[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 154 (Thursday, November 8, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7922-H7941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2620, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2002

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 279, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 6, 2001, at page H7787.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present for consideration of the 
House the conference report on H.R. 2620, the VA-HUD and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act for 2002.
  In the interest of time, I will try to be brief. I would like, 
however, to begin by saying that this is a good bill. I think the fact 
that we had a unanimous vote on the rule is symbolic of what is to 
come. Like those presented in each of the past few years, it is very 
much a solid, bipartisan effort of the

[[Page H7923]]

House and Senate. In this regard I would like to express my sincere 
appreciation to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), as 
well as to our very able Senate colleagues, Senators Mikulski and Bond.
  While we clearly had differences and many difficult decisions on 
several aspects of the bill as passed by each body, the conference 
report nevertheless represents a true collaboration of effort and an 
honest negotiated compromise. Again, I am grateful to my colleagues for 
their candor, perseverance, and friendship.
  With the House's indulgence, I would like to take a few minutes to 
briefly outline the highlights of the proposal. First and foremost, the 
conference report is within the 302(b) allocation for budget authority 
and outlays. The bill's discretionary spending is $85.4 billion in new 
budget authority, which is an increase of just over $2 billion above 
the budget submission and some $2.9 billion over last year's bill.
  I would note for the House that this level of discretionary spending 
includes emergency spending for $1.5 billion for FEMA for disaster 
relief requirements.
  We have tried as best we can to spread the proposed increases 
throughout the bill: discretionary veterans programs overall are 
increased by over $1.4 billion compared to 2001. This follows on some 
very substantial increases in the last 2 years, with $1.05 billion of 
the increase going to medical care and the remainder spread to 
research, processing veterans' compensation, pension and education 
claims, operating our national cemeteries, and increasing necessary 
construction at VA facilities by over $160 million over last year.
  Housing programs have increased in HUD by over $1.67 billion compared 
to 2001, with increases in the housing certificate program, public 
housing operating subsidies, the HOPWA program, HOME investment 
partnerships, the housing for the elderly and disabled programs, and 
the disabled program is a significant increase, and the lead hazard 
reduction program. It is important to note that this proposal also 
includes some very difficult but I believe extremely important and 
highly defensible changes in policy direction which are represented by 
reductions in the Public Housing Capital Fund and the Drug Elimination 
Grant Program. Neither of these programs is serving the best interests 
of the people they were intended to serve, and it is our job to take 
whatever steps are necessary to remedy the situation.
  In the case of capital funds, it meant getting tougher on public 
housing authorities to spend the dollars intended for the residents of 
public housing authority. There are literally hundreds of millions of 
dollars worth of code violations and hazards not getting fixed.
  In the case of the Drug Elimination Grant Program, it meant taking an 
honest look at whether HUD is the best entity to run this type of 
program.

                              {time}  1215

  Based on HUD's track record, we did not believe that it was. Instead, 
this bill increases funding in the operating fund so that all PHAs will 
see an increase. They then have the discretion to use those funds as 
they see fit.
  The Environmental Protection Agency's funding increases some $586 
million over the budget request, and $74 million above last year. This 
proposal continues to provide a strong research program as well as 
increased resources for the many State categorical grants, including 
section 106 water pollution grants, section 103 and 105 air pollution 
grants, and the new BEACH grant program. The Clean Water SRF program 
has been funded at $1.35 billion and the Safe Drinking Water SRF has 
received $850 million. These are substantial commitments. However, they 
are dwarfed by the need that is out there in combined sewer overflow 
projects throughout the country.
  FEMA's operating programs increase by nearly $135 million over the 
2001 funding level and we have provided $2.1 billion in emergency and 
nonemergency dollars for disaster relief. I should also mention that 
$150 million has been provided for the new firefighter grant program 
which, as my colleagues can imagine, is a very, very popular and 
competitive program.
  NASA's programs will receive a net increase of $508 million over last 
year, and we have proposed several structural changes in the agency's 
account structure to provide them greater programmatic flexibility and 
the committee, better oversight capability.
  Finally, I am proud to say that we have raised the overall funding 
for the National Science Foundation by just over $316 million to a 
total program of $4.789 billion. That is an increase of 8.2 percent 
compared to last year. Doing a little research myself, 10 years ago 
that budget was half, so that the National Science Foundation budget 
has doubled in the past 10 years. The bulk of this increase will go to 
improve available resources for National Science Foundation's core 
research programs, bringing the total research program to nearly $3.6 
billion, while the remainder would be spread to major research, 
construction and equipment, education and human resource programs, and 
salaries and expenses for NSF's capable staff.
  I would like to add that I personally would have liked to do more 
here, as I know my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), would. However, to do so only could have been done at the 
expense of other very important programs found in other agencies 
throughout the bill. Having said that, given the increase proposed by 
the administration of 1 percent, we have done a remarkable job.
  All Members are, of course, aware of the difficulty in putting these 
bills together, especially with so many diverse and competing 
interests. Developing the perfect bill is probably impossible. 
Nevertheless, I believe we have done a tremendous job developing a bill 
that represents the interests of both the legislative and the executive 
branch.
  By the way, I would like to thank the executive branch for allowing 
us to do our job without a great deal of interference. They have been 
very cooperative. Their priorities were made. We tried to honor those 
priorities; in many cases we did. But the relationship this year was 
excellent.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I want once again to thank all my colleagues 
for allowing us the privilege of presenting this conference report on 
the fiscal year 2002 appropriations for veterans, housing and 
independent agencies. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

