[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.

                          ____________________