Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 108 (Monday, July 30, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 108 (Monday, July 30, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4815-H4861]
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 (Mr. Ose). 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} 1846

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 House rose on Friday,
July 27, 2001, amendment No. 46 offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) had been disposed of and the bill was open for
amendment from page 33 line 5 through page 37 line 9.
Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

homeless assistance grants

(including transfer of funds)

For the emergency shelter grants program as authorized
under subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act, as amended; the supportive housing program as
authorized under subtitle C of title IV of such Act; the
section 8 moderate rehabilitation single room occupancy
program as authorized under the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended, to assist homeless individuals pursuant to
section 441 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act;
and the shelter plus care program as authorized under
subtitle F of title IV of such Act, $1,027,745,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That not less
than 35 percent of these funds shall be used for permanent
housing, and all funding for services must be matched by 25
percent in funding by each grantee: Provided further, That
all awards of assistance under this heading shall be required
to coordinate and integrate homeless programs with other
mainstream health, social services, and employment programs
for which homeless populations may be eligible, including
Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Food Stamps, and
services funding through the Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Block Grant, Workforce Investment Act, and the Welfare-
to-Work grant program: Provided further, That no less than
$14,200,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading is
transferred to the Working Capital Fund to be used for
technical assistance for management information systems and
to develop an automated, client-level Annual Performance
Report System: Provided further, That $500,000 shall be made
available to the Interagency Council on the Homeless for
administrative needs.

Housing Programs

housing for special populations

(including transfer of funds)

For assistance for the purchase, construction, acquisition,
or development of additional public and subsidized housing
units for low income families not otherwise provided for,
$1,024,151,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003:
Provided, That $783,286,000 shall be for capital advances,
including amendments to capital advance contracts, for
housing for the elderly, as authorized by section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959, as amended, and for project rental
assistance for the elderly under such section 202(c)(2),
including amendments to contracts for such assistance and
renewal of expiring contracts for such assistance for up to a
one-year term, and for supportive services associated with
the housing, of which amount $49,890,000 shall be for service
coordinators and the continuation of existing congregate
service grants for residents of assisted housing projects,
and of which amount $49,890,000 shall be for grants under
section 202b of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q-2)
for conversion of eligible projects under such section to
assisted living or related use: Provided further, That of the
amount under this heading, $240,865,000 shall be for capital
advances, including amendments to capital advance contracts,
for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as
authorized by section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act, for project rental assistance for
supportive housing for persons with disabilities under such
section 811(d)(2), including amendments to contracts for such
assistance and renewal of expiring contracts for such
assistance for up to a one-year term, and for supportive
services associated with the housing for persons with
disabilities as authorized by section 811 of such Act, and
for tenant-based rental assistance contracts entered into
pursuant to section 811 of such Act: Provided further, That
no less than $1,000,000, to be divided evenly between the
appropriations for the section 202 and section 811 programs,
shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the
development and maintenance of information technology
systems: Provided further, That, in addition to amounts made
available for renewal of tenant-based rental assistance
contracts pursuant to the second proviso of this paragraph,
the Secretary may designate up to 25 percent of the amounts
earmarked under this paragraph for section 811 of such Act
for tenant-based assistance, as authorized under that
section, including such authority as may be waived under the
next proviso, which assistance is five years in duration:
Provided further, That the Secretary may waive any provision
of such section 202 and such section 811 (including the
provisions governing the terms and conditions of project
rental assistance and tenant-based assistance) that the
Secretary determines is

[[Page H4816]]

not necessary to achieve the objectives of these programs, or
that otherwise impedes the ability to develop, operate, or
administer projects assisted under these programs, and may
make provision for alternative conditions or terms where
appropriate.

flexible subsidy fund

(transfer of funds)

From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted
balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2001,
and any collections made during fiscal year 2002, shall be
transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by
section 236(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended.

manufactured housing fees trust fund

For necessary expenses as authorized by the National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.), $13,566,000, to
remain available until expended, to be derived from the
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund: Provided, That the
total amount appropriated under this heading shall be
available from the general fund of the Treasury to the extent
necessary to incur obligations and make expenditures pending
the receipt of collections to the Fund pursuant to section
620 of such Act: Provided further, That the amount made
available under this heading from the general fund shall be
reduced as such collections are received during fiscal year
2002 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2002
appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more
than $0 and fees pursuant to such section 620 shall be
modified as necessary to ensure such a final fiscal year 2002
appropriation.

Federal Housing Administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

(including transfers of funds)

During fiscal year 2002, commitments to guarantee loans to
carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of
$160,000,000,000.
During fiscal year 2002, obligations to make direct loans
to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $250,000,000:
Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to
nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales
of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and
formerly insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed and direct loan program, $330,888,000, of which
not to exceed $326,866,000 shall be transferred to the
appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''; and not to
exceed $4,022,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Office of Inspector General''. In addition, for
administrative contract expenses, $145,000,000, of which not
less than $96,500,000 shall be transferred to the Working
Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of
information technology systems.

general and special risk program account

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections
238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3
and 1735c), including the cost of loan guarantee
modifications as that term is defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, $15,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That these funds
are available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of
which is to be guaranteed, of up to $21,000,000,000: Provided
further, That any amounts made available in any prior
appropriations Act for the cost (as such term is defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of
guaranteed loans that are obligations of the funds
established under section 238 or 519 of the National Housing
Act that have not been obligated or that are deobligated
shall be available to the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development in connection with the making of such guarantees
and shall remain available until expended, notwithstanding
the expiration of any period of availability otherwise
applicable to such amounts.
Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans,
as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238, and 519(a) of
the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $50,000,000, of
which not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be for bridge financing
in connection with the sale of multifamily real properties
owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under such Act;
and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for loans to
nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with the
sale of single-family real properties owned by the Secretary
and formerly insured under such Act.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $211,455,000, of
which $193,134,000, shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Salaries and expenses''; and of which $18,321,000 shall
be transferred to the appropriation for ``Office of Inspector
General''. In addition, for administrative contract expenses
necessary to carry out the guaranteed and direct loan
programs, $139,000,000, of which no less than $33,500,000
shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the
development and maintenance of information technology
systems.

Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA)

Guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

(including transfer of funds)

New commitments to issue guarantees to carry out the
purposes of section 306 of the National Housing Act, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall not exceed
$200,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2003.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $9,383,000 to
be derived from the GNMA guarantees of mortgage-backed
securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to
exceed $9,383,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Salaries and expenses''.

Policy Development and Research

research and technology

For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs
of research and studies relating to housing and urban
problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title
V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out
the functions of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $46,900,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That $1,500,000
shall be for necessary expenses of the Millennial Housing
Commission, as authorized by section 206 of Public Law 106-
74: Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, $7,500,000 shall be for the Partnership for
Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH) Initiative.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

fair housing activities

For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise
provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987, as amended, $45,899,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2003, of which $19,449,000
shall be to carry out activities pursuant to such section
561: Provided, That no funds made available under this
heading shall be used to lobby the executive or legislative
branches of the Federal Government in connection with a
specific contract, grant or loan.

Office of Lead Hazard Control

lead hazard reduction

For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, as authorized by
sections 1011 and 1053 of the Residential Lead-Based Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, $109,758,000 to remain available until
September 30, 2003, of which $10,000,000 shall be for the
Healthy Homes Initiative, pursuant to sections 501 and 502 of
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 that shall
include research, studies, testing, and demonstration
efforts, including education and outreach concerning lead-
based paint poisoning and other housing-related environmental
childhood diseases and hazards.

Management and Administration

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary administrative and non-administrative
expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
not otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $7,000
for official reception and representation expenses,
$1,086,800,000, of which $520,000,000 shall be provided from
the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration,
$9,383,000 shall be provided from funds of the Government
National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 shall be provided
from the ``Community development fund'' account, $150,000
shall be provided by transfer from the ``Title VI Indian
federal guarantees program'' account, and $200,000 shall be
provided by transfer from the ``Indian housing loan guarantee
fund program'' account: Provided, That no less than
$85,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund
for the development and maintenance of Information Technology
Systems: Provided further, That the Secretary shall fill 7
out of 10 vacancies at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels until the
total number of GS-14 and GS-15 positions in the Department
has been reduced from the number of GS-14 and GS-15 positions
on the date of enactment of Public Law 106-377 by two and
one-half percent: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
submit a staffing plan for the Department by November 1,
2001.

Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 42 offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania:
Page 47, line 10, after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
Page 72, line 5, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is
recognized for 10 minutes in support of his amendment.
Does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) claim the time in
opposition?

[[Page H4817]]

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition. I do not know that
there is going to be opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon), and then the gentleman from Maryland will have the right
to claim the time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman). I offer this amendment in full support and adulation for the
chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee, recognizing their
ongoing cooperation in this effort. And I offer this in complete
support of the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), without whose efforts last year would not allow us to be here
today.
Mr. Chairman, the number is 102, and the number in 1999 was 112. That
was the number of U.S. citizens, most of them volunteers, who were
killed in the line of duty in protecting our towns. If we lost that
many soldiers, it would be a national scandal. If we lost that many
teachers, it would be a national disgrace. Yet every year, on average,
America loses over 100 men and women who are simply protecting their
towns.
Last year, for the first time, with the leadership of the good
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), we
appropriated $100 million on the competitive grant program to help our
Nation's 32,000 fire and EMS departments leverage their money to help
them better train and better equip themselves.
The response was overwhelming. Thirty thousand applications came in
within 1 month. Twenty thousand individual fire and EMS departments in
every district in America applied. And now it is time for us to
increase that funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, without
whose efforts this would not have happened.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his determined dedication to this
issue of providing support for those men and women who serve on the
front line in guaranteeing the safety and security of our communities,
along with police officers. Without our firefighters, I am not sure
where we would be going as a Nation or as a community.
I would say the gentleman was very kind in his remarks directed to
this chairman, but I must tell my colleagues that he, in fact, is the
most dedicated, most persistent, most determined Member of this House
to see that this type of assistance is made available for those brave
men and women who do support the security of our Nation in fighting the
fires, protecting our properties, and protecting our lives.
Again, I would say thanks to him for the determination and the strong
effort that he has made in this respect.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am in no way in opposition to this
account being funded at the amount designated in the amendment, $150
million, however, there is a better place to do that; and we will
certainly, at that time, look as favorably as we can upon the request.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) will control the balance of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of the Weldon amendment.
The Weldon amendment is carrying out what I think is a very
worthwhile and important objective. It would increase the $100 million
provided in the bill for the fire grant program by $50 million.
Before I speak on the substance, I want to thank the chairman and
ranking members of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). As the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and
General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, I understand the
constraints they are under. I also understand their support of this
program.
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), as well as so many others who have
been supportive, and I want to thank the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for rising to speak
on behalf of this amendment. All of them have been tireless in their
support of this program.
The response, Mr. Chairman, from the fire services to the Fire Act,
which authorized $300 million and to which we appropriated $100 million
last year, has been nothing short of astonishing and has exceeded
everyone's expectations. In this first year of the program, the U.S.
fire administration received over 30,000 requests from local
departments, totaling more than $3 billion.
To put this in perspective, there are 32,000 departments in this
country. Our first responders respond to fire, flood, hurricane, and
other crises. In the first year, the departments were limited to
applying for only 6 of the authorized 14 categories. That gives us, I
think, Mr. Chairman, a sense of the need that is out there that fire
departments throughout this country have.
The $100 million in this bill is insufficient. The chairman and the
ranking member know that. Hopefully, in conference, we will be able to
get that figure up to the figure that the gentleman from Pennsylvania
seeks and, indeed, if there are additional funds, they would be
warranted as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), a cosponsor of this amendment and
one who has been a real leader in this effort.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon),
which I was pleased to cosponsor. I also thank the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton); the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for their support.
The Weldon amendment allocates an additional $50 million in funding
for the Firefighters Assistance Grant Program, which is one of our
Nation's most vitally important programs. In fiscal year 2001,
approximately two out of three fire departments in our Nation applied
for funds, totaling nearly $3 billion in requests. Regrettably, the
majority of those requests could not be granted because funding for the
program was not sufficient to meet the overwhelming demands of our
Nation's fire departments.
As the popularity of this program increases, it falls upon all of us
in the Congress to meet the demand with adequate funding. We must make
sure our Nation's firefighters have the resources to perform their
dedicated work in our communities, saving lives and property.
Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to show their support for our
Nation's firefighters by voting in support of the Weldon firefighter
amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has been such a hard fighter on behalf of
this program for the firefighters and first responders of our Nation.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in support of the Weldon amendment to increase
funding

[[Page H4818]]

for the Firefighters Assistance Grant Program.
There are a million firefighters in America, one million, and 32,000
fire departments. The number of applications for the first year is just
overwhelming. This is a replica of the COPS program, which proved to be
so successful. And I want to congratulate folks from both sides of the
aisle. The amount of applications is an indication, Mr. Chairman, of
how serious the need is in our Nation's fire departments.
I totally support this amendment. We are all going to be hearing from
the fire departments in our own districts, because there is only so
much money to go around for so many applications.

{time} 1900

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who is a senior
member of the Committee on Science and who has been an advocate for the
fire service.
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the committee
that oversees the Federal Fire Administration, I would like to suggest
that it is about time we really started helping communities across
America by helping firemen.
Today in the United States there are over 1 million fire fighters and
77 percent are volunteers. If we had to pay all of these volunteers, we
would be spending billions of dollars more in property tax coming out
of taxpayers' pockets.
Last year I worked with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon)
and others to get $100 million into this program. This amendment is
going to increase that by $50 million to $150 million.
I think it is important to mention that in 1999 there were 45,000
fire fighters injured and 112 fire fighters killed in duty-related
incidents. These men and women are American heroes. They are truly our
first responders. They are the ones that are at the scene when there is
natural disasters. They are the ones at the scene when there is
shootings in school, chemical spills, terrorism, looking for lost kids,
or getting the kitten out of a tree.
We give billions of dollars to law enforcement in this country. It is
time we gave a few dollars to help local communities and help the first
responders of this Nation.
This amendment would increase the funding allocation to help local
fire departments hire new firefighters, purchase new safety equipment,
and provide improved training.
These men and women are American heroes. They are truly first
responders. They are part of national security.
Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be an easy choice to make. Either
we fund more bureaucracy or fund more help for firefighters. The
increased funding for the fire grants program could be used for new
equipment to fight fires, new training so that our firefighters are
brought up to speed on the latest firefighting techniques, advanced
safety equipment that can help prevent firefighter injury or death.
This type of support is especially critical for volunteer fire
departments that often must supplement their sources of funding with
bake sales and the like.
Despite the risks, the million men and women of the fire services
continue to guard against fires, accidents, disasters, and terrorism.
We in this body must continue to get them the support they need.
It may come as a surprise to many of the people viewing tonight, but
the United States has one of the highest fire death rates in the
industrialized world at 13.1 deaths per million population. In 1999,
3,570 Americans lost their lives and another 21,875 were injured as the
result of fire--more Americans than were killed in all natural
disasters combined. The National Safety Council ranks fires as the
fifth leading cause of accidental deaths, behind only vehicle
accidents, falls, poisonings, and drownings.
The total cost of fire to society is staggering--estimated over $100
billion per year. This includes the cost of adding fire protection to
buildings, the cost of paid fire departments, the equivalent cost of
volunteer fire departments ($20 billion annually), the cost of
insurance overhead, the direct cost of fire-related losses, the medical
cost of fire injuries, and other direct and indirect costs. Direct
property losses due to fire was estimated at $10 billion in 1999.
The top three causes of fires in the U.S. are smoking (22 percent),
incendiary and suspicious (or arson) (21 percent), and heating (11
percent). The leading cause of injuries is cooking (22 percent),
followed by arson (13 percent), and children playing (11 percent).
On the front lines, protecting the public from fire, are the Nation's
over one million firefighters, three-quarters of whom serve as
volunteers. Every day, these men and women place their lives on the
line to protect their neighbors. Every 17.3 seconds, a firefighter in
this country responds to a fire.
In my State of Michigan volunteer firefighters are very important.
Between 1995-2000, eleven Michigan firefighters--both volunteer and
professional--lost their lives fighting fires.
Last year alone, four Michigan firefighters lost their lives--Ronald
Haner of Portage, David Maisano of Mio, David Sutton of Fraser, and
Gail VanAuken of Holland. Firefighter Sutton was killed by an arsonist
who ignited combustibles on the first and second floors of a Fraser
apartment building. Mr. Sutton had sought to save a resident of that
apartment building, who was trapped on the second floor, and was also
killed by that fire. This fire was one of six arson fires that occurred
in the same general area over a two day period of last year.
For their bravery and sacrifice, we owe first responders and their
families a debt of gratitude. Our Nation's founders were deeply
committed to the idea that the individual had an obligation to serve
the community and the country. Those who serve as first responders
exemplify these ideals every day.

It is unfortunate that today many now consider duty and honor relics
of a bygone age. While our society lavishes praise on athletes and rock
stars, we tend to forget about those who stand ready at a moment's
notice to risk their lives to keep our communities safe. It is only
after disaster strikes that we appreciate fully the contributions they
make.
They have kept faith with us, and we in this body must continue to
keep faith with them by getting them the support they need. As chairman
of the Subcommittee on Research, which has jurisdiction over the U.S.
Fire Administration, I am pleased that last year we were able to pass
legislation reauthorizing USFA. This legislation is helping get USFA
back on the right track so that it can provide the training and
research our firefighters need.
In addition, last year, many of us worked to get more help to
firefighters. These efforts led to the passage of unprecedented
legislation to benefit America's fire service, much of which was
reflected in my Help Emergency Responders Operate--HERO--Act.
This type of support is particularly important to volunteer fire
departments that often do not have adequate funding. Many volunteer
departments have to supplement their local funding with bake sales and
other activities just to keep themselves afloat.
The VA/HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 provides another
$100 million for this purpose. Like the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I
was hoping that we can increase that amount to $150 million, and I am
still hopeful that we can get some more funding as the bill moves
through conference. Remember that each year fire results in $10 billion
in property loss and more than 3,500 deaths in the U.S. I have also
cosponsored legislation offered by the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr.
Larson, that would set up special tax-free retirement accounts, similar
to IRA's, for volunteer firefighters.
Increasingly, we are asking firefighters to take on expanded
responsibilities--to respond to terrorist attacks or to help stem
environmental disasters, for example. It is important that as we ask
them to take on more, we stay committed to insuring we support them as
best we can.
I thank the gentleman for his efforts on behalf of firefighters and
thank him for bringing this issue before the House tonight. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendemnt.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague,
the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and thank him
for all he has done for the fire fighters of the State of Maryland and
of the District of Columbia. I have witnessed firsthand what he has
done to beef up the capability of fire stations, not just within these
two jurisdictions, but across the country. I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the head of the Fire Caucus.
The fact is that fire fighters today do so much more than fight
fires. They respond to medical emergencies, crises, catastrophes. They
are the first line of defense when we have emergencies that occur
across the country. So I support the intent of this amendment very
strongly.
I do have some reticence about the fact that it would be taken from
salaries and expenses in HUD, as I know

[[Page H4819]]

the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) do. But I suspect that when we sit down with
the Senate, that the fire fighters will be recipients of the kind of
financial support and political support that they need and deserve.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci), one of our freshmen Members who
was a leader of the fire service in Brookhaven in Long Island.
(Mr. GRUCCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GRUCCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Weldon
amendment, which would increase the Fire Assistance Grant Program by
$50 million.
Last Monday it was my honor to announce the awarding of a Federal
grant to the Davis Park Fire Department in my district. This grant was
one of only 108 that were awarded to the fire departments across this
country under FEMA's Fire Assistance Grant Program.
The Davis Park Fire Department along with nearly 20,000 other fire
companies applied for grants. That is almost two-thirds of all fire
companies in America. In the coming months, more than $100 million in
grants will be rewarded to fire companies for vehicles, fire prevention
programs, equipment and training.
The Davis Park Fire Department will use its $30,000 in funds to train
its fire fighters in the most recent fire fighting and rescue
techniques. When I spoke with the department's chief, he expressed his
excitement over how the grant would help to strengthen the safety of
not just the citizens of Davis Park, but also the brave men and women
who serve them.
By supporting the Weldon amendment we can guarantee that fire
departments, like Davis Park, will be able to benefit from this vital
program next year.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Weldon amendment which
would increase the Fire Assistance Grant Program by $50 million.
Last Monday, it was my honor to announce the awarding of a Federal
grant to the Davis Park Fire Department in my district. This grant was
one of only 108 that were awarded to fire departments across this
country under FEMA's Fire Assistance Grant Program.
The Davis Park Fire Department along with nearly 20,000 other fire
companies applied for grants--that is almost two-thirds of all fire
companies in America. In the coming months, more than $100 million in
grants will be rewarded to fire companies for vehicles, fire prevention
programs, equipment and training.
The Davis Park Fire Department will use its $30,000 in funds to train
its firefighters in the most recent firefighting and rescue techniques.
When I spoke with the department's chief he expressed his excitement
over how the grant would help to strengthen the safety of not just the
citizens of Davis Park but also the brave men and women who serve them.
By supporting the Weldon amendment we can guarantee that Fire
Departments like the Davis Park will be able to benefit from this vital
program next year. In doing so we can increase the safety of countless
communities throughout our nation.
I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in providing our nations
local fire departments with the opportunity to improve the quality of
both services they offer and safety standards under which they serve.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), one of the co-chairs of the Fire Service Caucus
who does an outstanding job on behalf of the fire fighters of America.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment.
In the new century the front line of America's defense is not the
battlefields of Europe or the high seas around the globe or even the
skies above us. The front line is the domestic battle against
terrorism.
The first line of defense in that battle is the fire fighters, EMS,
and public safety personnel of our country. They certainly deserve the
amount that is suggested by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for making
sure that $100 million is already in this bill.
I know we can all work together in the conference with the other body
to try to increase that amount to $150 million by trying to find the
appropriate place in the bill from which the money may be taken.
We are going to spend $300 billion on defending this country by the
Armed Services this year. I support that. This is a small fraction and
an important element of our fight or national defense. I
enthusiastically support this amendment. I thank its authors.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), one of the champions of our
national security and one of the champions of the fire service in
America, who along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has been there, along with the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I have ever spoken
on an amendment which I am not sure is going any place, but I will say
this: I can remember when it was first introduced they were talking
about $1 billion. Most people thought there would not be that kind of a
need or application. But in my district this has been one of the most
popular things we have done in this Congress.
We are having trouble getting volunteers. They are having trouble
getting equipment. So this is the type of thing we will have to get
involved in. I predict that in the end there will be a lot more money
in this program. It is going to be just like defense. It is going to
increase more and more. So I support the program and enthusiastically
endorse what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) are trying to do.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the group of people we are talking about are our
domestic defenders. People ask why we should fund the fire service, are
we trying to federalize the Nation's fire service? The answer is
absolutely no. But in today's climate we are asking these domestic
defenders to deal more with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist
incidents.
In fact, for every major disaster in America, floods, tornadoes,
earthquakes, they are the first responder. It is not the FEMA
bureaucrat, it is not the National Guard, it is not the Marine Corps
CBIRF teams, it is the men and women of the American Fire Service.
We have responsibility to help them. We spend over $300 billion on
our international defenders, and I support that and more. We spend $4
billion a year on our police officers, and I support that. Imagine
asking our police officers to go out and have a chicken dinner or tag
day to raise the funds to buy their police car or their crime incident
vehicle.
Every day across this country our paid and volunteer fire EMS people
are asked to do more with less. This is a small effort for us to assist
them, to give them seed money, to help them use their very limited
dollars to help leverage that money to buy the equipment they need.
Is this program a success? The first round of grants are now going
out. Let me read just one. The smallest grant award to date was $757 to
buy a smoke machine for training fire fighters in the Paisley Volunteer
Fire Department in southeastern Oregon. That may save one life, and if
we save one life out of those hundreds that are killed each year, it is
well worth the funding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for working together on
this effort. It would not have happened without the bipartisan support
of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), along with the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and all
of the others

[[Page H4820]]

who have spoken, are the reason we are here today.
Mr. Chairman, to our fire and EMS leaders, we are only just
beginning. I thank my colleagues and ask them to support this
amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is going to take a short time, and this
amendment is going to be I think withdrawn. It is going to be withdrawn
because we understand that we ought not to take $50 million out of the
salary and expense money of HUD. HUD needs that money.
Mr. Chairman, I rise really to say that this committee's 302(b)
allocation is insufficient to meet the unbelievable demands that it
confronts. I think the chairman and ranking member are going to say
that in just a minute. But I empathize with that because this is a
critical need. We have talked about the need being manifested in the
grant applications that have been submitted: Over $3 billion with $100
million available. Those grant applications are not for some objective
which somebody would make fun of.
We talk about fires, and that is what we think about our fire service
and emergency response teams as doing; but we have also talked about
natural disasters. There are also unnatural disasters; for instance,
automobile accidents. The first people usually on the scene are the
fire service and/or the EMS, emergency medical service. They are there.
They need equipment and training. That means more lives saved.
Just as it has been said that we spend a lot of money on people that
we send overseas to defend our security, that is why the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and I and others on this floor refer to our
fire service and EMS personnel as our domestic defenders; because,
indeed, they are the persons, along with our police department, that we
ask to defend us here at home to make sure that we not only have law
and order, but that we have security at time of crisis, whether it is
natural disaster or fire or accident or some other calamity.
Mr. Chairman, the fire service was one of the first on the scene when
Timothy McVeigh set that awful explosion that killed 168 people. They
were there in that building climbing those stairs bringing children
out, bringing women and visitors from that building.
They take risks every day, and we lose on an average one every 3 days
in America. It is important, and I think America believes it to be a
priority, that we give to them the training, the equipment, so that
they cannot only respond effectively to save our lives, but they can do
so in the safest possible manner that we can give to them.
In conclusion, let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh)
and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). I know that they
care deeply about this program and I know the constraints on them. The
good news is when we go to conference I hope we can get to this number.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to
enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and
with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank the gentleman from New York for
his leadership last year, and ask the gentleman if he can work with us
in conference to help move toward this goal?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, this is as good an idea that has come along
in a long time. It has broad support. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania is as consistent as Old Faithful regarding fire fighters.
The gentleman is their hero; and there are many others in this room who
have made this happen.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I have an
allocation that would force us to go into HUD that would cut salaries
and expenses. Nobody wants to do that. Give us a chance to work with
the gentleman as we move towards conference, and I think we probably
will have a positive result.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their
leadership on this issue.
This amendment is less about a desire in this body of getting
resources to fire fighters than it is about the scarcity about the
resources that we have to appropriate here.
As the chairman indicated, we need a larger allocation to do justice
to this amendment. We need more money to do justice to this amendment.
We hope as this process moves forward, it will be available. It will be
very difficult in the context of the tax cut we had earlier in the
year. We are going to work hard to honor both gentlemen's request here
as it moves forward. I will support the chairman in that process.

{time} 1915

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our
colleagues for their comments. The gentleman from Maryland has an
additional comment to make, and then I will make my unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I think everybody here that
has spoken says this is something we ought to do. Hopefully between now
and when we adjourn, we will be able to get this accomplished, not just
for the fire service of America but for the people of our Nation and
safer communities.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank all of my
colleagues for speaking. It is pretty evident that this is something we
want to do. Working with the other body, hopefully we can get there.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Weldon-
Pascrell-Andrews amendment which would increase the FY02 budget for the
Fire Assistance Grant Program from $100 million to $150 million.
Mr. Chairman, there is such a great need for this program in this
country that while it has been funded at $100 million for FY01, there
has been $2.9 billion in requests from across the country for this
vital program.
Mr. Chairman, new and advancing technologies are constantly requiring
expensive purchase and upgrading of equipment to enable our
firefighting units to provide the very best in services to our
communities. My own district of the U.S. Virgin Islands, is one such
community in need. They have put in a request for this assistance and
support to ensure that they have the right equipment, vehicles and
other tools necessary to meet the important need of keeping our
community safe in times of fire disaster.
Mr. Chairman, our firefighters, across the country, put their lives
on the line day after day--for us! Let us appreciate their service, and
improve their safety as well, by passing the Weldon-Pascrell-Andrews
amendment today.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $93,898,000, of which $22,343,000 shall be provided
from the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration
and $10,000,000 shall be provided from the amount earmarked
for Operation Safe Home in the appropriation for the ``Public
housing operating fund'': Provided, That the Inspector
General shall have independent authority over all personnel
issues within the Office of Inspector General.

consolidated fee fund

(rescission)

Of the balances remaining available from fees and charges
under section 7(j) of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act, $6,700,000 is rescinded.