[[Page H7924]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.001



[[Page H7925]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.002



[[Page H7926]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.003



[[Page H7927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.004



[[Page H7928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.005



[[Page H7929]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.006



[[Page H7930]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I rise in support of the 2002 VA, HUD and independent agencies 
conference report and all of its fundings.
  I want to begin by thanking Chairman Walsh who, as usual, has done an 
excellent job with this legislation. We appreciate his courtesies and 
the opportunity for input in the bill throughout the process. He has 
had an especially full plate this year, managing this bill with 
restricted allocations and at the same time providing leadership in the 
appropriations process to ensure that New York receives adequate 
funding to address its emergency needs arising out of the September 11 
terrorist attacks.
  I want to begin by thanking the majority staff, Frank Cushing, Tim 
Peterson, Dena Baron, Jennifer Whitson, Jennifer Miller and Ron 
Anderson, for their hard work and openness during the development of 
this conference report. I must make particular note of their generosity 
in sharing their Capitol office space with the minority staff during 
the time that Members and staff were prohibited from occupying our 
office buildings. I also want to thank my excellent staff, Mike 
Stephens, Michelle Burkett, Angela June Ohm and Gavin Clingham, for 
their hard work during this process. All staff have really done an 
excellent job on a very difficult bill.
  Given the resources, Mr. Speaker, that this subcommittee was 
allocated, we were forced to work together in a constructive manner to 
reach reasoned compromises. No Member got everything that they wanted, 
each sacrificed on issues of importance, to us and to our caucuses, but 
we have produced a conference report worthy of the body's support.
  The bills passed by the House and the Senate were not significantly 
different in allocation but did contain significant substantive 
differences. In each case, a middle ground was sought and improvements 
have been made.
  I want to take a minute to discuss a few of the programmatic numbers 
in this conference agreement.
  Veterans remain a top priority of the members of this subcommittee. 
We have provided $21.3 billion for the medical care account. This is 
$350 million over the President's request, an increase of $1.5 billion 
over the current year, and almost $50 million over what was in the 
House bill when it left this body. We also increased the medical and 
prosthetic research account by $20 million over 2001 funding.
  Important to members of my caucus, we were able to improve the House-
passed funding levels for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and provide the 
Corporation for National and Community Service funding comparable to 
its fiscal year 2001 funding. The Public Housing Capital Fund was 
increased $290 million from the House-passed funding level, and we 
maintained the $250 million increase in the operating fund that was 
contained in the House bill. Funding to renew all existing Section 8 
vouchers is included, as is funding to provide 18,000 new Fair Share 
vouchers and 7,000 new vouchers reserved for the disabled.
  Within EPA, we restored the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to the 
funding levels of past years, $1.35 billion, and provided an overall 
increase of $75 million over this fiscal year, nearly $600 million over 
the administration's request.
  These improvements have not come at the expense of scientific 
research. The National Science Foundation will receive an increase of 
$362 million, an 8.2 percent increase over 2001, an increase that is 
distributed broadly by research category and includes adequate funds 
for major new science initiatives.
  For NASA, a 3.5 percent increase is provided. While I continue to 
have concerns that we are not providing NASA the resources needed to 
undertake the missions that have been identified for that agency, I 
would suggest that this minimal increase is a recognition of the budget 
constraints we face. I believe that we as a Congress should look 
closely at NASA in the next year and provide additional resources to 
that agency.
  This conference report is the product of a balancing act, and I 
believe that we have done a good job ensuring that the needs of each 
agency are met. I ask for the body's support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise, number one, to 
congratulate Chairman Walsh for having done such a tremendous job in 
taking a 302(b) allocation that was not nearly as much as these 
agencies could have used but in providing a bill that really gets the 
job done. He has done an outstanding job. He could not have had a 
better partner than the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). 
They worked together in just a very strong, bipartisan fashion. Their 
staff support was equally bipartisan, and we produced a good bill. And 
so I would hope that we would get a very good vote for this conference 
report.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement to the 
Members that we are nearing the end of the appropriations process for 
fiscal year 2002. I think everyone would breathe a deep sigh of relief 
over that, especially the chairman of the committee.
  Briefly, we have produced two major supplemental bills since we 
received the details of the President's budget on May 9, which was 
about 2 months later than we normally get it, but I think we all 
understand the lateness of the new administration being put in place. 
But we were 2 months late in actually getting the detailed numbers that 
we need as appropriators to work these bills. But since that time on 
May 9, we have produced the two supplementals that were major 
supplementals through the entire process and to the President.
  We have also concluded all of our work on the Interior appropriations 
bill, the Military Construction appropriations bill, the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, 
the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, and today we will conclude our 
business on the VA-HUD bill that is before us.
  Also today we received unanimous consent to take up the 
appropriations bill for Agriculture, to file it by midnight tomorrow 
night; we will complete the conference on Commerce, Justice and State 
later today; we appointed the conferees for the District of Columbia 
appropriations bill; and we appointed the conferees for the Labor, HHS 
and Education appropriations bill. We hope to conclude those 
conferences by the middle of next week and hopefully will be on the 
floor before or by Friday of next week.
  I might say, Mr. Speaker, that part of the slowdown here also has 
been that the other body, while its appropriations committee had 
reported out most of its bills, the other body held appropriations 
bills for a long time and did not pass them. And so we cannot go to 
conference on an appropriations bill until the other body passes it as 
well. But while the committee did pass out its bills, the full Senate 
did not take them up.
  We still have to do the Transportation conference, and there is one 
issue that is delaying us there, and that has to do with a difference 
of opinion between several Members of the other body and the President 
of the United States on the issue of trucks entering the United States 
from a foreign land. That has to be resolved yet, but we think that 
will happen also by the end of next week.
  The major outstanding issue, having said all of this is the Defense 
bill. It has yet to be done in the Committee and in the House, but I 
believe we will also have it through the House by Friday of next week. 
I do not think we will be able to have it conferenced by Friday of next 
week. The Defense bill itself has been completed for over a week, but 
we are using it as a vehicle to deal with last $20 billion of the 
second supplemental we did.
  This gets a little confusing and complicated, but on the $40 billion 
supplemental that we passed in the days after the terrorist attacks, if 
Members recall, we required that the last $20 billion of that Act 
actually go through the appropriations process once the President 
decided how he would like to use that $20 billion to respond to the 
terrorist attack of September 11. So while the Defense bill has been 
completed for about 10 days, we have been

