not working. Support the Kaptur amendment.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I failed to mention, and I thank
the gentlewoman from California for yielding, that before I came to
Congress, our district was represented by the Honorable Lewis Stokes.
Congressman Stokes made a huge effort to see that public housing had
the funding that it needed.
One of his real reasons for doing so was the fact that both he and
his brother, the former mayor, Carl Stokes, former Ambassador Stokes,
were both raised in public housing. At the public housing unit in
Cuyahoga County, they made a museum to Carl and Lewis Stokes for the
work that they had done in that community, where their mother by
herself raised two young men.
We have to think about it like this, there may be another Carl and
Lewis Stokes actually residing in public housing across this country.
If we do not continue to fund a program such as this so that they can
be inspired, so they can have an opportunity to live in a community
that is free of drugs, we may be in a dilemma that we do not want to
find ourselves in.
Again, I plead to my colleagues to listen to what we are saying, to
listen to people who have experience and background and knowledge of
what is going on in public housing.
The other thing I plead with them is to not get so caught up to say
that the people here do not know what they are talking about, or our
function is in a different direction, or our assignment is in a
different direction. Our assignment as public officials is to do all on
behalf of all the residents of the United States.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, as I have listened to the debate, and I am here for
amendments that I intend to offer, but I captured from the collective
voices that are raised that we do not want to go back. I rise to
support the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), hoping
that this Congress does not take us back 10, 15, 20 years.
As we watched the Department of Housing and Urban Development mature
and grow in the last 8 years, we saw its vision was a corrective
vision, focusing on distressed housing, rebuilding and providing
opportunities for mixed units so seniors and single parents and others
could live together in harmony.
We watched as we rebuilt not only Northern facilities but Southern
facilities. We watched as we recognized that public housing has no
neighborhood. It is in the South, the North, the East, and the West.
Now I come to find out that for some reason that the collective
voices of the majority believe that our public housing developments,
which I have come to know not as projects but as public housing
developments, are not neighborhoods.
When I served on the Houston City Council, the public housing
developments in my jurisdiction, which was city wide, became my
neighborhoods. We worked together to plant community gardens. We talked
about after-school programs in the housing developments for the
children there. We began to talk about transit systems that would
address the needs of the children in the housing developments. In fact,
in one of mine, we have a partnership between the Department of
Education and a school on the grounds of that public housing
development that is one of the best in the city.
What is missing in the vision or the concept of the majority on this
idea of eliminating these drug enforcement programs is the fact that
these are wholesale entities onto themselves. The Federal Government is
the landlord, so in order to make it better, the landlord must provide
policing, it must provide extracurricular activities, transportation,
rehabilitation, and certainly, it must be able to provide the
protection of those residents who live there against drugs.
In my community alone, 3,394 units of public housing will be impacted
and 7,840 persons and 799 senior citizens. Multiply that minimally by
200 districts and we see the millions and millions of people that will
be impacted.
It is my hope that this amendment passes, not because this is a
tension between majority and minority, but because it is the right
thing to do; that we made a mistake, that we are misdirected by taking
monies and gutting, zeroing out a program that involves crime
prevention, law enforcement, security, intervention, investigation,
improvements in tenant patrols, treatment, and other activities geared
toward cleaning up our neighborhoods, which happen to be public
housing.
I believe this is a very, very vital program. I would ask that my
colleagues protect this program. If there is fraud in this program, we
do not throw the baby out with the bath
[[Page H4741]]
water. We fix what is broken and we provide the opportunity for this
program to work.
Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the gentlewoman, she is from Ohio, I
am from Texas, and I would ask her to explain that this is a regional
program and will hurt all of us across the country as we attempt to
clean up drugs in these housing developments, creating safe
neighborhoods. This is what the vision of this Congress should be.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas
for yielding.
To reaffirm what she has said with me here today, I have documents
from over 1,100 public housing authorities in our country and their
neighborhoods that are benefiting from this program. Members should
know and should check their own districts prior to voting on this
amendment. It serves America coast-to-coast. It has made our
communities more beautiful and safer places in which to live. It saves
lives every day. I thank the gentlewoman for asking for that
clarification.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me
join the leadership of the ranking member. I appreciate his leadership
on these many, many issues.
Mr. Chairman, I ask this Congress today to make a stand for not
taking us back, I do not want to go back, and creating a vision of
America that assumes that those who live in public housing developments
are our neighbors, as well, and would want to have clean and safe
places to live, and want the degradation of drugs to be taken away from
them, lifted up from them so children can grow, elderly can be safe,
and families can thrive.
I ask my colleagues to envision a future where all of us are united
behind a new day, and that we vote for this amendment.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. Chairman, I come from a city that I am so proud of, but we have
more than our share of problems when it comes to crime and drug
addiction. The reason I have such a heavy heart is because from these
poor communities, those that have access to a decent education and are
able to get the tools to be able to negotiate through life, some have
been able to make some major contributions to our communities, our
city, our State, and indeed, our country. So many of us that come from
these very same communities have been able to have the privilege to
serve right here in the House of Representatives. I have heard a lot of
that testimony here today.
One of the greatest things in being an American is not how much money
one has, not how much wealth one has, but how much hope one has. When
one comes from a poor community and is forced, through racism and
economic circumstances, to see poverty every day, and one does not have
hope nor believe one has an opportunity to get out of it, then
sometimes one looks at drugs and abuses drugs and alcohol, figuring
that one has nothing to lose.
Our young people really deserve better than that. That is what these
programs are all about, to give kids enough hope to know that there is
something to lose by making the mistakes and abusing drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why this great Nation and this
Congress is prepared year after year to invest billions of dollars in
the building of jails and penitentiaries, and yet refuses to recognize
not only the money that we would be saving in education and prevention,
but the contribution we are making to our great country by increasing
the productivity, increasing the competition. If we say that we respect
the people living in public housing, why can we not give them the
support that they need in the communities to make certain that the kids
can have a productive life?
These are rough times that we are going through because the majority
has seen fit to rely on a $1.3 tax cut, and more is coming. But what
good is the tax cut if we are not certain that we are going to be able
to maintain economic growth? How can we do this unless we know that the
workplace is going to be as productive as it can be, and how can we
have this if we know that this great Nation of ours has more people
locked up in jail per capita than any nation in the world and that 80
percent of the people who are locked up are there for drug- and
alcohol-related crimes and that most all of these crimes are not crimes
of violence but crimes where people have abused their own bodies?
So it seems to me that we all can be better Americans and better
legislators if we could leave here knowing that we supported
legislation to provide the resources to allow our young people to know
that there are higher dreams, there are better opportunities than
abusing drugs.
I congratulate all of those who have come to the well to try to
convince us that we should leave here today saying that we have
restored the money to the program.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment of my colleague from Ohio, to restore the Public Housing Drug
Elimination Grant. I am dumbfounded as to why the President and my
Republican colleagues would eliminate this program, which has proved to
be an effective tool at combating drugs in public housing communities.
My colleagues, Public Housing faces a devastating cut of $494 million
in cuts in this bill. The modest Kaptur amendment would restore funding
to the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. I cannot understand,
Mr. Chairman, how this Congress can justify providing nearly $2
trillion to fight drugs in Colombia and yet provide nothing to fight
drugs and crime in public housing communities here at home.
Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the public housing communities in all our
districts have become a magnet for the purveyors of drugs and death.
The Drug Elimination Program has been like a beacon in these
communities helping authorities to eliminate drug-related crime. In
addition to being used to pay for law enforcement personnel and
investigators, it has been used for the development of drug abuse
prevention programs that employ residents of public housing, as well as
to provide physical improvements that increase security such as
lighting and tenant support patrols. Indeed, the residents of public
housing communities in the Virgin Islands have benefited from this
program and will be hurt if it is eliminated as the underlying bill
proposes to do.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kaptur amendment. If you support
the residents of public housing communities in your districts having a
safe, crime-free place to live, then you must support this amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to speak on the
issue of drug elimination in public housing given the many public
housing units in my district and the need to address my constituents'
concerns regarding drug trafficking. I am here to support
Representative Kaptur's amendment. It is imperative that we in Congress
pay more than lip service to the notion of truly attempting to
eradicate drugs and violence in public housing.