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, including not to exceed
$500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$23,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be
derived from the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Fund:
Provided, That not to exceed such amount shall be available
from the general fund of the Treasury to the extent necessary
to incur obligations and make expenditures pending the
receipt of collections to the Fund: Provided further, That
the general fund amount shall be

[[Page H4821]]

reduced as collections are received during the fiscal year so
as to result in a final appropriation from the general fund
estimated at not more than $0.

Administrative Provisions

Sec. 201. Fifty percent of the amounts of budget authority,
or in lieu thereof 50 percent of the cash amounts associated
with such budget authority, that are recaptured from projects
described in section 1012(a) of the Stuart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1437
note) shall be rescinded, or in the case of cash, shall be
remitted to the Treasury, and such amounts of budget
authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or remitted to
the Treasury shall be used by State housing finance agencies
or local governments or local housing agencies with projects
approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
for which settlement occurred after January 1, 1992, in
accordance with such section. Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, the Secretary may award up to 15 percent of the
budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or
remitted to the Treasury to provide project owners with
incentives to refinance their project at a lower interest
rate.
Sec. 202. None of the amounts made available under this Act
may be used during fiscal year 2002 to investigate or
prosecute under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise lawful
activity engaged in by one or more persons, including the
filing or maintaining of a non-frivolous legal action, that
is engaged in solely for the purpose of achieving or
preventing action by a Government official or entity, or a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Sec. 203. (a) Notwithstanding section 854(c)(1)(A) of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)(1)(A)), from
any amounts made available under this title for fiscal year
2002 that are allocated under such section, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development shall allocate and make a
grant, in the amount determined under subsection (b), for any
State that--
(1) received an allocation in a prior fiscal year under
clause (ii) of such section; and
(2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for fiscal
year 2002 under such clause (ii) because the areas in the
State outside of the metropolitan statistical areas that
qualify under clause (i) in fiscal year 2002 do not have the
number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
required under such clause.
(b) The amount of the allocation and grant for any State
described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on the
cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that State
that are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that
qualify under clause (i) of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in
fiscal year 2002, in proportion to AIDS cases among cities
and States that qualify under clauses (i) and (ii) of such
section and States deemed eligible under subsection (a).
Sec. 204. Section 225(a) of the Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law 106-74 (113
Stat. 1076), is amended by inserting ``and fiscal year 2002''
after ``fiscal year 2001''.
Sec. 205. Section 251 of the National Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1715z-16) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``issue regulations''
and all that follows and inserting the following: ``require
that the mortgagee make available to the mortgagor, at the
time of loan application, a written explanation of the
features of an adjustable rate mortgage consistent with the
disclosure requirements applicable to variable rate mortgages
secured by a principal dwelling under the Truth in Lending
Act.''; and
(2) by adding the following new subsection at the end:
``(d)(1) The Secretary may insure under this subsection a
mortgage that meets the requirements of subsection (a),
except that the effective rate of interest--
``(A) shall be fixed for a period of not less than the
first 3 years of the mortgage term;
``(B) shall be adjusted by the mortgagee initially upon the
expiration of such period and annually thereafter; and
``(C) in the case of the initial interest rate adjustment,
is subject to the one percent limitation only if the interest
rate remained fixed for five or fewer years.
``(2) The disclosure required under subsection (b) shall be
required for a mortgage insured under this subsection.''.
Sec. 206. (a) Section 203(c) of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1709(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and (k)'' and ``or
(k)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting immediately after ``subsection (v),'' the
following: ``and each mortgage that is insured under
subsection (k) or section 234(c),''; and
(B) by striking ``and executed on or after October 1,
1994,''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall--
(1) apply only to mortgages that are executed on or after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) be implemented in advance of any necessary conforming
changes to regulations.
Sec. 207. (a) During fiscal year 2002, in the provision of
rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) in connection with a
program to demonstrate the economy and effectiveness of
providing such assistance for use in assisted living
facilities that is carried out in the counties of the State
of Michigan specified in subsection (b) of this section,
notwithstanding paragraphs (3) and (18)(B)(iii) of such
section 8(o), a family residing in an assisted living
facility in any such county, on behalf of which a public
housing agency provides assistance pursuant to section
8(o)(18) of such Act, may be required, at the time the family
initially receives such assistance, to pay rent in an amount
exceeding 40 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family by such a percentage or amount as the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development determines to be appropriate.
(b) The counties specified in this subsection are Oakland
County, Macomb County, Wayne County, and Washtenaw County, in
the State of Michigan.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

Amendments en bloc offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
consisting of amendment No. 31, amendment No. 33, amendment
No. 34, and amendment No. 35:

Amendment No. 31:

At the end of title II, insert the following new section:
Sec. 2____. For an additional amount for providing public
housing agencies with tenant-based housing assistance under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437f) to provide amounts for incremental assistance under
such section 8, and the amount otherwise provided by this
title for ``Public and Indian Housing--public housing capital
fund'' is hereby reduced by, $100,000,000.
____

Amendment No. 33:

In title III, at the end of the matter relating to
``National Aeronautics and Space Administration-science,
aeronautics and technology'' insert the following:
``Additionally, for the Space Grant program, to promote
science, mathematics, and technology education for young
people, undergraduate students, women, underrepresented
minorities, and persons with disabilities in the State of
Texas, for careers in aerospace science and technology,
$8,900,000.''.
____

Amendment No. 34:

In title III, at the end of the matter relating to
``National Aeronautics and Space Administration-science,
aeronautics and technology'' insert the following:
``Additionally, for the Minority University Research and
Education Program to emphasize partnership awards that
leverage the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
investment by encouraging collaboration among the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, Other Minority Universities, and
other university researchers and educators, $58,000,000.''.
____

Amendment No. 35:

In title III, at the end of the matter relating to
``National Science Foundation-education and human resources''
insert the following: ``Additionally, for training young
scientists and engineers, creating new knowledge, and
developing cutting-edge tools that together will fuel
economic prosperity and increase social well-being in the
years ahead, $662,000,000.''.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of July 27, 2001, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for giving me the
opportunity to engage in debate on these important issues on the floor
of the House.
First let me say that I want to add my support for the Weldon
amendment that was debated just previously and would hope to be one of
those supporting the concept of public safety and the appreciation of
our Federal fire service and all of our firefighters.
The issues I want to discuss this evening I believe warrant
consideration; and I would hope, with good will, I would be able to
have the point of order waived. But let me describe the reason for
offering first of all amendment No. 31, which has to do with more
funding for section 8. Realizing that there were funds that were not
utilized under the section 8 program, my concern is that in various
jurisdictions there are still long waiting lists for the section 8
certificates. It seems to me that with that in mind, we need to either
revise the program or work with

[[Page H4822]]

the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make sure that this
program actually utilizes all the dollars and gets to all the regional
areas where there is a definitive need.
In my community, the waiting list has been extensive. I believe it is
extremely important to assure that there is affordable housing to
disperse to the hardworking poor in areas throughout the community for
them to have a better quality of life.
My other amendments, 33, 34 and 35, deal with an important issue. I
am on the Committee on Science and am well aware of the opportunity for
dealing with these issues in the Committee on Science. I would say that
we have done a very good job of that, but I have found that there is a
great importance and great need for engaging our Historically Black
Colleges and our Hispanic Serving Institutions in the important work
that NASA does. The NASA space grant program is a program authorized by
Congress in 1987 designed to increase the understanding, assessment,
development and use of aeronautics and space resources. My interest is
ensuring that this program has the dollars to be able to collaborate
with those colleges.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment to this section of
the bill H.R. 2620, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations for FY
2002.
I am requesting an increase in NASA Space Grant Progam. The NASA
Space Grant program is a program, authorized by Congress in 1987,
designed to increase the understanding, assessment, development, and
use of aeronautics and space resources. All 50 states, Puerto Rico, and
the District of Columbia have Space Grant Consortium programs in which
more than 700 affiliates participate. These consortia form a network of
colleges and universities, industry, state/local governments, and
nonprofit organizations with interests in aerospace research, training,
and education. This amendment is for an increase of $8.9 million to the
existing FY 2002 budget request. This increase would bring the existing
budget from $19.1 million to $28 million.
I ask that my colleagues support me in this amendment.
In addition, I am particularly interested in the minority university
research and education program that emphasizes the partnership awards
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's investment in
collaboration with Historically Black Colleges and other minority
universities. Even today we find that there is a dearth of trained
minorities in the sciences. We have always talked about the importance
of math and science in our elementary and secondary schools. It is
equally important to establish criteria and curricula in our colleges
to be able to network, if you will, with the kind of disciplines and
employment needs that we have in the particular industry. These
research grants that I would have asked for more money for would have
provided that increased opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment to this section of
the bill H.R. 2620, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations for FY
2002.
I am requesting an increase in the NASA Minority University Research
and Education Program (MUREP). MUREP is a program that focuses
primarily on expanding and advancing NASA's scientific and
technological base through collaborative efforts with Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Other Minority Universities
(OMUs), including Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and Tribal
Colleges and Universities (TCU).
NASA's outreach to Minority Institutions (MI) in FY 2002 will build
upon the prior years' investments in MI research and academia
infrastructure by expanding NASA's research base; contributing to the
science, engineering and technology pipeline; and promoting educational
excellence in all MUREP. These contributions include the education of a
more diverse resource proof of scientific and technical personnel who
will be well prepared to confront the technological challenges to
benefit NASA and the Nation.
The strategic goals of this program are to (1) Foster research and
development activities at MI's which contribute substantially to NASA's
mission; (2) to create systemic and sustainable change at MI's through
partnerships and programs that enhance research and education outcomes
in NASA-related fields; (3) to prepare faculty and students at MI's to
successfully participate in the conventional, competitive research and
education process; and (4) To increase the number of students served by
MI's to enter college and successfully pursue and complete degrees in
NASA-related fields.
This amendment is for an increase of $58 million to the existing FY
2002 budget request. This increase would bring the budget up from $82.1
million to $140.1 million.
I ask my colleagues support me in this amendment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, might I say in amendment 35, that amendment
has to do with the National Science Foundation education and human
resources which goes, again, to the point of training young scientists
and engineers, creating new knowledge and developing cutting-edge
technology that would fuel the economic prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment to this section of
the bill H.R. 2620, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations for FY
2002.
I am requesting an increase in the National Science Foundation (NSF).
NSF supports the nation's future and trains young scientists and
engineers, creates new knowledge, and develop cutting-edge tools that
together will fuel economic prosperity and increase social well-being
in the years ahead. NSF will provide leadership in the President's Math
and Science Partnership, and sustained investments in NSF's core
programming will contribute to progress across science and engineering.
The productivity of the U.S. scientific and engineering community--the
fruits of which can be seen in the information technology,
communications, and biotechnology industries--depends critically on NSF
support of fundamental research.
This amendment proposes a 15 percent increase in NSF's budget over FY
2001, rather than the administration's proposed 1 percent. This
amendment is for an increase of $662 million. This increase would bring
the FY 2002 budget up to $5.1 billion.
I ask that my colleagues support me in this amendment.
The more people we have in this Nation from all walks of life
understanding science, understanding technology, being able to create
the new leverage for energy technology, space technology, health
technology, I believe this Nation is better off. My amendments have
that intent, and certainly I would hope that the chairman would see the
interest that I have in science and particularly the interest that I
have in, if nothing else, revising or looking at the section 8 program
so that those individuals, as I move to housing, those individuals that
want to get into section 8, that is a voucher to allow you to live in
rental property, dispersed around the community, not necessarily in one
area, enhancing your quality of life would do so.
I thank the chairman for allowing me to present this argument on the
floor of the House, and I thank the ranking member as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to reserve a point of order.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has time reserved. I think
we best allow her to close before I insist on my point of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me simply say that what I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is to
have the opportunity to withdraw these amendments. I would like to be
able to have the gentleman from New York speak and yield to me to ask a
question.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Is the gentlewoman
prepared to withdraw the amendments?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am interested in withdrawing the
amendments, yes. What my general question is, as the gentleman knows,
one of my amendments deals with section 8 housing which I know this
committee has worked very hard on. The other amendments have to do with
technology and Historically Black Colleges and minority colleges and
the importance of those institutions having access to technical
training. My simple question would be is that this subcommittee on
appropriations, VA, HUD and other agencies, has in its mind and in its
focus that these issues will remain important issues as we move toward
finalizing this bill and that these issues are important in the
committee and will not be forgotten, if you will.

[[Page H4823]]

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for continuing to yield. I think
in this bill, we have really made an effort to make sure that
Historically Black Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions and other
minority programs are part of the focus of the National Science
Foundation. I think there has been some criticism, and it is somewhat
due, that the larger, better established research institutions around
the country, the colleges, have benefited substantially. Certainly the
country has benefited from that research, also.
But there has been a tradition on this subcommittee, beginning with
Chairman Lou Stokes, to make sure that some of these resources are
provided, that we encourage those institutions that I mentioned to
expand their research capacity. I know the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan) has been a strong and consistent voice for these, also.
We will always do that, and we would always welcome the gentlewoman's
input as to whether or not we are meeting the goals that we have set.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The remaining time
is controlled by the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding. I believe we can all work together for these
important issues. Training of our young people; providing funding for
these colleges is very important; housing is very important. With that
as I had asked, I hoped that we would waive the point of order, but I
think it is more important for us to find common ground.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
colleague's amendment to appropriate an additional $662 million for the
National Science Foundation's education and human resources account, to
be used for training young scientists and engineers.
There is a pressing need for this level of funding, particularly as
it relates to minority scientists and engineers. Recent reports have
cited the ``brain drain'' as our current pool of scientists and
engineers prepare to retire. Furthermore, it is clear that America's
youth are not being prepared to pursue the rigorous disciplines
associated with the hard sciences. American students perform comparably
to other children in foreign countries in math and science until they
reach the fourth grade level. However, there is a serious drop-off in
their achievement and competitiveness in later years.
For minority students the case is even worse. Funding the NSF with
increased resources will prepare communities and our nation to respond
to the intellectual and real world challenges that await the engineers
and scientists of the future. I urge my House colleagues to vote yes on
this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw these four amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendments are withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 36 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 54, after line 6, insert the following new section:
Sec. 208. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are
revised by increasing the aggregate amount made available for
``Public and Indian Housing--housing certificate fund'',
increasing the amount specified under such item for
incremental vouchers under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, reducing the amount specified under such
item for rescission from unobligated balances remaining from
funds previously appropriated to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, increasing the amount made available
for ``Community Planning and Development--community
development fund'', and increasing the amount specified under
such item for the community development block grant program,
by $100,000,000, $100,000,000, $324,000,000, $224,000,000,
and $224,000,000, respectively.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of July 27, 2001, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. Let me explain the purpose of this amendment, which is to
add dollars, $100 million, to increase the community block grant
programs. This goes to a continuing issue that we are confronted with
in Houston, Texas, based upon the devastation of Tropical Storm
Allison.
First of all, let me rise in support of the $1.3 billion that the
committee has put in for additional funds for FEMA. Let me thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for protecting those dollars. We are in
desperate need around the country. There are 31 disaster sites around
the country. We do not know how many more may come about, because we
are in hurricane season. I thank them particularly for the recovery
that Houston is going through.
What we are beginning to face is a shortage of housing because many
people are facing the determination or the assessment of the condition
of their homes as to whether or not they can be built or rebuilt or
not. We are in what we call the ``buyout program'' that FEMA has which
requires a complicated process of percentages of whether or not your
house has been damaged or not damaged and whether or not you can have
the opportunity to rebuild your house. In many instances, there is a
need for down payment dollars or dollars to initiate the program. The
programs are being designed at this point by Harris County government,
and the city of Houston is assessing their status as to whether or not
they will be participating in the buyout program. I simply wanted to
have enough dollars for flexibility in this community development block
grant program that if the city were to engage in participating in these
programs, it would have the dollars to do so, any cities, to do so.
My amendment provides for funding so that the many disaster areas
that may have lost housing and have to participate in a buyout program
would have the resources through the flexibility of the community
development and buyout program.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that provides $50 million
in funding for the Housing and Urban Development's Community Block
Grant program from the HUD Section 8 Housing Certificate Fund.
As many of you know, last month Tropical Storm Allison ravaged our
nation from Texas to the Northeast. This storm has been particularly
hard on the residents of Harris County and the city of Houston.
Although words cannot even begin to describe adequately the destruction
of Houston and its surrounding areas, I will attempt to describe for
you some of the havoc that the storm has wreaked.
The more than three feet of rain that fell on the Houston area
beginning June 6 has caused at least 23 deaths in the Houston area and
as many as fifty deaths in six states. Over 10,000 people have been
left at least temporarily homeless during the flooding, many with no
immediate hope of returning to their homes. More than 56,000 residents
in 30 counties have registered for federal disaster assistance. The
damage estimates in Harris County, Texas alone are $4.88 billion and
may yet increase.
Some of the most hard hit areas include the University of Houston,
Texas Southern University, and the Kashmere Gardens neighborhood, a
Houston enclave that is predominantly low income and possesses the
fewest resources needed to bounce back from this once in a lifetime
event.
The devastation of single family, mobile homes and multi family homes
is almost unbelievable. It is estimated that in the city of Houston,
1,067 were destroyed, 5,098 need major repairs and 24,182 need minor
repairs, for a total of 30,347 homes affected. In Harris County, it is
estimated that 2,429 homes were destroyed, 4,545 need major repairs and
6,826 need minor repairs, for a total of 13,800.
Of the multi-family housing units in the city, 56 units were utterly
destroyed, 150 need major repair and 672 need minor repairs. All
totaled, over 3,500 homes were destroyed and nearly 10,000 need major
repairs.
FEMA is bringing in trailers as temporary housing for some of those
who are now homeless. A new staging site for travel trailers has been
secured, and FEMA has received 441 travel trailers. There are currently
138 travel trailers occupied. I met with FEMA several weeks ago to
request this relief for the multitudes of Houstonians that have been
left

[[Page H4824]]

temporarily homeless. These temporary housing trailers, which will be
an integral part of FEMA's temporary housing program, are being located
at either the severely damaged homes of flood victims or at commercial
mobile home parks in and around Houston. The city of Houston will ease
permit provisions for these trailers.

The city and county are working diligently with FEMA and SBA to
provide grants and loans for home buyout and repair. However, these
funds fall short of what the county and city need to help its
residents.
For example, through its buyout program, called the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program, FEMA provides only government entities 75 percent of the
buyout expense. Harris County and Houston must pay the rest, as the
state of Texas has declined to lend financial assistance toward this
effort. Further, the total eligible buyout funds are only 15 percent of
FEMA's estimated total disaster costs.
Moreover, after closing costs and moving expenses, the local
governments' buyout share may end up closer to half of all expenses for
buyouts. Estimates are that the repair and buyout of homes may cost
$200 million or more. The local governments and low and moderate-income
residents will scarcely have the resources to meet their expenses.
FEMA does also provide a limited source of funds to individuals and
families to be used not only for essential home repair, but also to
purchase destroyed clothing and other needed personal property, as well
as to meet necessary medical, dental, transportation, and even funeral
expenses. However, the average grant is only five to six thousand
dollars, hardly enough in many cases to achieve the recovery that is
needed. Therefore, I seek additional HUD Community Development Block
Grant funds to be used to help supplement our local governments meet
their obligations to their residents in need.
CDBG provides eligible metropolitan cities and urban counties with
annual direct grants that they can use to revitalize neighborhoods,
expand affordable housing and economic opportunities, and/or improve
community facilities and services, principally to benefit low- and
moderate-income persons.
Since 1974 CDBG has been the backbone of improvement efforts in many
communities, providing a flexible source of annual grant funds for
local governments nationwide-funds that they, with the participation of
local citizens, can devote to the activities that best serve their own
particular development priorities, provided that these projects either
(1) benefit low- and moderate-income persons; (2) prevent or eliminate
slums or blight; or (3) meet other urgent community development needs.
The CDBG Entitlement Communities Program provides this Federal
assistance to almost 1000 of the largest localities in the country.
As one of the Nation's largest Federal grant programs, the impact of
CDBG-funded projects can be seen in the housing stock, the business
environment, the streets and the public facilities of these entitlement
communities. The rehabilitation of affordable housing has traditionally
been the largest single use of CDBG funds.
Recipients of CDBG entitlement funds include local governments with
50,000 or more residents, other local government designated as central
cities of metropolitan areas, and urban counties with populations of at
least 200,000 (excluding the population of entitled cities). Local
governments may carry out all activities themselves or award some or
all of the funds to private or public nonprofit organizations as well
as for-profit entities.
Low and moderate-income persons, generally defined as members of a
family earning no more than 80 percent of the area median income,
benefit most directly and most often from CDBG-funded activities.
Grantees must use at least 70 percent of CDBG funds for activities that
principally benefit low- and moderate-income persons. This includes
activities where either the majority of direct beneficiaries such as
housing rehabilitation low- or moderate-income persons.
Grantees may use CDBG funds for activities that include acquiring
real property (primarily land, buildings, and other permanent
improvements to the property) for public purposes. This type of
activity might include, for example, buying abandoned houses for
rehabilitation or an old industrial site in a distressed neighborhood
for redevelopment. CDBG also helps communities demolish property and
clear sites to prepare the land for other uses.
These funds can also be used for reconstructing or rehabilitating
housing and other property from homeless shelters to single-family
homes and from playgrounds to shopping centers, CDBG enables
communities to improve properties that have become less usable, whether
due to age, neglect, natural disaster, or changing needs.
The committee has recommended a rescission of $886 million for the
Section 8 Housing Certificate Fund, stating that it is one of several
programs that has built up a substantial balance of unspent funds. It
is attempting to take these funds out of HUD until the programs spend
the funds it has on hand. Well, I say, let HUD keep these funds and put
them to a desperately needed use. This amendment will merely put those
funds to a direly needed use.
Hence, I will be requesting in conference that this CDBG money be
earmarked for the desperate needs of the homes devastated by Tropical
Storm Allison, particularly in Houston and Harris County.
The people of Houston have made extraordinary efforts and acts of
heroism during this disaster, as we recognized when we passed H. Res.
166 by a vote of 411-0. Houston contributes significantly to our
national economy, as energy capital of the nation and a renowned center
for medical care, and scientific and academic research. FEMA and SBA's
efforts have been praiseworthy, contributing significant financial
assistance and other much needed support. But to return to our
potential, Houston needs to know that Congress continues to support its
recovery. Although I look forward to this Chamber supporting
Representative Delay's request for $1.3 billion in emergency
contingency funding for FEMA, even if we approve these funds, their
release would still be up to the administration.
The flood has devastated us emotionally, physically and financially.
To return to our potential, we still need help. Houston needs to know
that Congress continues to recognize. Now, it is our turn to continue
to make sure that we do our share to help them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just briefly, the subcommittee has done its level best to provide
additional section 8 housing vouchers. In fact, we have 34,000 new
section 8 vouchers in the bill. As we have discussed earlier, this is a
very tight allocation. There are really very few other places to go
within the bill to move money from one account to another.
Since this increase certainly is well intended but there is no offset
provided, I would obviously continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1930

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
In conclusion, this is such an important issue for us, I totally
agree and believe that the committee has been as fair as it can
possibly be. I would argue that there is such an emergency and such a
need for assistance in this housing program and giving flexibility in
additional dollars, I would argue and ask that the point of order be
waived and the amendment be allowed to go forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2002 on July 26, 2001,
House Report 107-165. This amendment would provide new budget authority
in excess of the subcommittee allocation made under section 302(b) and
is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)
desire to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, my simple point on this amendment is that I think it is
important that the idea of being able to assist flood victims is only
at this time. I appreciate the fact that we have received additional
dollars in FEMA. The housing represents an enormous crisis. Simply, Mr.
Chairman, I would ask that the point of order be considered waived in
light of the emergency nature of the request.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget
Act by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that an amendment
providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would
cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority.

[[Page H4825]]

The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas would increase
the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such,
the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is sustained, the amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

American Battle Monuments Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official
motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of
such countries, $30,466,000, to remain available until
expended.
For the partial cost of construction of a new interpretive
and visitor center at the American Cemetery in Normandy,
France, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the Commission shall ensure that the
placement, scope and character of this new center protect the
solemnity of the site and the sensitivity of interested
parties including families of servicemen interred at the
cemetery, the host country and Allied forces who participated
in the invasion and ensuing battle: Provided further, That
not more than $1,000,000 shall be for non-construction
related costs including initial consultations with interested
parties and the conceptual study and design of the new
center.

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant
to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
including hire of passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem equivalent to the
maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5
U.S.C. 5376, $8,000,000, $5,500,000 of which to remain
available until September 30, 2002 and $2,500,000 of which to
remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board shall have not
more than three career Senior Executive Service positions:
Provided further, That, hereafter, there shall be an
Inspector General at the Board who shall have the duties,
responsibilities, and authorities specified in the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended: Provided further, That an
individual appointed to the position of Inspector General of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shall, by
virtue of such appointment, also hold the position of
Inspector General of the Board: Provided further, That the
Inspector General of the Board shall utilize personnel of the
Office of Inspector General of FEMA in performing the duties
of the Inspector General of the Board, and shall not appoint
any individuals to positions within the Board.

Department of the Treasury

Community Development Financial Institutions

fund program account

To carry out the Community Development Banking and
Financial Institutions Act of 1994, including services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for ES-3,
$80,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003, of
which $500,000 shall be for technical assistance and training
programs designed to benefit Native American communities, and
up to $8,948,000 may be used for administrative expenses,
including administration of the New Markets Tax Credit, up to
$6,000,000 may be used for the cost of direct loans, and up
to $1,000,000 may be used for administrative expenses to
carry out the direct loan program: Provided, That the cost of
direct loans, including the cost of modifying such loans,
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided further, That these
funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for the
principal amount of direct loans not to exceed $15,000,000.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles,
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
maximum rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5376, purchase of nominal
awards to recognize non-Federal officials' contributions to
Commission activities, and not to exceed $500 for official
reception and representation expenses, $54,200,000.