[[Page H7931]]

holding it as the vehicle for that $20 billion. We will mark up that 
$20 billion part of that Defense bill on Tuesday of next week and 
hopefully will have it on the floor Wednesday or Thursday. That is our 
plan.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, because of the good work of members of the 
Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle and the support 
that we received by both sides of the aisle on our appropriations bills 
this year, again I say, we can breathe a sigh of relief. We are 
reaching the end of that process for fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, congratulations to my colleague from West 
Virginia and my colleague from New York for the job that they did on 
the bill. Today is a historic day for public health and safety and it 
is a great day for the environment. Today, after a decade-long battle, 
we are finally lowering the level of arsenic in our drinking water. The 
United States will finally join the rest of the developed world in 
cleaning up its drinking water.

                              {time}  1230

  Arsenic is a toxic poison that can cause lung cancer, bladder cancer, 
skin cancer; and according to the National Academy of Sciences, the 
threat to our children and pregnant women and anyone who drinks this 
carcinogen is even greater than we had originally thought. Arsenic 
simply has no place in our drinking water.
  I am very pleased that the VA-HUD conference report includes language 
that I offered on this floor to cut the level of arsenic by 80 percent 
without any further delay. EPA now cannot drag its feet any longer. We 
need to get to 10 parts per billion immediately. Not next year, not 
next month, but now. EPA should never have blocked this ruling in the 
first place. In fact, based on the science, we should actually go lower 
than 10 parts per billion to adequately protect the public health.
  Because of the actions we are taking here today, millions of 
Americans will be drinking cleaner water. This is a serious problem in 
my home State of Michigan. There are only four other States that have a 
higher exposure to arsenic in the entire Nation. According to the EPA, 
we have 367,000 Michigan residents in 176 communities who may be 
drinking water containing arsenic in amounts higher than 10 parts per 
billion. We are finally taking action to protect those people.
  I want to thank those who helped bring this victory about, including 
those cosponsors of my original amendment in the House: the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee). Senator Boxer in the other body led the fight. My good 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), was a steadfast 
supporter to get the strongest possible language that we could get in 
conference.
  I also want to thank again my friend, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the appropriations staff for all the 
assistance and help that they put in. This was a bipartisan victory. We 
had many supporters on the other side of the aisle as well.
  The report language accompanying the arsenic standard raises a 
concern that we all share, and that is what that impact will be on 
small communities. The science is clear. No community would want to 
expose their citizens to higher levels of arsenic. But these 
communities need financial help to meet the new standard, not 
exemptions and waivers from the law. That is why authorizing 
legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I and 
others introduced would double the amount of funds available to help 
meet this new standard.
  When it comes to getting poison out of our drinking water, no 
community should be left behind. Next year, we need to step up to the 
plate and help these small water systems with additional resources.
  This is one of the most important environmental and public health 
victories to come out of this Congress. It is a tremendous step forward 
in making sure that our drinking water is as clean and safe as it can 
be. I applaud and thank my colleagues for their support on this 
important measure.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), the distinguished dean of the New York Republican 
delegation.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  As my colleague is aware, the New York State Department of Health 
recently released its findings from its Cancer Surveillance Improvement 
Initiative. That report showed that Rockland County and the East Side 
of Manhattan have among the highest breast cancer incidents in our 
State.
  Specifically, the report shows that a majority of these two areas are 
characterized by elevated incidence and are 15 to 50 percent higher 
than the State average for breast cancer incidence.
  In response to that alarming finding, I have been working with my 
colleague from Manhattan, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), 
to secure funding from the EPA for the NYU School of Medicine to 
conduct an assessment to determine if the observed excess incidence of 
breast cancer in my area of Rockland County and in the East Side of 
Manhattan, the area of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), 
are associated with air pollution and electromagnetic radiation 
generated from the local power plants.
  I am gratified the VA-HUD appropriations conference report contains 
$500,000 for Rockland County, New York, for an assessment of 
environmental hazards in Rockland County and the East Side of 
Manhattan. It is my intention and that of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) that this money be allocated to the NYU School of 
Medicine for this important study.
  Therefore, I am asking our good chairman, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), to clarify this is the intent of this proposal.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
bringing this issue to my attention. I share his concern for the 
findings in the New York Department of Health's report which show the 
high incidence of breast cancer in Rockland County and the East Side of 
Manhattan.
  I want to assure my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), that it is 
the intent of the language included in the conference report for this 
study to be directed to the New York School of Medicine.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank our good 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), for his support.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his strong efforts in 
working with me to secure funding for this very, very important 
project. One in seven women die of breast cancer, and we have a huge 
incidence in our two respective districts.
  I also especially thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), 
who worked very hard with us in the VA-HUD bill, along with the ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan); and we 
appreciate very, very much their support. I believe we will save lives 
eventually.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a distinguished member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to serve on the subcommittee on VA, HUD 
and independent agencies.
  The gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), have done the work of 
a dynamic duo. First of all,