Throughout my congressional district there are numerous public
housing unit residents who are pleading for help and relief of violence
and criminal acts. And I can tell you that those residents want to
experience safe and secure lives devoid of drug traffickers and
violence. However, it is puzzling to me that my colleagues in the
majority fail to see the merits of providing for others what they
routinely experience--safe and secure neighborhoods ofttimes devoid of
drug trafficking.
We need to be supporting residents of public housing by providing the
funds necessary to eliminate the insidious impact of drug use, abuse,
and trafficking. It appears that conservative compassion is nowhere to
be found on this issue. I call upon my colleagues to support the Kaptur
amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the gentlelady's
amendment to restore funding for the Public Housing Drug Elimination
Program. I appreciate her compassion, thoughtfulness, and leadership on
this important issue.
However, I must reluctantly oppose the bill. I know my good friend,
the Chairman, has worked very hard to produce a bill. He is a good man
and I cast no stones toward him today. I will just say that this bill
wasn't given any where near the proper funding required to meet the
pressing needs of public housing, veterans, environmental protection
and research. In fact, the President didn't request nearly enough money
for the programs in the HUD portion.
[[Page H4742]]
The committee's website states this bill increases the HUD budget
$1.4 billion over FY01, bringing FY02 funding to $30 billion. Yet, even
at that level it is $509 million below the President's request. After
factoring out the budgetary impact of rescissions in funding, the bill
actually provides just $449 million or 1.5 percent more than comparable
FY2001 appropriations and $285 million--1 percent more than the
request.
The bill before us cuts funding for public housing modernization by
15 percent, community development block grants by 6 percent and
homeless assistance by 9 percent. It eliminates funding for public-
housing drug-elimination grants, rural housing and economic
development, and empowerment zones and enterprise communities. This is
just unacceptable.
This bill cuts $445 million from the Capital Fund. Just weeks ago, I
attempted to offer an amendment to the FY01 supplemental bill to
provide additional funding to assist those in public housing with their
rising utility costs. I said then that Public Housing Authorities were
raiding their Capital Funds to pay utility costs. Now, we have a bill
before us that takes more money from the Capital Funds.
I also take issue with the complete decimation of the Drug
Elimination Program. For years, I have heard complaints that Public
Housing was infested with drug dealers--I heard this from residents and
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. As a result, we
created a program to dedicate funds to hire police and get rid of drug
dealers. It is very successful. What happens? In comes the new
administration and they need to hold to their budget numbers so they
propose killing it. The majority says that Public Housing Authorities
can use their operating funds for drug elimination--but those funds are
empty because of the utility bills. I feel like we are going in
circles!
I looked for a way to boost funding in the public housing budget. But
where would I find it? The other agencies in this bill are just as
starved for funding and just as worthy. I will not steal from Peter to
pay Paul.
Finally, I want to take a minute to talk about the perception of
public housing. For too long, Congress has looked upon public housing
residents as second class citizens. We continue to have the outrageous
requirement that residents of public housing do community service. Do
we ask that people who take the mortgage interest tax deduction? Do we
require the CEO of the major defense contractors to spend 3 hours a
week in community service? No, and we never will. I am a product of
public housing. Many of the other members of this body from New York
City are products of public housing. We should celebrate the success
that is public housing. Instead, with this bill we condemn it.
Mr. Chairman, this bill needs billions more. Billions that would be
available were it not for the irresponsible tax cut just passed. This
is a shame. We should do better. But, instead we have acquiesced our
priorities to those of the new administration. The new administration
has made it clear--it is more important to give rich Americans a tax
cut than meeting our responsibilities to residents of public housing.
That is why there is inadequate funds for this bill today.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) will
be postponed.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the
subcommittee, and also with my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Fattah), who is also a member of the subcommittee, on language in
the bill that will reduce the defined reserves available to individual
public housing authorities for administering their tenant-based section
8 programs.
During full committee consideration of the bill, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania and I expressed some concern that without the cushion of a
guaranteed reserve beyond a single month, public housing authorities,
when they seek to avoid running out of money before the end of the
year, might less aggressively pursue full utilization of their
allocation of vouchers.
I understand the committee's intention, through this language, to
reduce the amount of unused budget authority that has resided in the
section 8 reserve account. I hope to be able to continue talking with
the subcommittee chairman between now and conference about ways to
accomplish this goal without reducing the ability of public housing
authorities to access the funding that is necessary to ensure that
housing for families is not put in jeopardy.
In the meantime, I hope we can clarify for the record what is the
committee's intent exactly with regard to the language in the bill.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman from North
Carolina in again expressing concern about the possible effect of the
language in the bill on the availability of supplemental funding for
public housing authorities, who, due to unforeseen circumstances,
exhaust their 1-month reserves.
I would like to ask the gentleman from New York, the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee, if it is the committee's intention that
the language in the bill should have no practical affect on the ability
of public housing authorities to aggressively pursue maximum
utilization of section 8 vouchers within the regulatory guidelines.
Further, I would like to ask the gentleman if it is the committee's
intention that HUD should provide additional resources to any public
housing authority that exhausts its allocated reserves due to
unforeseen circumstances.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. I would be happy to respond to the gentleman, Mr.
Chairman.
Certainly it is not the Committee's intent, nor do I believe this
action will have any negative impact on the ability of public housing
authorities to fully utilize their vouchers. It is my understanding
that less than $46 million of the $1.3 billion in reserve funding was
used last year.
{time} 1115
I assure the gentleman that it is the Committee's intention that any
public housing authority which exhausts its funds be given additional
funds to ensure that its legitimate needs are met.
In fact, I have a letter from the Deputy Secretary which indicates
that HUD will continue its long-standing policy to provide any public
housing authority that has exhausted its funds for legitimate needs
with whatever funding is necessary to ensure that all families
currently served retain their assistance
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from New York for his helpful clarification of the
committee's intent. I, too, have seen that letter from the Deputy
Secretary and am somewhat reassured by the commitment that letter
makes.
I am still a bit concerned, however, about how the bill's statutory
reduction in the amount of reserves available to individual public
housing authorities might in practice affect their ability to gain
access to additional resources for legitimate needs.
I still hope we can come up with another solution that would provide
a firmer guarantee to public housing authorities before the conference
bill is finalized. But I do appreciate the gentleman's description of
the committee's intent, and I look forward to talking further about
this issue with both the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Whatever we do, we do not want to have our public housing authorities
stopping short of providing as much
[[Page H4743]]
housing as they possibly can to people in need.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank my chairman and
also the gentleman from North Carolina for their interest in this
matter, and I also look forward to further discussions as we approach
conference on this bill. So I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman.
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Bonior
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 45 offered by Mr. Bonior:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. [-]. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to delay the national primary drinking water regulation
for Arsenic published on January 22, 2001, in the Federal
Register (66 Fed.Reg. pages 6976 through 7066, amending parts
141 through 142 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations) or to propose or finalize a rule to increase the
levels of arsenic in drinking water permitted under that
regulation.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 60 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the opponent,
myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues, years ago, Agatha Christie wrote a story of a wedding
cake that was laced with arsenic. It took the world's greatest
detective to untangle the mystery and to expose the culprit. Well,
today's arsenic threat is not fiction, it is real, and it is no
mystery. We do not need a brilliant detective to figure out the danger
that this poses to the American people. We cannot continue to allow
arsenic to poison America's drinking water.
The scientific evidence, Mr. Chairman, is beyond dispute. The
National Academy of Science has determined that current drinking water
standards are exposing millions of Americans to dangerous levels of
cancer-causing arsenic. Recent tests show that in my home State of
Michigan we have roughly 450 wells out of 3,000 community wells that
feed drinking water to 376,000 people in my State that have high
contaminants of arsenic in them.
There is one family that came to Washington very recently to describe
the pain they are having, the Burr family. I met Katherine Burr a few
months ago. She told me about her little boy, Richard. This boy, this
baby, was born at 9 pounds, a healthy baby, but it struggled to keep
baby formula down. The doctors did not know what to make of it. Four
years later, Richard weighed 18 pounds, and his bones refused to
harden. At age 10, he weighed 48 pounds, only half the normal weight of
children his age.
