Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 107 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4752-H4761]
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} 1233

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 earlier today, a
request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 45 offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) had been postponed and the bill
was open for amendment from page 33, line 5, through page 37, line 9.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no amendment to the bill
may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the
purpose of debate.
The amendment printed in House Report 107-164.
The amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 5, 6,
7, 12, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 46.
Two amendments offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) and one amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) that have been placed at the desk.
One amendment en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) consisting of amendments numbered 31, 33, 34, and 35.
Such amendments shall be debatable as follows:
Except as specified, each amendment shall be debatable only for 10
minutes each.
The amendments numbered 6, 12, 24, 39, and 42 shall be debatable only
for 20 minutes each;
The amendments numbered 5 and 37 and one amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) shall be debatable for only 30
minutes each.
The amendment numbered 46 shall be debatable only for 40 minutes.
Such debate shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in
the request, the Member who caused it to be printed, or a designee,
shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to amendment,
except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations, or a designee, each may offer one pro forma
amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The amendment printed in House Report 107-164, may amend portions of
the bill not yet read.

amendment no. 46 offered by mr. menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Menendez:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
``Sec. . Funding made available under this Act for
salaries and expenses, excluding those made available for the
Department of Veterans Affairs and the Environmental
Protection Agency, are reduced by $25,000,000 and funds made
available for ``Environmental Programs and Management'' at
the Environmental Protection Agency are increased by
$25,000,000 for activities authorized by law: Provided, none
of the funds in this Act shall be available by reason of the
next to last specific dollar earmark under the heading
``State and Tribal Assistance Grants.''

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and a Member opposed each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
At the outset, I want to thank the ranking member of the full
committee and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the
subcommittee ranking member, for all their hard work and cooperation on
this amendment.
This amendment which I am sponsoring with my colleagues, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) would restore critically needed
funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Compliance
and Enforcement, which is responsible for enforcing America's most
important and effective environmental laws.

[[Page H4753]]