[[Page H7932]]

they were able to bridge the gap of bipartisanship that is so sorely 
needed in this Congress, and they did it, and they got a good job done 
because of that.
  I have been in the majority, and I have been in the minority. I have 
seen many talented and skilled leaders in this body on both sides of 
the aisle, and I always praise them. But I have rarely seen the kind of 
effective bipartisan leadership that these two Members had. They are 
serious about their responsibilities. They want to make government 
work, and they want to make it work well. They could not please all of 
us. I am never always fully pleased. But they are serious about it, and 
we do have a very good committee, and they are always willing to listen 
and they want to help. They are problem solvers, and we are fortunate 
to have them. We had many constraints on this subcommittee, but they 
were able to overcome most of them.
  I would like to thank on the majority side Frank Cushing, Tim 
Peterson, Dena Baron, Jennifer Miller and Jennifer Whitson; and on the 
Democratic side, Mike Stephens and Michelle Burkett. They showed 
confidence, they showed experience; and the help and good cheer is 
greatly appreciated.
  This does a lot of good, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes as Members we 
want things, and sometimes our reach exceeds our grasp. But, as 
Tennyson said, after all, what is heaven for?
  It funds the Federal urban empowerment zones, which assist our 
oldest, poorest neighborhoods. It increases veterans health care, 
environmental protection, our space program and FEMA.
  This conference report should be fully endorsed by the Congress. I 
fully support it. All Members should. It increases the funding for the 
National Science Foundation's Historically Black Colleges Undergraduate 
Program from $17 million in the House-passed bill to $28 million in the 
conference report. It will have a lot to do with science education in 
historically black colleges and universities.
  This conference report funds for the first time a program to help 
historically black colleges and universities with doctoral programs in 
science and engineering. This will improve their competitiveness and 
their capabilities in getting Federal research dollars. This has always 
been a problem among historically black colleges and universities, and 
this conference report saw that as a need, and they funded it. The 
doctoral candidates and the doctoral persons who are pursuing it in 
these universities will certainly be helped.
  This conference report also includes $27 million, an increase over 
the House level, for the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority 
Participation Program to help increase the number of minority students 
in basic science, math and engineering. This subcommittee saw the need 
for this kind of improvement with historically black colleges and also 
all minority institutions.
  I support this conference report, not because it is the best we can 
do, but I support it in spite of that. This committee did very well 
with what it had. With a final allocation that is $200 million below 
our House-passed bill, there was not much they could do to make this 
bill as good as it should be, but they did the very best they could do. 
We should have done better, but my mother used to say, you cannot get 
blood out of a turnip when it is not there.
  True, our bill is a marked improvement over what we initially passed 
in the House. Initially the House zeroed out HUD's Shelter Plus 
program, which provides rental assistance for homeless people and their 
families. This conference report fully funds that program.
  The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that these major 
programs that were so strongly needed, even though this particular 
committee did not have the funding it needed to fund these, it did its 
very best to serve these programs, and not just stop them after some 
success with them.
  Initially, the House zeroed out the Corporation for National and 
Community Service programs, which is a program that many of the Members 
are so proud of and help out in their communities, and that is the 
AmeriCorps program. It is like a domestic Peace Corps. This conference 
report funds AmeriCorps, but reduces it by 6 percent.
  Far more serious, the House vetoed out the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Program which was designed to help stamp out drug dealing 
in public housing because local police were not doing enough policing 
in these areas. Many of us would like to see that program reinstated, 
but the wisdom of the committee, following the administration's advice, 
were not able to keep this program in. That is something that I wish 
very much had been in the conference report.
  It also zeroes out Public Housing Drug Elimination Grants. The $110 
million that we added to the public housing operating subsidies would 
not begin to make up for the loss of this $300 million program. What I 
am saying is the PHOs would not be able to take the money they are 
receiving to make up for the drug elimination grants.
  Still, this conference report is the best we could do with the 
resources we had to work with. So many programs in our VA-HUD bill are 
designed to assist the poorest people in our society with basic needs. 
Much of the country takes this for granted. They take for granted a 
decent place to live, decent jobs. Many of our Congresspeople feel that 
way, access to credit that they can borrow.
  Mr. Speaker, these programs are needed to help poor people. I wish 
this Congress would remember, these are not just add-ons and they are 
not superfluous bureaucracies. These things are needed.
  I want to thank this committee, and I hope we will adopt this 
conference report and laud our two wonderful chairpeople and our staff.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a very hard-working and distinguished 
member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD conference report and want to 
thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for their 
leadership and the good work of their staff.
  I support this conference report for any number of reasons, but 
particularly because it contains a $1 billion increase for veterans 
medical care over last year's level. This is critically needed funding, 
especially for my home State of New Jersey, but for the rest of the 
Nation; and it will help provide men and women who served in the 
military with better access to the medical care that they have so 
richly earned and deserve. Over the past 3 years under the leadership 
of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), the committee has 
provided $4 billion in increase for medical care.
  The conference report also takes an important first step towards 
providing veterans with schizophrenia medicines that are far more 
valuable and very important to their lives. It encourages the VA to 
inform its doctors, pharmacy managers and, hopefully, its VISN 
directors as well, not to use the cost of atypical antipsychotics as a 
measurement of job performance, and instead, to reinforce VA policy 
that physicians use their best judgment when prescribing medicines for 
mentally ill veterans. If anyone deserves access to all the latest, 
most advanced medicines available, it is our veterans. They deserve the 
best possible treatments we can provide them.