His parents were desperate to find out what was going wrong here, and
so they turned to another doctor. He suggested they test their drinking
water. Of course, it was laced with arsenic. He had essentially been
drinking a diluted form of rat poison for a decade. When they took him
off, his health started to be restored somewhat. But who knows what
lies ahead for Richard down the road.
Now the Bush White House is telling the Burr and millions of other
Americans that it will block the tough new arsenic standards
established in January. We have had 25 years of research on this.
Twenty-five years. This original standard goes back to 1942, almost 60
years ago. We need to move forward.
This is not an isolated problem. A look at this map reveals arsenic
concentrations in America. It reflects high levels of arsenic in major
populated areas, such as California, New York, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina, and a whole host of other States, Utah,
throughout this Nation. We all know that Americans may disagree on a
lot of things, but drinking arsenic, Mr. Chairman, is not one of them.
When we turn on the kitchen sink, we ought to be able to drink what
comes out without worrying about being poisoned or poisoning our
family.
This amendment which I am sponsoring with my colleagues, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and many, many others, will prevent this
weakening or delaying of tough new standards on arsenic in our water.
I want to show my colleagues one other chart, if I might. Take a look
at this chart. Arsenic and drinking water, 10 parts per billion. Most
of the developed world has 10 parts per billion, most of the European
Union countries, and, in addition to that, Australia, Mongolia, and
there are a few others, Namibia, Syria, and a few other places around
the world as well. At 50 parts per billion, Bangladesh, Bolivia, China,
Indonesia, and the United States. We need to protect our citizens much
better than we have.
Ultimately, doing this amendment will help people like the Burr
family and protect communities across this country for generations to
come. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Let us
set a high standard for America's drinking water and give American
families both peace of mind and healthier lives.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to make this as clear as I can at the beginning of the
debate. This amendment changes nothing. And, by the way, this is a
rider. We try diligently to keep riders off of the appropriations
bills. It is a legislative rider. I have heard the gentleman who is
offering this amendment rail against riders in the past. This is a
legislative rider to the bill; and if it were enacted, it would be the
only legislative rider in the bill. So I would urge Members who oppose
riders in general to oppose this amendment.
Having said that, whether or not this rider is passed, nothing
changes. The law requires that the compliance date is 2006 for the
standard for arsenic, regardless of when the rule is promulgated. So
whether the standard that the Clinton Administration suggested in the
late hours of its administration or the standard that current law
requires is promulgated, neither will have to be complied with until
the year 2006.
Let me just talk about the substance of the issue a little bit.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring contaminant present in drinking water
in 3,700 mostly small communities, particularly in the West. The
Administration is updating the standard for arsenic to provide safe and
affordable drinking water for all Americans. EPA recently began a
review of the new arsenic standard that was issued just days before the
end of the Clinton Administration to ensure that the standard is based
on sound science, accurate cost estimates and is achievable for small
communities.
The real concern here, obviously, is the health of Americans and the
cost of promulgating a new compliance standard and implementing that
standard in each and every town across the United States. And just to
give my colleagues an idea what the impact is on small communities, 97
percent of those 3,700 systems affected by this rule are communities
serving less than 10,000 people.
Treating water to remove arsenic is much more expensive for small
communities than for large systems. The annual cost per household in
small communities are projected to range up to $327 to comply with the
regulatory level. Just to give an idea of the degree of difficulty for
communities, we put in a small rural drinking water system in south
Onondaga County, in my county. Just to provide water for those
individuals, a public water system, it cost them over $300 annually
just to get the water, to get the pipeline laid and to do the work. In
addition, they will have to pay, obviously, for their consumption.
[[Page H4744]]
So to comply with the standard that is proposed under this
legislative rider would cost towns and individuals as much as it would
cost just to have water. So it doubles the cost, in effect, for water.
EPA's Small Community Advisory Committee recommended a level of no
lower than 20 parts per billion, in part because of the potentially
high cost of the rule. Additionally, time is needed to fully understand
the magnitude of the impact of the standard on small communities. EPA
has asked the National Drinking Water Advisory Council to review
economic issues associated with the standard. The same organization
will consider differences between EPA's cost estimates and those
developed by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
EPA has estimated the cost of compliance of the rule at $180 million
to $205 million per year, significantly different than AWWARF's October
2000, estimate of $690 million. Stakeholders will be provided the full
opportunity to review and comment at each step of the review process.
The Safe Drinking Water Act of EPA required EPA to revise the
existing 50 parts per billion standard for arsenic in drinking water by
January 2001. Last year, Congress extended the deadline for the arsenic
rule until June 22, 2001, allowing additional time to develop the final
rule. In January 2001, EPA published a new standard for arsenic in
drinking water that requires public water supplies to reduce arsenic to
10 parts per billion by 2006. On May 22, 2001, EPA delayed the rule's
effective date until February 2002, to provide time for further review.
During May to August of 2001 the EPA is seeking outside expert review
of the cost and the science underlying the arsenic standard. The expert
panel will review health effect issues, cost issues, and benefit
analysis.
We need to have good science. We need to make sure that the standard
that is developed and that communities are forced to comply with meets
all of those goals, health effect issues, cost issues, benefit analysis
and estimates issues.
We all agree that we need safe drinking water. This bill provides
hundreds of millions of dollars across the country, in my home State,
in the home State of my colleague from West Virginia, in literally
every State. Every Member in this body is committed to clean water and
safe water in the strictest of standards. But those standards have to
be determined by good science. Let us give the EPA the opportunity to
develop and promulgate a proper rule based on good science.
But, remember, my colleagues, whether or not this legislative rider
is attached to this bill, and I urge my colleagues not to do that, it
will change nothing until 2006. So I urge that we reject this amendment
and keep this legislative rider off of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to answer the last assertion by the distinguished gentleman from
New York about not changing anything until 2006.
{time} 1130
That was, in fact, not correct. The new standard was to become
effective on March 23, 2001. It would have taken effect immediately,
Mr. Chairman, but it allowed eight water systems up until 2006 to
install the necessary treatment facilities.
So that statement that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has
given us is not correct. It will take effect immediately but will allow
people up to 2006 to install the facilities. We have waited 25 years
for this 60-year-old standard to be lowered to get us in compliance
with the rest of the civilized world that recognizes the poison's
terrible effect that arsenic has on the human bodies. We are talking
about skin cancer, lung cancer, bladder cancer, kidney problems. This
is serious, serious stuff. Exponentially, the rate of incidence for
these type of illnesses go up dramatically when we go over 10 parts per
billion.
I urge my colleagues to look at the science and the data on this and
vote accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) on this amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I rise to urge a yes vote on this effort to get arsenic out of our
drinking water.
It seems to me there could be two reasons for opposing this
amendment. If one thinks arsenic in drinking water is a good thing,
that would be a legitimate reason to vote against this effort. But I
have not heard anyone make that argument.
If there is one thing we all seem to agree on is that we do not want
arsenic in our drinking water. It is an extremely potent human
carcinogen and it causes lung, bladder, and skin cancer and is linked
to liver and kidney cancer. It is this simple: arsenic is a killer.
The second argument one could make against this amendment is that we
need more science and that we are rushing a decision. One could make
that argument, but the record shows this is not true.
Let me relate the brief history of this problem. For over 50 years,
we had a woefully outdated drinking water standard for arsenic. Then in
1996, the House voted unanimously to require EPA to update the arsenic
standard for drinking water. We required that EPA act by 2001. Finally
in January, 2001 EPA set a new standard for arsenic at 10 parts per
billion. Public health and environmental groups thought the standards
should be lower. States suggested lower standards as well. Even
Christie Todd Whitman had supported the standard at half this level
when she was Governor of New Jersey. But EPA decided to stick to 10
parts per billion because the science supported it and it was a
commonsense number.
This was the same standard adopted by the World Health Organization
and the European Union. This amendment is based on good science and a
comprehensive record and it accomplishes a comminutions goal. It
reduces the amount of arsenic in our drinking water. In addition, we
know that no major water company trade association has challenged the
rule. In fact, the California/Nevada section of the American Water
Works Association has written in strong support of the new arsenic
standard.