Corporation for National and Community Service

National and Community Service Programs

Operating Expenses

Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law
106-377, the Corporation for National and Community Service
shall use such amounts of such funds as may be necessary to
carry out the orderly termination of the programs,
activities, and initiatives under the National Community
Service Act of 1990 (Public Law 103-82) and the Corporation:
Provided, that such sums shall be utilized to resolve all
responsibilities and obligations in connection with said
Corporation.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 30 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
In title III, under the heading ``national and community
service programs operating expenses''--
(1) strike ``orderly termination of the''; and
(2) strike the proviso at the end.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of July 27, 2001,
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it seems this evening that I am speaking a lot about
the impact of Tropical Storm Allison in the Houston area and throughout
Texas, but also as it has impacted Louisiana, the Southeastern Coast
and many other States. We see now in the State of West Virginia that
there has been extensive flooding over the last couple of days.
The reason why I rise is to present this amendment to ensure that
there will be no language in this legislation that would suggest that
the Corporation of National Service would be dismantled.
First of all, I believe that all of us are aware of the Corporation
of National Service, the AmeriCorps volunteers. They are in our
communities every single day. As I went about Houston during the
initial days of the flood, and we were opening Red Cross centers and
what we call DRCs, the recovery centers organized by FEMA, the
complimentary volunteers that were there were the AmeriCorps young
people and National Service Corporation individuals who were there
every single day helping the flood victims.
As I noted to you, we have got about $4.88 billion in damage, and
growing. Over 20,000 homes that have been damaged. But I have seen
AmeriCorps working in many other capacities, in classrooms, daycare
centers, cleaning up parks, working side-by-side with the respected
citizens of the respective areas they are in.
This amendment is a very simple one and asks that we not consider
this agency to be one dismantled and to be able to provide the support
for the agency that I would hope all of us would desire to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) seek time
in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment. I
do seek to control the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) will control 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this AmeriCorps, similar to how the program has been
handled in the last several years, the House has come into this bill
without funding for AmeriCorps. It has been resolved in conference each
time with funding being provided. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that that is
the way that this issue will be resolved again this year.
The President has spoken in support of AmeriCorps. There are many
advocates for the program within the House and in the Senate. The
language that the gentlewoman deals with in the bill would strike
language that deals with

[[Page H4826]]

the elimination or the phasing-out of the AmeriCorps program. I do not
think that that is necessary within the bill because of recent history,
the fact that AmeriCorps is ultimately funded in conference.
So, assuming that that will happen, there is no need for that
language. I think it is a positive amendment, it has no deleterious
effect on the bill, and, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, we are prepared
to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Corporation for National Service
changes lives. It gets people of all ages to volunteer, and, as they
volunteer, to improve the lives of others. While they are doing that,
they improve their own lives. At the same time, the corporation
volunteer program fills unmet local community needs.
In my district, the sixth district of California, AmeriCorps
volunteers are reading tutors in Larkspur; students from Sonoma State
University volunteer for a Vista program in Rohnert Park; AmeriCorps
sponsors a multi-cultural alliance and teacher fellowship program in
Ross, California; and seniors in Sonoma County donate their time and
wisdom through the local Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, RSVP.
We have been lucky to get assistance also from California Statewide
AmeriCorps programs. Last summer, AmeriCorps volunteers from Los
Angeles came to my district and spent a week clearing the property
around the historic Carrillo Adobe. They have done so much. They
contribute so much.
Forty other volunteers assisted at the Redwood Empire Food Bank. But
the Corporation for National Service and AmeriCorps aren't important
only for the good they do in our communities, or for the experiences of
the individual volunteers. At a time when too many Americans are
defined by their differences, the Corporation for National Service, and
AmeriCorps, give thousands of volunteers, and the communities where
they serve, an opportunity to meet across the barriers of education,
race, and income, to work together for a common good. The corporation
for National Service is one of this Nation's best investments in a
future of good citizens, and we should be supporting it, not trying to
eliminate it.
Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the chairman agree with the sponsor
of this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her
leadership in working with the program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rise and compliment the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for this amendment. It brings
to the attention of the body the fact that in this bill this account,
the Corporation for National and Community Service, was not funded. It
also gives us an opportunity to express our support for it. The
chairman, I know, is very supportive of this program and has in the
past taken the lead in making sure it was restored in conference.
The simple fact is, and I want to assure the gentlewoman for the
chairman, that there was an outlay problem in this bill. The Senate has
more outlays than we do, $300 million. We have fewer outlays than the
Senate, so this program was not funded, because it was known that it
would be supported in conference.
I would like to say that the chairman, as I stated earlier, has taken
the lead in restoring this in the past; and I have all the confidence
in the world that he will in the future. He is extremely supportive of
community service.
The corporation funds some wonderful programs; AmeriCorps, Points of
Light, it funds at $10 million; Youth Life foundation, it funds at $1.5
million; America's Promise, it funds at $7.5 million; Communities in
Schools, $5 million; and Boys and Girls Clubs at $2.5 million.
These are very worthwhile programs targeted to our youth principally,
and they certainly merit our support and the funding. However, more
funding certainly could be used in these areas. This program is an
excellent program for focusing in on our youth and funding worthwhile
programs that are working to ensure that we support organizations that
get them off on the right foot.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Chairman, I will close by simply saying this is like the domestic
Peace Corps. I thank the chairman and ranking member. I think all
Americans support this volunteer effort, helping our young people to be
part of the volunteer spirit, similar to the Peace Corps. I believe
these are very vital programs. I hope my colleagues will support us,
and I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment to this section of
the bill H.R. 2620, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations for FY
2002.
It has been the habit of this House to appropriate little or no funds
for the Community of National Service and this appropriations
legislation before the House today has the same deficit. This situation
is disingenuous because those of us who remember the history of the
appropriations process understand that funding for the Community of
National Service will be funded by several hundred million dollars.
I am appreciative for the work done by this office of the Executive
Branch and know that many communities throughout the United States have
benefited from its existence. I am particularly grateful for the
assistance provided by AmeriCorps Volunteers, who were directed to the
Houston area by the Corporation of National and Community Service. The
Corporation's three major service initiatives are AmeriCorps, Learn and
Serve America and the National Senior Service Corps.
Over 200 AmeriCorps members from four regional campuses responded to
a call-up from the American Red Cross to assist victims of Tropical
Storm Allison in Texas and Louisiana. The members are serving as first-
line Family Assistance Representatives, helping families to receive
immediate aid and to identify each family's long term needs. The corps
members are also operating emergency assistance shelters, working in
soup kitchens, and delivering meals to people affected by the flooding.
Additionally, Spanish speaking members are helping translate emergency
assistance forms for people who don't speak English. The members are
working in ten emergency assistance shelters in the Houston, TX
vicinity and three shelters around Baton Rouge, LA.
Overall, the storm caused upwards of $4.88 billion in damage to
Houston and surrounding Harris Country. Over 20,000 homes were damaged
by the flooding as the storm dumped over 36 inches of rain in some
areas with some houses reporting over seven feet of water in them.
It is unfortunate that the Appropriations Committee zeroed out the
account for the Community Development Fund, when the Administration
requested $411 million in funding for FY 2002. My amendment would
restore the program and allow them to continue their work on the behalf
of communities throughout the United States.
AmeriCorps, the domestic Peace Corps engages more than 40,000
Americans in intensive, results-driven service each year. We're
teaching children to read, making neighborhoods safer, building
affordable homes, and responding to natural disasters through more than
1000 projects. Most AmeriCorps members are selected by and serve with
projects like Habitat for Humanity, the American Red Cross, and Boys
and Girls Clubs, and many more local and national Organizations. Others
serve in AmeriCorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) and
AmeriCorps*NCCC (the National Civilian Community Corps). After their
term of service, AmeriCorps members receive education awards to help
finance college or pay back student loans.
AmeriCorps is a win-win program that I hope the Rule for this
legislation will allow it to continue in its work to help make America
a better place to live. Homelessness in America continues to be a
problem that seems to lack a broad commitment to see and end to this
blight on the American Dream. Attempting to attribute homelessness to
any one cause is difficult and misleading. More often than not, it is a
combination of factors that culminates in homelessness. Sometimes these
factors are not observable or identifiable even to those who experience
them first hand (Wright, Rubin and Devine, 1998). For example, lack of
affordable housing is a factor repeatedly cited as contributing to
homelessness (Hertzberg. 1992; Johnson, 1994; Metraux and Culhane,
1999; National Coalition for the Homeless, 1999-F). However, lack of
affordable housing is often representative of a collectivity of other

[[Page H4827]]

problems. Other key factors include the inability to earn a living
wage, poverty, welfare reform, unemployment and/or domestic violence
that can combine to form a situation in which even the most basic
housing is not affordable.
The support that AmeriCorps volunteers provided to Houston area
residences must be supported by funds from the federal government in
allowing families to have homes to live in after the damaged causes by
Tropical Storm Allison. I have an amendment that increases funds for
HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program to be used as matching
funds for home repair and buyout for Harris County and the City of
Houston citizens who have been displaced by Tropical Storm Allison.
In time of great difficulty the Corporation of National Service has
been there to assist citizens of our nation to put their lives back
into order. It is time that this House stop using the Corporation of
National Service as a budget gimmick to hide the fact that the VA-HUD
appropriations legislation that will pass is in fact in violation of
the budget agreement reached by the House earlier this year.
This is the reason why we must revisit many fiscal issues as they
relate to our nation's surplus and its obligations. I ask that my
colleagues support me in removing language from this bill, which gives
the false impression that this office will be discontinued.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, we are prepared to accept the
gentlewoman's amendment. We believe it is constructive.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $5,000,000, which shall be available for obligation
through September 30, 2003.

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by
38 U.S.C. 7251-7298, $13,221,000, of which $895,000 shall be
available for the purpose of providing financial assistance
as described, and in accordance with the process and
reporting procedures set forth, under this heading in Public
Law 102-229.

Department of Defense--Civil

Cemeterial Expenses, Army

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery,
including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $22,537,000, to remain
available until expended.

Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

national institute of environmental health sciences

For necessary expenses for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set
forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended, $70,228,000.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set
forth in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), as amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, $78,235,000, to be derived from the
Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund pursuant to section
517(a) of SARA (26 U.S.C. 9507): Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, in lieu of
performing a health assessment under section 104(i)(6) of
CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may conduct other
appropriate health studies, evaluations, or activities,
including, without limitation, biomedical testing, clinical
evaluations, medical monitoring, and referral to accredited
health care providers: Provided further, That in performing
any such health assessment or health study, evaluation, or
activity, the Administrator of ATSDR shall not be bound by
the deadlines in section 104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be available for ATSDR to issue in excess of 40
toxicological profiles pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA
during fiscal year 2002, and existing profiles may be updated
as necessary.

Environmental Protection Agency

Science and Technology

For science and technology, including research and
development activities, which shall include research and
development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs
and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate
payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376;
procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other
operating expenses in support of research and development;
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project,
$680,410,000, which shall remain available until September
30, 2003.

Environmental Programs and Management

For environmental programs and management, including
necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel
and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5
U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints;
library memberships in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members; construction,
alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of
facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; and not to
exceed $6,000 for official reception and representation
expenses, $2,014,799,000, which shall remain available until
September 30, 2003.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Capps

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

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mrs. Capps:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency--environmental programs and management'',
after the last dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $7,200,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency--leaking underground storage tank trust
fund'', after the last dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $7,200,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of July 27, 2001,
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase by $7.2 million Federal
efforts to clean up leaking underground storage tanks. The amendment
pays for this increase by cutting the same amount from the EPA's
Environmental Programs and Management Account. It is my intention that
this funding would come from the Regional Management Programs, which
has been increased by nearly $20 million under the bill.
I am offering this amendment with the hope that we can increase our
attention to the problem that MTBE contamination is causing to drinking
water across this country. While I cannot, under the rules of the
House, specify that this funding be used for MTBE cleanup, it is my
hope the House will send a clear message that we want to do something
about this huge problem.
MTBE is a fuel additive designed to reduce the production of smog by
increasing the burning efficiency of gasoline. Unfortunately, due to
its unique properties, MTBE has become one of the leading water
contamination problems in the United States. MTBE makes water smell and
taste like turpentine, even at very low levels, and has resulted in the
closing of important drinking water supplies all across the country.
For example, in my district, the coastal town of Cambria, California,
is facing a real calamity. MTBE contamination has shut down two
municipal drinking water wells the Community Services District has used
as back-up sources during dry seasons and droughts.

{time} 1945

The district has spent more than $1 million to research the problem.

[[Page H4828]]

Cambria is also considering the addition of a desalinization plant to
ensure an adequate supply of drinking water, and that will cost
millions more.
In fact, there are 38 MTBE contaminated sites in San Luis Obispo
County and another 86 in Santa Barbara County, both in my district.
However, Mr. Chairman, MTBE contaminated drinking water is a huge
problem not just in my district, but across the country. Santa Monica,
California has lost about 80 percent of its drinking supply and spends
a quarter of a million dollars per year buying replacement supplies.
The South Tahoe Public Utility District has shut down 13 of its 34
drinking water wells due to MTBE contamination. Twenty-one of
Wisconsin's 71 counties have detected MTBE in groundwater in potable
wells. In Iowa, it has been detected in 23 percent of urban alluvial
wells. In Maryland, over 149 domestic public water systems are
contaminated by MTBE, and the list goes on and on.
Owners and operators of underground tanks are responsible for
cleanup, and that is where the responsibility should lie. But the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust fund provides additional cleanup
resources, especially when no responsible party can be found or when
the responsible party is no longer viable.
It may also be used to enforce corrective actions and recover costs
spent from the fund for cleanup activities. Funded by one-tenth of a
cent tax per gallon of gasoline, this LUST fund is a backstop to ensure
prompt and appropriate cleanup of leaking tanks. This tax is bringing
in close to $190 million this year. Mr. Chairman, at the end of fiscal
year 2002, the administration expects the balance in the LUST fund to
be nearly $2 billion. The interest on this balance is bringing the
trust fund another $87 million, yet the bill before us appropriates
only $72 million to support communities in their efforts to clean up
leaking tanks. That is $96,000 less than we appropriated last year, and
that is about $15 million less than the interest we expect to earn on
the trust fund balance this year.
Mr. Chairman, I think we can do better than that. The American people
pay taxes on gasoline and other fuels, in part to ensure that these
underground tanks are not polluting their drinking water, so we should
use those funds for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, last week the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously
adopted my amendment to authorize up to $200 million out of the LUST
fund for MTBE inspections and cleanup. We took this action because MTBE
contamination is presenting a real problem to thousands of communities
across this country. My amendment today is only a small step toward
addressing those cleanup needs when we should be taking a giant leap.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I am not in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise actually in support of the gentlewoman's
amendment and am prepared to accept it for our bill.
This is a good idea. It is a little tough on the Environmental
Protection Agency because it will have to find these funds out of
existing appropriated funds but, at the same time, it shows that the
Congress considers this issue a very high priority. I know members of
the subcommittee, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen), has spoken long and strong in favor of doing a better,
more aggressive job on leaking underground storage tanks, and
especially with this issue of MTBE, which pollutes our drinking water.
This amendment would also provide funds to orphaned sites where the
owner cannot be located or otherwise cannot be identified.
Mr. Chairman, this is a serious problem. Communities all over the
country worry about this issue and suffer from this issue, and we need
to do a vigilant job in protecting our groundwater supplies which, once
they are polluted, can be next to impossible to abate the problem.
So I support the gentlewoman's amendment and am prepared to accept
it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say how much I appreciate the
support of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Pallone

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

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Pallone:
In the item relating to ``Environmental Protection Agency--
environmental programs and management'', after the aggregate
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$3,000,000)''.
In the item relating to ``Environmental Protection Agency--
state and tribal assistance grants'', after the 1st and 7th
dollar amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by
$3,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of July 27, 2001,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, that this is a bipartisan
amendment. It is sponsored by myself and the gentlemen from New Jersey
(Mr. Saxton) and (Mr. Smith), my two colleagues on the Republican side.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, Congress unanimously passed the Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act; it is also known as
the Beaches Act. The Beaches Act established consistent water quality
standards for beach water and provides grants to help States develop
and implement water quality testing and notification programs to warn
the public about unsafe conditions at our Nation's beaches.
The reason we needed the Beaches Act and why it is so important is
because beach waters are often contaminated by pathogens, which are
disease-causing bacteria and viruses found in human and animal wastes
from polluted runoffs, storm drains, sewer overflows and malfunctioning
septic systems. These pathogens can cause ear, nose and throat
infections, dysentery, hepatitis. The risks of infections are higher
for children, the elderly, and those with weak immune systems.
Just as an example, Mr. Chairman, during 1999, there were more than
6,000 beach closings and advisories posted at U.S. beaches. Since 1988,
more than 36,000 beach closures and health advisories have been issued
across the Nation, but only 11 States regularly monitor most or all of
their beaches and notify the public. One of the reasons why this
amendment is sponsored by three Members from New Jersey is because we
had New Jersey as an example of the type of monitoring, and we used
this as an example in trying to get this bill passed last year.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge my colleagues to support this
amendment. It increases EPA's budget by $3 million for grants to States
for beach water quality testing and notification. Last year, Congress
unanimously passed the Beaches Act, and the Beaches Act authorizes $30
million in EPA grants. However, even though it authorizes $30 million,
I think the President recommended only $2 million. The committee was
generous in increasing it to $7 million. But we really think that a lot
more money is needed and, if we are able to increase this by $3 million
to $10 million, it would really make a big difference.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just say a few more things. In some ways, I
see it almost as an unfunded mandate, that now we are asking States to
do all of these things, but we are not providing them with enough
money, and that is why I think this amendment is very important. I
should also mention that there are 23 national and regional
organizations, environmental groups representing millions of Americans
who support this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4829]]

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I am not in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey and his
colleagues from New Jersey who have led this fight to provide
additional funds. This is a brand new program. It was authorized just
last year, called the Beach Act. It is very popular legislation, it is
important legislation, and it is clear that the subcommittee considered
it a priority. It was authorized at a $2 million level. We added $5
million to raise funding to $7 million, and this amendment would add
another $3 million, bringing a brand new program a fivefold increase in
its first year. That is a pretty good test of the popularity and the
importance of the program.
The funds, however, will have to come out of the Environmental
Protection Agency's State Travel Assistance Grants. Those are very
competitive funds. There is strong support and demand on those funds by
Members for projects within their districts. So this will put somewhat
of a hardship not only on EPA, but also on some of the Members'
projects. But this is, we think, an acceptable amendment and we are
prepared to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to just thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his support and the
statement that he made. I understand the limitations under which the
subcommittee is living and the problem with the offset, but I do
appreciate the fact that he, first of all, was willing to increase the
amount from what the President recommended and now also go along with
this amendment.
So with that, I thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just a note of clarification; I misspoke.
The funding comes out of the Environmental Programs and Management
Fund, which is EPA's fund and goes into the State Travel Assistance
Grant. The gentleman understood clearly that I was in sport of his
amendment. I am in support of it. We accept it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my
strong support for the Pallone-Saxton-Smith Amendment, which seeks an
additional $3 million to the EPA budget for enhancing beach water
monitoring programs. These programs are authorized under the BEACH Act
(Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000),
signed last year as Public Law 106-284.
Beach water monitoring programs are critical to the health of the
millions of people who swim in our oceans. Since 1988, more than 36,000
beaches have been closed due to contaminated water. During 1999 alone,
more than 6,000 beaches were closed because beach waters were found
contaminated with pathogens, or disease-causing bacteria and viruses.
Pathogens are found in human and animal waste from polluted runoff,
storm drains, sewer overflows and malfunctioning septic systems. When
swimmers are unknowingly exposed to these pathogens, they can become
sick from a whole host of diseases--gastroenteritis, dysentery, and
hepatitis among others. Children, who frequent our beaches, are among
the highest at risk because their immune systems are not as fully
developed.
If we do not take action to keep our shores safe and clean, the dream
of a family vacation can become a nightmare of disease and illness.
Many of these pathogens are invisible and undetectable to the naked
eye. Without testing, there is no way of knowing if beach waters are
too contaminated for swimming, surfing, and other recreational
activities.
Yet, until last year, no national standards were in place to monitor
beaches for pathogen contamination to ensure the water is safe. As a
result, Congress unanimously passed the BEACH Act (P.L. 106-284) to
establish consistent water quality standards for our beaches. The bill
also provides grants to help states develop and implement water quality
testing and notification programs about unsafe conditions at our
beaches.
The fact of the matter is that our beaches are national assets that
deserve national protection. Just like our national parks, our beaches
are not enjoyed solely by those who live near them. In fact, just the
opposite is true: our beaches are visited by tens of millions of people
from all over the country. Foreign tourists come from all parts of the
globe to visit our coasts and beaches, including the Jersey Shore.
Our nation's beaches contribute heavily to our national economy--four
times as many people visit our nation's beaches each year than visit
all of our National Parks combined. And yet Congress provides copious
funding for national parks--as it should. It is estimated that 75% of
Americans will spend some portion of their vacation at the beach this
year. Beaches are the most popular destination for foreign visitors to
our country as well. The amount of money spent by beach-going tourists
creates an extensive economic benefit--a portion of which goes back to
the Federal government in the form of income and payroll taxes.
Clean and safe beaches are not just good public health policy, clean
beaches are also good for the economy. In my State of New Jersey, in
1999, tourism brought $27.7 billion to the state--out of the 167
million trips made to New Jersey in 1999, 101 million were to the Shore
area.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all members of Congress to support the Pallone-
Saxton-Smith Amendment which adds an additional $3 million to the EPA
budget for beach water monitoring programs, for a total of $10 million
to states and localities to monitor pathogen contamination. Because, a
trip to the beach should not result in a trip to the hospital.
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. Pallone).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration,
repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to
exceed $75,000 per project, $34,019,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2003.

Buildings and Facilities

For construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of,
or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency,
$25,318,000, to remain available until expended.

Hazardous Substance Superfund

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project;
$1,270,000,000 (of which $100,000,000 shall not become
available until September 1, 2002) to remain available until
expended, consisting of $635,000,000, as authorized by
section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law
101-508, and $635,000,000 as a payment from general revenues
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as
authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended: Provided,
That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated
to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a)
of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
under this heading, $11,867,000 shall be transferred to the
``Office of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain
available until September 30, 2003, and $36,891,000 shall be
transferred to the ``Science and technology'' appropriation
to remain available until September 30, 2003.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Barcia

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

Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Barcia:
Page 62, line 21, after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $140,000,000)''.
Page 64, line 5, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $140,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I are
offering today is a simple one. It would provide funding for an
authorized grant program that has the potential to benefit communities
in every district across this country. These communities are currently
struggling with the pervasive and devastating problem of sewer
overflows from both combined and sanitary sewer systems. Sewer overflow
control programs are often the largest public works projects that
communities will face.

[[Page H4830]]

The amendment itself is a mere down payment on the funding that this
body authorized in the Wet Weather Water Quality Act for fiscal year
2002, just last December. However, I am hopeful that in conference,
more money will be found to fully fund the act at the level of $750
million or, alternatively, at least at the President's budget request
of $450 million.
This amendment, which has bipartisan support, is about protecting the
health of our citizens from untreated sewage, helping communities
provide safe and clean drinking water to tens of millions of Americans,
and protecting the environment. The families, residents and businesses
who are subjected to sewer overflows nationwide deserve nothing less.
Fundamentally, this amendment is about our collective commitment to
ensuring the availability of safe, clean, potable water to communities
throughout the country.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of the Members who share that
commitment, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), my colleague
and good friend who has worked tirelessly on this issue. I appreciate
his continued leadership. I would also like to especially thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) and all of the Members who have expressed support for
fully funding the grant program. I also want to especially recognize
and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the
subcommittee, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the
ranking member, in continuing to work with us to find opportunities
like this to fund the CSO, SSO grant program.
Mr. Chairman, every community, from Seattle, Washington, to Wheeling,
West Virginia, to Syracuse, New York, to Indianapolis, Indiana, stands
to benefit from this program. I have heard from many communities, and
this is just a small representation of the communities who have written
to me expressing their strong desire to have this program fully funded.
President Bush also acknowledged the real problem facing communities
in his budget stating, ``To address Federal mandates to control the
biggest remaining municipal waste water problem, funds should be used
for the newly authorized sewer overflow control grants.''

{time} 2000

I spoke with a constituent just last week, Craig Tetreau from
Marlette, Michigan. They have a $3 million problem. Around here, $3
million may not sound like a lot of money. However, 763 families live
in the city of Marlette, and they have an annual budget of $2 million
for all city services. If they do not make the upgrades, the State has
threatened to construct the necessary upgrade at a cost of $11,000 per
household.
Similarly the village of Fairgrove, with 233 families, has $1.5
million in upgrading costs.
In Saginaw, Michigan, sewer rates jumped from $10.40 a month in 1989
to over $39 a month in 1999. Another 50 percent rate increase is
anticipated. Recently, sewer rates were 2.64 percent of the median
household income alone. This is an enormous burden for which Saginaw,
like so many other communities across the country, needs help in the
form of Federal grant funding assistance that would be provided by this
amendment.
I urge every Member to support this critically important amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will clarify that the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Barcia) was recognized for 10 minutes for this debate, and a
Member in opposition will have 10 minutes for this debate.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Barcia). We have worked very, very closely with him on a
number of issues within this bill. I know he is deeply concerned about
water quality in the Great Lakes and about the quality of drinking
water in his own community. These are things that he has worked very
hard on and cares deeply about.
But what he is asking us to do is to choose which way, almost
equivalent to asking us which way would we like to die, would we rather
be hung or burned to death. This is a tough choice.
The Superfund program is terribly important, and it is very, very
strongly supported by Members. We all know the combined sewer overflow
problem this Nation has is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We
cannot take from one and give to the other either way. We have funds
set aside for Superfund. There is not enough money, but we have done
the best we could.
There is money set aside for combined sewer overflows through the
Clean Water grants and special grants, close to $1.5 billion. It is not
enough. There is more need out there. We all understand that. But we
cannot take from Superfund $150 million, or $140 million. If we did, it
would dramatically reduce the pace of Superfund clean-ups across the
country. Every aspect of the Superfund program, but particularly the
cleanup or Response program, would be impacted, and none of the
agency's Superfund goals would be met, so the program would suffer
dramatically. Funding to State programs would be reduced; communities
would wait longer for their sites to be addressed.
I know there are a number of Members who feel very strongly about
Superfund issues. Superfund sites do a lot of damage to the land, air
and water. We have to make these projects a priority. We would lose 50
to 100 ongoing cleanup projects which would be slowed or stopped. The
EPA would be unable to start toxic waste clean-ups at dozens of
Superfund sites. Construction and completion would fall by one-third.
Up to 150 potential sites identified by States would not be evaluated
for their potential risks to human health and the environment.
So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, the Superfund program is funded at $1.2 billion, which
is barely enough. It is at the President's request, and barely enough
to cover the responsibilities which Superfund is charged to cover. We
are talking about toxic waste cleanup; we are talking about
carcinogenic substances that are real hazards to people.
I know the gentleman from Michigan had a terrible time in finding
offsets in this bill. If we try to do it, it is extremely difficult.
Even though he has gone to this account, I know he strongly supports
the Superfund program.
Having said that, the gentleman raises a very important issue here.
The funding need for water infrastructure is one of the most pressing
issues addressed in this bill. A needs survey conducted by the American
Society of Civil Engineers estimates our wastewater needs to be
approximately $12 billion annually to replace aging facilities and
comply with existing and future Federal water regulations. The funding
in this bill does not even begin to touch that need.
Controlling sewer overflows continues to be a priority mandate
imposed on communities by the EPA regulatory and enforcement programs,
and it will continue to be a financing issue that communities around
the country will have to confront.
It is terribly difficult for communities to even begin to contemplate
being able to marshall the resources to solve this problem. So I
understand the issue that the gentleman is bringing before the Congress
today. It is an important issue. I compliment him bringing it to our
attention.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) has been at the forefront of
fighting for funding for water projects and for wastewater overflow
projects, and he is to be commended for that.
However, I am reluctantly going to oppose his amendment because of
the offset that he proposes, and hope that in the future we will find
additional funds to address the very excruciating need that he brings
to our attention.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

[[Page H4831]]