                              {time}  1245

  I also support this conference report because it provides a much-
needed funding increase for the Section 811 program, housing for 
disabilities. I am pleased that the House provided $29 million more for 
this program than the Senate, and in the end, the conferees agreed to 
provide the higher level. There is a great need in our Nation for 
housing of all types, but particularly housing dollars for nonelderly 
individuals with disabilities.
  I support this conference report because it also contains an 
important set-aside: $40 million within the Section 8 voucher program 
to further increase housing options for individuals with disabilities.
  Combined with the increase in the Section 811 program, these two 
provisions will continue our efforts to provide housing for some of 
those who are in greatest need, who wish to live with independence and 
dignity.

[[Page H7933]]

  I also support this conference report because it increases funding 
for the National Science Foundation by $363 million over last year's 
level. Basic scientific research is critical, and this funding will 
help continue the NSF's work, including a number of projects in my home 
State, a State with a long history of scientific research and 
development.
  This conference report also deserves support because it continues to 
provide funding for critical environmental programs, including $1.27 
billion for the Superfund program to expedite clean-up of hazardous 
waste sites. My State has the dubious distinction of having more of 
these sites than any other State in the Nation.
  Further, this proposal provides nearly $95 billion for the 
brownfields program, which will help clean up contaminated sites to 
allow them to be used and returned to productive use in many of our 
cities and urban centers.
  This conference report builds upon what we have done in the past 
while staying within the confines of our allocation and within the 
overall level agreed upon last month by the Congress and the President.
  Finally, I want to take this opportunity, and I am sure all committee 
Members do, to commend FEMA Director Alpaugh, VA Secretary Principi, 
and EPA Administrator Whitman and their respective agencies and 
personnel for all of their collective efforts addressing so many 
tragic, tragic events related to September 11. All of these agencies 
sprang into action to offer the resources and their dedicated personnel 
in the wake of these attacks.
  For these and many reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the conference 
report and I urge everybody to vote for it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this subcommittee was ably led for many years by 
Chairman Boland, who recently passed away. I would like to acknowledge 
what a pleasure it was for me to serve under Eddie Boland, and what an 
outstanding job he did leading this subcommittee, as well as his 
leadership in Congress.
  He served for many years, and he was an outstanding member of the 
body. As we consider this bill, which would have been his bill, we 
would like to note his passing with great sadness.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), a distinguished member of the Massachusetts delegation, 
and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity, who served many years with Mr. Boland.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for yielding time to me, and I join him in expressing our 
sorrow at the death of Ed Boland. He was for many years one of the 
voices of housing in this body.
  He served, along with his roommate, close friend, and legislative 
classmate, Tip O'Neill, for more than 30 years and made an enormous 
contribution in the areas of housing, intelligence, and science; and we 
mourn his passing. He was one of the people who made democracy work in 
a very positive way.
  As I think back to those days, I think back also with regret. We have 
not only lost Ed Boland, we have lost as a nation the commitment to 
using the resources of the wealthiest country in the world to help 
people who are in distressed circumstances, and to meet common 
problems.
  I want to be very clear: I congratulate the chairman, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the others. Given the constraints within 
which they had to work, they did an excellent job.
  I am particularly gratified that they took care to provide adequate 
resources to public housing. The people who live in public housing are 
among the most needy and abused in our society. We are the ones who 
created public housing. We, the society, are the ones who created what 
many of us now understand, almost all of us now understand, were not 
very good places to live in the first place, and put the poor in there 
because they could not afford anything else. We are trying to change 
that.
  But those who would cut back on funding for public housing are 
blaming the victims for penalties imposed upon them, and so in this 
particular appropriation public housing does well, and I thank the 
gentleman for doing that. This is not a politically popular goal, but 
it is an important one.
  Mr. Speaker, in general, as I said, given the inadequate resources 
which they were given, they have done a very good job of putting them 
where they are needed. I appreciate their doing that. They have taken 
care of new Section 8s, they have taken care of public housing, they 
have tried to protect some of the other important activities. I am 
grateful to them for doing it.
  But having said that, I must return to the other point; namely, that 
we as a Congress, we as a society, are erring gravely in withholding 
the resources we need for so many important problems.
  The very prosperity that gave us such wealth, and it is temporarily 
on the other side of the ledger, but it is going to come back because 
this remains a very strong economy, the very prosperity that generated 
such revenues for the government caused housing problems for some 
people, because for many of those in this country, prosperity was a 
wonderful thing and it added to their incomes. But for some, when it 
did not add to their incomes, they were not only not better off, they 
were worse off because they lived in communities where housing prices 
were suddenly driven beyond what they could reasonably afford.
  We have not, and it is not the subcommittee's doing, and it is not 
even the Committee on Appropriations' doing, but we as a Congress have 
not given the resources necessary that we could use to alleviate that.
  In the environmental area, I represent some working-class 
communities, communities not terribly wealthy. They are the ones who 
now have to correct years of national neglect of clean water. They are 
facing very significant economic problems. We do not do enough to 
provide Federal funding to help them meet the Federal mandate of 
cleaning up the water and cleaning up international waters.
  So just in summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
New York and the gentleman from West Virginia and the members of the 
subcommittee. I appreciate the hard work they put into trying to meet 
our needs, but I have to close by lamenting the unwillingness of this 
society and this Congress to do the appropriate thing with our wealth.
  Yes, we will have many needs that can best be satisfied by individual 
spending, by money in our own pockets. But a civilized society that 
cares about the quality of its environment, has some compassion for the 
poor, for homeless children, that cares about adequate medical care for 
those who served our country, we have to understand that these needs 
cannot be fully met individually, that these needs require a Federal 
Government that is well funded.
  We have to get over this kind of contradiction where everybody hates 
government spending, but then laments the fact that we do not have 
enough government spending for housing, for Community Development Block 
Grants, for veterans medical care, for cleaning up Superfund sites, for 
clean water, and for other important programs.
  I hope as members contemplate this piece of legislation they will 
express their appreciation for the work that was done, but also their 
understanding of the inadequacy of the resources with which it was 
done, and help us change national policy in that regard.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge support of the conference report 
that contains within it the increased development of affordable 
housing.
  I would like to congratulate the Chair, my colleague, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), and I would also congratulate the ranking 
member, my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  The FHA loan limits have not been raised since 1992 despite dramatic 
increases in construction cost and critical demand for affordable 
rental housing. In a number of cities nationwide,