To do so, we cut $25 million from nonpersonnel administrative costs
from other parts of the bill except EPA and veterans' programs. Spread
out over this bill, this will require very modest cuts in
administrative expenses.
Mr. Chairman, I stand before the House today because I believe
America's environment is under attack. Not too long ago, as a
Presidential candidate, George Bush spoke strong words about protecting
the environment, but today his promises to the American people ring
hollow. In only a few short months, the Bush administration made its
priorities clear to all of us, and environmental protection is
apparently very low on the list.
While I am not surprised at the actions of President Bush or of EPA
administrator Whitman, given her shoddy record of environmental
enforcement in my home State of New Jersey, I am surprised that the
committee went along with this dangerous course of action.
The bill before us today, at the direction of the administration,
irresponsibly cuts $25 million from the EPA's enforcement budget,
specifically targeting compliance, monitoring, civil and criminal
enforcement, and Superfund enforcement.
If this bill passes in its present form, 270 positions would be
eliminated from the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, which will
result in 2,000 fewer inspections, an 11 percent reduction in criminal
actions, and a 20 percent reduction in civil actions. These reductions
would be devastating to EPA's ability to enforce clean air, clean
water, and hazardous waste laws.
These are not just numbers we are talking about here. This is the
water our children drink, the air they breathe, and the legacy we leave
to the next generation. It is because of Federal enforcement officers
that we have made so much progress in cleaning up our air and water.
Experience tells us the difference a strong EPA can make. Civil
enforcement activities have resulted in real improvements in
environmental quality. In fiscal year 1999, EPA's civil enforcement
actions achieved over 6.8 billion pounds of pollutant reductions, but
the bill before us would cut 6 percent of the staff positions from the
Superfund hazardous waste cost recovery efforts, this from a program
that in fiscal year 2000 recovered $231 million from responsible
parties at Superfund sites.
This is pennywise and pound foolish because the cut in Superfund
enforcement would reduce cost recoveries by over $50 million in fiscal
year 2002, a reduction in revenue that greatly exceeds the funding
necessary to fully restore the enforcement efforts.
The administration's budget also proposes to transfer $25 million to
the States for environmental enforcement. While States could use
additional help in ensuring compliance with environmental laws, that
help should not come at the expense of EPA's successful enforcement
programs.
Federal and State resources combined are not enough to fully enforce
our Federal environmental laws as it is. Transferring scarce Federal
resources to State programs when both compliance programs are
underfunded is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The fact is, the air and
water quality in one State impacts the air and water in another State.
There are no borders when the goal is a clean environment. That is why
a clean environment should be a national priority.
Big polluters would like nothing more than to see a major reduction
in Federal, civil, and criminal enforcement by the EPA, so cutting
EPA's enforcement budget is sending the wrong message at a time when
over 60 million Americans live in areas of the country that still fail
to meet air quality standards.
We can do better, but this bill takes us in the wrong direction. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it is the right
thing for the environment and it is right for America. Let us leave a
legacy of clean lakes, clean rivers, fresh air. Let us leave a clean
environment for our children.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized
to control the time in opposition.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is no one in this Congress who cares more about
the environment than I do. I had the good fortune as a young boy of
growing up in the Finger Lakes region of New York State, and my
experience showed me that the people that I saw on the streams where I
fished, in the woods where I hunted, in the woods where I skied, are
State officials, State employees. The States are the ones who do the
enforcement work for the Environmental Protection Agency. The State
folks know those streams. They know those lakes. They know the
conditions and industry surrounding our watersheds. They enforce the
laws.
I want to make it very clear, there are no cuts in the EPA budget.
There are no cuts. The amendment that the gentleman proposes, however,
is a cut. It is a cut to HUD, it is a cut to NASA, it is a cut to FEMA,
it is a cut to the National Science Foundation.
If Members want to cut HUD or NASA, FEMA, the National Science
Foundation, support the gentleman's amendment. But what I submit is
that the people who do the enforcement day-to-day, who know the
conditions, who know the watersheds, who know the lakes and rivers, we
are providing them with the additional funds.
States conduct more than 95 percent of the environmental inspections
and more than 90 percent of the environmental enforcement actions. It
is the States that do the lion's share of the work, and it is the
States that get the lion's share of this increase. This is an increase
in the EPA enforcement budget.
As a fact, the fiscal year 2001 enacted budget for enforcement is
$465 million. In this budget, according to the President's budget
request and what we have committed to, the subcommittee has committed
to, the level of funding is $475 million. How Members can arrive at a
cut from that, it just defies logic.
What we do is we put the money where it is needed and where it is
used. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the Federal
Government. I work in the Federal Government. I have the greatest
respect for the employees who work within the Federal Government. But I
want to make sure that the people who have the responsibility to
protect my watershed, my drinking water, my neighbor's good health, I
want to make sure those people know the system, the environmental
systems. I want to make sure that they know the businesses and the
business owners. I want to make sure that they know that their
neighbors are the ones who are going to benefit from their vigor and
activity in enforcing the laws of the land.
So let us put the money in the hands of the people who are going to
do the enforcement work, and that is the State employees who have
traditionally done the lion's share of this work. There is not a cut. I
will just restate that, there is no cut in enforcement. This is an
increase in enforcement. But if Members want to cut Federal agencies,
cut HUD, cut NASA, cut FEMA, cut NSF, support the gentleman's
amendment.

{time} 1245

I would strongly urge that my colleagues not do that. These funds are
needed by those agencies, and let us keep the enforcement in the hands
of the State.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Two points on the gentleman's comments. Number one, we simply cut
nonpersonnel administrative expenses. Number one. And, number two, even
EPA's own justification to Congress shows that there will be dramatic
reductions in their staffing, in their ability for enforcement, in
their civil and criminal penalties that they will be able to pursue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the chairman of
the subcommittee, but the reality is that if we do not provide enough
money to keep these Federal enforcement officers in place and they have
to be laid

[[Page H4754]]