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I want to voice my strong support for his amendment seeking to
provide relief for local communities that today are shouldering up to
90 percent of the burden of revamping their wastewater treatment
facilities.
The American Waterworks Association unveiled its new study that
predicts required spending of more than $250 billion over the next 30
years to take care of this problem. In the last Congress, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) led the charge in the Congress with the Wet
Weather Quality Act, together with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell). The language is included in the Labor-HHS bill over in the
Senate that provided a landmark 2-year grant program to be administered
by the EPA.
We are not alone. We had a little hearing in front of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment earlier this year, and
Administrator Whitman was in front of us. We said they have to provide
money for the State revolving loan fund and this grant money as well,
because communities cannot take it across the country.
The President put in $450 million in his budget for this program.
While I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who certainly
understands the program and the problems as well as anybody in this
Congress, the fact is that while the subcommittee has funded the State
revolving loan fund and is willing to give loans to communities, there
is no grant program in place that would take care of this problem
across the Nation.
I want to just bring up one example, not in my district, but it is in
Worcester, Massachusetts. To build a single-family home, one has to pay
a $16,000 tap-in fee. Who in this Congress, Mr. Chairman, could pay
$16,000 to flush the toilet to build a single-family new house? But
that is the problem facing not only the folks in Worcester,
Massachusetts; but it is the problem facing all of America today if we
do not do something.
I would say to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, if we
go back to the Contract with America in the very first bill the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) introduced, the unfunded mandate
legislation, this Congress, this Federal Government, has mandated all
of these initiatives upon the wastewater treatment plants of the small
municipalities in this country, but has not sent the money.
It is time to send the money. It is time to pass the Barcia
amendment. It is too bad that the rules indicate we have to make an
offset on the basis of the Superfund allocation, but this money needs
to be sent to the small communities of America.
I praise the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) and the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), and I urge an aye vote.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin where the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) left off. The Clean Water Act provides very
specific mandates for municipalities.
I was a mayor, mayor of the third largest city in the State of New
Jersey. There is no way that the Patersons of this country, smaller,
larger, can respond to this multibillion dollar need within our
communities. Our clean water is threatened, is threatened if we do not
begin to address, and we have, this problem.
I am positive that the chairman and the ranking member are sensitive
to these needs. But being sensitive to the needs, we need to take it to
the next level. We need to be in every mayor's office, in every council
chambers throughout America when these issues are coming up.
Crumbling systems exist throughout America. We need to respond. The
cost is great. If we do not do it, the cost will be even greater.
One segment of the President's proposed budget I was particularly
pleased with, which was where the President expressed his support for
the newly authorized sewer overflow control grants. H.R. 828, which
passed the Congress, authorized $750 million in fiscal years 2002 and
2003. We are trying to give cities and towns across America the
resources they need to clean up their sewer systems and comply with the
Clean Water Act.
I am hopeful that we can work with the committee to ensure that full
funding is included in the final bill to address this issue, which is
important in every district and in every State in this Nation. We must
follow through on our commitment to local governments to assist in
their wet-weather infrastructure challenges, and I support this
critical down payment.
I recognize the hard work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia)
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my good
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. Grant
funding to help communities control sewer overflows was approved and
authorized in the last Congress; but in this Congress, in this House,
in this budget, no funds have been set aside at all. Congress must
follow through and fund this important program.
Back home in my district, I can point to the city of Everett,
Snohomish, Anacordis, three cities with some of the highest sewer rates
in my district. Everett alone has invested in excess of $12 million
since 1990 towards reducing and controlling CSOs; and despite the
substantial financial commitment, nearly $20 million more is required
for the city to reach full compliance with all local, State, and
Federal mandates.
Federal funding will be crucial to the city's efforts to reach full
compliance, so it is my hope that this Congress can step up to help our
communities by providing this funding.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of their communities, to vote
in favor of this amendment. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Barcia) for his work on this amendment.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in closing. I have discussed this
with my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan). We both appreciate not only the sentiment but the leadership
that has been provided on this issue. It is a real big issue for the
country.
But to force us to choose between Superfund and CSOs is just too
tough a choice to make. We would urge the gentleman, with all due
respect, to withdraw the amendment; and he should continue to work with
the authorizing committee and with the Committee on Appropriations to
see if we can do a better job of meeting this commitment. It is a
question of allocation and choices, and we just cannot justify the
choice he is asking us to make. I would ask again that he would
withdraw the amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise today in support of the Barcia/Latourette
amendment to HR 2620. This amendment would increase the bills funding
for EPA Water Improvement Grants--with the intention that these funds
would be used for grants for combined sewer overflows.
Mr. Chairman, the condition of our Nation's wastewater collection and
treatment facilities is alarming. In its 1999 clear water needs survey,
the EPA estimated that nearly $200 billion will be needed over the next
20 years to address wastewater infrastructure problems in our
communities.
In Lynchburg, Virginia, the cost of improving 174 miles of combined
sewers that serve 11.4 square miles exceeds $275 million in 2000
dollars. This equates to $16,875 per ratepayer in a city whose average
income is $27,500. These CSO improvements are by far the largest
capital projects the city has ever undertaken.
Given this great need, I believe the Federal Government has a
responsibility to assist communities that are trying to fix their
problems and comply with Federal water quality mandates.
I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment which will
increase funding for the Clean Water Revolving Loan Program and help
cities in need of meeting Federal mandates.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H4832]]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground
storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and
for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project,
$72,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Oil Spill Response

For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental
Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance,
including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and
performance partnership grants, $3,433,899,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be
for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State
Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (the ``Act''); $850,000,000 shall be
for capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, as amended, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, none of the funds
made available under this heading in this Act, or in previous
appropriations Acts, shall be reserved by the Administrator
for health effects studies on drinking water contaminants;
$75,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering,
planning, design, construction and related activities in
connection with the construction of high priority water and
wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico
Border, after consultation with the appropriate border
commission; $30,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of
Alaska to address drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages;
$200,000,000 shall be for making grants for the construction
of wastewater and water treatment facilities and groundwater
protection infrastructure in accordance with the terms and
conditions specified for such grants in the report
accompanying this Act; and $1,078,899,000 shall be for
grants, including associated program support costs, to
States, federally recognized tribes, interstate agencies,
tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies for
multi-media or single media pollution prevention, control and
abatement and related activities, including activities
pursuant to the provisions set forth under this heading in
Public Law 104-134, and for making grants under section 103
of the Clean Air Act for particulate matter monitoring and
data collection activities of which and subject to terms and
conditions specified by the Administrator, $25,000,000 shall
be for making grants for enforcement and related activities
(in addition to other grants funded under this heading), and
$25,000,000 shall be for Environmental Information Exchange
Network grants, including associated program support costs:
Provided, That for fiscal year 2002 and hereafter, State
authority under section 302(a) of Public Law 104-182 shall
remain in effect: Provided further, That notwithstanding
section 603(d)(7) of the Act, the limitation on the amounts
in a State water pollution control revolving fund that may be
used by a State to administer the fund shall not apply to
amounts included as principal in loans made by such fund in
fiscal year 2002 and prior years where such amounts represent
costs of administering the fund to the extent that such
amounts are or were deemed reasonable by the Administrator,
accounted for separately from other assets in the fund, and
used for eligible purposes of the fund, including
administration: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2002,
and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act, the
Administrator is authorized to use the amounts appropriated
for any fiscal year under section 319 of that Act to make
grants to Indian tribes pursuant to section 319(h) and 518(e)
of that Act: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2002,
notwithstanding the limitation on amounts in section 518(c)
of the Act, up to a total of 1\1/2\ percent of the funds
appropriated for State Revolving Funds under Title VI of the
Act may be reserved by the Administrator for grants under
section 518(c) of such Act: Provided further, That no funds
provided by this legislation to address the water, wastewater
and other critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in
the United States along the United States-Mexico border shall
be made available to a county or municipal government unless
that government has established an enforceable local
ordinance, or other zoning rule, which prevents in that
jurisdiction the development or construction of any
additional colonia areas, or the development within an
existing colonia the construction of any new home, business,
or other structure which lacks water, wastewater, or other
necessary infrastructure.

Point of Order

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the language
beginning with ``except that'' on page 64, line 12, through ``drinking
water contaminants'' on line 17 violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the
rules of the House prohibiting legislating on an appropriations bill.
The language I have cited says that notwithstanding the provisions of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, none of the money in the fiscal year 2002
VA-HUD appropriations bill or even previous appropriation acts may be
reserved by the EPA administrator for health effect studies on drinking
water contaminants.
The language clearly constitutes legislating on an appropriations
bill, and as such, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I therefore insist on my point of order.

{time} 2015

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to speak on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this
provision explicitly supersedes existing law. The provision therefore
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
The Clerk will read:
The Clerk read as follows:

administrative provisions

For fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and
6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement
directly Federal environmental programs required or
authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal
program, may award cooperative agreements to federally-
recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if
authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the
Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs
for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that
no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds
designated for State financial assistance agreements.

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Ms. Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California at this point?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the original amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Ms. Pelosi:
Page 92, strike lines 3 through 9.

Modification to Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be modified in the form at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi: Page 67,
line 22, strike ``$17,000,000'' and insert ``$20,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Page 67, line 22, strike ``$17,000,000'' and insert
``$20,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentlewoman from California Ms. Pelosi, and a Member opposed
each will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman form California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment would ensure that the Environmental
Protection Agency's program for registering pesticides and reassessing
pesticide tolerances are funded at the same level in fiscal year 2002
as in the current year. These programs are important to ensure that
pesticides used in our crops, on our pets, and in our homes and
businesses are thoroughly reviewed, and tolerances are set at safe
levels.

[[Page H4833]]

At this point, Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with further
discussion of the amendment, I would like to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for his extraordinary leadership
in taking what might have been a controversial amendment and having us
come to some peace on this issue among all the various equities that
must weigh in this.
I certainly wish to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership and cooperation,
and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the
original author of the Food Quality Protection Act for their
leadership. Certainly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for his
representing the balances between the environment and ag concerns,
which are now in harmony, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
for his participation and leadership.
And before I go on, I would like to say that the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) took the time to do this while playing a very
active leadership role as a named sponsor of the legislation that is
very important to all of us, the Patients' Bill of Rights. So I
particularly wanted to acknowledge his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, it is especially important that we protect the health
of infants and children by ensuring that pesticide exposure levels
safeguard their health. The Food Quality Protection Act was designed
with special protections for children in mind. We support this funding
to ensure that EPA has adequate resources to review chemicals and
ensure that they meet new safety standards set by the FQPA, the Food
Quality Protection Act.
This amendment would ensure that the EPA has an additional $3 million
to ensure that pesticides are adequately assessed for safety. I have
worked with Members on both sides of the aisle on this amendment and
believe that any controversy has been resolved, as I mentioned earlier.
It is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to the
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
The gentlewoman's amendment will maintain current funding levels for
EPA's pesticide reregistration and tolerance assessment programs and is
acceptable to the committee.
Collection of $20 million in maintenance fees will ensure that
reregistrations and tolerance reassessments are completed in a timely
manner with appropriate scientific analysis, ensuring that our farmers
have the tools they need, and that human health is protected.
Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the
distinguished chairman for his statement and for agreeing to this
amendment.
I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman regarding
EPA's program to register new, reduced-risk pesticides. It is my
understanding that there are negotiations underway to provide an
additional $6 million in funding for assessing reduced-risk pesticides
and strengthening EPA's scientific analysis on exposure of farm workers
and exposure in drinking water.
We would like to continue discussions on these issues with the
intention of addressing them in conference on the fiscal year 2002
bill. We would also ask that the chairman consider providing his
support for funding of these programs for 5 years, but we are
addressing the fiscal year 2002 bill now.
Mr. WALSH. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I thank her for
bringing this matter to our attention.
Reduced-risk pesticides can displace pesticides that present higher
risks, and they help ensure that our farmers have a complete toolbox to
control the pests that attack our crops. I look forward to working with
the gentlewoman to consider additional funds for reduced-risk
pesticides in the conference report.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the chairman for his support of this amendment
and for agreeing to work together to ensure that EPA can proceed with
these programs that are so important to our farmers and to the safety
of our food supply.
I wonder if our distinguished ranking member wishes to weigh in on
this subject. Does the gentleman have any objection to the colloquy?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have no objection and compliment the gentlewoman for
her efforts in this area. She has been very effective, as is evidenced
by the chairman's accepting her amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking
member. And I want to once again acknowledge the leadership of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the author of the Food Quality
Protection Act; the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for his
leadership; the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); and others, who have worked to resolve some
of the controversy in this.
It is our anticipation that if we have this full funding, the $20
million for this year, that the EPA will be able to meet its statutory
requirement. We, of course, want the additional $6 million and look
forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to get that
in conference with the support that I mentioned here in a bipartisan
way, and hope that the EPA can, over the course of the next year,
demonstrate that these were sufficient funds to meet their statutory
requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to rise in support of this
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Ms. Pelosi.
As many of my colleagues know, I am a relatively new grandmother. My
grandson, Teddy, is eighteen months old--old enough to sit at the table
with his parents and eat many of the things they eat.
But Teddy is, of course, much smaller than his parents and his vital
systems are not fully developed. According to a report by the National
Academy of Sciences, that means that Teddy, and all other children, are
``more susceptible to permanent damage'' from exposure to pesticides
and other chemicals in foods.
That landmark National Science Report, ``pesticides in the diets of
infants and children'' was the main reason that Congress passed the
food quality protection act in 1996 with strong bipartisan support.
This was the first law to require that the standards set by the
Environmental Protection Agency for pesticide traces in our foods take
into account the special vulnerabilities of growing children.
Members from both sides of the aisle agreed that we wanted the food
our children--and grandchildren--eat to be as safe as possible.
That's why I was shocked to learn that H.R. 2620 will make it
impossible for the Environmental Protection Agency to develop these
standards.
And it does this in a really sneaky way. Section 421 of this Bill
prohibits the EPA from issuing the final rule to increase the user fee
that the pesticide industry pays to help finance pesticide tolerance
studies.
OMB has estimated that increasing the user fee would give EPA an
additional $50 million dollars that the EPA needs, in order to find out
what levels of pesticides children can safely tolerate.
Section 421 makes it impossible for EPA to collect that money.
The Pelosi Amendment strikes Section 421, giving EPA the authority it
needs to begin collecting increased user fees from the pesticide
industry.
I can't imagine that there is a parent or a grandparent, or anyone in
this house who cares about the health of a young child, who doesn't
want to make sure that the food that child eats is safe from dangerous
levels of pesticides.
that's what the Pelosi Amendment does, it protects the foods our
children eat, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, a Member opposed
also may control 15 minutes. Is there such Member?
If not, the question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Section 136a-1 of title 7, United States Code is amended--

[[Page H4834]]

(1) in subsection (i)(5)(C)(i) by striking ``$14,000,000''
and inserting ``$17,000,000''; and, by striking ``each'' and
inserting ``2002'' after ``fiscal year'';
(2) in subsection (i)(5)(H) by striking ``2001'' and
inserting ``2002'';
(3) in subsection (i)(6) by striking ``2001'' and inserting
``2002''; and
(4) in subsection (k)(3)(A) by striking ``2001'' and
inserting ``2002''; and, by striking ``\1/7\'' and inserting
``\1/10\''.

Executive Office of the President

Office of Science and Technology Policy

For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $5,267,000.

council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,974,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 202 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the Council shall consist
of one member, appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, serving as chairman and
exercising all powers, functions, and duties of the Council.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $33,660,000, to be derived from the Bank
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and
the FSLIC Resolution Fund.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Disaster Relief

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,369,399,000, and, notwithstanding 42
U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended, of which not
to exceed $2,900,000 may be transferred to ``Emergency
management planning and assistance'' for the consolidated
emergency management performance grant program; up to
$15,000,000 may be obligated for flood map modernization
activities following disaster declarations; and $21,577,000
may be used by the Office of Inspector General for audits and
investigations.
In addition, for the purposes under this heading,
$1,300,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by
the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such amount shall
be available only to the extent that an official budget
request, that includes designation of the entire amount of
the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress.

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

For the cost of direct loans, $405,000, as authorized by
section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans not to exceed $25,000,000. In
addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the direct
loan program, $543,000.

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
including hire and purchase of motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the
per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for
senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; expenses of
attendance of cooperating officials and individuals at
meetings concerned with the work of emergency preparedness;
transportation in connection with the continuity of
Government programs to the same extent and in the same manner
as permitted the Secretary of a Military Department under 10
U.S.C. 2632; and not to exceed $2,500 for official reception
and representation expenses, $227,900,000.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $10,303,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Inspector General of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall also serve as the Inspector
General of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board.

Emergency Management Planning and Assistance

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to
carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the
National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $404,623,000.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Capps

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

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mrs. Capps:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Federal Emergency
Management Agency--Emergency Management Planning and
Assistance'', strike the period at the end and insert the
following:

: Provided, That of the funds made available under this
heading, $25,000,000 shall be available for purposes of
predisaster hazard mitigation pursuant to section 203 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5133).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed
each will control 10 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will earmark $25 million of FEMA's
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance Account for the successful
Project Impact.
Project Impact is a commonsense public-private partnership designed
to help communities prepare for natural disasters by funding
predisaster hazard mitigation. The goal is to help communities become
disaster resistant. This funding allows communities to build
partnerships with businesses, industry, public works, utilities,
volunteer groups, and the local State and Federal Government. These
partnerships assess their community's risks and vulnerabilities to
natural disasters, identify priorities for mitigation, and begin
implementing them. And the Federal funding works to leverage support
from private sources, magnifying its effectiveness.
Mr. Chairman, over the last decade, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has spent $20 billion to assist communities to recover from
disasters. This does not include the billions spent by other agencies,
like HUD, the Small Business Administration, as well as State and local
governments. And not all damage can be repaired. People lose their
jobs; businesses close. In fact, 40 percent of small businesses are
never able to recover or reopen. And, of course, most tragically, lives
are lost. Project Impact recognizes that we can spend a fraction of the
money we spend now to avoid some of those costs and save many of those
lives. It seems imprudent not to take this step.
Project Impact is a classic example of the adage that an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. For example, earlier this year we
saw the effectiveness of Project Impact. In January, Washington State
and the City of Seattle were struck by the worst earthquake to hit the
Pacific Northwest in 52 years. But according to press accounts,
injuries were only about 15 percent of what FEMA expected from a 6.8
magnitude, and costs were only about half of what the agency projected.
This was in no small part because of Project Impact.
In 1977, Seattle was able to turn a $1 million grant from Project
Impact into $7 million with private support, and they set about to make
Seattle disaster resistant. They enforced building codes, strengthened
existing buildings, and educated their citizens about prevention
measures they could take. FEMA and Seattle took the initiative and
their work ahead of time and made a terrible tragedy significantly less
tragic.
No less an expert on the matter of disaster relief and mitigation
than former FEMA Director James Lee Witt pointed this out. In a letter
he sent to me in support of this amendment to fund Project Impact, Mr.
Witt says, and I quote, ``Despite FEMA's quick response, the reality is
that without prevention efforts, thousands of families

[[Page H4835]]

will continue to lose their homes and precious possessions, and
hundreds of small businesses will be destroyed, resulting in the loss
of thousands of jobs. Seattle has shown the United States that
prevention works. Other communities deserve the opportunity to
replicate Seattle's success.''
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply appreciative that the committee has
increased the funding for Emergency Management Planning and Assistance
by nearly $35 million. It is clear that this funding is needed. But it
is also clear that we should be spending some of that money on Project
Impact and its preventive measures. My home county of Santa Barbara
received a Project Impact grant to model potential wildfires and to
look at ways to mitigate their impact. These efforts have allowed the
county to better develop emergency plans which will save lives if, or
more likely when, that catastrophe strikes. Besides Seattle and Santa
Barbara, nearly 250 communities have received Project Impact grants
since the program was established in 1997.

{time} 2030

Let us give the next 250 communities that same chance.
It simply does not make sense for us to keep pouring money into
communities after the fact and not try to help them before a disaster.
This is especially true in light of FEMA's $2.25 billion budget. All
this amendment does is dedicate 1 percent of that funding to
predisaster assistance. It does not increase the budget and it will
save many lives.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York seek time in
opposition?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment would designate $25 million
of the funds for FEMA emergency management planning and assistance to
be used for predisaster mitigation activities.
For the past 4 years FEMA had had a program to raise the awareness
within communities of the need to prepare for disasters. This program
was called Project Impact and it made strides towards helping
communities become better informed of how to prepare and respond to
natural disasters.
While this budget does not continue Project Impact, in our hearings
earlier this year the Director of FEMA expressed his desire to develop
a full-fledged predisaster mitigation program building on the success
that Project Impact has had in raising the level of awareness within
all communities.
I know that if such a program were developed and implemented after
careful thought and deliberation, it would save money and lives. The
biggest concern I have with the amendment is that it offers no way to
pay for the program. The amendment designates $25 million of the $404
million in this account for the predisaster program. What programs
currently funded in this account would the gentlewoman have us
decrease?
Would the gentlewoman suggest a reduction in the budget for the
Firefighter Assistance Grants? They are funded in this bill at $100
million. We have had debate on the floor today that Members believe
there is substantially more need and there is great demand. We had $3
billion in requests for those $100 million for fire fighters. Surely we
cannot go there.
Should we reduce the allowance for salaries or grants to State and
local emergency management officials? We are already asking FEMA to
take a reduction in their salaries for fiscal year 2002. A further cut
of this magnitude would make this agency very difficult, if not
impossible, to manage.
Should we reduce the allowance for updating floodplain maps? There is
currently a backlog in the number of maps which need to be updated, and
it is estimated that it will cost over $700 million to address this
backlog. This bill contains a modest start to addressing this backlog.
I know the gentlewoman is aware that flooding causes more damage
nationwide than any other type of natural disaster, so I do not think
she would want us to stop this effort in order to fund a public
awareness campaign.
This bill is full of difficult choices, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes
programs have to be canceled to make room for other more worthy
programs. The budget request made such a decision with regard to
predisaster mitigation, but with the ultimate goal of developing a more
robust and focused program with well-defined and prioritized
objectives. I think we ought to wait for such a program to be proposed
and carefully considered in the context of all of FEMA's programs. For
this reason I oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it
also.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
The issues of FEMA and Project Impact come under the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on which I serve.
Throughout the last administration I worked with FEMA and the White
House to develop Project Impact. I think it has been a tremendous
success.
Mitigation is the cornerstone of emergency management. Mitigation
simply means efforts to lessen the impact of disasters on people and
property. It keeps homes out of floodplains, designs bridges to
withstand earthquakes, creates and enforces building codes to protect
property from hurricanes, and many such creative initiatives all across
the land.
It helps communities adapt their public facilities before disaster
strikes in order to save lives, buildings and homes.
The gentlewoman has so well cited the case of Seattle, Washington. It
has been a Project Impact city since 1997. Everyone participated in
retrofitting homes, developing mapping projects for landslides and
seismic vulnerability. Schools received funds to remove structural
hazards and we saw what a success all of that was in the aftermath of
the earthquake.
I understand that the issue of funding was not created by the
chairman of the subcommittee. It is the Office of Management and Budget
that chose to strike this funding from the budget in a move I just
simply cannot understand.
I welcome the suggestion that the chairman made that the Director of
FEMA would work with the Congress to develop a plan. He has never
approached me with such a proposal. He has not come to my committee to
my knowledge to propose such an initiative. I look forward to him doing
so, but I want to see something more concrete than just a wish.
Meanwhile, vote for the Capps amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, Project Impact really provides communities
with the resources they need to combat natural disasters and make them
less susceptible to future damages.
In my district, Stratford, Connecticut last year was hit by a
devastating storm. It dumped 8 inches of rain in a 4-hour period. It
resulted in over $5 million in damage.
East Haven, another town in my district, has a long history of
flooding, constantly ravaged by hurricanes and tropical storms. Every
time there is a rain storm families fear they are going to be
displaced.
East Haven was awarded grant money to take a proactive approach to
help keep flood insurance rates lower. The grant helps to pay for an
early warning storm system. It helps to pay for storm shutters for
residents' windows and other weather precautions.
We have all stood in the rain witnessing these disasters. We have all
met the crying homeowners, but it is

[[Page H4836]]

not the loss of property that is important. It is the lost dreams. That
is why we need to take steps to get people help in such unavoidable
circumstances. Project Impact does just that. It is a common-sense
program. It protects property and saves lives. It identifies ways to
prevent future tragedies and reduce property damage.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this
amendment. I respect the gentleman from New York in talking about the
difficult trade-offs that are being made and the prospects of having
$400 million of other programs of mitigation.
The fact is we do not have to wait to develop a practical, effective
program. For heaven's sakes, this is one of the show pieces of the last
FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, who everyone acknowledges has done an
outstanding job. In just 5 years, starting with seven pilot projects,
this has grown around the country. I was stunned to address their
national conference last fall. I interacted with 2,500 people from
around the country, private partnerships, NASA, local government,
private business, and we are going to throw this away to develop
something new?
Mr. Chairman, this is what frustrates people about the Federal
Government. When we have a winning program that everybody likes, that
reaches down to the grass roots, that is voluntary in nature, that we
do not have to guess whether or not it is effective, we would throw
that away? I beg the gentleman to reconsider. We can find $25 million
to keep this experience alive.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support for the Capps amendment. The Peterson area became one of the
first to participate in Project Impact, using a small amount of Federal
funding provided by the program to leverage greater local funding, to
retrofit schools, homes and small businesses. In the past 10 years FEMA
has spent more than $20 billion to help communities repair and rebuild
after natural disasters. Project Impact in contrast costs the Federal
Government only $25 million. In this instance it likely saved several
times that figure in the Seattle area by saving lives and preventing
damage. We do not need the promise of a new program; we have a program.
It is called Project Impact.
Mr. Chairman, I urge this House to pass the Capps amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the distinguished ranking
member of the subcommittee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing her amendment
because it highlights the importance of this very good program: Project
Impact. Unfortunately, the amendment comes in a context which makes it
very difficult for us to consider. There are a lot of excellent
programs funded in this emergency management and planning assistance
account. There are preparedness activities, for example, and early
warning systems; flood mapping, which is an extremely important
program; other mitigation efforts; and grants to States.
This is simply a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul, of taking money
from good projects to put them in another good project. I think the
better time to consider this issue is in conference where the Senate
has already funded this activity. I think then we will be in a much
stronger position to consider the merits of Project Impact vis-a-vis
the merits of these other programs.
Mr. Chairman, at this point in the process, we simply do not have
enough money to go around. Given that we are looking toward possible
favorable consideration in conference, I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment. Again, it is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking money
from very good programs to fund a very good program. We are not against
Project Impact; it is simply the wrong point in the process to consider
the amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I come from a district which
has had seven presidentially declared disasters. If there is anything
that I have learned, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Everything we do in this country is to try to prevent injury and harm.
One of the dumb things we do is keep going in after a disaster and
allowing people to do the same old thing.
Mr. Chairman, this program gets people out of doing the same old
thing that makes them involved in a disaster. I hope my colleagues
march into conference very strongly supporting this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying we had a budget that was $35
million less last year, and instituted this Project Impact at that
time. It has proven to be cost effective. It is already proven. We do
not need to decide how to do it. I urge my colleagues to consider if we
do not implement this program in this budget at this time, we will lose
valuable ground and all of the networking that is going on in so many
communities like my own with plans already in place.
Mr. Chairman, these dollars have saved lives. We know that. They will
continue to save lives. I urge support for this amendment and ask that
Project Impact be continued.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Just in closing, I restate that there is support. The concept is a
good one. What we would like to do is give the new Director of FEMA the
opportunity to develop a program that can go through the authorizing
committee and garner the full support of the membership, be well-
thought out and, as we said earlier, more robust. There is merit to
this concept, but do not make us make this choice between fire fighters
or mapping or salaries and expenses for FEMA, which is already very,
very tight.
Mr. Chairman, I would reluctantly urge all members to oppose the
amendment.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by my colleagues Lois Capps and Rick Larsen to earmark $25
million of the $404 million in FEMA's Emergency Management and Planning
Assistance account to fund Project Impact.
As my colleagues are aware, Project Impact is a public-private
partnership that funds emergency management preparation activities. It
has been a relatively low cost way to save lives and prevent damage in
the case of natural disasters and other emergencies. Created in 1997 by
former FEMA Director James L. Witt, the program has helped 250
communities in all fifty states and the Insular Areas to prepare for
and prevent disasters.
My home islands St. Croix has been a project impact site since 1998.
As a direct result, the community has been extremely successful in both
decreasing damages and injuries in the territory and reducing recovery
costs to FEMA--in fact our efforts have been widely touted as a FEMA
success story by the agency.
Mr. Chairman, the Capps/Larsen amendment and the Project Impact
program deserves our support because it is a common sense approach to
help our country deal with disasters. The increasing number and
severity of natural disasters over the past decade demands that action
be taken to reduce the threat of hurricanes, tornadoes, severe storms,
flood and fires, which is where Project Impact comes in. It is
unconscionable and very shortsighted in my opinion that this program
was not included in this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to support the Capps/Larsen amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Capps amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. This is a good
amendment, and I applaud the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Capps,
for offering it to a bill that clearly has missed the mark on its
funding priorities.
The Capps amendment earmarks $25 million to the Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance account to continue funding the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Project Impact. This amendment restores

[[Page H4837]]

the amount of funding to Project Impact at the same level this body
approved last year. For the more than 250 communities in all fifty
states who participate in Project Impact, it is essential that the
House approve this amendment. In the nearly four years that this
program has been in existence, it has been a low cost way to save lives
and prevent damage in the case of natural disasters and other
emergencies.
For the State of Florida, Project Impact is needed and utilized. In
fact, in my district, the City of Deerfield Beach has been a
beneficiary of Project Impact since the Project's creation in 1997. In
addition, Miami-Dade County, just two months ago, was recognized by
Project Impact for the county's ongoing efforts in dealing with local
emergencies. Tampa, Jacksonville, and Pensacola, as well as Brevard and
Volusia Counties, all participate in Project Impact. Any cut in funding
will be felt state-wide.
Fortunately, the hurricane season has been kind to Florida since
Project Impact began to assist South Florida. Regardless, if we do not
fund this program today, I fear what will occur next time a Hurricane
Andrew sweeps across South Florida. While we may not see the effects of
out budget cuts today, the effects of Hurricane Andrew, which destroyed
South Florida nearly a decade ago, are still seen and felt by my
constituents.
When Project Impact was founded in 1997, former FEMA Director James
Lee Witt recognized the importance of preparing for a natural disaster.
While giving a speech in Miami, he noted, ``We've got to change the way
we deal with disasters. We have to break the damage-repair, damage-
repair cycle. We need to have communities and businesses come together
to reduce the cost and consequences of disasters.''
Mr. Chairman, we have got to change the way we deal with disasters.
Too many communities today are inadequately prepared to deal with
natural disasters. Contrary to what some may believe, failing to
adequately fund Project Impact is not an effective tool in changing the
way we deal with disasters. By not funding this needed program, we risk
the lives of thousands throughout this great country. This is
unacceptable, and for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to recognize
the importance of Project Impact and support the Capps amendment.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Capps
amendment, which would earmark $25 million for Project Impact, a FEMA
program which helps communities establish pre-disaster hazard
mitigation programs. Project Impact communities initiate mentoring
relationships, private and public partnerships, public outreach, and
disaster mitigation projects to reduce the damage from potentially
devastating disasters.
South Florida is a wonderful place to live, but as you know, we are
highly susceptible to hurricanes. The City of Deerfield Beach, Florida,
has been diligently working to better prepare its residents for the
next big hurricane by establishing a $42 million multi-purpose public
service facility, or Mitigation of Operation Center (MOC). The MOC
would serve as a shelter in the event of a natural disaster, and would
house the City's Department of Public Works, Emergency Operations
Center, Fire & Rescue Center, a Broward County Emergency Communications
facility, and satellite facilities for the Broward County Sheriff's
Office and Florida Atlantic University. The MOC would also include a
water treatment facility.
FEMA designated the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida, as our
country's first Project Impact Community. Since its designation as one
of the seven pilot Project Impact communities in 1997, Deerfield Beach
developed a strong Project Impact initiative with over 100 small and
large partners, completed with risk assessment and mitigation strategy.
In fact, on November 20, 2000, Deerfield Beach was again recognized by
FEMA with a Model Community Award.
The residents of Deerfield Beach demonstrated the importance they
place on hazard mitigation when they passed an $8 million bond issue in
November, 1999, to build the MOC, one of the country's first. Another
$22 million has been committed toward this project over the last few
years to upgrade the City's water filtration facilities. Moreover, FEMA
awarded Deerfield Beach with a Hazard Mitigation grant in the amount of
$400,000.
An earmark of $25 million for Project Impact would greatly help the
efforts of communities like Deerfield Beach to be pro-active toward
emergency preparedness. I am proud of the city's leadership on this
issue, and I am hopeful that this Congress will recognize the
commitment of communities like Deerfield Beach by providing these
important and necessary funds.
I urge you to support the amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. 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 California (Mrs.
Capps) will be postponed.