[[Page H7934]]

and those in West Virginia as well, there has been no new construction 
under the FHA program in 4 years.
  The need for affordable housing is well documented, and today 13.7 
million households face a critical housing need. The availability of 
decent housing has been deeply harmed by the lack of financing to 
produce these units. By increasing the multifamily loan limits, FHA 
will stimulate not only new construction, but rehabilitation of 
existing infrastructure in many cities across the country.
  I look forward to giving my wholehearted support to this conference 
report. I thank the Chair and the ranking member.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for the work they have done. I recognize that 
it was a very difficult job to try and live within the framework that 
was foisted upon them.
  Mr. Speaker, this VA-HUD conference report is certainly an 
improvement over the House version. However, the funds are still 
terribly inadequate to fulfill HUD's mission to support the most needy 
people in this country.
  This report cuts funding for public housing, terminating $310 million 
for the successful drug elimination program, and $157 million for the 
capital fund that provides for the rehabilitation of housing units to 
bring them up to today's standards.
  This bill will also cut all of the jobs of public housing residents 
that are associated with the rehabilitation.
  In addition, this conference report cuts funding for proven economic 
development programs that are sorely needed to stimulate the economy. 
For example, the Community Development Block Grant has been cut by $58 
million; Empowerment Zones funding has been cut by $45 million; the 
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund has been cut by $38 
million.
  Funding for these programs should be increased, rather than 
decreased. These programs inject capital into communities that need it 
the most, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Cutting these 
programs at a time like this is simply inexplicable.
  This conference report, while certainly, again, an improvement over 
the House, is still troubling. It is troubling because of our need to 
support poor people, rather than abandon them at this time. We have to 
remember that at the same time that we are doing this, there are some 
Members in this House who are proposing obscene tax cuts for the 
richest corporations in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge a vote on this bill, because this is the 
best that we can do. But we must have a better vision for the future. 
We must work harder to change our priorities for the future and empower 
and support the most needy citizens in this Nation.
  Let me just close by saying I worked very hard for about 10 or 15 
years with all of the public housing programs in my district. I knew 
and I know today that there are still drug problems and that drug 
traffickers find their way to poor people, encouraging them to get 
involved in this underground of drug selling.
  It is unconscionable that we would cut drug elimination in these 
public housing projects at the same time that we want to strengthen 
them, we want to clean them up, we want to encourage people to go to 
work and get in job training programs. They cannot do it without the 
kind of support that is offered through the drug elimination program 
and other like programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on 
this issue.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I appreciate the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), for the fine job he has done, and also the ranking member, 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and also the 
subcommittee staff for their tremendous help on this legislation, and 
for assisting with the legislative language to provide $490,000 to 
construct the Harold Chitwood multipurpose cafetorium facility to match 
approximately $1 million, to be provided locally, to build the 
additional facilities of the complex.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, is it his understanding that 
this multipurpose facility would be owned and operated by the 
Bennington school district and constructed on land of the district for 
educational, community, and Native American activities?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. That is exactly what my understanding is of this 
expenditure.
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the 
chairman engaging in this colloquy.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) for yielding the time, and I thank the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member for their commitment to our Nation's 
veterans. They have had significant increases in this budget in the 
last 2 years and they have worked very hard. Given the constraints, 
they have had to do the best in this year.
  Let us put this in context as we are about to adjourn for our 
Veterans' Day. This budget appropriates barely sufficient funds for the 
VA to keep up with inflation, barely sufficient funds. At a time when 
we are all going to go out on next Sunday and Monday to say how much we 
support our veterans, we are falling behind in our commitment.
  This budget is $2 billion below what the veterans groups have come 
together to try to argue for in their independent budget. This budget 
is below what both the House and the Senate have in their resolutions, 
this at a time when we are producing more veterans as they defend our 
country in this war against terrorism, and this comes at a time when 
the VA has already informed its field people that they are going to 
fall $800 million behind in this budget and they better prepare for 
that.
  The VA is being called to help with emergency efforts at a time of 
potential casualties in this Nation. Not only do they not have 
sufficient resources, not only are they falling behind, but they are 
called upon to do new things in this war against terrorism.
  So what occurs is backlogs for disability adjudications are building 
at the rate of 10,000 a week, 10,000 a week. Appointments have to be 
made 6, 8, 9, 10 months in advance that our veterans have to wait for. 
This is not a way to give a signal to those who are fighting in 
Afghanistan that we are going to treat them right when they come home.
  This budget is disappointing. We should not vote for it, and we 
should put this in context. When people tell me we do not have the 
resources, this House just passed a $25 billion subsidy for retroactive 
tax increases for the biggest corporations in America, $25 billion 
dollar. A check for $2 billion was given to IBM, and we do not have 
money for our Nation's veterans.
  We cannot do anything about Persian Gulf War illness and our veterans 
are homeless on the street. I am going to vote no on this budget 
because on November 11 this is not a way to honor our veterans.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller) one of our newer Members. We are delighted to 
have him with us today.
  Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
New York for yielding the time, and I rise today in support of this 
conference report because it does work to take care of our Nation's 
veterans, and it does work to protect our environment.
  For our Nation's veterans, this bill provides for over a billion 
dollars in increases over last year's bill for veterans health care. 
The bill also provides additional funding for the veterans benefits 
administration to expedite claims processing.