off, then, in effect, this is a cut and it means we cannot enforce the
law. That is what we face here today.
We saw the same thing in New Jersey. The current EPA administrator
used to be our governor in New Jersey. When she was governor, she cut
back on the amount of money for the personnel, for the people that go
out and do the inspections, for the people that conduct the criminal
investigations against the polluters; and the consequence was that in
New Jersey the environmental laws were not enforced. That is what is
going to happen here again with this budget unless the Menendez
amendment passes today.
It is a very insidious thing. People do not pay a lot of attention to
enforcement. They pay attention to when the Clean Air Act or the Clean
Water Act is weakened. But when an attempt is made to weaken the
enforcement by not providing the personnel, the public does not notice.
But it is more damaging, and I would suggest what is happening in this
budget and the laying off these enforcement personnel will be more
damaging to the environment than almost anything else the Republican
leadership or the President has proposed since he came to office. So we
must speak out against it.
I want to give an example how it also impacts the taxpayer. New
Jersey has more Superfund sites than any other State. My district has
more than any other district in New Jersey. When we cut back on the
inspections for Superfund and we do not go after the polluters, then we
do not get the money from the polluters to clean up the Superfund sites
and then we have to spend the money out of the Superfund, which is
taxpayers' money.
And my colleagues on the other side know that, in the case of the
Superfund, we do not even have the tax in place on the chemical and oil
polluting companies to pay for the Superfund. The money increasingly is
coming out of the general funds, which means income taxes.
So the consequence of this is not only that we weaken the
environmental laws but also that we put more of a burden on the
taxpayer rather than on the polluters these inspectors go out and find
and go out and enforce to clean up their act.
What is happening here is very insidious. I am sure this is only
going to be the beginning. We will see the same thing next year with
the President's budget. We have to put a stop to it. Pass the Menendez
amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time remains on
both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has 12\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has
16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MENENDEZ. May I inquire if the gentleman from New York has any
speakers at all?
Mr. WALSH. I have not identified that yet. But as soon as I have a
better figure on it, I will provide the gentleman with that.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support this amendment.
This amendment, very simply, restores 270 positions that are being cut
by the Bush administration, positions that are needed to enforce our
environmental laws.
I think the cutbacks that the administration is providing are
consistent with what I regard as its generally misguided policy on
environmental cleanup. I think the cutbacks they are trying to achieve
in EPA enforcement are similar to the weakening of our attack on
environmental problems that we see by their walking away from our
obligation to try to work out an international treaty on global
warming, for instance.
I think that their efforts to cut back on EPA enforcement are
consistent with the White House efforts to reverse the new, more
stringent standards for air-conditioning efficiency, a standard which
the Clinton administration tried to implement and which would have
saved us billions of dollars in energy costs if the White House had not
walked away from those new standards.
If we take a look generally across the board at what the
administration tried to do to shred the New Lands Legacy Agreement,
which we reached in the Subcommittee on Interior last year, which over
the next 6 years essentially doubles our ability to purchase key
parcels of lands for future generations, all of those initiatives that
the administration has taken have operated to reduce rather than
strengthen our support for environmental cleanup. This is just one more
instance.
It may seem like a small thing, but in my view it is not. The
amendment is consistent with our efforts, for instance, to strengthen
standards on arsenic in drinking water, which we just completed. So I
would urge the House to support this amendment. I congratulate the
gentleman for offering it, and I am happy to cosponsor it with him, and
I would urge that the House adopt this amendment unanimously. I cannot
think of a single constructive argument against the amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests for time, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding me this time and thank all those who have worked on this
amendment.
I think we should just get rid of the mirrors and the smoke on this,
Mr. Chairman, and cut straight to the heart of the matter. This
administration is simply attempting to undercut the authority and the
effectiveness of the EPA by reducing its funding by 25 million people
and putting 270 people out to pasture.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. I would just remind the gentleman this year's budget is
$10 million higher for enforcement in EPA.
Mr. TIERNEY. Reclaiming my time, I have respect for that, but the
short part of the matter is that people are being put out of work at
the EPA and enforcement will not proceed as it should on this.
This is nothing new. This majority and this administration have had a
hostile attitude toward environmental protection for several years. In
1995, the House majority attacked an astounding 17 riders to eviscerate
the EPA. And over several years running, the EPA was forbidden to spend
any funds to implement or even prepare to implement the Kyoto Protocol
that combatted global climate change. Frankly, without the efforts of
colleagues in the Senate, without vetoes of then President Clinton, and
without substantial public outcry, the EPA simply would have been
crippled.
Further, it seems this administration has not learned anything from
the last several months. Nearly every public indicator signals there is
no issue on which the public and the administration disagree more
strongly than on the environment. From clean air to water quality, the
public is acutely aware that the majority and the White House are not
protecting the people's interest or their needs.
Now they seek to attempt to undercut the EPA by shifting enforcement
responsibility entirely to the States. We all support assisting the
States in their efforts to ensure environmental law compliance, but
that will not take care of problems across borders, that will not take
care of the problem that this administration, in transferring that
responsibility to the States, is risking an erosion of the standards
that this legislative body has passed and calls upon the States to
enforce.
This administration will almost certainly permit States to issue
proposals that include incentives for voluntary compliance. And while
some States are good stewards of environmental issues, others have a
history of diluting enforcement of provisions that protect the public.
In such States, we have seen what happens to violators who simply
choose not to voluntarily comply. Nothing. No penalties, no deadlines
by which the standards must be enacted, nothing at all, Mr. Chairman.
Voluntary compliance too often simply means ``never having to say
you're sorry.''
Findings by the General Accounting Office also echo this sentiment.
It finds