We can have safe water at a reasonable cost all across the country. I
think it is our obligation as a Congress to do that. That is what this
amendment will do. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Bonior-Waxman-
Obey-Brown-Kildee amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment
because it is wrong and based on bad science. This has nothing to do
with politics here in Washington. It has everything to do with public
health in the American West.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed to reduce the arsenic
standard in water from 50 parts per billion to something lower. Then
right at the last moment before the change in administrations, they set
that level at 10 parts per billion. I think it is important to start
out by understanding what small amount we are talking about. A part per
billion means nothing to me. But this is what it is: in 32 years' time
we are talking about the difference between 10 seconds and 50 seconds.
That is the kind of levels we are talking about, detecting what the
public health effects are in that small a difference.
The fact is we know very little about the effects of arsenic on
people at low levels. It is broadly acknowledged that high levels of
arsenic cause cancer. But we do not know what happens at low levels of
arsenic. There is a terrible public health consequence that will affect
rural water systems.
The EPA estimates that there are 3,500 rural water systems that would
be effected by this. It is not about the timber industry. It is not
about mining. It is about naturally occurring arsenic in the West.
Arsenic is organic in the soil in the West because of our volcanic
soils. In the State of New Mexico we have about 150 rural water systems
where the naturally occurring arsenic level is about 10 parts per
billion but below the current standard. They are in small parts, small
communities all over New Mexico.
The gentleman wants to ignore the lack of scientific evidence at low
levels
[[Page H4745]]
of arsenic and just impose this rule without reviewing it. Guess what
that means for me in New Mexico? That means the rural water system in
San Ysidro, New Mexico will have to take out a loan of $2 million in
order to meet the new standard. There are only 80 families served by
that water system.
What that means is they are going to lose their rural water supply in
San Ysidro, in Placitas, in Alto, in Cloudcroft. That does not help
public health. The thing that is inexplicable about this is we have
been living in New Mexico for hundreds and hundreds of years, and yet
we have disproportionately low occurrences of the diseases associated
with arsenic.
It is naturally occurring in our water and our soil, and yet the
things that people are afraid of we have less of in New Mexico than in
other parts of the country where there is no arsenic.
When I get up in the morning, I take vitamins. I take vitamins with
iron. Most women do. If my daughter were to get into my vitamin bottle
and take a lot of those vitamins, she could get really sick. But at low
levels, they are healthy and we need them to survive.
We do not know what the health affects are of arsenic in very low
levels. We do know that if we set that standard so low, we will force
rural water systems to close and we will go back to having untreated
water with wells.
There have been a number of scientific studies, some of which are
selectively used by the Environmental Protection Agency. Most of them
were done abroad. Very few of them deal with arsenic at low levels.
There was only one in the State of Utah that looked at naturally
occurring organic arsenic and the effect on the population. And while
it was a small study, the only one funded by EPA in creating this rule,
they ignored it because it was a small population. And yet the results
showed that in that town in Utah, even though they have high levels of
naturally occurring arsenic, they have very low levels of the diseases
associated with arsenic and have for generations.
Mr. Chairman, it does not make any sense. That is why it does make
sense to look at the science behind the rules.
Now, we think 20 parts per billion, 10 parts per billion, it does not
make a big difference. But it does. It costs twice as much in capital
costs to set up a water plant to treat down to 10 parts per billion as
it does to 20. In my State of New Mexico, we are talking about a
minimum of $300 million in capital investment, and then it costs more
to take care of the water and operate it.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a letter from a
gentleman in Cloudcroft, New Mexico. It says,
I am the president, water boss, chief hole digger, fixer of
leaks, certified small system operator of Silver Springs
Water Association located near Cloudcroft, New Mexico. We are
in the Lincoln National Forest, Sacramento Mountains at an
elevation of about 9000 feet. We have no landfills, junk
yards, Mafia burial grounds, large cemeteries, nuclear
reactors, industry of any kind, sewage disposal plants, or
anything which is a threat to our drinking water. Rain falls
on our forests, trickles down into cracks and crevices and
replenishes our water table. We gather our water from a
spring and distribute it to about 25 homes. Before us, the
Mescalero Apache Indians did the same.
Mr. Chairman, this is a wrong-headed amendment for policy reasons,
and I urge that this House reject it.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to the comments of the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), number one, the difference in the number
of people that are affected between 10 and 20 parts per billion in the
State of New Mexico is about 78,000 individuals in that State. The
National Academy of Sciences said that drinking water at the current
EPA standard could easily result in a total fatal cancer risk of 1 in
100. That is a cancer risk 10,000 times higher than EPA allows for
food.
In addition to that, what are we talking about in terms of this risk?
We are talking about especially children and pregnant women being
vulnerable. We are talking about bladder, lung, skin cancer, kidney,
liver and other types of cancers, skin lesions, birth defects,
reproduction problems.
Mr. Chairman, this is a real problem. That is why so many countries,
so many jurisdictions around the world have moved to this standard of
10 parts per billion.
We have good science dictating that this is a level at which we
should move to, as opposed to staying at the old 60-year standard of 50
parts per billion that has caused problems like that which I have
recited on the floor affected the Burr family in my own State.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Luther).
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
to prevent any further delay or weakening in the arsenic standard for
drinking water. As a Minnesotan and as a member of the Energy and
Commerce subcommittee that deals with this particular issue, I wrote a
letter to President Bush on this precise issue expressing my concerns
over his failure to adhere to the lower standard in this area.
Mr. Chairman, we should not even be arguing about this issue today.
Over 25 years of scientific research confirms the danger of arsenic.
Arsenic is not a good thing. It is not a vitamin, as has been suggested
here today, or alluded to.
It is a carcinogen that has been linked to many forms of cancer. As
such, the dangers of arsenic warrant an urgent response from our
government, and the Bush administration's withdrawal of the revised
rule is unnecessarily risking millions of Americans today.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that the United States' standard for
arsenic should not be amongst the worst in the world. Our country
should, in fact, be a leader in the world. And there is simply no
excuse for delay.
Mr. Chairman, I submit a copy of my letter to President Bush on this
issue, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 27, 2001.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President of the United States,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I write this letter to express extreme
concern over your Administration's decision to withdraw the
recently revised standard for arsenic in America's drinking
water. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
which has jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act, I
have requested a Congressional hearing on this matter.
In particular, I have two concerns about your
Administration's decision. First, ample scientific evidence
indicates that the finalized arsenic standard of 10 parts per
billion (``ppb''), promulgated by the Clinton Administration,
serves an important public health interest. Indeed, the
current standard of 50 ppb was based upon data dating back to
1942; and water utilities, states, scientists, public health
officials and environmentalists recommended a significant
downward revision of this outdated standard. As I understand
it, over 25 years of scientific research confirms the dangers
of arsenic--a carcinogen that has been linked to lung,
bladder, skin, liver, and kidney cancer--and warrants an
urgent and expeditious response to improve the quality of our
drinking water. As such, your Administration's withdrawal of
the rule raises serious concerns about whether your decision
jeopardizes the health of millions of Americans.
Second, Congress directed EPA to promulgate final standards
on safe arsenic levels by January 1st of 2001 pursuant to the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. This deadline was
extended to June 22nd, 2001, in the HUD/VA Conference Report
for FY 2001. Consequently, your Administration's decision to
withdraw the final rule is questionable legal fidelity. I
would like to know how your Administration justifies its
decision to ostensibly defy this legislative directive from
Congress.
Mr. President, I look forward to a response from you on
this important issue. In general, I believe that we can work
together to resolve this issue in a bipartisan manner that
best serves the public health interests of the American
people.
Sincerely,
Bill Luther,
Member of Congress.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment. This Member urges his colleagues to look at the facts when
it comes to the issue of arsenic in drinking water.
The Bush administration's re-examination of this matter has led to
heated rhetoric, wild exaggerations, and sound-bite politics. It is
important to get the full story and to listen to those who would have
been most affected by the proposed changes.
[[Page H4746]]
{time} 1145
Many State and local officials as well as water system administrators
have expressed concerns about the unnecessary and extraordinary costs
which could be caused by the proposed change to 10 parts per billion.