[[Page H7935]]

  Also, important to my home district, this bill provides $850,000 for 
the University of West Florida through EPA to conduct an environmental 
health study in Escambia County. In 1998, EPA wrote Escambia County 
ranked 22nd out of more than 3,300 counties nationwide in the amount of 
toxic releases reported by the agency.
  Over the last couple of years, there has been mounting anecdotal 
evidence suggesting that these toxic levels have attributed to an 
increase in illnesses in northwest Florida. It is time to find some 
real answers. The study will compile environmental information, 
coordinate research, evaluate risks to the health of our citizens, and 
provide the information necessary to remedy the situation.
  I want to express my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the members of the 
committee and the staff for their work on this important legislation 
and for recognizing the need for a science-based evaluation of toxic 
levels and illnesses in northwest Florida.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) for yielding me the time.
  I rise in strong support of the bill. Let me start out by saying that 
I appreciate the fact that the chairman and the ranking member 
increased the amount of funding for NASA than what was in the 
President's request. We did not get everything we wanted for NASA, but 
we got more than what was originally proposed.
  I also think that the committee was very wise in increasing the 
funding for basic science funding research through the National Science 
Foundation, which we now know that basic science research has been 
critical to the economic expansion that we enjoyed in the prior 8, 
almost 9, years.
  Most importantly, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member 
of the subcommittee for accepting the higher level of funding for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency and for natural disasters. As 
Members know, earlier this year before the events of September 11, 
which this Congress has very wisely and very strongly dealt with, we in 
Texas, and particularly in the greater Houston area, suffered a 
tremendous natural disaster as a result of Tropical Storm Allison. 
There were a number of Members including myself who were down here on 
the floor arguing for sufficient funding just as the effects of this 
storm were unraveling.
  As we now know, nearly 80,000 people in the greater Houston area were 
affected by the storm; 50,000 homes took on water. The major hospitals 
were closed down, and the total cost was probably around $5 billion. 
The Federal share will be close to $2 billion as part of this storm; 
and I just want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for the 
work that they did, that they have stepped up to the plate and provided 
what is a basic function of the Federal Government in stepping to aid 
its people in times of crisis.
  Just as we have done rightly so in New York and with the Pentagon, we 
have also done in this bill as it relates to the people of Texas and of 
the greater Houston area as a result of Tropical Storm Allison, and I 
appreciate the work that both sides did on this.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) for yielding me the time, and I certainly thank the 
chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in this bill.
  I rise reluctantly to say that I intend to vote no on this bill. I 
recognize that the chairman made a very strong effort to stick to the 
original House mark on NASA, but without the support of the 
administration or the other body, it was very difficult for him to hold 
on that issue, and certainly I thank him for his efforts.
  My greater concern is just that we are continuing the general trend 
that we have been on for the last 8 years when it comes to our 
investment in aerospace. At the conclusion of the first Bush 
administration, aerospace investment for the United States of America, 
15 percent of the total Federal R&D went to aerospace.
  At the conclusion of 8 years of the Clinton administration, it was 
down to a figure of only 7 percent, only 7 percent of our Federal 
investment goes into aerospace. Now today that figure is treading down 
even further. Indeed, this is a critical issue not only for our 
competitiveness, manufactured products that we make in the United 
States lead the way in our import/export balance sheet in the area of 
aerospace; but we are losing that competitive edge. Also, I think this 
is a critical issue for national security and national defense.
  Specifically, if you look at this bill, NASA's budget barely keeps 
pace with inflation. This is a budget that has essentially been flat 
for 10 years. A budget that, when you adjust for inflation has an 
agency that has seen its purchasing power decline by close to 30 
percent, barely gets an inflationary adjustment here.
  Let us look at the some of the comparisons in this bill. EPA gets a 
10 percent increase over last year; housing an increase of 6 percent 
over last year. Despite the fact that some people have come to this 
floor saying they want even more for housing, housing actually gets an 
increase that is double the inflation rate. The Science Foundation, 
certainly something I support, a 10 percent increase over the last 
year, but yet the NASA account barely keeps pace with inflation.
  Let me just say there are some good things in this for NASA. There is 
a 25 percent increase to cover some expenses at the vehicle assembly 
building, a building that was built to support the Apollo program that 
is deteriorating. Fortunately, there is some money for new doors in 
that building. It needs a lot more: a new roof, a new facade. 
Certainly, I am very pleased that the chairman was able to hold the 
mark on the shuttle upgrades account which was very, very good news; 
but overall in the area of human space flight, it actually transfers 
money out of human space flight to cover NASA accounts elsewhere.
  Overall, I cannot support this bill. I do not think the people in my 
district support this bill, and I intend to vote no.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise us as to how much time 
is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space 
and Aeronautics.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend 
the conferees for the great job they have done on this VA-HUD 
conference bill. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics, I am particularly pleased with the commitment by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) to make sure that the NASA budget continues to 
make sure that America provides a leadership in space and keeps America 
number one in space endeavors.
  The conferees showed good judgment in producing a bill that requires 
NASA to conduct many of the recommendations captured within the 
International Space Station Management Cost and Evaluation Report. I 
believe that this is the right course in establishing a credible Space 
Station program.
  It is with this achievement that we should continue to press NASA to 
stay on course concerning the other aerospace projects that are of 
critical importance to the American taxpayer. That is why I have 
requested from NASA a letter delivered to me tomorrow that specifically 
outlines a program within the space launch initiative that ensures an 
orbital flight demonstration experiment involving the X-37 vehicle, so 
we can verify this cutting-edge technology and its benefit as a space 
transportation system.
  In the past, NASA has been disappointing in producing space hardware 
and flight hardware that satisfied our launch needs. This time it is 
now time to move forward aggressively developing the means to access 
space affordably and effectively. The X-37