[[Page H4755]]

serious cuts would result in 15 to 25 States receiving no funding at
all. In those States the cutbacks would result in the absence of
effective enforcement of protective safety measures. The EPA knows that
there would be serious staff reductions that would result in this
proposal; and I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what the
administration is intending.
The facts are that the EPA enforcement resources are already
stretched thin. The Washington Post recently outlined a case where a
State seriously neglected its responsibilities and violated numerous
environmental laws. The State had also shifted the burden to the
residents to prove violations.
One case involved a power plant illegally emitting the hazardous gas
styrene, which harms the nervous and respiratory systems. Without the
efforts of the EPA, Mr. Chairman, which requires States to enforce the
code, who knows how long those violations would have continued.
It is crucial that the EPA have the resources to enforce
environmental laws. Enforcement of those laws is often the only thing
that stands between polluters and justice. The Senate has already
restored this funding in their version of the bill, Mr. Chairman, and I
strongly encourage Members to do the same in this body.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to reiterate that the budget for enforcement is not cut,
it is increased. And since the States do the lion's share of the
enforcement, they receive the lion's share of the increase.
I think the idea is that we want to make sure that the money that is
being spent on environmental protection is spent wisely, and we would
like to have it in the hands of the individuals and in the hands of the
States that are going to do the enforcement.
So this is obviously an increase in enforcement. I think if my
colleagues support increasing enforcement, they would oppose this
amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. The gentleman has more time than I do.
Mr. MENENDEZ. No, at this point, the gentleman has more time than I
do.
Mr. WALSH. Then, in that case, I yield to the gentleman from New
Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Just two points. As I understand it, $10 million of this goes to
COLA, and the rest gets out of Federal enforcement. So to say Federal
enforcement is in fact increased is not the reality. Federal
enforcement is not increased.
Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in fact, the EPA budget
for enforcement is increased by $10 million over last year. The
gentleman can define it any way he wants to, but this is an increase in
funding for enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds simply to say
that all the EPA COLA does is take those employees and give them an
increase. It does not increase the manpower at EPA to do something
about the environment. It takes the environmental cop off the beat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I would like to thank the many friends who
are in support of this amendment that has been offered, the Menendez-
Waxman- Pallone-Tierney amendment.
This amendment simply restores EPA's enforcement budget to current
levels. Without these funds, the EPA's ability to enforce the Nation's
environmental laws will be greatly reduced.
Mr. Chairman, if we pass this appropriation without adopting this
amendment, we will be doing a grave disservice to America's
environmental health. The cut in the EPA's enforcement budget will
result in a further degradation and destruction of environmental
resources. As a result of this cut, there will be fewer than 2,000
inspectors, 50 fewer criminal actions and 50 fewer civil actions and
the loss of millions of dollars in cost recovery.
This administration would like to rely on the States for enforcement
action and, as a result, will cut some 270 enforcement positions. The
EPA Inspector General said in a September, 1998, audit that six States
have failed to report numerous serious violations of the Clean Air Act,
as they are required to do. While performing more than 3,300
inspections, six States reported only 18 significant violations. In
reviewing a small portion of those 3,300 inspections, the EPA turned up
an additional 103 serious violations.
Other States have failed to report serious violations of Federal
pollution laws, allowed major industrial polluters to operate without
proper permits, and failed to conduct basic emissions tests of industry
smokestacks, according to the studies.

{time} 1300

Mr. Chairman, the EPA and the Justice Department can step up if we
conclude a State is not doing an adequate job. But with limited
resources only 3,537 lawyers, investigators, and staff will be involved
in enforcement. I urge this amendment to be adopted.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman. I ask two questions. First, what is the
time on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has 5
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has 15
minutes remaining.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the second question I have is who has the
right to close in this debate?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has the right to close.
Mr. MENENDEZ. He has the right to close on my amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would ask of the gentleman then, since the time is
lopsided, what does the gentleman intend to do in terms of speakers? It
would be unfair to have a long list of speakers come at the very end.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure how to help the
gentleman out. He has had more speakers than I have. He has expended
his time less frugally than I have. I do not intend to use all my time
to close.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I do not know if the gentleman should characterize it
as ``less frugally.'' We have Members who feel very passionately about
this.
Mr. WALSH. I appreciate that. Many of our Members are very passionate
about this also. But the fact of the matter is, I do not have any
additional speakers right now so I will continue to reserve my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for this
amendment and rise in support of it.
President Bush has proposed cutting EPA's enforcement budget by $25
million and giving these funds to the States. I do not oppose giving
the States money for enhanced enforcement of environmental laws,
however, our laws cannot be adequately enforced if EPA's budget is
slashed.
This amendment restores critically needed funding for enforcement of
our environmental laws. I urge all my colleagues to support this. If we
have these cuts we are talking about 2,000 fewer inspections, a 20
percent reduction in civil actions, an 11 percent reduction in criminal
actions. There are many environmental programs that the States are
simply not in a position to enforce. For example, States cannot ensure
that pollution from one State does not affect neighboring States. This
is a job only the Federal Government can do. So I support the
gentleman's amendment. I commend him for his leadership. I urge all my
colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for his amendment. I thank him for yielding the time because I
think it is important to clarify what we are doing here. It is to
suggest to the American public that we do not want them to be denied of
enforcement protection that the EPA provides them in clean water
protection and clean air protection.
It is interesting that my colleague would cite the cuts coming from
across the board and he cited FEMA. Obviously, coming from Texas, I am
particularly interested in making sure