Unlike what the gentleman from Minnesota said or implied, no one is
suggesting arsenic in drinking water is good. It is a matter of how
much we reduce the standards to what the costs and benefits are.
This Member would begin by clearly stating the obvious. Everyone
recognizes the importance of providing safe drinking water to all of
our Nation's citizens. Also, I will say this. Some change in the
arsenic standard may well be justified. However, it makes sense, it is
rational, to base these changes on sound science rather than on
emotion. The sound science is simply not there to justify a change from
50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion.
Mr. Chairman, as many of us now know, in the last-minute flurry of
activism in the final days of the Clinton administration, a final rule
was rushed through which would have reduced the acceptable arsenic
level in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per
billion. However, new EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman quite
rationally later announced that the Agency would seek a scientific
review of this standard before implementing a new rule. I think
everybody understands that arsenic standard is going to come down, and
it should.
The Bush administration has made it clear that the arsenic level will
be significantly reduced, in fact. However, it wants the final rule to
be based upon sound science. It certainly appears that the Clinton
administration made a very arbitrary decision based upon questionable
studies.
The EPA seems to dismiss the most comprehensive U.S. study on this
matter. In 1999, a study in Utah involving more than 5,000 people
failed to find an increased incidence of cancer associated with arsenic
in drinking water.
I think it is helpful to note that any community in the country now
has the authority to lower arsenic in drinking water if they wish. The
reason communities have not lowered their levels to 10 parts per
billion is that the health benefits have not been shown to justify the
enormous costs.
The American Waterworks Association stated in comments last year,
``At a level of 10 parts per billion or lower, the health risk
reduction benefits become vanishingly small as compared to the costs.''
The costs, however, are very real. The Association, which supports a
reduction in the current arsenic standard, has estimated that the
proposed rule would cost $600 million annually and require $5 billion
in capital outlays.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico made the case about what had happened
to her constituents in the State of New Mexico. My State is the most
groundwater-dependent State in the Nation by a wide margin. Of 1,395
public water systems, only six or seven get any of their water from
surface water sources. All the rest comes from groundwater. The result
is that we put wells down that are not interconnected for treatment.
Basically, our water is so good, with a few exceptions, we do not
treat. We have no central point of treatment for groundwater that we
use in our public water supplies. The costs to us are astronomical. The
smaller the community, the larger the cost proportionally by a wide
measure.
If there is a justification for moving to a lower standard, our
communities will have to bite the bullet; and we will have to help them
find a way to do that. But right now just to arbitrarily suggest money
cannot be spent with respect to EPA's current examination when there is
no sound science to suggest that it is reasonable to reduce it to 10
parts per billion does not make sense.
One of the claims that has been made about the arsenic problem is it
is a result of mining. The arsenic in my State's water supply where it
is found has nothing to do with mining. We basically have no mining. It
is naturally occurring in our soils. Until lately, people in my
district lived longer than any part of the country. La Jollans have
passed us now, but we still, despite drinking some water that has
arsenic levels relatively low in most areas and in other cases not
quite as low as 10 parts per billion, it has not had an effect.
The standards that have been proposed here are not based upon good,
sound science. I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just say that this science argument that is being raised, I
want to point out to the Members that it was a unanimous decision by
the National Academy of Sciences to go to this safer level. This is
based on 25 years of science.
Let me also say that for the vast majority affected by this high
level of arsenic in their water, over 90 percent, the remedial cost of
removing it is about $3 a month. What a price to pay for the knowledge
and the peace of mind and the safety of one's family. It seems to me it
is a reasonable thing to do.
With the cost of this, Mr. Chairman, with regard to our own fund to
deal with cleaning our drinking water, we appropriated 800 and some
million dollars last year to do that. We have a bill, H.R. 1413 right
now, that would assist to improve public water systems, would be
doubled to $2 billion annually. It has 174 Members who have sponsored
that bill. I would urge my colleagues and the leadership on the other
side of the aisle to schedule it for floor action.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say that I have two healthy
sons. When you look at your kids when they are newborn and you ask
yourself, what do you want for them, what you conclude is that you want
them to be able to go to a good school, you want them to be able to get
a good job, you want them to be able to find a good life's partner, and
you hope to God that they live long, happy, healthy lives.
The little things mean a lot. People talk about security for your
families. The number one thing you want to know in your own home is
that when you turn on that tap water, it is safe, it is reliable, it is
not going to do any long-term damage. And people really do not know,
they just count on their public authorities to keep their kids from
harm. That is what this amendment is trying to do, plain and simple.
You have a choice. You can recognize the standards that were
recommended by the scientific community, or you can decide you are
going to stick by an outmoded standard which has been on the books
since 1942. To any of you who are about to have children or
grandchildren, I would suggest that is not even a close call. The
Bonior amendment is clearly in the interest of public health, public
safety. It is clearly in the interest of every single child and every
single family in America.
When people prattle on in political debates about family values, I
would suggest that this is a family value that ought to be put at the
top of the list. Keeping every kid safe when they pick up a glass of
water or when they go to a hamburger stand and get a hamburger or when
they walk into a restaurant and get a glass of water, those are the
basic issues that really account for quality in life. That is what the
gentleman from Michigan is trying to say with this amendment. I am
proud to cosponsor it with him. I would urge the House to adopt the
amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me start with a basic proposition on which I think
we can all agree. Arsenic is not very good for us. Ever since I first
read ``Arsenic and Old Lace'' as a kid, I made up my mind I was going
to try to avoid it as much as possible throughout the rest of my life.
I am absolutely convinced that arsenic would not appear on Martha
Stewart's ``It's a Good Thing'' list. That I think we can all agree
with.
But in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Science, I would
like to go over a little history. In 1999, the National Academy of
Sciences issued a report on the safety of arsenic in drinking water.
The Academy concluded that the arsenic standard for drinking water that
we have had for the past 50 years was too high to ensure public safety
and should come
[[Page H4747]]
down as soon as possible. That standard was 50 parts per billion.
On January 22 of this year, the previous administration issued a
regulation to lower the arsenic standard to 10 parts per billion and
for the new standard to go into effect by the year 2006. The fact that
the regulation was issued on the last day of the previous
administration in and of itself does not necessarily mean that the
arsenic regulation was rushed. As a matter of fact, it has been cooking
for a number of years. A number of people have been legitimately
concerned about it.
But regulations issued so late in any administration create at least
the appearance of being rushed. That maybe is not necessarily so. But
when the new administration came in, the new chief of staff Andy Card
immediately issued an order: Hold everything. If I was President, I
would have said to Andy Card, if you did not issue that regulation, I
would have called you to task, because we want to take a good look at
all these regulations. Particularly, we want to look at those that were
issued in the waning days of an administration. And so the pause was
ordered.
I want to stress this point. Any review of regulations must be fair.
It should not simply be an excuse to gut the regulation. I agree, the
National Academy of Sciences was absolutely right. We have to lower the
arsenic level in our water. Fifty parts per billion is hard for me to
even comprehend what that really means in my everyday life as I draw a
glass of water from the tap. But if the National Academy of Sciences
says it is so, I believe them.
We are in a time where everyone likes to say they are for science-
based decision-making until the scientific consensus leads to a
politically inconvenient solution, and then we look for an alternative.
I like the idea that we are focusing on science.
So I was very pleased when the Administrator of EPA, soon to be the
Secretary of EPA, a well-deserved acknowledgment of the importance of
that responsibility, when she, unlike, I must admit, a counterpart in
the Department of Labor who tried to make us feel good when they
rejected the ergonomics rule which I think should not have been
rejected and said we are going to deal with it sometime in the future,
we did not say sometime in the future, Secretary Whitman said right
now, and she is doing it in a very thorough, a very methodical way. She
has given us assurance that we are going to meet the same timetable as
the Clinton administration wanted to meet, that is, have full
compliance by the year 2006.
That makes sense to me. That says no inordinate delay.
She has made certain that we understand the full dimensions of the
problem. We have a range of from 3 to 20 parts per billion, and the
proposed regulation that will be forthcoming in a timely fashion to
meet the deadline will fall within that range. It might actually be
more reduction than some people have called for.
The whole point of this is this: Let us do it right. Let us not
decide that it is going to be 10 parts per billion only to find out
after this very timely and expedited review that it really should be 7
parts per billion. Shame on us if we did that.