{time} 2045

The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund

The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2002, as
authorized by Public Law 106-377, shall not be less than 100
percent of the amounts anticipated by FEMA necessary for its
radiological emergency preparedness program for the next
fiscal year. The methodology for assessment and collection of
fees shall be fair and equitable; and shall reflect costs of
providing such services, including administrative costs of
collecting such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section
shall be deposited in the Fund as offsetting collections and
will become available for authorized purposes on October 1,
2002, and remain available until expended.

Emergency Food and Shelter Program

To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $140,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3\1/2\ percent of the
total appropriation.

National Flood Insurance Fund

(including transfer of funds)

For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (``the Act''), the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, as amended, not to exceed $28,798,000 for salaries and
expenses associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance
operations, and not to exceed $76,381,000 for flood
mitigation, including up to $20,000,000 for expenses under
section 1366 of the Act, which amount shall be available for
transfer to the National Flood Mitigation Fund until
September 30, 2003. In fiscal year 2002, no funds in excess
of: (1) $55,000,000 for operating expenses; (2) $536,750,000
for agents' commissions and taxes; and (3) $30,000,000 for
interest on Treasury borrowings shall be available from the
National Flood Insurance Fund without prior notice to the
Committees on Appropriations.
In addition, up to $7,000,000 in fees collected but
unexpended during fiscal years 2000 through 2001 shall be
transferred to the Flood Map Modernization Fund and available
for expenditure in fiscal year 2002.
Section 1309(a)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)), as
amended, is further amended by striking ``2001'' and
inserting ``2002''.
Section 1319 of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4026), is
amended by striking ``after'' and all that follows and
inserting ``after September 30, 2001.''.
Section 1336(a) of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4056(a)),
is amended by striking ``ending'' and all that follows
through the second comma thereafter and inserting ``ending
September 30, 2001,''.
Section 1376(c) of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4127(c)),
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2001'' and inserting
``December 31, 2002''.

National Flood Mitigation Fund

Notwithstanding sections 1366(b)(3)(B)-(C) and 1366(f) of
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
$20,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003,
for activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to
structures pursuant to such Act, of which $20,000,000 shall
be derived from the National Flood Insurance Fund. Of the
amount provided, $2,500,000 is to be used for the purchase of
flood-prone properties in the city of Austin, Minnesota, and
any cost-share is waived.

General Services Administration

Federal Consumer Information Center Fund

For necessary expenses of the Federal Consumer Information
Center, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$7,276,000, to be deposited into the Federal Consumer
Information Center Fund: Provided, That the appropriations,
revenues, and collections deposited into the Fund shall be
available for necessary expenses of Federal Consumer
Information Center activities in the aggregate amount of
$12,000,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections
accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2002 in excess of
$12,000,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be
available for expenditure except as authorized in
appropriations Acts: Provided further, That the Federal
Consumer Information Center (FCIC) may not undertake any
action that affects its organization, administrative
location, or in any way alters its current function or
mission mandate without first submitting a proposal to the
Committees on Appropriations for approval: Provided further,
That such proposal shall include the justification for such
action, a description of all planned organizational
realignments, the anticipated staffing or personnel changes,
an assessment of the effect on the current operations of
FCIC, and estimates of the proposed changes on future funding
needs

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

human space flight

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of

[[Page H4838]]

human space flight research and development activities,
including research, development, operations, support and
services; maintenance; construction of facilities including
repair, rehabilitation, revitalization and modification of
facilities, construction of new facilities and additions to
existing facilities, facility planning and design,
environmental compliance and restoration, and acquisition or
condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; space
flight, spacecraft control and communications activities
including operations, production, and services; program
management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor
vehicles; not to exceed $20,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; and purchase, lease, charter,
maintenance and operation of mission and administrative
aircraft, $7,047,400,000, to remain available until September
30, 2003, of which amounts as determined by the Administrator
for salaries and benefits; training, travel and awards;
facility and related costs; information technology services;
science, engineering, fabricating and testing services; and
other administrative services may be transferred to the
Science, Aeronautics and Technology account in accordance
with section 312(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act
of 1958, as amended by Public Law 106-377.
For an additional amount for ``Human space flight'', for
the development of a crew return vehicle with capacity for no
less than six persons, for use with the international space
station, $275,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2005: Provided, That none of the funds provided under
this paragraph may be obligated prior to August 1, 2002:
Provided further, That the funds made available under this
paragraph shall be rescinded on July 15, 2002, unless the
President requests at least $200,000,000 in the fiscal year
2003 budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for continuation of the crew return vehicle
program.

science, aeronautics and technology

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, support and services; maintenance;
construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction
of new facilities and additions to existing facilities,
facility planning and design, environmental compliance and
restoration, and acquisition or condemnation of real
property, as authorized by law; space flight, spacecraft
control and communications activities including operations,
production, and services; program management; personnel and
related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase
and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $20,000
for official reception and representation expenses; and
purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $7,605,300,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2003, of which amounts
as determined by the Administrator for salaries and benefits;
training, travel and awards; facility and related costs;
information technology services; science, engineering,
fabricating and testing services; and other administrative
services may be transferred to the Human Space Flight account
in accordance with section 312(b) of the National Aeronautics
and Space Act of 1958, as amended by Public Law 106-377.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Roemer

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

Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Roemer:
In title III, under the heading ``National Aeronautics and
Space Administration'', before the item relating to ``office
of inspector general'', insert the following:

reduction of amounts for international space station

The amounts otherwise provided in this title for the
following accounts and activities are hereby reduced by the
following amounts:
(1) ``Human Space Flight'', the aggregate amount specified
in the first paragraph of such account, $1,531,300,000.
(2) ``Human Space Flight'', the amount specified in the
second paragraph of such account for the development of a
crew return vehicle, $275,000,000.
(3) ``Science, Aeronautics and Technology'', the aggregate
amount, $343,600,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I have offered over the last
several years that would eliminate all funding for the Space Station. I
have done so over the last several years because this Space Station had
an initial projected cost to the American taxpayers across this great
country in 1984 of $8 billion.
Today, in 2001, the General Accounting Office has come out with a
study that says the total cost of this Space Station, for launching,
for engineering, for technology, for construction, is not going to be
$8 billion, it is not going to be $80 billion, it is going to be over
$100 billion, total cost to the American taxpayer.
That is a staggering sum of money. I would be the first one out there
as a proponent for a Space Station if it was going to perform the great
tasks that we envisioned, a stepping stone with a telescope, like
Hubble, to help us understand the solar system, a telescope pointed to
the Earth to help us with the environment, a stepping stone and a
tether to other planets for exploration. Great scientific discoveries
promised. It cannot do any of those things today. None of those things.
But it has gone from $8 billion to over $100 billion.
I would say to my colleagues, if this was a welfare program, a public
housing program, an education program, it would not be here today. It
would have been canceled a long time ago, but it is not. It has got a
lot of contractors out there building in some States, so it has been
funded through the years.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that even with the cost and the
lack of science, that if we had a perfect budgetary situation and it
was not starting to grow into other programs and hurting some other
very good space programs, delaying and canceling them, I still might be
for it. Or if we had not lost $40 billion in our projected surplus in
the last month, I might be for it.
But this body needs to make tough decisions about what the priorities
will be in spending, in cuts, in taxes; and we have got to make those
decisions in the next few months. So I would hope this body will belly
up and make some of these difficult decisions and not go around saying
we can afford to fund every single program, especially this one, who in
the last few months, NASA officials just announced that they had a $4
billion overrun, just announced for the next few years. $4 billion for
the next few years.
This is the bill, ladies and gentlemen. We line item in this bill how
much we will spend on housing, how much we will spend on aeronautics,
how much we will spend on national science. We do not then say, you can
go over by $4 billion, go do anything you want. The line items are
there for a purpose. We have the job, our oversight, our
responsibility, is to try to make sure these programs are run well.
The proponents on the other side of this I have the utmost respect
for and served on the Committee on Science for several years with them,
Members from Texas and Alabama and Virginia and Florida. I respect what
they are doing, I respect the science that we are trying to achieve,
and I like many of those Members personally that will be the proponents
for this Space Station. But, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly hope that
we can get the cost overruns under control so that this does not
cannibalize the rest of very worthwhile NASA science programs and
projects.
I will not offer this amendment for a vote. I have an amendment that
will simply fence the total amount we spend on this project in the
future that Senator McCain has passed in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and
wait for future debate on the next amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $23,700,000.

administrative provisions

Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', or ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'' by this appropriations Act, when
any activity has been initiated by the incurrence of
obligations for construction of facilities as authorized by
law, such amount available for such activity shall remain
available until expended. This provision does not apply to
the amounts appropriated for institutional minor
revitalization

[[Page H4839]]

and construction of facilities, and institutional facility
planning and design.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', or ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'' by this appropriations Act, the
amounts appropriated for construction of facilities shall
remain available until September 30, 2004.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Office of Inspector General'', amounts
made available by this Act for personnel and related costs
and travel expenses of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall remain available until September 30,
2002 and may be used to enter into contracts for training,
investigations, costs associated with personnel relocation,
and for other services, to be provided during the next fiscal
year. Funds for announced prizes otherwise authorized shall
remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the
prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn.
No funds in this or any other Appropriations Act may be
used to finalize an agreement prior to December 1, 2002
between NASA and a nongovernment organization to conduct
research utilization and commercialization management
activities of the International Space Station.

National Credit Union Administration

central liquidity facility

(including transfer of funds)

During fiscal year 2002, gross obligations of the Central
Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct
loans to member credit unions, as authorized by 12 U.S.C.
1795 et seq., shall not exceed $1,500,000,000: Provided, That
administrative expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility
shall not exceed $309,000: Provided further, That $1,000,000
shall be transferred to the Community Development Revolving
Loan Fund.

National Science Foundation

research and related activities

For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and
the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C.
1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
authorized travel; maintenance and operation of aircraft and
purchase of flight services for research support; acquisition
of aircraft; $3,642,340,000, of which not to exceed
$306,230,000 shall remain available until expended for Polar
research and operations support, and for reimbursement to
other Federal agencies for operational and science support
and logistical and other related activities for the United
States Antarctic program; the balance to remain available
until September 30, 2003: Provided, That receipts for
scientific support services and materials furnished by the
National Research Centers and other National Science
Foundation supported research facilities may be credited to
this appropriation: Provided further, That to the extent that
the amount appropriated is less than the total amount
authorized to be appropriated for included program
activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings,
specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities
or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.

major research facilities construction and equipment

For necessary expenses of major construction projects
pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as
amended, including authorized travel, $135,300,000, to remain
available until expended.

education and human resources

For necessary expenses in carrying out science and
engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia, $885,720,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That
to the extent that the amount of this appropriation is less
than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for
included program activities, all amounts, including floors
and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those
program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced
proportionally.

salaries and expenses

For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire
of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia;
reimbursement of the General Services Administration for
security guard services; $170,040,000: Provided, That
contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and expenses''
in fiscal year 2002 for maintenance and operation of
facilities, and for other services, to be provided during the
next fiscal year.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $6,760,000, to remain available until September 30,
2003.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $105,000,000, of which $10,000,000
shall be for a homeownership program that is used in
conjunction with section 8 assistance under the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended.

Selective Service System

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System,
including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training
for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service
System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian
employees; and not to exceed $500 for official reception and
representation expenses; $25,003,000: Provided, That during
the current fiscal year, the President may exempt this
appropriation from the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, whenever
the President deems such action to be necessary in the
interest of national defense: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in
connection with the induction of any person into the Armed
Forces of the United States.

TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of
this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific
limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such
travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth therefor
in the budget estimates submitted for the appropriations:
Provided, That this provision does not apply to accounts that
do not contain an object classification for travel: Provided
further, That this section shall not apply to travel
performed by uncompensated officials of local boards and
appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to travel
performed directly in connection with care and treatment of
medical beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs;
to travel performed in connection with major disasters or
emergencies declared or determined by the President under the
provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act; to travel performed by the Offices
of Inspector General in connection with audits and
investigations; or to payments to interagency motor pools
where separately set forth in the budget schedules: Provided
further, That if appropriations in titles I, II, and III
exceed the amounts set forth in budget estimates initially
submitted for such appropriations, the expenditures for
travel may correspondingly exceed the amounts therefor set
forth in the estimates only to the extent such an increase is
approved by the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the
administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be
available in the current fiscal year for purchase of
uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of
the Federal National Mortgage Association, Government
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or
any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured
bank within the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be
expended--
(1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee
of the United States unless--
(A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a
voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and
the items or services for which such expenditure is being
made; or
(B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such
certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is
specifically authorized by law; and
(2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the
General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law
from such audit.
Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency may be expended for the transportation
of any officer or employee of such department or agency
between the domicile and the place of employment of the
officer or employee, with the exception of an officer or
employee authorized such transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344
or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients
that do not share in the cost of conducting research
resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the
Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the
recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the
grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
Sec. 408. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used, directly or through grants,

[[Page H4840]]

to pay or to provide reimbursement for payment of the salary
of a consultant (whether retained by the Federal Government
or a grantee) at more than the daily equivalent of the rate
paid for level IV of the Executive Schedule, unless
specifically authorized by law.
Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory
proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law,
or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an
existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any
appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting
service shall be limited to contracts which are: (1) a matter
of public record and available for public inspection; and (2)
thereafter included in a publicly available list of all
contracts entered into within 24 months prior to the date on
which the list is made available to the public and of all
contracts on which performance has not been completed by such
date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall be
updated quarterly and shall include a narrative description
of the work to be performed under each such contract.
Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of
any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or
expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive
agency: (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in
full compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder; and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to
such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies,
analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency
which is substantially derived from or substantially includes
any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain
information concerning: (A) the contract pursuant to which
the report was prepared; and (B) the contractor who prepared
the report pursuant to such contract.
Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none
of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency
shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of such department or agency.
Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001
with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than
22 miles per gallon.
Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this
Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real
property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000
unless the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits a report
which the Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a
period of 30 days has expired following the date on which the
report is received by the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 415. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for
indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-21.
Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2002 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 419. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to each such
corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make
such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of such Act as may be
necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the
budget for 2002 for such corporation or agency except as
hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these
corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or
mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly
provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of
other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior
appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not
apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of
these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 420. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
term ``qualified student loan'' with respect to national
service education awards shall mean any loan determined by an
institution of higher education to be necessary to cover a
student's cost of attendance at such institution and made
directly to a student by a state agency, in addition to other
meanings under section 148(b)(7) of the National and
Community Service Act.
Sec. 421. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to promulgate a final
regulation to implement changes in the payment of pesticide
tolerance processing fees as proposed at 64 Fed. Reg. 31040,
or any similar proposals. The Environmental Protection Agency
may proceed with the development of such a rule.
Sec. 422. The Environmental Protection Agency may not use
any of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act to implement the Registration Fee system codified at
40 Code of Federal Regulations Subpart U (sections 152.400 et
seq.) if its authority to collect maintenance fees pursuant
to FIFRA section 4(i)(5) is extended for at least one year
beyond September 30, 2001.
Sec. 423. Except in the case of entities that are funded
solely with Federal funds or any natural persons that are
funded under this Act, none of the funds in this Act shall be
used for the planning or execution of any program to pay the
expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties to
lobby or litigate in respect to adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this Act. A chief executive officer of any entity
receiving funds under this Act shall certify that none of
these funds have been used to engage in the lobbying of the
Federal Government or in litigation against the United States
unless authorized under existing law.
Sec. 424. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other
than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the
Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
Sec. 425. All Departments and agencies funded under this
Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing
statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of
``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of
their business practices and public service activities.
Sec. 426. Section 104(n)(4) of the Cerro Grande Fire
Assistance Act (Public Law 106-246) is amended by striking
``beginning not later than the expiration of the 1-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.''
and inserting in lieu thereof, ``within 120 days after the
Director issues the report required by subsection (n) in 2002
and 2003.''.

Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the bill, through page 93, line 25, be considered as read, printed
in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Bishop

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

Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Bishop:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

SEC. ____. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

Subtitle B of title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5197-5197g) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 629. MINORITY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish a minority
emergency preparedness demonstration program to research and
promote the capacity of minority communities to provide data,
information, and awareness education by providing grants to
or executing contracts or cooperative agreements with
eligible nonprofit organizations to establish and conduct
such programs.
``(b) Activities Supported.--An eligible nonprofit
organization may use a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement awarded under this section--
``(1) to conduct research into the status of emergency
preparedness and disaster response awareness in African
American and Hispanic households located in urban, suburban,
and rural communities, particularly in those States and
regions most impacted by natural and manmade disasters and
emergencies; and
``(2) to develop and promote awareness of emergency
preparedness education programs within minority communities,
including development and preparation of culturally competent
educational and awareness materials that can be used to
disseminate information to minority organizations and
institutions.

[[Page H4841]]

``(c) Eligible Organizations.--A nonprofit organization is
eligible to be awarded a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement under this section with respect to a program if the
organization is a nonprofit organization that is described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26
U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of
such Code, whose primary mission is to provide services to
communities predominately populated by minority citizens, and
that can demonstrate a partnership with a minority-owned
business enterprise or minority business located in a HUBZone
(as defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632(p))) with respect to the program.
``(d) Use of Funds.--A recipient of a grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement awarded under this section may only use
the proceeds of the grant, contract, or agreement to--
``(1) acquire expert professional services necessary to
conduct research in communities predominately populated by
minority citizens, with a primary emphasis on African
American and Hispanic communities;
``(2) develop and prepare informational materials to
promote awareness among minority communities about emergency
preparedness and how to protect their households and
communities in advance of disasters;
``(3) establish consortia with minority national
organizations, minority institutions of higher education, and
faith-based institutions to disseminate information about
emergency preparedness to minority communities; and
``(4) implement a joint project with a minority serving
institution, including a part B institution (as defined in
section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1061(2))), an institution described in subparagraph (A), (B),
or (C) of section 326 of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)(A),
(B), or (C)), and a Hispanic-serving institution (as defined
in section 502(a)(5) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5))).
``(e) Application and Review Procedure.--To be eligible to
receive a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under
this section, an organization must submit an application to
the Director at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Director may reasonably require. The
Director shall establish a procedure by which to accept such
applications.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000 for
fiscal year 2002 and such funds as may be necessary for
fiscal years 2003 through 2007. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of
the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their
hard work on this bill and also the Chair and ranking member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the committee which has
the authorizing jurisdiction.
I stand before Members today to ask for their support for my
amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. My amendment appropriates
no additional funds. It only authorizes the use of existing funds for
an important program. In substance, it authorizes the director of FEMA
to establish a minority emergency preparedness demonstration program
utilizing grants, contracts and agreements with community-based 501(c)3
nonprofit corporations. The program will allow the nonprofits to
research the status of emergency preparedness in minority households in
urban, rural and suburban communities and to enhance emergency and
disaster response preparedness. It would authorize the director to
provide grants or to execute contracts and cooperative agreements with
eligible nonprofit corporations to establish and to conduct these
programs.
Mr. Chairman, in just this past year, 51 disasters were declared in
33 different States. In fact, this year already 23 disasters have
already been declared in 22 different States. These disasters include
tornadoes, winter storms, floods, spring storms, earthquakes, and ice
storms. Unfortunately, these numbers do not include the hundreds of
fires that occur annually. According to FEMA, the impact on minority
communities is 2\1/2\ times more than on any other group.
It is my hope that all people in high-risk circumstances will benefit
from this program which will document and make available information
about the dangers that are present in different locations as well as
the practical guidance on how to protect against these disasters. I ask
my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is good for America
and it is good for the people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I am not in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and thank him for this
amendment. The amendment would establish a new program within FEMA for
the purpose of increasing the awareness of disaster preparedness needs
within minority communities. He has very well stated the need. This is
an amendment that we have checked with the chairman of the authorizing
committee and the appropriate subcommittee Chair. They are in agreement
that this is a good amendment.
While FEMA has existing programs structured to raise the general
awareness within all communities of the need to prepare for disasters,
I agree with the gentleman that focusing on special populations may be
necessary. It is for this reason that I rise in support of the
gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.

{time} 2100

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Bishop) for offering this amendment which establishes a Minority
Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Program at FEMA.
In my home State of California, we have experienced more than our
fair share of natural disasters, earthquakes, floods, fires and what
have you, over the past decade. We are still recovering from the pain
and devastation created by the Northridge Earthquake back in 1994.
Minority communities like the one I represent need more information to
help them prepare for these sorts of disasters. After Northridge, many
people were left homeless. FEMA did an outstanding job of helping our
community, but I think a Minority Emergency Preparedness Program could
do even more, if this were funded through FEMA.
People in minority communities are often more heavily impacted by
these types of disasters. People often live in poorly designed housing
and have limited access to emergency preparedness materials that are
printed in their own language. It makes sense to have information
available to them in their own language. This would provide assistance
to Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment. It gives us an
opportunity to really reach out to those communities that have been so
severely impacted with natural disasters and emergency situations. I
believe that this will be a real opportunity for our government to be
user friendly to the individuals and to the communities that often bear
the brunt of the worst that nature has to offer.
I would ask that we support this amendment. I thank the chairman and
the ranking member of the committee, as well as the chairman and
ranking members of the authorizing committees for their cooperation and
support. We appreciate that very much; and we think that when we have
completed our work on this bill, we will have done a day's work for the
people of America. I urge passage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, after having consulted with my ranking member, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), we agree this is a
constructive amendment, that it is a positive idea, that it helps the
bill, and we accept it. We urge its adoption.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
Representative Sanford Bishop's amendment to authorize FEMA

[[Page H4842]]

to establish a minority emergency preparedness demonstration program,
under which funding would be provided to eligible non-profit
organizations to conduct research into the state of preparedness and
disaster response awareness in African American and Hispanic
households.
A number of my constituents in Watts, Compton, Lynwood, and Long
Beach are minorities who have been affected by natural disasters. There
is an ever-present threat of an earthquake and the looming potential of
floods. It is essential that they have contingency plans based on
timely information in order to prepare for potential disasters. It is
critical that funding be made available to determine the degree to
which communities of color are aware of and prepared to respond to
impending disaster. I offer my support to my colleague for this very
timely amendment, and commend him for his foresight.
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 Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

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

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen:
At the end of the bill, after the last section (before the
short title) insert the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or
administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and a Member
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment along with my
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), to prevent the
Veterans Administration from using the existing Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation formula to allocate veterans medical dollars across
the country. This is the 3rd year in a row that I have offered this
amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
In 1997, Congress passed legislation that authorized the VA to
develop a new formula for allocating veterans medical care dollars
across the Nation. The resulting formula, VERA, has not worked as
intended. VERA has had a terrible effect of restricting access to
veterans medical care in my part of the Northeast, including my
district in New Jersey, which is part of Veterans Integrated Service
Network, or VISN, 3. This network, which serves parts of New York and
New Jersey, has borne the brunt of this funding shift. According to the
VA's own figures, funding for VISN 3 has been reduced by 6 percent or
$64 million at a time when most other networks have received funding
increases.
New Jersey has the second oldest veterans population in the Nation
behind Florida. Our State has the fourth highest number of complex-care
patients treated at our hospitals. Yet New Jersey's older, sicker
veterans are routinely left waiting months for visits to primary care
physicians and specialists or are denied care at our two VA nursing
homes.
Something is fundamentally wrong with the VERA allocation formula if
it continues to decrease funding for areas where veterans have the
greatest medical needs. All veterans, regardless of where they live,
have earned and deserve access to the same quality of medical care,
care that is too often denied under the current formula.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to withdraw this amendment today, but this
issue must be addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member seeking time in opposition to this
amendment?
If not, the gentleman from New Jersey still has time remaining.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Congressman Frelinghuysen, along with New York Representative Maurice
Hinchey, have been tireless crusaders for the rights of our nation's
veterans, and this amendment highlights this fact by forcing the VA to
abandon its flawed funded formula for providing for the health care
needs of America's veterans.
Under the current system, VERA bases its resource allocation on
sending more dollars to areas where there are more veterans--not where
the needs are the greatest.
While that may sound rationale--the result has been horrendous for
areas of the country like Queens and the Bronx, which I represent.
The facts bare out that increasingly more VA dollars are going to the
South and Southwest portions of the country were more veterans live--
veterans who are often younger and healthier.
The result is less resources in the areas of the country, like New
York City, where the veterans are older, sicker, and in more desperate
need of care.
I heard a story from a constituent regarding a VA hospital he saw
while on vacation in Florida. It was a state of the art facility, with
plenty of doctors and nurses on call--and no patients.
He and his wife informed me that the place was virtually empty--but
that facility had the best money can buy.
In New York City, meanwhile, we continue to see lay-offs of the
professional doctors and nurses at our VA hospitals and clinics; long
lines for care; and a far too high ratio of nurses per patient.
I am not saying that we should deprive our veterans in the South and
Southwest part of the country their fair share of resources; all we ask
for this amendment is that the VA provide equal treatment and resources
to all veterans regardless of where they reside.
It is a shame that the VERA system has pitted veterans in one region
of the country versus veterans in other regions.
Therefore, I am supportive of the Frelinghuysen amendment to prohibit
any Federal funds from implementing or administering the VERA system.
I ask all of my colleagues from throughout the Nation to support this
amendment that has caused so much pain for so many veterans.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.
My congressional district in southern Nevada has the fastest growing
veteran population in the country.
The medical facilities in my district have seen a 24.4 percent
increase in the number of veterans that they serve over the past year.
This is a phenomenal increase.
Unfortunately, veterans programs in southern Nevada do not receive
sufficient funding to provide all the services that veterans need and
this shortfall in funding has had a negative impact on the delivery of
veterans health care services.
Clinics are short-staffed and veterans are still waiting far too long
for medical appointments. Demands for veteran health care services in
southern Nevada is increasing faster than the availability for
facilities and providers. We need more resources.
The VERA system is a fair and equitable way to ensure that the
distribution of VA funds is consistent with the distribution of the
veterans population.
The implementation of this system is an essential step forward in the
continued improvement of our VA health care system.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman I want to commend the gentleman
for his strong advocacy on behalf of Veterans Networks that have a
rapidly aging population and an aging infrastructure to maintain. The
VA in the State of New Jersey has the tough challenge of providing
quality health care services to a veterans population that is the
second oldest on average in the Nation. And unlike many other States
that have older populations, New Jersey has an aging health care
infrastructure that is proven costly to maintain and to operate.
As the gentleman knows, we have been working for some time to find
solutions to this problem so that our veterans are not shortchanged by
VERA.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