[[Page H4756]]

FEMA is funded fully. But we well know that OMB can make the decision
as to where those cuts would come. This is simply an inclusion of $25
million to allow for 2,000 more inspections, to allow for 20 percent
more civil actions to protect Americans in the issues of clean air and
clean water, and to allow 11 percent more in criminal prosecutions when
individuals ignore the environmental protection laws to enhance the
quality of life for Americans.
So I think this is a simple process and a simple proposition and a
good proposition. Let us do the right thing and provide the
Environmental Protection Agency with the kind of enforcement they need
to enhance the quality of life for all Americans.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I intend to use 2 minutes of our remaining
time to close. As soon as the gentleman completes, I will yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are not taking money from the States, just a
particular earmark. Nothing can stop the EPA administrator from using
those monies for State programs if that is where they are most needed.
What we are doing is what I hear my colleague from the other side
suggest that they want, which is more flexibility. We have greater
flexibility here. But it is foolish to suggest that, in fact, we are
not robbing Peter to pay Paul. And, secondly, it is also from the EPA's
own estimate submitted to the Congress, not my words, the Republican-
appointed administrator submits to the Congress this information, that,
in fact, this is 270 or so full-time employees less than compared to
the actual number of inspections done in fiscal year 2000 to the one
under this request, we would have 5,000 less inspections, that we would
have about 70 some-odd less criminal investigations, that we would have
a serious number of decline in civil investigations, over 400 from
fiscal year 2000.
That is not in any sense justified by saying that there is an
increase. There cannot be an increase when we dramatically drop the
number of people in the department, when we dramatically drop the
number of civil and criminal actions, when we dramatically drop the
number of inspections by EPA's own words. So this simply cannot be
categorized anywhere, in fact, as an increase. Again, we are taking our
monies for this purpose from nonpersonnel administrative functions and
not out of veterans and not out of EPA.
Lastly, EPA remains the only enforcement authority for many Federal
laws. Under the existing program as it is, 15 to 25 States would not
get anything under the provisions that the chairman continues to seek
to have.
So, Mr. Chairman, the question is simple. Do we want to leave a
legacy of clean air and water for our children and grandchildren or do
we want to take the environmental cop off the street?
A vote in favor of the amendment is a vote to keep the environmental
cop on the street. It is a vote to ensure that the number one agency
for all Americans in terms of their quality of their air, their water,
their rivers, their streams, their lakes being protected is the EPA.
If we do not pass this amendment, we will have degraded the ability
to enforce. This is a real cut to the EPA. That is why we need to
restore the enforcement capacity the EPA must have for all Americans in
all States across the Nation.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would end this debate by suggesting that there is no
cut in enforcement. In fact, there is an increase in enforcement. This
amendment is a fiction.
The funding level for last year was $465 million. This year it is
$475 million. The fact of the matter is that the lion's share of the
increase will go to the States where the lion's share of the work is
done. Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of the environmental inspections are
done at the State level; 90 percent of the enforcement actions are
taken at the State level.
We need to empower the States to do the work. We need to get the
money into the hands of the individuals who know our watersheds, our
industries, and the sensitive areas of the country that need to be
protected.
If my colleagues want to cut Federal agencies, HUD, NASA, FEMA,
National Science Foundation, this is the amendment to do it. I do not
advise that. Those agencies need these funds. This budget for this bill
has been developed on a bipartisan basis. We have tried to provide
assets where they are needed. We do not need to cut NASA any more. We
certainly do not need to cut FEMA any more. We are trying to increase
the National Science Foundation budget.
We have a terrific administrator for the Environmental Protection
Agency. She is a tiger for the defense of our national environment. She
has shown that through her experience as Governor. I think she will do
a marvelous job. She believes that the lion's share of the enforcement
belongs at the State level. At the end of the day when this bill is
passed, the Environmental Protection Agency will have virtually the
same number of people working in enforcement in 2002 as they have in
2001.
So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that we reject this amendment and
retain this level of funding, this increase in funding over last year.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Menendez-
Waxman-Pallone-Tierney amendment to restore funding for EPA's efforts
to protect human health and the environment. Without the amendment,
this bill will significantly reduce the protection our Nation's
environmental laws provide to the daily lives of our constituents.
Increasing resources for the states to enforce environmental laws is
fine, but it must not come at the expense of Federal efforts. The
Nation's advancements in environmental protection are as a direct
result of Federal laws put in place where states simply could not or
would not do the job.
The reason we have Federal environmental laws is because there is a
need for Federal action. Taking money away from EPA to give it to the
States does not result in a benefit to the environment, but only a
benefit to the polluter. States and EPA work best when they work in
partnership, not in competition. The Menendez-Waxman-Pallone-Tierney
amendment restores this partnership.
Proponents of taking money from EPA and giving it to the States argue
that the States are better equipped to handle local issues. Pollution
is not a uniquely local blight. Pollution discharged from one State
into a river affects the residents of other cities within a State or of
other States. While many States are the primary enforcer of some
portions of environmental laws, the State and Federal programs are not
duplicative.
For example, States are not the enforcement authority for many
environmental laws such as Clean Air Act mobile source standards
affecting cars and trucks; right-to-know and emergency planning; the
Toxic Substances and Control Act; the wetlands program under the Clean
Water Act in 48 States; and the Oil Pollution Act. Even where States
have primary implementing responsibilities, in areas such as the Great
Lakes, the States have relied on EPA to ensure uniform and effective
progress toward water quality improvement.
Shifting resources from the Federal Government to the States is not
as simple as which entity will spend the money. Besides the diminution
in enforcement of Federal laws where States are not coenforcement
authorities, the Bush budget indicated that the funds would not be
provided to all the States. EPA expects that 15 to 25 States will
receive no funding under this new program. Therefore, in those States,
EPA enforcement capabilities will be reduced with no additional
resources available for the States to make up the shortcoming.
There will be no inspections, no enforcement, and public health will
suffer, the environment will suffer. While States do conduct the
largest amount of inspections and institute the greater number of
enforcement actions, the Federal programs are the ones that take on the
difficult cases where States are unwilling or unable to act.
The Federal Government has the unique role of addressing multistate
issues where large corporations operate in several States; dealing with
pollution that crosses State boundaries, like acid rain or downstream
pollution of rivers or lakes; interstate hazardous waste; and global
warming.
EPA enforcement is of direct benefit to the taxpayer and the
environment. Every $1 spent