So let us get it right the first time. I have the fullest confidence
in the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency that she will
do it right. I have the fullest confidence that we are dealing with
science-based decision-making. That is the right way to go about it.
I will feel a lot more comfortable when this is behind us instead of
pending. I share the view of my distinguished colleagues that are
advancing this proposal that we have to deal with it in a timely,
constructive manner and we have to deal with it so that it gets the
issue behind us in a way that we can all point to with a great deal of
pride.
I hope one day, when this regulation is issued, Martha Stewart will
say, ``It's a good thing.''
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I bet Martha Stewart does not drink 50 parts per billion of water. I
think she is probably drinking out of a really nice container of
filtered water.
But to my friend from New York, whom I do respect enormously on these
issues, let me just say a couple of things quickly before I yield to my
friend from Ohio.
Number one, this does not preclude the Administrator from going lower
than 10 parts, so if she wanted to go to 7 parts per billion she could
do that under this amendment.
The second thing I would point out is that there is a dangerous level
between 10 and 20 parts per billion, and it seems from everything that
we know already that the Administrator is going to have a range,
anywhere from 20 down to whatever level she decides.
{time} 1200
I would say to my friend from New York, that means that 246,000
people in the State of New York will be at between that 10 and 20 parts
per billion level, which the National Academy of Sciences in a
unanimous vote in 1999 has said is not safe.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to protect the life of every
single New Yorker because we have been losing population. We have been
redistricted, we will go down two seats, and I do not want any New
Yorker to go away. But I am just as much concerned with the people of
Michigan as I am with New York.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown), a sponsor of the amendment.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, we obviously know this issue. In 1942, a standard was
set of 50 parts per billion. Science in those days recognized that
arsenic was dangerous, they recognized it was a toxic substance. We all
knew that. We have seen the play and the movie.
In 1942, when arsenic was set at 50 parts per billion, we did not
know so much about arsenic as a potent carcinogen that can cause
bladder cancer and lung cancer and skin cancer. We did not know it had
been linked to kidney and liver cancer. We did not know in 1942 that it
can be linked to birth defects and reproductive problems. We know that
today.
The World Health Organization has recommended that that number be
brought to 10 parts per billion. The National Academy of Sciences has
said the 50 parts per billion is much, much too high. State after State
after State in this country has brought the number way down to 10 or
less. The State of Washington has recommended a standard of 3 parts per
billion. My State of Ohio has recommended a standard of 10 parts per
billion. Massachusetts has supported a standard of 5 parts per billion.
Alabama supported a standard of 10 parts per billion.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) mentioned the number of
people in Michigan than in New York. In Ohio, 137,000 residents in my
home State may be drinking water with arsenic above the levels
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. Also the World Health
Organization, in State after State after State in this country.
We can choose to stay with the 1942 level, the level that was
determined 49 years ago, the level that we would continue to share with
Bangladesh, the People's Republic of China, Bolivia, and a host of
other countries; or we can bring our standard to 10, still exceeded by
some countries, some countries are still more strict than 10, but we
can bring our levels to 10 and join most of the rest of the
industrialized democratic world.
You sit here and think why would this administration want to keep it
at 50? Why would this administration, even if it says it wants to bring
it down, why would it delay what the EPA, after years of study
recommended to come to 10, and you keep asking yourself why would this
administration do that?
We have heard this song before, but the administration clearly does
not want to bring the standard down. It has delayed the standard, will
not come to 10, likely, because all you got to do is look at the kind
of people that are influential in this White House.
On energy issues, the energy companies seem to have a major role to
play in White House decision making. On the Patients' Bill of Rights,
it is the insurance companies that seem to have
[[Page H4748]]
a major role in policy in this administration. On prescription drug
coverage for seniors, this administration, this Congress has done
nothing substantive on this issue, likely because of the influence of
the prescription drug companies, the big, huge drug firms in this
country, the influence they have on the White House.
Look at this issue. When you look at why won't they bring the
standard for arsenic down to 10 parts per billion, why are they
delaying this. This Republican Party received $5.6 million from the
mining companies, $9 million from the chemical companies.
Mr. Chairman, listen to the scientists. Do not listen to the
political contributors. Listen to the scientists. Support the Bonior
amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
For those of my colleagues who seem lost in the haze of rhetoric that
we have heard from the other side that seems to surround the issue of
arsenic, let me say that arsenic has nothing to do with oil, it has
nothing to do with prescription drugs. Arsenic is a naturally occurring
component in groundwater, particularly in the Western States, like
Nevada, the one I represent.
There are communities in my State that have 100 parts per billion
naturally occurring arsenic in the water. People have been drinking it
for 5 and 6 generations, living decades into their 80s and 90s, with no
ill-effects, like my colleague from New Mexico has said, of the current
indicators that have been heard about by the fact that arsenic exists
there.
The gentleman from Michigan should know that local communities in the
district that I represent in Nevada want nothing more than to provide
safe drinking water for everyone, and especially to the citizens of
their communities.
But the gentleman should also know that before these small
communities in my district can go out and build $10 million and $20
million water treatment plants, they want assurance that the EPA's
mandated arsenic standards are based on sound science and accurate
costs and benefit analysis. I do not know if anyone can tell me whether
it is trivalent or pentavalent arsenic which is the high component in
anybody's water that has the effect they are talking about.
But, keep in mind, if we implement such strict standards, and it is
of such importance, as it is to this administration as well, then why
did the previous administration under Mr. Clinton put this in place on
his way out the door, and not 8 years ago when he came in prior to
that? If this was such an important issue, I do not know and I am not
sure anyone knows why they did not implement the new standards 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8 years ago.
Mr. Chairman, this administration is committed to a stricter arsenic
standard, and I support the implementation of a stricter standard.
Mayors in Nevada and small communities, who have high levels of arsenic
in their water, support stricter standards. But meeting the 25 parts
per billion standard will cost our small communities millions of
dollars to comply with; meeting a 15 parts per billion standard will
cost even more; and meeting stricter standards will virtually bankrupt
every small community.
I commend Administrator Whitman for taking a good, hard look at the
politically motivated standard put in place by the outgoing Clinton
Administration. Certainly, we should not be undercutting the hard work
that she and her agency has put into this important issue.
Let us allow the EPA to complete its science review of arsenic
standards, and let us vote no on Mr. Bonior's amendment.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Nevada, the Nevada-California
American Water Works Association has fully supported the 10 parts per
billion standard. So when the gentleman talks about local input, I
would say his own State and this association is asking for what we are
asking for in this matter. I would like to hear the gentleman's
response, if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) will yield.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's response to
that. Certainly the California and Nevada Water Users Association has
endorsed stricter standards, but the fact is that science does not tell
us exactly at what level that standard should be and it has not looked
at it from a cost-benefit analysis or operating cost.
They do want strict standards, they do want to lower it. As I have
said, the mayors and all the water-user communities in my State want to
have lower standards, but we also want the science to show exactly what
standard we are going to and what the cost is going to be for these
people.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time, and I certainly want to join my colleagues on
this side of the aisle who have spoken in support of the gentleman's
amendment to preclude this administration from weakening the arsenic
standard.
The chairman of the subcommittee suggested that if this amendment
passes, nothing changes. Oh, yes, something changes. What changes is we
will stop seeing the EPA administrator, as she did yesterday,
suggesting that she may weaken the standard; because if Congress
overwhelmingly supports this amendment, the message will come from the
House of Representatives that we want the standard to go forward, we
want a standard to go forward that protects the American people from
increased arsenic in their water supply, and we want the administration
to quit fooling around with the special interests for the purposes of
weakening this standard. Because that is what the EPA administrator,
Ms. Whitman, said yesterday in the newspaper, that quite possibly this
standard will be weakened.
That is exactly what the National Academy of Sciences suggested we
not do. What the National Academy of Sciences suggested we do is the
arsenic had to be reduced, and it had to be reduced as promptly as
possible. Now what we see after years of work, after years of
scientific study, after years of public comment, after years of the
process going forward as it should, now the suggestion is somehow that
we need good science.