[[Page H4843]]

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the Chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs for his comments.
As the gentleman knows, I and nearly 30 of my colleagues have
introduced legislation to address the problem of resource allocation
within the VA health care system. Many of us believe that areas of the
country with the high cost of living have been unfairly disadvantaged
under the existing resource allocation formula. I also know that the
gentleman is working on several VA health care initiatives that are
designed to improve the VA health care system to provide better service
for our veterans.
My question is, what is the best way to ensure that veterans health
services, particularly specialty care services like spinal cord injury
treatment, are adequately maintained for all of our veterans, and not
just those in certain parts of our country?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I do thank my friend from New
Jersey for his excellent question. I believe, like the gentleman does,
that a veteran is a veteran is a veteran, no matter in what part of the
country he or she happens to reside. As the gentleman knows, in some of
our networks, there has been an erosion in certain specialty care
services. For example, in 1996, we required the VA to maintain a
certain level of capacity in specialized programs. We now know that
despite this Congressional requirement, specialty care bed capacity has
been reduced by as much as 65 percent.
I wish to reassure the gentleman that, in fact, I am working, as
chairman of the full Committee on Veterans Affairs, on a comprehensive
VA health care improvement and capacity restoration bill. Once that
bill is finalized and I have a chance to share that proposal with many
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I believe he and others will find
that it will appropriately and compassionately address many of the
concerns which the gentleman has raised so adequately on the floor
today.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments and for his leadership, as well as the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Kelly).
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in supporting
this amendment. VERA, the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan,
is badly in need of what my colleague from New Jersey attempts to do
with this, and my colleague from New York.
Under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I have
witnessed the results of cuts that have effectively removed hundreds of
millions of dollars from the lower New York area veterans network.
VERA is fundamentally flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's
methodology, its implementation, and the VA's oversight of this new
spending plan.
The veteran's network in our area has the oldest veterans population,
the highest number of veterans with spinal cord injuries, the highest
number of veterans suffering from mental illness, the highest incidence
of hepatitis C in its veterans population, and the highest number of
homeless veterans.
It is inconceivable and intolerable that the VA would continually
reduce our region's funding.
VISN 3 has required reserve funding for the last 4 years because our
veterans hospitals keep running out of money.
When will we realize that the VA should fund our hospitals properly
the first time and leave reserve funds for emergencies?
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment and make the investment in our veterans hospitals necessary
to keep our promise to our veterans. The veterans of this Nation were
there is our time of need. We ought to do the same for them.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 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 support of the
Frelinghuysen amendment, for the third year in a row.
Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support of the
amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen) which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used
by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the
Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. Unfortunately
this has turned into a regional legislative battle between northeastern
states and especially low-population Great Plains and Rocky Mountain
states' delegations on one hand, and on the other hand the Sunbelt
states with their larger numbers of veterans retirees. Those of us
representing the former see our veterans left out in the cold while the
money flows to the populace Sunbelt states. Once again, we may be out-
voted but it certainly isn't fair to veterans in our states.
From the time the Clinton Administration announced this new system,
this Member has voiced his strong opposition to VERA because of its
inherent flaws in inequitable distribution of funds, and has supported
funding levels of the VA Health Administration above the amount the
Clinton Administration recommended.
This Member is proud to have supported the increases in funding which
Congress has provided for veterans health care recent years. However,
the veterans health care system in Nebraska continues to experience
growing service and funding shortfalls each year even after the forced
closing of two of our three in-patient facilities, reducing the number
of full time employees fourteen percent and completing integration of
all three VA Medical centers. In fiscal year 1999, the VISN 14 area--
consisting of Nebraska and Iowa experienced a $6 million shortfall. In
fiscal year 2000, the shortfall was $17 million. In fiscal year 2001,
the shortfall was $48 million. For the short-term, the VA Central
Office has provided VISN 14 with a $32 million loan, which it will be
required to repay, and a $16 million grant. While VISN 14 continues to
experience growing shortfalls in funding, the number of patients
continues to increase.
Clearly the VERA system has had a very negative impact on Nebraska
and other sparsely populated areas of the country. All members of
Congress should agree, Mr. Chairman, that the VA must provide adequate
services and facilities for veterans all across the country regardless
of whether they live in sparsely populated areas with resultant low
usage numbers for VA hospitals. The funding distribution unfairly
reallocates the VA's health care budget based strictly on a per capita
veterans usage of facilities. There must be at least a basic level of
acceptable national infrastructure of facilities, medical personnel,
and services for meeting the very real medical needs faced by our
veterans wherever they live. There must be a threshold funding level
for VA medical services in each state and region before any per-capita
funding formula is applied. That is only common sense, but the Clinton
Administration had too little of that valuable commodity when it comes
to treating veterans in our part of the country humanely and equitably.
In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support
the Frelinghuysen amendment and fulfill the obligation to provide care
to those who have so honorably served our country--no matter where they
live in these United States of America.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for his passionate
advocacy on behalf of our Nation's veterans and veterans in his
district. I am sympathetic to his concerns about VERA, being myself
from the Northeast.
This is not an easy issue for every Member from the Northeast or
Midwest, many of whom have a concern about the impact of medical
dollars moving to growing regions. We hear from colleagues representing
the South and the Southwest worried that not enough is being provided
in their regions.
So I am hopeful that the new VA Secretary will give some attention to
this issue, and that, together, we can find a solution. I thank the
gentleman for withdrawing his amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman New York (Mr.
Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my leader on the subcommittee for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that the veterans health care budget
submitted by the Bush Administration is woefully inadequate to meet the
needs of our veterans across the country, but because of the computer
formula known as VERA, veterans in New York and other States will
suffer disproportionately.

[[Page H4844]]

VERA and the inadequate funding levels in this bill will guarantee
cuts in health care for many veterans across the country. While VERA
purports to provide equitable health care in all regions, without
question it has lowered the quality of care in many places. VERA is not
equitable or fair to veterans in many parts of the country.
Since 1995, in the Hudson Valley Health Care System, area which
serves part of New York, we have seen the following: there has been a
cut in the number of employees by 34 percent; beds have been cut by 52
percent; while the number of unique patients has increased by 76
percent; and the number of visits has increased by 84 percent.
Despite increasing enrollment, our share of resources continues to
shrink under VERA. VISN 3 and the region that I represent treats older
and sicker veterans more so than any other VISN in the country. They
have the highest fuel costs in the Nation, by far. We have the highest
reported incidence of hepatitis C in the Nation and are treating the
greatest number of hepatitis C patients, and have the highest rate of
homeless veterans. VERA does not account for any of these costs.
Despite the cuts in services and efforts to maximize operating
efficiencies, we are still facing even more funding shortfalls in this
part of the country. All the cuts in personnel and facilities that can
be conceived of have been made in our region, yet VA facilities are
facing a $32 million shortfall in the Hudson Valley area of New York,
while VISN 3 as a whole is facing a $160 million shortfall.
Under VERA, every year is a funding emergency, forcing us to beg for
additional funding to address these shortfalls. This year, 4 VISNs are
receiving emergency funds because of inadequacies in this VERA formula.
My region, number 3, is receiving $64 million, far short of what is
needed. Because of VERA and this year's inadequate budget, it is an
absolute certainty we will need emergency funding to get through this
next year.
While those being injured the most under VERA are those who reside in
the Northeast and Midwest areas of our country, other regions have
suffered in the past and may do so again under VERA in the immediate
future. In fiscal year 2002, the losses would include VISNs serving the
following regions: the Bronx, New York; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Chicago,
Illinois; Long Beach, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Phoenix Arizona;
Albany New York; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

{time} 2115

Our veterans should not be penalized because of where they live, but
as long as the Veterans' Administration is allocating resources in the
name of this VERA formula, we will continue to have these inadequacies
and injustices that do a great disservice to veterans in my part of the
country and in many others.

Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Waxman

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

Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Waxman:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement
any provision of the April 2001 report entitled ``Plan for
the Development of a 25-Year General Use Plan for Department
of Veterans Affairs West Los Angeles Healthcare Center''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a noncontroversial amendment clarifying that an April 2001
report entitled ``The Plan for the Development of a 25-Year General Use
Plan'' for the VA West Los Angeles Health Care Center is a preliminary
plan in the development of a master plan for the lands on that
property. There is concern about the status of this preliminary plan
because it contains some controversial provisions strongly opposed by
the local residents, community groups, and public officials. This might
have been avoided, but no local, county, and State officials, and only
a very small number of community organizations in the area were allowed
to participate in the process to develop this plan. The West L.A. VA
also opposes parts of the plan.
The VA will make its decisions for the future use of the West L.A. VA
lands under the existing CARES (Capital Assessment Realignment for
Enhanced Services) process that was initiated in 1999. Under this
process, the VA will conduct a detailed analysis of VA property
throughout the country to determine the best option for serving
veterans in each area.
This amendment would bar the use of Federal funds to implement any of
the April 2001 plan's provisions. Its intent is simply to clarify that
it is only a preliminary report and that this final plan for use of the
land will be developed under the CARES process.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing controversial about this amendment,
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but
I am not in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. We have discussed
this with the gentleman. The request is to put the implementation of
this study on hold until there is more input from the community and
with the local representatives. We would be prepared to accept the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Rangel:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 4____. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to implement or enforce the requirement under
section 12(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437j(c); relating to community service).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment would strike the funding for the redundant provision
that is in the 1998 Public Housing Act that requires tenants in public
housing to do community work. It has taken about 3 years for HUD to put
together the regulations in order to guide this, and HUD does not
oppose the striking of the funds that are imposed upon the tenants in
public housing, because there is no other provisions for other people
that receive Federal funds to do this type of thing.
In addition to it, the local and State communities are all working
hard under the welfare reform legislation to see that people who are
able to work can work, and it is an unfunded mandate, and I am certain
that HUD could be using the funds for other purposes. I understand the
authorizing committee has no objections to this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any HUD funding to be used
to implement the community service requirements that we passed as part
of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. As a member
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the House
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I worked with my
colleagues on this provision and know it to be very fair with a great
deal of flexibility for those subject to it.
This amendment seeks to reverse an important initiative that was part
of

[[Page H4845]]

our welfare reform effort. In approving the Community Service
Initiative, we sought to create a mutuality of obligation between the
provider of the housing and the recipient of the housing. This
obligation is not overwhelming, it only calls for 8 hours a month of
assistance from the resident; that is only 2 hours a week. It is a very
flexible requirement.
The initiative was crafted to have no real limits to what can be
considered community service so that it can be satisfied by planting
and maintaining a garden, voter registration efforts, or can be work
with the big brothers or big sisters programs. Under the language of
the provision we give the individual Housing Authorities full authority
to make the determination for what is an allowable activity.
This initiative enjoys bipartisan support and was not only supported
by the Clinton administration, it was included in former President
Clinton's own public housing reform proposal which he sent to the Hill
prior to our consideration of the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998.
Who is required to comply with this initiative? Residents of public
housing who have the time. The language of the law clearly exempts the
elderly, the disabled, the employed, those who are in school, and/or
are receiving training, those in a family receiving assistance under a
State program, and those who are involved in the welfare reform
program. With all of those exceptions, who is left? Individuals who are
unemployed, those who have dropped out of school, those who are fully
capable and have the time to give something back to the communities in
which they live.
What happens if these individuals choose not to comply with this
community service provision? They are not immediately tossed out on the
street. However, noncompliance can be grounds for nonrenewal of the
public housing lease at the end of the 12-month lease term, which can
lead to eviction.
This issue comes down to one of personal responsibility. This was a
major theme of the welfare reform laws we successfully changed.
President Clinton signed those laws; they were good laws. This is one
of them. The language from the Senate committee report seems to best
sum up, and I am quoting: they say, ``The provision is not intended to
be perceived as punitive, but rather considered as a rewarding activity
that will assist residents in improving their own and their neighbors'
economic and social well-being and give residents a greater stake in
their communities.''
In recent years we have made great progress in an effort to reform
welfare and reform public housing. This initiative has a strong link in
this effort. Recently, I saw residents of the Housing Authority of New
Orleans buildings outside cleaning up yards after the weekend. They
were patrolling areas that might not otherwise have been clean. They
would have been filled with trash. They told me, the residents who were
cleaning them up, that they had been cleaning a lot of trash up. Now
the yards are clean on a Monday morning, the children are outside
playing in the grassy areas, grandmas are walking their grandchildren
around, helping them learn to ride their bikes.
Mr. Chairman, this initiative works. I think we have to preserve the
community service provisions of the 1998 Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
please consider this opposition to the Rangel amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from New York is right in
dealing with the exceptions that are under this law. After we get
finished with all of that, the only people that are left are the
elderly, working families, and the disabled, and those who are in
school.
This is not a part of welfare reform. We have legislation that deals
with welfare reform. We have legislation that deals with communities
and States that require working for those people who are able to work.
This is the only type of allowing the indignity of putting this type of
burden on poor folks in public housing when there is no such
requirement for any other type of Federal assistance, including Section
8.
Now, HUD knew how difficult it would be for them to superimpose their
standards on the welfare standards. This is a housing bill; this is not
a welfare reform bill. That is the reason that they took so long in
getting these regulations that are almost unenforceable, and that is
the reason why they do not object to having this stricken from the
record.
Mr. Chairman, we have cut a lot of good services out of the HUD
programs to be able to give assistance to kids to get education and
recreation and to avoid drug addiction. But this is also an unfunded
mandate that forces the public housing people to take a look at this
and to put this burden on people when we have the cities departments of
welfare, the State departments of welfare to do it. The Housing
Authority is no place to enforce the welfare laws.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with the gentleman prior to this
debate. I had no knowledge that anyone on our side would oppose him and
based on the conversation we had and right at this very moment, I still
feel that this is an amendment that I can support. The agency from New
York, in conversation with the gentleman, has agreed with him on this.
So I continue to support the gentleman's amendment and I would be
prepared to accept it.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Rangel amendment.
This is an amendment that respects the dignity of public housing
residents.
In 1998 the Congress passed legislation that essentially says that
public housing residents aren't as good as other Americans.
It requires residents to fulfill community service because they
receive the benefit of public housing.
Mr. Chairman, this provision was mean spirited when it was passed and
we should overturn it today.
Residents of public housing do receive a government benefit. In that
way they are similarly situated to hundreds of millions of other
Americans.
They receive a benefit just as home owners are allowed to deduct
mortgage interest from their taxes.
They receive a benefit just as FHA and VA home loans receive a
benefit.
They certainly do not receive a benefit as great as those that huge
multinational corporations are granted on taxes from federal, state,
and local governments.
I could stand on the floor of this House and name thousands of
special interests that receive some sort of special government benefit
because they have been determined to be worthy of such treatment by
Congress.
Just as many of these residents are moving from welfare to work we
have singled out public housing residents has having to justify
themselves by completing community service.
We should be ashamed of such shoddy treatment of people with lower
incomes.
How will we administer this mess of a requirement?
In New York City, NYCHA administers housing for 426,000 residents--30
percent of whom are elderly.
This community service requirement, even with exemptions for the
elderly, will require a huge amount of resources to monitor compliance.
In the context of a housing bill that already under funds housing--
administration will simply take additional much needed resources away
from where they are needed.
This is truly meddling by the federal government in the affairs of
local citizens.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and repeal this
belittling requirement of public housing residents.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

Amendment No. 40 offered by Mr. Traficant:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert
the following new section:
Sec. ____. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act shall be made available to any
person or entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

[[Page H4846]]

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The trade deficit in America has risen to $30 billion a month. It now
approaches close to $360 billion a year. That is unbelievable. I think
the least that we can do is wherever possible in expending Federal
dollars, and certainly there are quite a few dollars being expended in
this bill, would be to look for the probability and the possibility of
spending those funds on American-made goods.
This amendment not only does that, but it would disallow and prohibit
anyone who is violating the Buy American law from being eligible for
grant money under the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I am not opposed to the amendment. We are very much prepared
to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
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 Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 2130

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their hard work in
putting this bill together.
I rise for the purpose of engaging the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee in a colloquy.
Given the subcommittee's overall funding allocation, the task of the
chairman and the ranking member was a daunting one, to say the least.
This bill funds many of our Nation's priorities: veterans, housing, the
environment, FEMA, NASA, and science.
Unfortunately, the subcommittee's overall allocation was too low to
meet all of these priorities. One of those underfunded priorities in
this bill is clean water.
I was prepared to offer an amendment tonight to restore funding for
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund back to its current-year level.
Our country's water infrastructure and environmental needs are not
diminishing. In fact, EPA's own estimates show that our local
communities are facing a $330 billion gap in water infrastructure
investments over the next 20 years. Now is not the time to reduce the
Federal commitment to these communities.
Mr. Chairman, the State Revolving Funds are an important financing
tool that helps them meet their growing clean water needs. I want to
commend NUCA, the American Oceans Campaign, the Sierra Club, NRDC, the
League of Conservation Voters, and others for helping to highlight our
country's environmental and infrastructure needs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and his staff for agreeing
to work to increase the overall funding for the Clean Water SRF as this
bill goes to conference with the other body.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for raising this
important issue, and I remain committed to work to increase the
allocation for the Clean Water SRF as we go to conference with the
Senate. I agree that our communities face growing environmental and
infrastructure challenges, and we must maintain our Federal commitment
to them. It is the right thing to do for our environment as well as the
economic development of these communities.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
leadership.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for
a colloquy.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I just wanted to continue along the venue the gentleman had with the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). I just wanted to commend
the chairman for his personal interest and leadership in helping us
zero in on these issues dealing with water and infrastructure.
I am particularly interested in the gentleman's willingness to work
with us on the State Revolving Fund, because this is an area that, from
my perspective, ought to be able to bring together a wide variety of
opinions because of the fact that it is a revolving fund that deals
with loans rather than grants; that requires more of an investment from
local communities; the fact that for some instances where people do not
have the start-up money, it actually is better than a grant, and that
it has money over time.
I want to express my appreciation for the gentleman's focus on this
and offer any help that I can give to help reinforce this as it works
its way through the legislative process, because it means so much to
the livability of our communities.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his thoughts on this issue, Mr.
Chairman. I spoke earlier on the Barcia amendment. I know he feels very
strongly, as do I. There is a tremendous, tremendous void out there in
our ability to deal with combined sewer overflows, with clean water
issues throughout the country.
Clearly, the Congress needs to step up and take this issue on head
on. We are looking for direction from the authorizing committee. I
would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to help to reorder
some of the priorities, because this is something that I certainly rely
on in my community, and I know the gentleman does. There is broad
interest throughout the Congress on this. I thank the gentleman for his
interest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly)
for a colloquy.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I join my colleague in supporting the increased funding for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund. Investment in wastewater infrastructure may
not be a glamorous issue, but it is a fundamental component of efforts
across the country to create and maintain livable communities.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund has been the Federal
Government's primary and most effective tool in helping communities
meet wastewater and infrastructure needs. The needs are enormous. Even
under the most conservative estimates, we are still not investing
enough in wastewater infrastructure. We wonder how our water gets
dirty. We need to fix our wastewater problems.
The EPA estimates that we face over $300 billion of wastewater
infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. New figures have been
coming out showing significantly higher figures. The longer we wait to
address these needs, the worse the problem will become. It is
imperative that we do everything we can now to assist our communities
in building environmental infrastructure.
I commend the chairman for putting in funding for the State Revolving
Fund which is significantly higher than the level proposed by the
administration, but I do believe that an even higher funding level will
be necessary in the coming years.
I offered, with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, a
bill, H.R. 668, which calls for $3 billion in funding for the State
Revolving Fund. I do understand the constraints faced by the chairman
in funding the many programs in this bill; but I hope, at the very
minimum, that we will be able to reach the fiscal year 2001 level of
$1.35 billion in this bill.
I look forward to working with the chairman and trying to achieve a
funding level in this bill that more accurately represents the
tremendous needs of our communities across the Nation.

[[Page H4847]]

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her strong
support for this program and for her leadership in helping to make the
Hudson River fishable, swimmable, and even more beautiful than we found
it.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Roemer

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

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Roemer:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration--
(1) to obligate amounts for the International Space Station
in contravention of the cost limitations established by
section 202 of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-391; 42
U.S.C. 2451 note); or
(2) to defer or cancel construction of the Habitation
Module, Crew Return Vehicle, or Propulsion Module elements of
the International Space Station.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a Member opposed each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would start off by explaining to this prestigious
body what this amendment does do and what it does not do.
First of all, what it does not do: it does not eliminate funding for
the Space Station. This is not a killer Space Station amendment. As a
matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a fencing, a capping
amendment.
This simply states, and it reiterates what they have done in the
United States Senate, language offered by Senator McCain, and passing
the Senate, that there will be $25 billion allocated for the life of
the Space Station for construction costs, $17 billion for Space Station
shuttle launch costs, for a total of $42 billion, $42 billion.
Mr. Chairman, where I come from and where most Americans come from,
that is a lot of money. That is not a killer amendment. That is just
simply saying, you guys have to build the Space Station for this cost,
and you cannot continue to go over it with inefficiencies and delays
and overruns, because that hurts other precious programs: housing
programs for our poor, feeding programs for our hungry, education
programs for our children. We are going to be fighting for every dollar
we can get this fall in our budget.
I would say to the Members, $42 billion, is that enough? Is that
enough, when we have 18 percent of our children in this country in
poverty? When we have some soldiers who are on food stamps, is $42
billion enough? We will see.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I offer this amendment is because, according
to a Bush administration Office of Management and Budget document, here
is what they say about the international Space Station: ``Recent cost
growth on the Space Station is estimated at approximately $1 billion
for 2001 and 2002 and $4 billion for the next 5 years.'' That is recent
cost growth. That is a total of $5 billion in recent cost growth.
Mr. Chairman, that is Washington parlance, for those out there,
saying that we have a humongous cost overrun, $5 billion. So that is
why we are saying that we have to fence the money, $42 billion they
have in NASA to spend on the Space Station, and that is it.
Now, we will probably have some proponents say, well, that is not
enough. What if we go over by $3 billion or another $10 billion? No
other program gets that latitude. We do not have education programs
that come back to the Government and say, well, we had more hungry kids
in the school lunch program, Mr. Congressman. Can you give us another
$5 billion? It does not happen. It happens here. So what we are saying,
like the Senate said, put a fence around it and cap the costs.
I continue, Mr. Chairman, to be very worried about this program. We
continue to be very concerned about it because the science is
dwindling. Instead of sending up scientists to the Space Station, we
are sending up tourists to the Space Station. We need people, if they
are going to be up there, performing the kind of science that will help
our citizens and lead to good discoveries to cure people of disease,
rather than selling the Space Station to the highest bidder, $15
million today, $25 million tomorrow. We cannot afford to do that. That
tourist takes up valuable space that we need to perform science.
Mr. Chairman, the science is dwindling; the cost is going through the
roof. Let me read to the Members what scientists are saying about the
Space Station.
In Florida Today on June 16 of this year, they said, ``Now, a year
since construction began in earnest on the station, it is still hard to
find a scientist outside of NASA who expects much progress from the
station research.''
Robert Park, a researcher for the American Physical Society, says
this: ``It is impossible to name a field of science that has been
changed or even altered by this kind of research. You finally end up
with a Space Station that does not do science.''
I can go on. Kenneth Baldwin, with the Department of Biophysics at
the University of California, says, ``If you are going to use the
justification for the Space Station to have science as the primary
product, should you continue to build up and maintain it with a 3-
person crew when you cannot have any science?''
Mr. Chairman, I am going to shortly reserve some of my time and come
back after we hear from some of the proponents of the Space Station who
have some good and compelling arguments. But I sure hope they are not
arguments about limiting them to $42 billion. That is $42 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) seek time
in opposition?
Mr. WALSH. I rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee on Science.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, let me say that I
have the deepest admiration for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer), and this body will be certainly not as bright and not as
profound a place when he no longer is with us. And I know that he is
not planning to run for reelection. We will miss him very much.
Mr. Chairman, I feel very grateful to have had the opportunity to
serve with the gentleman in the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
Over the years, he has been a voice for prudence and a voice for, yes,
for second thoughts about the Space Station.
Let me say that in the beginning of his term, his arguments made a
lot of sense, a lot more sense. As the years have gone by, however, and
we have invested billions and billions of dollars into this program,
yes, in the beginning it might have made sense to postpone the Space
Station for a number of years. The voice of the gentleman from Indiana
was there saying, Do not waste the money.
But sometimes once you have made a commitment, it is actually more
responsible then to move forward and make sure that the project in
which you are involved is a success, rather than turning back.
If we support the Roemer amendment now, what it will mean is we will
not have science on the Space Station. That is what it will mean. The
laboratory will not work. We will not have the science experiments.
Yes, there is some question whether or not, and from the beginning,
whether or not we were going to have great achievements in space in
these science labs; but one way to ensure that there is never any great
achievement or breakthrough for mankind on this in the microgravity
research being conducted in the Space Station is to pass the Roemer
amendment, which fences off this money.
Yes, we are now in a crisis at the Space Station. There has been an
overrun, and we are going to need to come up with $5 billion. It does
not mean it has to come from us. I am going to Ireland; I am going to
Italy. I am speaking to other allies.

