[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


              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.

                          ____________________