Nobody has suggested that this is bad science. Nobody has suggested
that. But the offering is now somehow we need good science so we can
further delay this activity. The suggestion is somehow this amendment
should not go forward because it would be a rider. Well, let me say, it
would be nice to have a rider once in the public interest, because what
we spend most of our time doing around here is fighting off riders that
are added on to appropriations bills that are there for the special
interests, that attack the environment, that attack the kind of
regulation to protect the health and safety of the American people and
their families in this country.
So, yes, I would hope finally we support a rider that defends the
public interest and seeks to protect children and to protect families
from increased arsenic in the water supply.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been a strong leader
on this issue.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am listening to my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle talk about the science; but this is not about
science, this is about special interests. If we remember at the time
when this decision was made by the administrator of the EPA in March to
delay, we read about all the reports and the papers about the chemical
and mining industries that were at the White House asking that these
arsenic standards, the good standard, be delayed.
One of the worst was the American Timber Industry. There was an
article in The Washington Post the day before about how the American
timber interests had come to the White House and demanded that the
standard be delayed
[[Page H4749]]
because they were concerned about wood beams that were treated and used
for decks on boardwalks or in beaches or in people's backyards.
Let me tell you, my constituents who are very concerned about
drinking water would much rather have the knowledge that they can drink
water that is safe, rather than worrying about whether or not a board
that is used for the boardwalk or their backyard deck is treated.
This is ridiculous. To suggest somehow that the science is still out
there and that we do not know what the science is, we have said over
and over again, the European Union, the World Health Organization, used
the 10 parts per billion. The National Academy of Science talks about
exposure at the current level and how it can result in serious cancer
risk. The level of risk is much higher than the maximum cancer risk
typically allowed by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Even the EPA
administrator, my own former Governor, has said that the standard needs
to be reduced. She talks about a reduction of at least 60 percent.
Well, we know the science is out there, and that this level, this
standard that we are using now of 50 parts per billion, is going to
cause people to have cancer and die.
What are we talking about here? We have statistics that show if you
just go from 10 to 20 parts per billion, which maybe is what the EPA
could ultimately do, that 3.5 million people would be impacted. It is
ridiculous to suggest this standard. We know what the standard is. Let
us adopt it. Let us adopt this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me to watch this debate
and see people rise one after the other talking about how important it
is to lower this standard, and not one of you comes from a place where
there is naturally occurring arsenic. It is real easy for a State to
lower a standard to 10 or less, when you do not have any arsenic in the
water. Who cares? There is no cost. There is no benefit to calculate.
Do whatever you want to do, because you do not have the problem.
We are the ones that have the problem. We want the standard to be set
right for public health, and that is what this debate is about.
The National Academy of Sciences did not say the standard should be
at 10 parts per billion. It said that they unanimously decided it
should be lower; not how low it should be. After the Clinton
administration made its decision, the American Society of Civil
Engineers in January concluded, ``We believe that the Agency's final
standard of 10 parts per billion is not supported by an unbiased
weighing of the best available science.''
{time} 1215
These are the chemical engineers, the civil engineers in this
country.
The problem with arsenic is not only in the water, though. A quarter
of the food we eat has three times as much arsenic in it, 30 parts per
billion, as we are setting for the standard for the water. When we eat
seafood or mushrooms or rice, that has three times the standard my
colleagues are requiring that we take out of the tap. This makes
absolutely no sense, based on science.
The EPA was charged with coming up with a science-based standard, and
they only funded one study in the State of Utah, and then they ignored
the results and relied on others done in foreign countries with less
stringent parameters that do not deal with low levels of arsenic
exposure. That is what we are talking about, micro levels of arsenic
exposure.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard talk today on the floor about plays and
about movies and about Martha Stewart and about short stories in high
school. But can anyone here answer me this: Why is it that New Mexico
has higher naturally occurring arsenic than almost any other State in
the Nation, but we have less bladder cancer, less liver cancer, the
things associated with arsenic? The answer may be that green chili is
the natural antidote, but the other answer may be that the standard is
not right, and the science is not right, and we should not take away
our water until we have the right answer.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to the gentlewoman from New Mexico. I want to inform my
friend that there are many people on our side of the aisle who have
naturally occurring arsenic in our own States and in our own
communities. Michigan is a good example of that. We have a doughnut
that extends from Washington County to Ann Arbor that runs up to the
top of what we call the ``thumb,'' where we have many, many naturally
occurring arsenic components in well water.
So the gentlewoman is not the only one that has this particular
problem, nor is the gentleman from Nevada.
The second point, in response to my colleague from New Mexico, is
this: This is not just one National Academy of Science study. They have
had six studies. This has been going on, as we have heard repeatedly
now, for 25 years. This science has been looked at not only here in
this country but abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Kildee), a person who has this in his particular constituency in a
naturally forming way.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Bonior-Waxman-Obey-
Brown-Kildee amendment for the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD appropriations
bill.
This amendment will restore implementation of reasonable arsenic
reductions in drinking water, and it is time to address this very
important health problem.
In some areas of my district in Michigan, we have a very high
occurrence of unhealthy arsenic content in public drinking water
systems and individual wells. I have heard too many stories of the
negative health effects suffered by my constituents, and I believe we
should move quickly to rectify this problem.
The current arsenic standards of 50 parts per million was developed
in 1942, before President Bush was born, and it does not represent a
public health standard consistent with our responsibility to ensure the
health and welfare of citizens nationwide. We have learned much about
arsenic since 1942.
The Clinton administration spent years studying the issue; and, in
1999, the National Academy of Science again affirmed the public health
threat of 50 parts per million arsenic levels. Despite National Academy
of Science's affirmation of our position, the Bush administration has
unwisely delayed implementation of this health protection.
It is inaccurately suggested that the rulemaking was rushed. This is
simply not so. This rulemaking is a result of years of study and public
comment. The time for studies and delays has passed. The time for
healthy drinking water is here. This Congress owes this to our people.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and a member of our
leadership.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the Bonior amendment simply prevents the
Environmental Protection Agency from further delay or weakening of the
arsenic standards for our drinking water. That is it.
We know that there are dangers in arsenic. We have known that for
centuries. We know it is toxic. We know it is a carcinogen. It is found
in the drinking water of millions of Americans. There have been many
studies that show that it endangers our health, our children's health.
The National Academy of Science has said it causes several forms of
cancer, it causes heart disease and lung disease. In 1999, they further
reported that the old standard ``requires downward revision as promptly
as possible.'' It could easily result in a total of a fatal cancer rate
of 1 in 100.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, there is not any question about
it, arsenic is a killer.
So, what happened here in 1996? Oftentimes, people say that the
Congress never acts to do anything. The Congress acted. It addressed
this issue. It required the EPA to issue a safer arsenic standard and
to issue a new regulation by January 1, 2001. That standard was put
into place by the previous
[[Page H4750]]
administration. But facing the pressure from its friends in the
chemical industry and in the energy industries, the Bush administration
delayed it for another 9 months and requested additional studies.
Mr. Chairman, how many studies do we need? We know what the standards
should be. We have been looking at this for years. The fact is that 56
million Americans today drink tap water with excessive levels of
arsenic. How many people have to develop cancer before the
administration moves on this issue?
Let us strengthen our standards for our drinking water. Let us not
delay. Why do we want to jeopardize the health of our children, our
families any longer?
It is time for a stringent arsenic standard. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve 1\1/2\ minutes for closing.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because I think it
will help restore Americans' trust in their government.
There is a sad context of this debate which is that, unfortunately,
the administration has poisoned the well of environmental consideration
in this country.
When an administration tries to make it easier to use cyanide for
mining waste, when it makes it easier to clear-cut international
forests, when it backtracks on its climate change commitments to the
world, when it tries to drill in our national monuments, how can we
expect the American people to trust it when it sets an arsenic level
for the water we drink?
We need this administration and this Congress to try to heal the
breach and the lack of trust of Washington, D.C., right now and the
administration policies on environmental measures. There is two ways to
do that. Number one, pass this amendment. Number two, next week when
our energy bill is on the floor, do not vote for a rule unless it lets
a full group of environmental amendments to this energy policy to come
to consideration of this House.