[[Page H4848]]

{time} 2145

I will be traveling over the break to those other countries and will
be speaking to leaders, for example in the Gulf region, to try to find
other people who might want to invest in this incredible, historic
engineering project in space.
If we look into the sky, we see a bright shining object that was not
there before. We can either turn out that light and say that it is a
failure and it represents the failure of mankind, or we can work at
this moment, now, and make sure that we succeed in this endeavor. It is
not time to turn back, it is not time to just fence things off, to put
shackles on the hands of those of us who are trying to make this
project succeed. Together, Democrats and Republicans, and it has always
been a bipartisan project, can work together to make sure that that
light in the sky is a symbol of progress and hope and, yes, even
overcoming bureaucratic obstacles and great hardships, and overcoming
them together.
The gentleman from Indiana has had a great career. It has been an
honor serving with him. But I ask my colleagues not to support his
amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank my good friend from California for the kind words. I very much
not only enjoyed serving with him but learning a great deal from him as
well; learned about science and learned about surfing as well too.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Ganske), a Republican sponsor of this amendment.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from Indiana for his
persistence on this amendment. We have had this debate a lot. Before I
came to Congress in 1995, a few years before that, there was a huge
debate on this, and the space station only stayed in existence by, I
think it was about a one-vote margin. It was very, very close.
At that time, opponents to the space station pointed out basically
what has happened, and that is that we have had these tremendous cost
overruns. The science was questionable. We are now down to a module
that will hold three people. It takes two-and-a-half people to keep the
thing running, so that leaves about 10 hours a week for somebody to do
science in the space station.
We are looking at Russia not having kept its commitments. Cost
overruns. This amendment would cap the space station funding at $25
billion for construction costs and $17 billion for related launch
costs. It would not cancel the space station funding for fiscal year
2002, but the space station is expected to be $4 billion over budget by
2006. That puts it substantially over the $25 billion budget cap
imposed in the fiscal year 2001 NASA authorization act. NASA has
proposed cutting scientific research to pay for the construction cost
overruns.
I think it is time for this body to realize that we are just not
getting the benefit for the cost. Will it make a difference in terms of
what this body decides to do for the gentleman from Indiana and myself
to have brought this amendment back up again tonight? Probably not. But
I would still urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote for the
Roemer-Ganske amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman who is offering
the amendment in a little discussion about his amendment, but first I
want to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in
commending the gentleman for his sincere interest in this issue and for
his bringing the issue to the Congress in the past, and his persistence
in doing it. I think the station is a much better enterprise because of
his efforts. We all need challenged, and certainly NASA needs
challenged in many areas. So before we start a debate, I want to
compliment the gentleman.
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman for the compliment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I understood the gentleman's first
International Space Station amendment here. It was an amendment much
like the amendments he has offered in the past, I think the last 5
years, as a matter of fact. It was a straight-up cut; was it not?
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. The gentleman is correct, the amendment I offered earlier
and withdrew was a kill amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That would have straight-out eliminated the station
program. I understand why the gentleman did that. It has been defeated
on this floor a number of times and the body has spoken pretty
overwhelmingly with regard to that issue.
I frankly do not quite understand this amendment, and that is why I
want to engage the gentleman in a discussion of it at the front of this
overall debate. I have the amendment here before me and it says, ``None
of the funds made available in this act may be used by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to obligate amounts for
International Space Station in contravention of cost limitations
established in section 202 of the 2000 authorization for NASA.''
Correct?
Mr. ROEMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, and if he is
reading the amendment, then that is the way it is written.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is the first paragraph. ``None of the funds may be
used to obligate amounts in contravention of that act. Then it says,
``or defer or cancel construction of the habitat module crew return
vehicle propulsion module.'' As I understand that, the gentleman is
saying they cannot expend above the authorization on the one hand; is
that correct?
Mr. ROEMER. Is the gentleman yielding to me to explain my amendment?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I am, in an ongoing discussion.
Mr. ROEMER. I will be happy to explain the amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. If the gentleman will just answer the question.
Does the first paragraph say, that to obligate amounts under here,
that ``none of the funds made available may be expended in excess of
the authorization in section 202.''?
Mr. ROEMER. The first part of the amendment, as the gentleman knows,
simply states what the United States Senate has passed as a cap for
what can be spent according to the authorization levels for both launch
and construction costs.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time. In the second paragraph, the
gentleman prohibits deferment or cancellation of construction of three
pieces to the station, the habitation module, the crew return vehicle,
and the propulsion module. Is that correct?
Mr. ROEMER. I am delighted my friend is so interested and intrigued
with the amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, it is the amendment we are debating here on the
floor, so I am quite intrigued with it.
Mr. ROEMER. The amendment states they shall not exceed an authorized
bill for a cap; they cannot go over what we have already approved and
passed as a Congress and been signed into law for a cap. And then it
says do not jeopardize the lives of the scientists and the astronauts
on that by cutting life-sustaining or life-threatening equipment that
may get them off the space station that is in danger. Do not cut an
escape vehicle needed to get those people off.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is a really good cause. I acknowledge that,
and I agree with the Member on that. But the Member is setting up here
an impossible situation. The gentleman is taking the flexibility away
from NASA to manipulate funding between these projects, to engage the
international community to help fund these projects, to delay projects
in order to stay within the authorization.
Mr. ROEMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the flexibility
is there. I simply say they have $42 billion, $42 billion, to decide
what to do to build a safe and scientifically worthwhile space station.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I understand that, but the gentleman understands,
because he is a real student of this, that the dollars are just too far
in excess of the authorization and that complying with both paragraph
one and paragraph two is impossible.

[[Page H4849]]

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just to note that in terms of flexibility, the crew
return vehicle and the habitation module, which the gentleman just
mentioned, those are two areas we are working with right now to see if
our allies could pick up the cost for these. Under the Roemer
amendment, we would have to pay for them ourselves rather than if we
could pick up an extra $2 billion from our allies. Why not let them pay
for a crew return vehicle or habitation module?
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Every time we have engaged these other countries in
trying to help us, like the Russians, we end up paying for everything
they were supposed to pay for. It is yet another cost overrun for us.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said in
his opening remarks that it is not a killer amendment. I think it is a
killer amendment for the reasons that I have tried to bring out here in
our discussion. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Science.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here and to join
in the accolades for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). It is an
annual group of accolades, and I am very pleased that the vote on the
amendment will not reflect the veneration that we have for this Member
that is leaving.
We are a Nation of slogans. I think MacArthur said ``the object of
war was victory,'' I think Franklin Roosevelt said, ``The only thing we
have to fear is fear itself,'' but Billy Graham said one that I can use
here. He said, ``Love the sinner but hate the sin.'' And here I really
love the gentleman from Indiana, but I absolutely hate this amendment.
I have the amendment memorized because I think this is the fifth or
sixth straight time that the gentleman has come with this god-awful
amendment, and I just hope that my colleagues will listen carefully and
vote their conscience.
As crafted, this amendment could eventually force unwise choices to
NASA's human space flight program, which includes both the shuttle
program and the space station program. It is a bad amendment. It is an
amendment that looks reasonable at first glance, but it really creates
more difficulties than it solves.
Actually, simply put, the Roemer amendment would deny NASA the
ability to make any adjustments to the space station program that might
be needed to live within the funding cap contained in last year's NASA
authorization bill. We already have a cap. There is a cap. It would
also prevent NASA from making the adjustments to the space station
program included in the President's fiscal year 2002 budget. I think
the President was a little conservative in his budget, and we are
working with him on that. I think it is short of the needs we need.
So I think we should oppose this amendment and once again wish the
gentleman from Indiana good sailing. May the wind be at the gentleman's
back when he goes back to Indiana and becomes, maybe, the next governor
or the United States Senator from there. God bless the gentleman.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I would echo the great respect for my neighbor and colleague
from Indiana expressed in the Chamber today. I am more convinced than
ever that the gentleman from Indiana is one tough customer, but I will
rise as a new member of the NASA Committee on Science to express my
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague.
Now, my colleague's amendment seems to be predicated on the assertion
that we cannot spend additional money because we cannot afford to make
mistakes in the space program. Mr. Chairman, there has certainly been
some growing pains associated with the space station over the last year
in particular. But original ground-breaking research is, by its very
nature, fraught with failure and disappointment. We should expect a
project of this magnitude to benefit from an environment defined by
academic freedom. Adopting this measure will be ignoring the original
intent of the Congress that has always supported full funding of the
space station to produce a world-class research facility.
Mr. Chairman, if we want great science, we must defend the programs
that make it possible.

{time} 2200

The amendment authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer),
Mr. Chairman, today would not so much kill the Space Station as he has
attempted to do before perennially in this Chamber, but it may well
wound it and wound it mortally. But I would offer this conclusion, that
this debate is not just about dollars and sense, Mr. Chairman; all
Americans are descendents of pioneers who journeyed to or prevailed in
this wilderness Nation.
More than any other people in modern times, we are a Nation of
explorers and adventurers. Let us not, in this day, abandon the most
compelling aspect of American character. Our ancestors led the world
into the unknown with faith and courage. Let us continue to lead the
world with that same faith and courage into unimaginable riches of
space.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California, (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer amendment
to cap funding for the International Space Station. I rise to thank our
good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his leadership
on this issue and many other very important issues here in the House of
Representatives. He will be missed.
When I came here 9 years ago, the gentleman was leading the effort in
proving the point that the Space Station was too costly for what we
were going to get out of it for this Nation. I was with him then, and I
am as convinced today as I was 9 years ago that the gentleman is
absolutely right on this issue.
I am a member of the House Committee on Science. It is hard to be a
member of the House Committee on Science and not support the Space
Station. But I can say as a member, I am respectful of the very
valuable work that NASA does to push the envelope of technology for the
aeronautical field and for understanding our universe in general.
I support the Romer amendment, however, because I believe one NASA
project, the Space Station, has cast too large a shadow over our
Federal budget. When the Space Station was proposed in 1984, the
estimated price tag was about $8 billion. Can we all imagine $8
billion?
Now the construction price alone has quadrupled the original price
tag. On the Committee on Science we are still holding periodic hearings
that discuss the continuing cost overruns for the Space Station.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest we can do better by our budget and we can do
better by our children. By voting to cap the construction and launch
costs for the Space Station, we can invest this money in as worthy but
more reliable programs, both at NASA and other areas of our Federal
budget. In this time of tight Federal funding, I believe now is the
time to put the reigns on the Space Station. Invest in our country.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to add to my colleague, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), that I have enjoyed serving with
him.
We have fought this battle many years now. I happen to disagree with
him over this particular issue. We have agreed on a lot of other
issues. He has offered this House a valuable service. Frankly, he has
offered NASA a valuable service by keeping the pressure on NASA.
I have to say, though, I hope the gentleman will withdraw this
amendment much like he withdrew the other

[[Page H4850]]

amendment. This is a very ill-advised amendment.
The chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee have done an
outstanding job of making sure that NASA's budget was kept within the
perspective of this particular bill. The ranking member has made
excellent points in arguing why this amendment today does not work.
The Roemer-Capps amendment is a Catch-22 for NASA. It is a wolf in
sheep's clothing. The gentleman is trying to put a cap on this, but a
cap already exists and the committee has worked within that cap. Do not
support this ill-advised amendment. It does not provide NASA with the
flexibility to deal with the cost issues that it must deal with. I hope
the gentleman will withdraw this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
The Space Station is in orbit. We have research going on up there
right now. As we all know, NASA recently recorded significant cost
overruns. The administration responded appropriately by canceling three
elements.
I think there are some serious problems with the proposal the
administration has put forward. I certainly agree with the sentiment of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that we need to work
with our European allies to see if we can get at least the crew return
vehicle and the module built.
The proposal the gentleman from Indiana is putting forward
essentially says we have to stay within the cap, and we already have a
cap, but we have to go ahead and build all those elements.
That is like your spouse comes home and says, Honey, we are over
budget. We cannot screen in the porch and buy that new car. Then you
were to respond, we are going to stay on budget and we are going to
screen in the porch and buy that new car. Your spouse might turn to you
and scratch her head and say, Gee, honey, how the heck are we going to
do that?
This is in many ways a very clever amendment, but it is a totally
unworkable amendment. I believe it is just another attempt to try to
kill the Space Station program. I would strongly encourage all my
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I think the basis most clearly articulated by our ranking member, who
pointed out that by operation of the first half of the amendment NASA
is precluded from going over the cap and by operation of the second
portion of the amendment NASA is precluded from deferring or delaying
enhancements that would, in effect, force it to exceed the cap. It is
unfortunately a Catch-22 that takes away the flexibility that NASA
needs to sustain this program.
The Space Station holds out great promise in terms of science, the
advancement of science and the development of commerce. I urge my
colleagues to reject this Catch-22 amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I am for the
amendment, so I do not have to say anything nice about the gentleman
from Indiana. But I would anyway if it were relevant.
We have been sitting here for 3 days on this bill. In area after area
important to the most needy people in our society, we have had a large
degree of agreement that we have not been able to do what is required.
We have cut funds for fighting drug-induced crime in public housing. We
have not got enough in Section 8. We are about to have a rollcall in
which veterans in one part of the country will be pitted against
veterans in another for health care.
The list of pressing unmet basic needs is very long. That is why I am
for this amendment. The Space Station is a good thing in itself; but in
the context in which we are operating and which we have not got the
funds to provide some people with the basic necessities of housing, of
health care, of a decent education, I do not think it is justified to
continue to spend as much as we have been spending on the Space
Station.
I was a supporter of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) when we
tried to stop it. It is obviously too late to stop it. But it is not
too late to impose very stringent fiscal controls. The reason is, I
would hope, clear to anyone who has been following this debate. We have
not got enough money to meet the mandate of the Clean Water Act. We
have not got enough money for people to be decently housed in the face
of a housing crisis. We cannot provide veterans health care everywhere
we want. This is an amendment that does not say the Space Station
should not happen. We have lost that fight. But rather, that we have to
impose fiscal restraints. If we do not impose them here, we impose them
in housing, we impose them in veterans health care, and we impose them
in the environment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, one of the people who I think about when I
listen to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) speak is Keely
Woodruff, a 6-year-old girl who has a developmental age of only 2\1/2\
because of epileptic seizures, who now is progressing nicely because of
a device invented through our efforts in space. The contributions NASA
has made to our country and the world are absolutely priceless.
This is an ill-conceived, ill-thought-out amendment. It actually
works against the apparent interest of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) of holding down costs as it requires construction without a
thoughtful plan, a construction effort, I might add, comparable to our
first trip to the Moon. It could actually cause deeper cuts in the
station itself and cause the so-called cap to be a killing blow. Is
that not the real intention?
The annals of great events of history are not filled by those content
to live in the present without vision, but by those who sought to
understand the unknown and change their future. If we cancel this
program, what will we say and what will that say to our partners in the
international community about U.S. leadership in the 21st century?
How can we begin to place a dollar value on the improvements and
quality of life for all humanity that we know from the last 20 years of
experience will come from space research. Vote down this killing
amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer
capping amendment. I will reiterate all of the compliments previously
stated, having served with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The International Space Station
is something that is working; but regarding the capping of it, Mr.
Chairman, we do not have enough money to do everything we want to. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) talked about that. We need to
continue what we should be doing in the space program, and the
International Space Station is a great example of international
cooperation. It had some rough sledding, but it is on schedule now. We
have had crews up there since October 2000. They have made so much
long-term progress in research in biotechnology, radiation, health, and
such classroom-friendly lessons as Earth and near-object observation.
Mr. Chairman, that is why this amendment should be defeated, because
there are so many other things that we can talk about.
The ISS has been a model of multinational coordination between
Europe, Russia, Canada, Japan, Brazil and the U.S. If Congress
eliminates or even caps funding for the station by passing one of these
amendments, it would be a betrayal of our international partners.
Since October 2000, two crews have occupied the station and brought
many of the early scientific experiments on-line. These experiments
include research into long-germ space

[[Page H4851]]

flight on humans, biotechnology, radiation, health, and such classroom-
friendly lessons as earth and near object observation.
The space station is on track and operating, with several missions
already complete. This NASA budget maintains that momentum and builds
on the successes of this program.
Critics have charged that funding the space station will push out any
smaller space exploration endeavors like the Mars Pathfinder Mission or
the Hubbel Space Telescope, which have had enormous success.
This simply is not true. NASA, with the development of the space
station, will have a platform from which future space exploration and
research can be launched.
Members of the shuttle crews, along with station inhabitants, have
been able to overcome all of the problems that they have encountered,
showcasing their ingenuity, creativity and skill. The ground support
personnel have also played crucial roles in overcoming these obstacles.
We are standing on the brink of the twenty-first century. Capping
funding for the international space station would be irresponsible.
It would cost us billions of dollars, along with countless hours of
hard work and effort by NASA scientists, researchers, astronauts, and
engineers. We would be best cripple and at worst lose our foothold to
future space exploration and a valuable platform for scientific
research.
Again, I am opposed to the amendment and support the funding for the
international space station in this bill.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let
me say as everybody else has said that I have nothing but the greatest
respect for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), although I suspect
he will be here 1 more year, so we may have to do this one more time.
Having said that, I hope that the gentleman's amendment is defeated.
Mr. Chairman, this is something of a red herring amendment. We have
already decided we are going to build the Space Station. We have
already invested tremendously in it, and we have a cap that exists in
the law and we have the ultimate cap that exists on the floor of this
House and on the floor of the other body. Ultimately Congress decides
how much money we are going to spend, regardless of whether we put some
rhetorical cap in or not.
This is a program which is already up and running. It would be a
mistake to pass this type of amendment which would actually be
counterproductive to the program. Quite frankly, it could ultimately
result in further cost overruns as you delay projects going forward. I
hope my colleagues will look at this amendment, see that it is
unworkable and defeat it.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
Mr. Chairman, it is written in the Bible that without vision the
people shall perish. Certainly vision in our great society means
technology and science. It means that bright, shining star in space
that is our Space Station. But vision also means justice. Justice for
all of the people in this great country. Vision means hope and dreams
for the great people called Americans in the United States.
And in this bill which these two gentlemen have worked so hard to
craft, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), we need even more justice and hopes and
dreams for veterans that are not getting sufficient health care in this
country, and risked their lives for this country overseas. For
children, for children being raised in some of our public housing that
is despicable, that is rat-infested. Yet we will go $5 billion over
budget without blinking an eye for 3.5 people in space.

{time} 2215

Where is the vision and the justice and the fairness in that kind of
allocation of resources?
When we talk in the Bible, Mr. Chairman, about vision and fairness
for these great people, we mean for AmeriCorps, which is not funded in
this budget; we mean for public housing, which is not adequately funded
for the poorest of the poor in this great country; and we mean to help
us fight the scourge of drugs which are especially hurting the most
vulnerable people in inner city areas.
I would hope that we would at least cap and fence the funds on this
program.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority
whip.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members of this body to oppose
this amendment because it will seriously damage our space program.
I say to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Chairman, that our vision is
circling the Earth. The vision is the Space Station that is circling
the Earth. I say a fully functioning Space Station is the linchpin of
our vision of human space flight. The intention of this amendment, make
no mistake about it, is to kill the Station. It effectively denies NASA
its flexibility to ensure that the Station remains viable.
The prohibition against deferring the habitation module, the crew
return vehicle, and the propulsion module seems designed to help the
Space Station; but in fact it does not. This amendment requires NASA to
develop these parts of the Station under a cap, without the flexibility
of working within their budget. And this amendment, make no mistake
about it, kills the Station. The fact is we have an obligation to our
international partners. The United States is the leading pioneer in
space travel, and we ought not renege on agreements we have made to the
nations that are following us into space through the International
Space Station team. More importantly, we have an obligation to protect
the investment of American taxpayers and the vision that we see in
space travel.
I implore Members to reject this amendment. I hope they will support
the underlying bill, because it will provide the necessary resources to
achieve our human space flight goals.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Frank:
Page 93, after line 25, insert the following new section:
Sec. 427. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
hereby revised by reducing the aggregate amount made
available for ``Public and Indian Housing--public housing
operating fund'', reducing the amount specified under such
``public housing operating fund'' item for the Inspector
General for Operation Safe Home, reducing the aggregate
amount provided for ``Management and Administration--office
of inspector general'', and reducing the amount specified
under such ``office of inspector general'' item that is to be
provided from the amount earmarked for Operation Safe Home,
and none of the funds made available in this Act may be used
to fix, establish, charge, or collect mortgage insurance
premiums for mortgage insurance under title II of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) made available
under any multifamily housing mortgage insurance program
affected by the interim rule issued by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development on July 2, 2001 (66 Federal
Register 35070; Docket No. FR 4679-I-01), in an amount
greater than the cost (as such term is defined in section 502
of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) of such program, by
$5,000,000.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 2001, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to talk here in this amendment about the Federal Housing
Administration, the FHA. Earlier this year, this House passed a bill to
reduce the fees that were charged to people trading in stocks. The
rationale was that the stock fees charged through the SEC were bringing
in more than it cost to administer the program, and so we put through a
substantial reduction in that cost.
In fact, what happened is that the FHA is following a similar
pattern. The FHA statute, which I reference in this

[[Page H4852]]

amendment, defines cost. Cost is the break-even point for the FHA. We
have been told that the FHA cannot engage in subsidizing programs. In
fact, and it is a mark of great disappointment to many that this
Congress and this administration have allowed the multifamily FHA
programs to lapse for want of a $40 million credit subsidy as it is
called. And what has happened is that we now learn that while the FHA
is claiming it has to shut down some programs for credit subsidy, it is
in fact overcharging elsewhere.
This amendment simply says that the FHA can no longer overcharge and
make a profit for the Treasury on these multifamily programs but must
stay at cost.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Frank for offering this
amendment to prevent unnecessary rent increases in affordable housing
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
We are in a housing crisis. The economic expansion of the past few
years has been accompanied by skyrocketing home prices and rents. There
is a severe shortage of affordable housing, and in many areas, any type
of housing.
In my home state of California, about half of renter households pay
more than the recommended 30 percent of their income toward shelter.
However, 91 percent of low income renter households, with annual
incomes less than $15,000, spend more than 30 percent of their income
toward rent. These low income households outnumber low cost rental
units by a ratio of more than 2-to-1, both statewide and in Los Angeles
County.
About two-thirds (66 percent) of senior renter households pay more
than 30 percent of their income toward shelter. 85 percent of low
income senior renters pay more than 30 percent toward rent. And with
the aging of our population, these percentages will soon translate into
much higher numbers.
Furthermore, the rising tide of the recent economy has failed to lift
all boats. Household incomes of renters in my state have failed to keep
pace with inflation, falling significantly between 1989 and 1999 in
inflation adjusted terms. The inflation adjusted income of poor renters
fell nearly 14 percent, and the median income for renters with children
fell 11 percent.
Overcrowding and substandard housing conditions continue to be a
severe problem, particularly in Los Angeles County.
The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) multifamily mortgage
insurance programs support new construction and substantial
rehabilitation of apartments by both private and nonprofit developers.
These units are crucial to meet the critical need for affordable rental
housing. In my home state of California, there is a shortfall of almost
600,000 affordable units.
These programs, which require federal budget appropriations in the
form of a credit subsidy allocation, have been shut down since April
because funding for fiscal year 2001 has been exhausted. This has
jeopardized more than $3 billion in construction loans for more than
50,000 rental units across the country. This shutdown impacts more than
$53 million in loans for 827 units in my home state of California,
where, as I have stated, the need for such units is dire.
In addition, this Administration has refused to use $40 million
dollars in emergency funds that were appropriated at the end of last
year to keep these programs open. An additional $40 million was
allocated by the House in this year's supplemental appropriations bill,
but the money was stripped in the Conference Committee. As a result,
the program is unlikely to reopen until the next fiscal year.
Furthermore, the Administration's budget request for FY 2002 is also
inadequate.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as
most of the housing industry agree that the current system of
calculating credit subsidy needs is fundamentally flawed. Currently,
there is a HUD study underway in conjunction with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) that is likely to show that these programs
are self-supporting without congressional appropriations. This study is
expected to be completed by the beginning of the next fiscal year.
In the meantime, to address the credit subsidy shortage, HUD plans to
increase the mortgage insurance premium for these programs by 60
percent, from 50 basis points to 80 basis points. This will relieve the
alleged need for credit subsidy but will undercut the ability of the
programs to provide affordable rental housing.
This premium increase will raise rents in the affected housing
developments by 4 or 5 percent, by HUD's own estimate, and may reduce
the production of affordable rental units.
This amendment by my colleague from Massachusetts will prohibit HUD
from raising premiums in excess of what they need to run the program
without a credit subsidy. The Frank amendment will prevent a build up
of surplus funds that are not used for housing and would end up
returning to Treasury for other purposes. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment to prevent unnecessary rent increases for
affordable housing.
We should not penalize those who can least afford it for the
Administration's failure to address this issue.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of
order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his point of order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
a suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2002 on July 26, 2001,
House Report 107-165. This amendment would provide new budget authority
in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b)
and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I understand this point of order. Just in
case, I did have a second version that is allowed which we will get to
if this point of order is sustained.
I did want to make clear to people what the basis of the point of
order is. The Congressional Budget Office has apparently ruled that the
FHA has been making a profit off the multifamily programs; and,
therefore, an amendment which would say that the FHA in the future must
not make a profit, must in fact in the future set these premiums only
at cost, is out of order because it is a budget charge. In other words,
the basis of the point of order is a CBO ruling that the FHA has been
making a profit, not the FHA, the Treasury has been making a profit off
multifamily housing. That is why the National Association of
Homebuilders and Realtors and others have been supportive of my
amendment.
But the sad fact is that given the way our rules are, I do
acknowledge that my amendment requiring the FHA to set these fees at a
break-even price will cost some money and it would stop the FHA from
making a profit for the Treasury off multifamily housing, regrettably.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts violates section
302(f) of the Budget Act.
The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee
on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that the net
fiscal effect of this amendment would be an increase in budget
authority of $20 million and that this amendment would therefore cause
the level of budget authority provided in the bill to exceed its
section 302(b) allocation.
As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act and
the point of order is sustained.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Frank:
Page 93, after line 25, insert the following new section:
Sec. 427. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
hereby revised by reducing the aggregate amount made
available for ``Public and Indian Housing--public housing
operating fund'', reducing the amount specified under such
``public housing operating fund'' item for the Inspector
General for Operation Safe Home, reducing the aggregate
amount provided for ``Management and Administration--office
of inspector general'', and reducing the amount specified
under such ``office of inspector general'' item that is to be
provided from the amount earmarked for Operation Safe Home,
and none of the funds made available in this Act may be used
to fix, establish, charge, or collect mortgage insurance
premiums for mortgage insurance made available pursuant to
the program under section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(4)) in an amount greater than the
cost (as such term is defined in section 502 of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990) of such program, by $5,000,000.

[[Page H4853]]

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27,
2001, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a more limited amendment and it is in order
because it has an offset. The offset comes from a program which has
been severely criticized by the General Accounting Office. It is a
program called Operation Safe Home which is run inappropriately, many
of us feel, including, I must say, the General Accounting Office, by
the Inspector General of HUD. Inspectors General should be checking up
on other people's programs, not running their own. So it takes $5
million.
What this amendment says, and it builds on what I said before, we
have one of the multifamily housing programs in the FHA and it is known
as 221(d)(4). The FHA is planning to raise the premiums on the
221(d)(4) program telling us that it is now running at a deficit.
Remember, other multifamily programs are running at a surplus. That is
why my first amendment was ruled out of order, because I tried to
recapture that surplus by lowering the fees.
What this amendment simply says is that when the administration
raises the fees on the 221(d)(4) program, they can only raise them to
break even, they cannot make a profit. The legislation defines cost,
cost being what you break even at, including, obviously, an estimate of
losses.
This amendment is very simple. Again, it is strongly supported by the
homebuilders, by the Realtors, by I think most organizations concerned
with housing supply. What it says is when people go out to build
housing, and we are talking here about private profit-making entities
under the (d)(4) program doing unsubsidized housing, this is not
housing for the very poor but housing for middle-income people, for
working people, the FHA should not charge them for insurance more than
the cost of that insurance. The Federal Government should not deter the
construction of multifamily housing at this time of great housing
crisis by charging an extra fee over and above what is needed for the
program to break even.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we do not make money on this
program, a program that benefits only for-profit developers to build
moderate- and high-income housing, not low-income housing. In fact, the
taxpayer through, this appropriation bill, has repeatedly subsidized
this program. In fact, last year, we subsidized the program to the tune
of over $80 million. Even that was not sufficient to satisfy the
industry's demands, and the program has been shut down since that time.
To put it in perspective, the amount of money the gentleman now says
we are, quote, ``making off this program next year'' is less than $3
million compared to the $80 million it cost the taxpayer in fiscal year
2001. Making money in the sense that the gentleman explains it is
nothing more than somebody's estimate about a series of economic
factors that may or may not occur over a period of time.
Lord knows, we have seen OMB and CBO make bad estimates, not to
mention the Members of our own committees. So I think it is a little
disingenuous for the gentleman to argue that we have been using this
program to pay for other things when in fact it is just not generating
funds.
As a practical matter, this amendment would have little impact on the
amount of the premium increase charged. In fact, HUD estimates that
this amendment would increase the premium by a mere two one-hundredths
of 1 percent.
I believe the real intent behind the gentleman's amendment is to try
to somehow stop these premiums from going forward. There is broad
opposition among the special interest groups to stop this premium
increase. But in order to make this program work and in order to
prevent further appropriations against this bill, FHA needs to go
forward with this premium increase.
We have seen the kinds of hellacious decisions that we have had to
make, the trade-offs that we have had to make throughout this bill. If
this premium increase does not go forward, we could be back here next
year trying to find an additional $230 million somewhere in this bill
to offset the cost of this program.
Mr. Chairman, the choice is relatively simple. Do we continue to
allow the program to remain shut down, or do we allow the premiums to
go into effect? I think we should allow the premiums to go into effect
and let the program run. If we adopt this amendment, at a minimum we
would delay the restart of the program, because HUD would have to
reissue new rules to change their premium for what amounts to less than
two one-hundredths of 1 percent of an increase. We would also be giving
a break to a single group of for-profit developers, including nonprofit
developers. These are all nonprofit developers.