[[Page H4757]]

on Superfund enforcement results on average in about $1.60 in direct
cost recovery of government cleanup costs, and it creates another $6 in
private party spending for cleanup of the Nation's most dangerous
hazardous waste sites. A $5 million cut in Superfund enforcement
activity could cost the Federal Government $8 million in recovery of
money already spent, and preclude $30 million in additional cleanup.
Every $1 spent on enforcement of Federal clean air, clean water, and
hazardous waste laws results in an average of $10 to $20 spent directly
on pollution control equipment and other improvements. Without these
non-Federal investments, continued progress in cleaning up the air,
water and land cannot be achieved.
Providing additional resources to States to enforce their
environmental laws can benefit human health and the environment.
However, where these additional resources are provided at the expense
of the Federal programs, environmental protection will suffer and human
health will be compromised.
Support the Menendez-Waxman-Pallone-Tierney amendment to protect
human health and the environment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 43 offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); the amendment No. 44 offered
by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur); the amendment No. 45,
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior); and the amendment
No. 46 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Frank

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment No. 43 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163,
noes 247, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 286]

AYES--163

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--247

Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--23

Blumenauer
Callahan
Cubin
Dunn
Frost
Hansen
Keller
Largent
Linder
Lipinski
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Quinn
Ros-Lehtinen
Scarborough
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Spence
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
Watt (NC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

{time} 1332

Mr. BERRY and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RANGEL, UDALL of Colorado, and BOYD changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the additional
amendments on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 44 by Ms. Kaptur

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page H4758]]

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 213, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 287]

AYES--197

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shows
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--213

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Snyder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--23