I hope that this weekend Members will think about what rule they are
going to support. We need to have environmental decisions made by this
House.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) to close.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, not because I am opposed to
the concept but because I think that the gathering of science needs to
be clearly understood as soon as possible in order for us to implement
a level of arsenic that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that is safe
for consumers.
I would like to tell the previous speaker that I believe totally that
human activity is causing climate change, and we are working with the
administration. We have a difference of opinion, but I as a Republican
believe that climate change is real. I believe in strong protections
for wetlands, strong protections for our national forests, strong
protections for all of our environmental issues. But I believe in those
issues based on the best available data and the best science that we
can gather. It is difficult to get the best available science on the
House floor by nonscientists as we continue to debate this issue.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut said it is time that we bring the
studies to a conclusion and implement that information. Well, I would
say that I would hope that scientific studies never come to a
conclusion, that they continue to be ongoing, that when we have what we
feel at the end of a particular study is the best available information
then we will implement that particular process.
The EPA director, Christine Todd Whitman, is now engaged in a very
quick, ongoing analysis of the data from the Clinton administration,
from the National Academy of Sciences, and from the scientists that she
has put on this particular issue. Christine Todd Wittman said in a very
short period of time the level of arsenic that will be acceptable could
be down to 5 parts per billion; not 10 parts per billion, but 5 parts
per billion.
So let us let the administration move forward. I urge my colleagues
to oppose the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my
strong support for the Bonior Amendment, which prohibits funds from
being used to delay the national primary drinking water regulation for
Arsenic, which was published on January 22, 2001. It is clear we have a
problem with Arsenic in our water systems, and Congress must act
expeditiously to remedy the problem. In 1999, in their report examining
the levels of arsenic in drinking water, the National Academy of
Sciences recommend that:
EPA Must Immediately Propose and Finalize by January 1,
2001 a Health-Protective Standard for Arsenic in Tap Water.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has made it clear, and
we agree, that EPA should expeditiously issue a stricter
Maximum Contaminant Level standard for arsenic. Based on
available scientific literature and NAS risk estimates, this
standard should be set no higher than 3 ppb--the lowest level
reliably quantifiable, according to EPA. Even an arsenic
standard of 3 ppb could pose a fatal cancer risk several
times higher than EPA has traditionally accepted in drinking
water.
EPA Must Revise Downward its Reference Dose for Arsenic.
EPA's current reference dose likely does not protect such
vulnerable populations as infants and children. Furthermore,
``safe'' arsenic intakes in the RfD present unacceptably high
cancer risks. To protect children, EPA should reduce this
reference dose from 0.3 micrograms per kilogram per day (mmg-
kg/day) to at most 0.1 mmg-kg/day. For concordance with
cancer risk numbers, EPA should reevaluate the RfD in more
depth as expeditiously as feasible.
EPA Should Assure that Improve Analytical Methods Are
Widely Available to Lower Detection Limits for Arsenic. EPA
must act to reduce the level at which arsenic can be reliably
detected in drinking water, so that it can be reliably
quantified by most labs at below 1 ppb, the level at which it
may pose a health risk.
Water Systems Should be honest With Consumers about Arsenic
Levels and Risks. It is in public water systems' best long-
term interest to tell their customers about arsenic levels in
their tap water and the health implications of this
contamination. Only when it is armed with such knowledge can
the public be expected to support funding and efforts to
remedy the problem.
Water Systems Should Seek Government and Citizen Help to
Protect Source Water. Water systems should work with
government officials and citizens to prevent their source
water from being contaminated with arsenic.
Water Systems Should Treat to Remove Arsenic, and
Government Funds Should be Increased to Help Smaller Systems
Pay for Improvements. Readily available treatment technology
can remove arsenic from tap water, at a cost that is
reasonable ($5 to $14 per month per household) for the vast
majority of people (87 percent) served by systems with
arsenic problems. Very small systems serving a small fraction
of the population drinking arsenic-contaminated water,
however, will often be more expensive to clean up per
household. Assistance to such systems should be a high
priority for drinking water funds such as the SRF and USDA's
Rural Utility Service programs. The SRF should be funded at
least $1 billion per year to help systems with arsenic
problems.
EPA Should Improve its Arsenic, Geographic Information, and
Drinking Water Databases. EPA should upgrade its Safe
Drinking Water Information System to include and make
publicly accessible all of the arsenic and unregulated
contaminant data, as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
EPA also should require water systems to provide accurate
lat-long data using GPS systems, which will have widespread
use in GIS systems by federal, state, and local officials,
and the public, for source water protection, developing
targeted and well-documented rules, and for other purposes.
The risk of cancer from arsenic contamination is too great for
Congress to further delay the rule. According to the National Academy
of Sciences, the lifetime risks of dying from cancer due to Arsenic in
tap water is 1 in 100, when the arsenic level in tap water is at 50
parts per billion (ppb), which is the current rate. At 10ppb, the risk
is 1 in 500, and at .5ppb, the risk is 1 in 10,000. One in 10,000 is
the highest cancer risk the EPA usually allows in tap water for any
element--why should arsenic be different?
Mr. Chairman, throughout my tenure in Congress I have supported
legislation to reduce health risks and inform the public about water
safety standards. in 1996, I voted for the Safe Drinking Water
Reauthorization Act (PL 104-182), which directed the EPA to propose a
new, cleaner, standard for arsenic in drinking water. At that time,
Congress also directed the EPA, with the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS), to study arsenic's health effects and the risks associated with
exposure to low levels of arsenic. Three years later, in 1999, NAS
concluded their report, and made the appropriate recommendations. Now,
nearly two years later, we are still debating the rule. Mr.
[[Page H4751]]
Chairman, the evidence is clear, Arsenic is in our water and poses a
serious health risk--the American people can not wait any longer for
action. I urge all members of Congress to support the Bonior Amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by Representatives Bonior, Waxman, and Brown. This
amendment will prevent any further delay or weakening the arsenic
standard for drinking water.
One of the very first acts of the new Administration was to delay
EPA's new drinking water standard of 10 parts per billion for arsenic.
The new proposed regulation would have replaced a nearly 60-year old
standard adopted in 1942 before arsenic was even known to cause cancer.
In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences found that the old arsenic
standard of 50 parts per billion for drinking water did not achieve
EPA's goal for public health protection and therefore, required a
downward revision as promptly as possible.
As statutory deadlines for revision were missed in 1974, 1986, and
1996, we cannot afford to miss another one. The National Academy of
Sciences easily estimated that the old standard could result in a total
cancer rate of one in 100--a cancer risk 10,000 times higher than EPA
allows for food. Questions have been raised as to causes associated
with arsenic. As a known carcinogenic substance, arsenic causes
bladder, lung, and skin cancer, and is toxic to the heart, blood
vessels, and the central nervous system. Who in America is most
vulnerable? America's children and pregnant women are more susceptible
to this form of poisoning.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford any further delay in the
implementation of EPA's arsenic standard. The EPA invested time and
resources and the new standard is the result of 25 years of public
comment and debate. Congress cannot miss this opportunity to improve
America's water quality. We owe it to our nation's children.
I urge my colleagues to support the Amendment offered by
Representatives Bonior, Waxman, and Brown.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, after catering to a host of special
interests on the issues of tax policy and energy, it's amazing the
reasons that the majority have come up with to stop legislation that is
clearly in the public interest.
In this case, the majority wants to block efforts to protect citizens
from arsenic in drinking water.
Anyone who's read an Agatha Christie mystery knows that arsenic is a
poison.
We've spent 17 years extensively reviewing and studying the lethality
of this element. We've learned that even low levels of arsenic exposure
pose a public health risk.
Earlier this year, the EPA approved an arsenic standard of 10 parts
per billion instead of the current standard 50 parts per billion.
The Bush administration rescinded this regulation pending further
review by the National Academy of Sciences.
Do we really need more review? The standard has been on the table for
decades. In fact, the U.S. Public Health Service first advanced it in
1962.
Is this debate really about sound science? Or is it really setting
the public interest aside?
No matter where one lives in this country, we should be assured of
safe drinking water. We cannot delay making this a reality. We must
adopt the Bonior amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BONIOR. 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 Michigan (Mr. Bonior)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bereuter) 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.
____________________