{time} 2230

I believe it is inequitable and it sets a terrible precedent that
causes further delays in the restart of the (d)(4) program. I would
urge this amendment be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first, I believe my friend from New York may have
contradicted himself. First he said we are not making money off this
program, but then he said we would only be making a little.
What HUD has told us is they raise it not two-tenths of a percent,
but three-tenths of a percent. Now, that may not seem like a lot, but,
I do not know, if your mortgage went from 7.2 percent to 7.5 percent,
would you shrug that off? Costs are cumulative. It is millions of
dollars.
By the way, the argument, and I want to make it very clear, the
structure of this amendment, the amendment says they can only charge
what the statute describes as break even, as cost. And who says that
that will be a money loser? CBO.
In other words, the Congressional Budget Office scored my amendment.
I did not ask them to. I did not run to CBO and say, boy, I really
wanted you to tell me this is going to cost money. If I never heard
from CBO again for the rest of my life, I would be very happy. But CBO
says, wait a minute; if you tell the FHA that it can only charge break
even, we are going to lose money. This is what CBO says.
Then the gentleman says I am doing this for these special interests.
I did notice he talked a little unkindly it seemed to me about profit-
making institutions.
I like one thing about housing. In almost every debate, people on the
other side criticize us for not understanding the beauty of capitalism
and the importance of the profit motive. But when it comes to housing,
all of a sudden respect for the profit motive disappears, and the
gentleman says, oh, these people want to make a profit.
I am glad there are people trying to make a profit trying to build
multi-family housing for working families. And these special interests,
yes, there are some special interests. Let me read them. I confess. Mea
culpa. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the National
Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, the
National Apartment Association, the National Multi-Housing Council,
yes, they are special interests. They are especially interested in
getting housing built, and that is why they support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts. I think it is a simple, straight forward,
commonsense amendment that would simply prohibit HUD from overcharging
users of the FHA multifamily insurance program.
Now, no credit subsidy funding has been provided in this bill for the
multifamily for-profit program, and I understand the committee's
decision to eliminate that subsidy. Unfortunately, however, elimination
of the subsidy requires an increase in the premiums

[[Page H4854]]

that are paid by program users. That could translate into higher debt
service and up-front costs for owners and higher rents for families
that depend on this housing.
Many users of the for-profit program think that the credit subsidy
formula that HUD is currently using to calculate premiums may not
accurately reflect the actual risk to the government of the loans as
they are now being underwritten. In other words, the premiums next year
could be higher than are necessary to fully support this program.
HUD has reportedly initiated a reassessment of the credit subsidy
formula to see if this is the case. This amendment simply makes clear
that if, based on its reassessment of the credit subsidy formula, HUD
determines that the formula should be changed, then program premiums
should not be higher than is necessary to support the program. It is as
simple as that. It makes good sense. It simply underscores what I hope
HUD would do on its own.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively arcane amendment. I do not suspect
there are even 10 Members in the Congress who have a full grasp of what
is going on here.
We are governed by the Budget Act. We are governed by credit reform.
We cannot make changes in those rules. What we have to do is respond to
the program. What we traditionally do to respond to the needs in the
program is appropriate additional funds.
This program should be pay-as-you-go. I want to be clear: if this
amendment were to pass and this language is added to this bill, we
would have to go to conference and find another $230 million for an
offset to fund the program.
Now, you have seen the choices we have had so far. There is not a
good choice that we have seen in the 3 days we have been working on
this bill. But I submit we will have to come back in conference, we
will have to come back and look for additional funds to come up with
$230 million. There are only so many places you can go. You can go to
the Veterans Administration, you can go to NASA, you can go to HUD, you
can go to National Science Foundation, you can go to FEMA, but those
are not good choices.
I would urge the House to stick with the committee bill, to oppose
the gentleman's amendment. Please do not put us in a position where we
have to go out and find an additional $230 million in an already tight
allocation. Reject the gentleman's amendment and let us go forward to
conference with the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from New York. I think
he may have qualified if we gave out Academy Awards for the best
original screen play.
The gentleman says $230 million. CBO says $5 million. I mean, CBO
scored this amendment. Now, there was one version which they said was
going to cost hundreds of millions. Yes, to do what I would most like
to do across-the-board with the FHA would cost several hundred million.
But this amendment deals only with the (d)(4) program where HUD has
proposed to raise it by 30 basis points, three-tenths of a percent, and
I got a CBO score, and it says, which is why this is in order, I have a
$5 million offset. If I only had a $5 million offset for $230 million,
obviously I would be out of order.
Secondly, I would say the gentleman says we have to work with the
Federal Credit Reform Act. I agree. That is what the amendment says.
The amendment says do not raise the premiums in an amount greater than
the cost, as such term is defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990. So what this says is, live by the Federal Credit
Reform Act definition of cost, and CBO says this particular amendment
only costs $5 million.
I had an earlier amendment that might have cost more. The gentleman
succeeded in getting that one knocked out of order. This one is $5
million. It does set the principle that they should not be making a
profit. Five million dollars is not a huge amount of money, but it is
more than they should be getting out of multi-family housing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
First of all, I think the point the chairman makes and the author of
the amendment makes is this should not be handled in an appropriations
bill. The Committee on Financial Services ought to be looking at this.
If FHA wants to raise the fees, it ought to come under the Federal
Credit Reform Act, and that is where it ought to be dealt with.
Second of all, the reason why I support the gentleman's amendment,
and there is a lot of confusion of how these credit subsidy programs
work, and the chairman is well aware of how they work, he understands
how they work, but there is a problem in the (d)(4) program and in the
(d)(3) program, and part of the problem is that Congress appropriated
money for the current fiscal year, but part of that had emergency
designation. The Office of Management and Budget has held up that
money, and that is why the program is not working at this point in
time.
In my State, and I would assume in most States, there are a lot of
projects, nonprofit projects, that utilize both the (d)(3) and can
utilize the (d)(4) program, which have been shut down, and that affects
the housing stock for middle-income and lower-income families around
the country.
Finally, I think it is unconscionable that the administration, on the
one hand, wants to receive money for the general fund in the form of
offsetting receipts through raising the premiums, while at the same
time they will not release money that the Congress has already
appropriated that was done for the current fiscal year. Yet, in the
budget that we passed and through legislation which we have not taken
up on the floor of the House, but went through the Committee on
Financial Services, and legislation that I supported, we are making
reductions in excess or offsetting fees for the Securities and Exchange
Commission registration fees and investor fees in there. Now, I support
that, but that is counter to what this does.
So, I think the gentleman is on the right track. We ought to pass his
amendment. The administration ought to release the additional subsidy
allocation that is in the current fiscal year's budget so the (d)(3)
and (d)(4) programs can get back up and running, and let the
authorizing committee address this problem going forward.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused by the chairman's position on
this proposed amendment. The amendment says do not raise FHA premiums
above what it would cost to actually insure.
Now, when I first heard the chairman's argument, he said well, we are
not making any profit on FHA premiums. Then, by the time I got to the
floor I heard that if we did this, it was going to cost us $280
million. The CBO says that it would cost $5 million, which is what the
gentleman from Massachusetts has found as an offset to make the budget
back in balance.
The problem is that if FHA premiums are raised beyond the actual cost
of the insurance, people who are buying houses will pay that extra
cost. It is that simple. No funny business, no fuzzy math. If the
premium is higher than the actual cost of the insurance, that extra
cost is going to be borne by homeowners or home buyers. In a market
where people are trying to acquire homes, that could be the difference
between somebody being able to afford a home and somebody not being
able to afford a home.
So, I think this is just simple, straightforward math here. It cannot
be that the provision is redundant, which is what the chairman of the
committee said originally, because we are not making any profit on
this. If that were the case, the amendment that the gentleman from
Massachusetts has offered would simply be a redundant provision,
because what his amendment says is we do not want you to make a profit.
If it is as the CBO has indicated, that the offset required is $5
million, then he has found a $5 million

[[Page H4855]]

offset, and it is an appropriate offset. If the premiums are raised
$280 million, then home buyers are going to bear that cost.
Whatever the case, the gentleman from Massachusetts should have his
amendment passed, and we should not pass the cost on to home buyers.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say in fairness to the gentleman from New York,
it is true, my concerns do not deal only with the 221(d)(4) multiple
family housing program. I do object to the FHA's pricing in general.
But, under the rules, the only one that could be in order now, because
I needed an offset, was this narrow one.

{time} 2245

I do agree, as the gentleman from Texas has said, that this is an
issue that ought to be addressed in the authorizing committee. The fact
is we have a situation in which multifamily programs of the Federal
Housing Administration were shut down because they said they needed $40
million more in credit subsidy, while the totality of programs in the
FHA were returning many times that to the Treasury, and the analogy of
the gentleman from Texas about the SEC was appropriate. So I hope the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity will address this.
Getting the FHA out of the business of making a profit is a very
simple and straightforward way to reduce the cost of housing,
multifamily, single family, across the board. That is up to the
authorizing committee. But here we can set a precedent which says, to
the extent that we can control it, we will tell the FHA, live by the
definition of cost in the bill, do not charge more for the insurance
premium than is necessary for you to break even, and do not burden the
people who are going to live in multifamily housing or any other
patrons of the FHA by charging them more than would otherwise be
necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just state that the Administration is strongly opposed to this
amendment. There are a number of special interest groups who have
contacted Members on this amendment, but the Administration is clearly
in opposition.
This is a very complicated issue that not a lot of Members have spent
a lot of time with. Let me just try to make it as clear as I can.
The intent of this amendment is to kill the premium increase. There
was a lot of discussion about this earlier in the year, about attaching
additional appropriations to the supplemental; the industry was
lobbying for more money, no premiums; more money, no premiums. The
intent of this amendment is to kill that premium increase.
We want this program to be successful, but we want it to pay as it
goes. If it is going to pay as it goes, we have to increase the
premium. If Members support this amendment, it will kill that premium
increase and if that is the case, we go to conference looking for $230
million in additional outlays and allocation.
Do not put us in that position, I would say to my colleagues. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
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.

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. 24 offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia); Amendment No. 6 offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps); and an amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Barcia

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on Amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia)
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 99,
noes 325, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 293]

AYES--99

Allen
Baird
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Berry
Bonior
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Camp
Cantor
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Castle
Chabot
Coyne
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
English
Etheridge
Farr
Fossella
Frank
Gephardt
Goodlatte
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hayworth
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Neal
Olver
Otter
Pascrell
Petri
Pickering
Pomeroy
Rivers
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Shows
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Upton
Waxman
Woolsey

NOES--325

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Carson (OK)
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes

[[Page H4856]]

Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Conyers
Hansen
Istook
Jefferson
Lipinski
Payne
Radanovich
Spence
Stark

{time} 2311

Messrs. BACA, KING, KUCINICH and WEINER changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi,
BARTLETT of Maryland, MOORE, DICKS, PICKERING, and BAIRD 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 each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Capps

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 6 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 294]

AYES--190

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Ganske
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Honda
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Shaw
Sherman
Shows
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Strickland
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--231

Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barton
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
English
Evans
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Gallegly
Hansen
Istook
Jefferson
Lipinski
Payne
Radanovich
Saxton
Sherwood
Smith (MI)
Spence
Stark

{time} 2319

Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment 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 CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 212, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 295]

AYES--212

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt

[[Page H4857]]

DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
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
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--212

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
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
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Hansen
Istook
Jefferson
John
Lipinski
Payne
Saxton
Spence
Stark

{time} 2329

Ms. HART, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. PICKERING, and Mrs. KELLY changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HARMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 2330

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the VA/
HUD appropriations bill. This bill severely under-funds public housing
and other critical programs. At a time when 5.4 million families are
paying more than half of their income to live in substandard housing
throughout the country, the Bush administration has decided that public
housing programs are no longer a priority for our country.
The VA/HUD appropriations bill approved by the Appropriations
Committee cuts public housing and community development programs by
$1.8 billion.
This budget is clearly headed in the wrong direction. More than
34,000 households are on the waiting list for housing vouchers in the
city of Chicago, and under this budget, and under this budget they will
have to continue to wait for a long time.
This bill reduces Section 8 reserves by cutting $640 million. This
cut will result in as many as 30,000 families losing Section 8
vouchers. The bill also reduces the number of Fair Share Section 8
vouchers by 78 percent.
In addition, this bill eliminates funding for the Public Housing Drug
Elimination Fund. This is a crucial initiative, and Chicago and other
cities have used it successfully to combat drugs in public housing to
give public housing residents a safe place to live.
This bill further endangers those most in jeopardy, our homeless, by
cutting almost $100 million from homeless prevention and shelter
programs.
Under the bill we are debating today, Community Development Block
Grants funds are cut by over $300 million and zeroes out funding for
empowerment zones--a $200 million cut. These are the resources upon
which our cities rely to perform important economic and community
development. They should be restored.
I find it unconscionable that the Bush administration would declare a
surplus and consider our country well off enough to provide its richest
1% the bulk of a $1.3 trillion tax cut, but in the same breath finds it
appropriate to cut $1.8 billion that would provide housing for our
nation's most needy.
No American family would ever declare a surplus if they can't afford
to put a roof over their head. However, as an American family, we are
doing just that with this bill. I urge all Members to support
amendments that will attempt to restore funding for public housing and
other programs that were cut in the administration's request and the
underlying bill. And, if it is not amended, I urge a no vote on the VA/
HUD bill.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2620, the
Fiscal Year 2002 Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. This bill
provides $112.7 billion for these agencies, seven percent more than
current funding and $2.1 billion more than the President's budget. Most
importantly, I support this bill because it provides $1.3 billion in
disaster relief for FY 2002, which will be needed in Houston and many
other current and future disaster areas.
In a normal appropriations year, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, housing, scientific research and the Veterans
Administration are my largest concerns in the VA-HUD and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act. However, this year is extraordinary
because on June 5, Tropical Storm Allison, which formed spontaneously
in the Gulf of Mexico, dropped up to 40 inches of rain on parts of my
district over a week-long period. Harris County, Texas experienced an
estimated $4.8 billion in damages, over 90,000 people in Texas have
sought federal assistance, and the Texas Medical Center, the world's
largest medical center, experienced over $2 billion in damages,
shutting down Houston's three largest hospitals for weeks.
As a result of this unexpected calamity, FEMA's FY 2001 funds are
expected to run out or barely cover expenses for this year. FEMA
expects their responsibility for Texas alone to reach $2.4 billion,
which the FEMA and the Office of Management and Budget realize will
require additional funding over the $2.3 billion initially provided by
the Subcommittee. We are in the midst of hurricane and wildfire season
for 2001 and we will experience those dangerous times again in 2002. 31
federal disaster declarations have been made this year and as many will
surely be made again next year. Just the declaration of Tropical Storm
Allison will claim the majority of disaster relief funds for this year
and next. As such, I ask all my colleagues to support the effort to
provide an extra $1.3 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund.
As a final note on FEMA, I support the effort led by Representative
Lois Capps to restore

[[Page H4858]]

funding for Project Impact, a pre-disaster mitigation program that has
provided warning radios to schools in my district, among other useful
damage prevention measures. All too often, we neglect prevention and
only focus on recovery. I would remind my colleagues that every dollar
spent on prevention like Project Impact reduces the bills of disasters
like Allison.
Many may be upset that my colleagues and I from the Southeast Texas
area are requesting approval from the House for this emergency request
to aid our area recover when many other emergency requests have been
denied. However, I believe that this $1.3 billion is absolutely
necessary, not only for Allison victims, but for all of this year's
disaster victims, next year's disaster victim, and all victims of major
disaster in many past years. During the FY 2001 Supplemental debate, my
colleague from North Carolina, Representative Walter B. Jones pointed
out that victims of Hurricane Floyd in 1996 are still receiving
disaster aid to complete the recovery of that area from one of the
decade's worst storms.
Again, this emergency disaster relief request is not earmarked for
Texas or Tropical Storm Allison, it is for recovery aid for all current
and future disaster victims. Again, FEMA and OMB publicly state there
is a need for additional FEMA funds. The Senate has proposed $2
billion, $700 million more than the House Appropriations Committee.
From my firsthand experience in my district, I believe that the $2
billion figure is a conservative estimate of what will be needed.
Besides including additional disaster relief funding, I commend the
chairman and the entire Appropriations Committee for correcting a major
flaw in the President's budget regarding research on the International
Space Station. The entire bill provides $15 billion in total for NASA,
5 percent more or $666 million more than current funding and also $440
million over the President's budget request. Importantly, this
legislation fully funds the space station at the $1.8 billion budget
request. While the President's budget did not reduce NASA funding, it
kept the increase below inflation, reducing purchasing power, and
zeroed out the crew return vehicle (CRV) and habitation module. These
two integral parts of the space station are necessary to have a
research presence on the station, which is why we have constructed this
orbiting microgravity laboratory.
I commend the Subcommittee and Committee members, especially Chairman
Walsh and Representative Bud Cramer for their commitment to restoring
the CRV. The scientific and international communities were worried back
during the Spring budget season that the new Administration was going
to preclude significant research activities on the station by targeting
necessary components for elimination. Since we have made this
unparalleled investment in the betterment of mankind, it would be folly
to abandon our goals now, after we have gone through all the work to
get a near complete station orbiting the Earth. The subcommittee is
also to be commended for increasing funding for biological and physical
research activities and academic research programs.
I am relieved that the committee reversed the President's request for
scientific research and increased it by 8% or $414 million. This bill
includes $4.8 billion federal funding for research through the National
Science Foundation. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I
cosponsored an amendment to the House budget resolution to increase
scientific research funding through the National Science Foundation,
NASA, and DOE by $1 million over the House leadership's budget for 1
year and by $11 billion for the next 10 years. I am convinced of the
necessity of increasing federal basic scientific investments from
hearing from scientists in my district at the Texas Medical Center,
Rice University, the University of Houston, and Texas Southern
University.

While I am pleased with many of the changes that the subcommittee and
full committee have made to this legislation, I am concerned that this
measure does not provide enough funding for veterans programs. I have
consistently supported expanding the health benefits for our nations
veterans, many who have made incredible sacrifices in order to preserve
our freedom. While I am pleased that this bill would provide $4.3
billion more for the veterans' health care programs than was available
in 2001, I join Veterans' Affairs Ranking Member Lane Evans in his
criticism that this bill does not do enough for improvement and
modernization of veterans' health facilities the delivery of that care.
In a time when many of our nation's veterans are aging and seeking more
health care services, it is vitally important that these facilities are
modernized to provide cutting-edge treatments for those who have
served, without demeaning these men and women with delays.
In my home state of Texas, we have a growing veterans population who
will not be served until we find the additional resources which Mr.
Evans is calling for. However, I have to reluctantly oppose his
amendment removing $1.52 billion from the space station. As a member of
the House Budget Committee, I opposed the Republican leadership's
budget, which has led us to unreasonable subcommittee allocations. Now,
at the last moment, this budget has forced Mr. Evans to turn on other
productive programs to make up shortfalls in the administration's
request for the Veterans Administration. Congress' budget, in a time of
healthy revenue, should not force Members like myself to choose between
the NASA research necessary to maintain America's technological and
scientific superiority and funding for veterans' care in their
districts.
I am concerned that this legislation does not provide sufficient
funding for housing programs. This bill provides $1.4 billion or five
percent more than last year. However, this $1.4 billion budget is $600
million less than the President Bush's request for housing program. One
good example is that this bill reduces funding by five percent for the
Community and Development Block Grant (CDBG) which has helped many
communities to redevelop in areas where our capital markets have failed
to invest. This bill also eliminates all funding for the urban
empowerment zones, which means that the city of Houston will not
receive any funds next year in their efforts to rebuild the fifth ward.
This bill also eliminates public housing drug-elimination grants which
have helped many public housing project to reduce the use of drugs in
their communities.
It also eliminates funding for AmeriCorps, a program that has been
shown to help our nation's youth. This public service programs helps to
meet the needs of communities by encouraging young people to donate
their time in exchange for earning college scholarship funding. For
many people who are not ready to enter college, this volunteer program
has been a good alternative to simply going to work directly and giving
them valuable skills to compete in our workplace. I urge my colleagues
to insist on the Senate's language on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, while this bill could be better, it is a good bill
under the circumstances. In particular the FEMA emergency funding is
terrible important to my constituents and I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman. I rise to commend the chairman and ranking
member of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee for the funding levels
in this bill for veterans programs.
This measure provides $51.4 billion for the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and fully funds Veterans Medical Health Care by providing a $1
billion increase over last year. This increase comes on the heels of a
$3.1 billion funding level for VA health care over the last two years.
This funding is crucial to the veterans facilities in my district in
Marion and Crown Point, and more importantly, to the veterans who
utilize these facilities.
This measure also increases veterans medical and prosthetic research
by $20 million over FY02, to bring the FY02 funding to $371 million.
The measure fully funds current and new cemetery operations and the
National Shrine Initiative. It fully funds cost of living increases in
compensation and pensions. The bill provides $300 million in new
funding for the Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act, which passed
this House on March 27.
Over the last several years, Congress has worked hard to ensure that
veterans and their families receive the benefits they have earned. As a
member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I continue to stress
and advocate adequate funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to
meet the standards and quality of health care that our veterans
deserve. At a time when medical costs are rising and aging veterans
health care needs are increasing, I am pleased that this Chamber
continues to provide the necessary funding for veterans programs.
The increase in funding is a testament to our commitment to the men
and women who have served our nation proudly, sacrificing so much for
the good of our country. I fully support this legislation on behalf of
our nation's veterans, knowing that it is well deserved.
This is a good bill for our veterans and I urge its adoption.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Camp) 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, pursuant to House
Resolution 210, he reported the bill back to the House

[[Page H4859]]

with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Boyd

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BOYD. I am, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Boyd moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2620, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
bill back to the House promptly with an amendment which
increases funding for veterans medical care programs by an
amount adequate to fund the full cost of all currently
authorized services including those authorized by the
Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, Public Law 106-117.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I know that Members of this House feel very
strongly about keeping commitments that they and this Government makes
to its citizens. That is why I am asking the House to recommit this
bill to the committee for the purposes of adding $500 million to the
Veterans Administration medical programs.
Mr. Speaker, this is the amount above the funding level contained in
this bill that was unanimously recommended by the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to the Committee on the Budget for the purposes of
meeting the obligations and the commitment that we have and we have
provided in the authorizing bills for our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this House have the greatest
respect for the two gentlemen who lead this subcommittee, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan). I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think we
also have a great deal of respect for the gentlemen who lead the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and the previous
chairman of that committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
Mr. Speaker, the additional funds that we are asking for in this
motion will not be used to provide additional services or new services
to our Nation's veterans. These funds, Mr. Speaker, are simply required
to provide the services that are already authorized, they are already
committed, and they are already promised to our veterans. But they will
not be provided at the funding levels contained in this appropriations
bill.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, is really about whether we want to stand
behind our commitments to our citizens or whether we are willing to
make promises in one bill, that is, the Veterans' Affairs
authorization, and then when it comes time to pay for those services we
are going to say to those folks, Well, we didn't really mean it. It was
just all for show. I do not think that is right.
Currently, Mr. Speaker, there are more than 3.6 million veterans who
use the VA health care system. As a group, these people are much older
than the average American and their health needs are much greater. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has made a real effort to address
the problem of the rising cost of providing health care to these
individuals. But the 4.9 percent increase contained in this bill is
about half of the increase required to meet the national average rate
of increase in health expenditures. The number of physicians now
employed by the Veterans Administration is simply not adequate to meet
the needs of those eligible for VA medical services. The time it takes
to see a doctor is already too long; and if we do not act, it will grow
longer.
It is an unfortunate fact, Mr. Speaker, but it is a fact that a
significant number of those who have served in uniform suffer from
chronic mental disorders and that we are simply not providing adequate
mental health services to a significant number of these individuals.
While we have also promised to cover pharmacy costs, this appropriation
does not provide enough money to fully meet that promise. We will also
not be meeting our commitments with respect to veterans in need of
long-term care or veterans in need of emergency medical services.
In a letter dated July 16, 2001, the major veterans service
organizations stated that the funding levels in this bill ``are simply
inadequate to meet the needs of the sick and disabled veterans at a
time of skyrocketing health care costs and rising demand from an aging
veterans population.''
Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress and this Nation to meet the
commitments that it has made to the veterans, to the folks who have
served in the uniform of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues tonight to send this bill back and
add these additional needed funds.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, let me read from the bill report language:
``The committee stands behind the commitments Congress made in the
Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, Public Law 106-117,
to provide veterans with additional long-term care and emergency care
services.''
The subcommittee stands behind the authorizing committee and the
commitments that it made.
``The committee urges the administration to include full funding for
the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act in its fiscal year
2003 budget request.''
In this year's bill, the 2002 bill, the President's budget fully
supports the provisions of the Millennium Health Care Act. In addition
to the President's budget request, we added another $1 billion,
building on our commitment, providing a $4 billion increase over the
last 3 years in health care.
Mr. Speaker, there is $51 billion in this bill for veterans. Clearly,
clearly that expresses the priorities of this body. Last year, we
provided the President's request plus $1.3 billion for VA medical care,
fully funding the provisions of the Millennium Health Care Act.

{time} 2340

However, the VA could not spend all that money. Over $300 million
provided in fiscal year 2001 was not spent on Millennium Health Care
Act activities. On our subcommittee, in fact, the ranking member, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), questioned the VA
Secretary extensively on this subject; and the Secretary testified that
$548 million estimated in the budget was adequate to meet the
Millennium Health Care mandates. The Secretary and the Under Secretary
for Health testified that a number of provisions that are already
implemented, and a number are delayed in the final notice in rule
process.
There are a number of reasons for this delay, primarily because VA
and OMB have not been able to promulgate and vet the rules in a timely
manner. Some of the delay is simply the rule process, it is long and
complicated. Some of the delay is due to the new administration
carefully reviewing the rules before publication and notice.
Regardless, the VA is not able to spend the money we have already
provided because they cannot.
So, to add additional money to this bill begs the question of what is
the purpose of this motion to recommit. Clearly the motion to recommit
would send the bill back to committee; in effect it would kill the
bill.
Now, we want to pass this bill. We worked very hard on it. My ranking
member and I have tried to do this in a bipartisan way. There are lots
of Member requests in this bill. The priorities of the Members are
clearly expressed in this bill. We provided $400 million more for
construction for veterans hospitals as a direct response to the
Members. We think this is a good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge support of this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from

[[Page H4860]]

New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just say I certainly appreciate and empathize
with the motion to recommit; but the committee has, in my opinion,
tried to carefully and painstakingly craft a budget that fully funds a
number of very important veterans' programs. I believe Chairman Walsh
and Ranking Democrat Mollohan have produced a generous allocation of
Federal funds for veterans' programs. VA construction gets more--and
much needed monies--under the bill. As a matter of fact it fully funds
the first year of my bill, passed by the House--H.R. 811--Emergency
Hospital Repair Act of 2001. The Walsh bill provides approximately $1.6
billion over and above last year in the area of discretionary spending,
and a significant $1 billion more in VA medical care funding.
Sure, I would like to increase VA appropriations beyond what is in
this bill. We would all like to spend more. But we have to live within
at least some budget restraints. No budget or appropriations bill is
ever perfect, Mr. Speaker, but is the result of careful compromise and
a weighing of competing priorities.
Tomorrow I will bring to the floor the Veterans Benefits Act of 2001,
which provides a $2.7 billion increase over 5 years, to boost COLAs for
more than 2.3 million disabled vets. And to assist Gulf War vets and
for insurance and other purposes. This plus H.R. 1291 the doubling of
the 61 education benefit--from $23,400 to $36,900--and H.R. 801, the
Veterans Survivors Benefit Improvement Act of 2001 signed into law
demonstrates are commitment to vets.
So I just ask Members, however well-intended this motion is, I think
it breaks the budget; and I would urge that it be voted down. Both the
chairman and ranking member care deeply about veterans and have done
their level best within their allocation to fund veterans programs.
I just would ask for a no vote on this.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support on this. Please
vote no on the motion to recommit and let us move the bill forward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 296]

AYES--196

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
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
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--230

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

NOT VOTING--7

Hansen
Istook
Jefferson
Lipinski
Payne
Spence
Stark

{time} 2358

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The question is on the passage of
the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 336,
nays 89, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 297]

YEAS--336

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp

[[Page H4861]]

Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--89

Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Barrett
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Castle
Conyers
Costello
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Eshoo
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Honda
Hostettler
Jackson (IL)
John
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Menendez
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Owens
Paul
Petri
Pomeroy
Reyes
Roemer
Rothman
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanders
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (WA)
Stenholm
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Waters
Weiner
Wexler

NOT VOTING--8

Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Istook
Jefferson
Lipinski
Payne
Spence
Stark

{time} 0007

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________