Blumenauer
Callahan
Cubin
Dunn
Frost
Hansen
Keller
Largent
Linder
Lipinski
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Quinn
Ros-Lehtinen
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Spence
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
Tierney
Watt (NC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

{time} 1341

Ms. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. WHITFIELD, SHOWS, and FOSSELLA changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Bonior

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 288]

AYES--218

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--189

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer

[[Page H4759]]

Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--26

Blumenauer
Callahan
Collins
Cubin
Dunn
Frost
Hansen
Hinojosa
Keller
Largent
Linder
Lipinski
McCrery
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Quinn
Ros-Lehtinen
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Spence
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Watt (NC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

{time} 1350

Mr. ENGLISH and Ms. HART changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall
No. 288. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Menendez

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on Amendment No. 46 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 214, not voting 37, as follows:

[Roll No. 289]

AYES--182

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Barton
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--214

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--37

Berman
Blumenauer
Boehner
Boswell
Callahan
Camp
Collins
Cubin
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart
Dunn
Frost
Hansen
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Keller
Kilpatrick
Largent
Larson (CT)
Linder
Lipinski
McCrery
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Pomeroy
Quinn
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
Watt (NC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

{time} 1358

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, on Friday, July 27, 2001, I was unable to be
present for rollcall votes 286 through 289.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 286,
``no'' on rollcall No. 287, ``no'' on rollcall No. 288, and ``no'' on
rollcall No. 289.

Personal Explanation

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present for rollcall
votes Nos. 286, 287, 288, and 289, amendments to H.R. 2620, a bill
making appropriations for the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies for
Fiscal Year 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on
rollcall votes Nos. 286, 287, 288 and 289.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong opposition to the
elimination of the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development
(ORHED) of HUD. I recognize that there were many priorities in this
appropriations bill, and not all of them could be addressed. However,
Mr. Chairman, to eliminate essential programs such as Drug Prevention
in public housing, and the Rural Housing and

[[Page H4760]]

Economic Development program of HUD is a direct affront on my
constituencies in North Carolina and on Rural America as a whole. I
wish to discuss Rural Housing needs in this statement.
I applaud my colleague, Marcy Kaptur, a champion of rural America,
for her efforts by amendment to reinstate $25 million ($25,000,000) to
maintain this program, but unfortunately, to no avail. I would like to
also recognize my colleague Mr. Hastings, of Florida, who spoke
passionately to restore this funding in the Rules committee, although,
he represents an urban district, Mr. Chairman.
I can not stress enough the importance of the housing problems facing
rural communities. In the richest country on earth, we still have close
to 1 million occupied homes without adequate indoor plumbing; and 30
percent of all rural homes have coliform bacteria contamination in
their water supplies. This is a disgrace, especially when it is
apparent that this HUD program can help.
Consider these facts, Colleagues:
Over 2.1 million rural households are so severely cost-burdened that
they pay more than half of their incomes for their dwellings. In
addition, despite housing quality improvements in recent decades, many
still continue to live in substandard housing, encompassing an
astonishing 8.2 percent, or 1.8 million rural households.
There are approximately 36 million homes in rural America. Nearly
half of them are actually located near larger cities within
metropolitan areas.
Over 9 million rural households experience major housing problems,
including cost burdens, moderate or serious physical problems, and
overcrowding, with more than one person occupying a room. Many rural
households have more than one of these problems, generally both high
costs and substandard quality.
The most significant disgrace, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that more
than a quarter of the rural households living in poor housing are
required to pay more than 30 percent of their incomes for their
substandard units.
Consider also that there are 200 counties in America that have
poverty rates of 30 percent or higher. Almost all are rural counties.
Only one is a big city county, and only 8 have populations of 60,000 or
more.
Six of ten poor people in this country live outside the central
cities, that is not to say that there are not great needs in our
cities, but there is also a rural need. Those figures in a nutshell
show why this program is so important.
There is also a tremendous housing need among certain populations
such as migrant and seasonal farmworkers.
Mr. Chairman, we should remember that rural concerns and issues are
nationwide. In fact, the largest rural states in terms of population
are in this particular order: Pennsylvania, Texas, North Carolina,
Ohio, New York and Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, there is no duplication of the ORHED programs; services
provided by ORHED have unique qualities. Eventhough USDA Rural Housing
Service (RHS) programs have been known to cater to rural residents RHS
has suffered substantial funding cuts in recent years, and none of the
RHS programs duplicate ORHED.
The HUD (ORHED) program is very useful to local groups because of its
flexibility. Many groups of varying levels of experience and capacity
have successfully applied to this popular program. This program
provides flexible, innovative housing production and capacity building
funds and constitutes a very small portion of the HUD budget. The
program allows local communities to define their own needs and
projects. The very high demand for this program attests to its need.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of a little known,
but important program in the federal government--the U.S. Chemical
Safety and Hazard Inspection Board (CSB). Many Americans are familiar
with the work of the National Transportation Safety Board, which
investigates airplane accidents. The CSB performs a similar role by
investigating chemical accidents.
The CSB suddenly became important to Delaware nine days ago when a
major chemical fire ignited at the Motiva Enterprises refinery in
Delaware City, Delaware on July 17, 2001. This accident left eight
people injured and one man missing. What makes this accident most
troubling is that the sulfuric acid storage tank that caught fire had
been declared unsafe by company inspectors a month earlier. The
inspectors further recommended that it be taken out of service. In
fact, the same tank had a previous record of vapor and liquid emission
leaks.
I strongly believe that the time has come for a thorough
investigation of the operations and practices at the Motiva Enterprises
refinery at Delaware City. CSB's specialty in investigating such
accidents and making recommendations for safety improvements are sorely
needed in Delaware.
Currently, the CSB is conducting a preliminary investigation to
determine if a more extensive investigation is warranted. My suspicion
is that a full investigation will be required and I will be meeting
with the CSB shortly to discuss this issue further.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the additional
funding provided in this bill for the CSB. The bill increases funding
for the CSB by $500,000 to $8 million. Because the accident at Motiva
is just another in a long series of accidents at that plant, I want to
make sure CSB has the resources to conduct a thorough investigation and
make solid recommendations on how changes can be made at Motiva to keep
Delawareans safe in the future. Last year, the CSB completed three
investigations. So far this year, it has already initiated
investigations of two incidents in Georgia and Indiana. Should the need
for additional funding arise, I hope I can count on support from the
VA-HUD Appropriations Committee to provide the necessary resources for
the CSB.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate in Ohio to have one of
the most outstanding federal installations that exists in the United
States--NASA Glenn Research Center.
I wish to thank Chairman Walsh and Representative Hobson for their
hard work of the VA, HUD, Appropriations Committee, and for recognizing
the importance of the work done at NASA Glenn.
This VA-HUD appropriations legislation goes a far way in restoring
many of the dollars that have been cut over the years to NASA Glenn
Research Center, and the Subcommittee should be applauded for its
recognition of the importance of this Center.
Yet, there is still work to be done. There are advances in
biotechnology to improve our health care; Quiet Aircraft Technology to
improve our quality of life, and other important energy saving
research--all conducted right at NASA Glenn Research Center.
This Center has an annual economic impact of more than $1 billion to
the State of Ohio and provides in excess of 12,000 jobs.
And these are high tech jobs. Scientists and engineers in areas such
as aerospace engineering, electrical engineering, chemistry, and
physics account for more than half of the jobs at the Center . . . 25
percent of these employees have Ph.Ds.
NASA Glenn grants more than $10 million a year to Ohio's universities
and pumps more than $243 million into Ohio industry through contracts.
Because NASA Glenn is the only NASA installation north of the Mason
Dixon Line, its impact is felt far and wide across our Nation.
The accomplishments of NASA over the years are nothing short of
amazing and many times we overlook the impact the NASA Glenn Center has
on our everyday lives. NASA Glenn has been a leader among other NASA
centers by winning more R&D 100 Awards than all other NASA Centers
combined.
Historically, NASA Glenn's value to the Agency has been its strength
in aeronautics and space. In response to the Agency's changing
priorities NASA Glenn has endeavored to redirect its core competencies
toward biotechnology (fluids and sensors), nanotechnology (advanced
materials), and information technology (communications). NASA Glenn
remains a leader in the areas of propulsion, power and communications.
Several of the testing facilities at NASA Glenn are unequaled, from
the largest icing tunnel in the world, to the zero gravity research
facility where most space shuttle and International Space Station
experiments are tested before being launched.
The Agency encourages its centers to share knowledge and research
with area academic institutions and research facilities. Northeast Ohio
has an unbelievable wealth of knowledge when it comes to biotechnology.
We have world-class health care facilities like the Cleveland Clinic
and University hospitals. We also have some of the finest educational
institutions like Case Western Reserve University.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that this Congress continues to realize the
impact of NASA Glenn, and I urge the President and my colleagues to
support NASA and the work at NASA Glenn to continue the fundamental
research so vital to our future.

{time} 1400

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. 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.
LaHood) 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.

[[Page H4761]]

____________________