[[Page H7936]]

project represents a major milestone in moving us closer to this goal. 
Let us hope that this week marks a sea change in attitude at NASA to 
start thinking boldly and creatively as we enter the 21st century and 
beyond.
  We need to have space launch, and we need to make sure we have the 
technology developed that will keep America the number one space power. 
We also must be concerned about the taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the conferees on their commitment to both 
of these goals.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would take a few seconds to close and, merely, I would 
like to thank our staffs, both minority and majority staff, for the 
remarkable amount of effort they put into this. We had six 
preconferences prior to conference. They worked very, very hard as did 
all of the members of the subcommittee. I would especially like to 
thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), who was very supportive all the way along. There was no 
partisanship at all in this bill.
  I submit the bill to the consideration of the House. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of increasing the 
FHA Multifamily loan limits. The FHA multifamily loan programs support 
the new construction and substantial rehabilitation of much needed 
affordable rental housing.
  Our Nation faces a growing affordable housing crisis for low- and 
moderate-income families. Yet the FHA multifamily loan limits have not 
been raised in 9 years. How can we expect the private sector to produce 
affordable rental housing, when they cannot receive affordable 
financing?
  Construction costs have risen more than 25 percent since the last 
increase. One simple way to stimulate the development of affordable 
housing in our communities is to increase the multifamily loan limits. 
In my home State of New York, the current limit is $87,226 per two-
bedroom unit. In the last 4 years not one unit has been produced under 
the FHA multifamily loan program, due to that low number. The 25-
percent increase established in this conference agreement would raise 
the limit in New York to $106,952.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this necessary and 
important increase that will benefit so many working families 
throughout our Nation.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on 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, 7 percent more than current funding.
  I support the bill because it provides $2.2 billion in disaster 
relief for FY 2002, which will be needed in part to recover from 
Tropical Storm Allison, one of the worst disasters to ever hit Houston 
and the State of Texas. The total is $800 million more than the 
President's budget request, and these additional funds will help the 
Houston area's continuing recovery from Tropical Storm Allison. While 
FEMA has spent almost $900 million in Texas as a result of Allison, 
they expect to spend an additional $800 million in the State before 
recovery is complete.
  Most future FEMA disaster relief funds for Allison recovery will be 
for Public Assistance (PA), much of which will reach the nonprofit 
hospitals and institutions of the Texas Medical Center, which conduct 
millions of patient visits per year. When the House originally 
considered the VA-HUD, it contained only $1.4 billion in disaster 
relief. I greatly appreciate the willingness of the chairman and 
ranking member to provide the funds necessary to address our needs in 
Texas.
  It is very important for Congress to maintain a healthy disaster 
relief capability at all times. I am proud that Congress has already 
made a major commitment to the recovery process for New York City. I am 
also proud that the war on terrorism has not caused us to forget the 
disaster relief needs of the rest of the country. I am confident that 
Congress can simultaneously help rebuild after the worst disaster in 
our Nation's history and the most expensive natural disaster in 
Houston's history.
  Besides including additional disaster relief funding, I commend the 
chairman and the entire Appropriations Committee for going part way 
toward correcting a major flaw in the President's budget regarding 
funding for the International Space Station. The bill provides $14.8 
billon in total for NASA, 3.5 percent more or $508 million more than 
current funding. Importantly, this legislation fully funds the space 
station at the $1.9 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. 
While I am disappointed that the bill does not contain the $275 million 
for CRV form the House bill, I am pleased that at least $40 million 
will be spent on CRV in 2002.
  I am relieved that the conference committee approved a major increase 
over the President's request for scientific research. This bill 
includes $4.8 billion federal funding for research through the National 
Science Foundation. The performance of the economy is largely the 
result of technological advances stemming from basic science research 
throughout our Nation. This fact underscores the necessity of 
increasing Federal basic scientific investments.
  Although the conferees are to be commended for wrapping up their work 
on veterans' spending before Veterans' Day weekend, I am concerned that 
this measure does not provide enough funding for veterans programs. I 
will continue to consistently support health benefit expansion for our 
Nation's veterans, many who have made incredible sacrifices in order to 
preserve our freedom. Although the war on terrorism is unlike any other 
war, there will still be thousands of new veterans of this war who will 
be as equally deserving as those who served in World War II, Korea, 
Vietnam, and the gulf. My home State of Texas has a growing veterans 
population who will not be fully served until we find additional 
resources.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference committee has produced a good bill under 
the difficult circumstances. In Particular the FEMA disaster relief 
funding is important to my constituents and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue of housing 
funding in this VA-HUD conference report.
  The good news is that this bill restores a significant portion of the 
very deep and unwise cuts made to housing and community development 
programs that were proposed in the administration budget and were 
adopted in the House-passed bill. The bad news is that this bill is 
still disappointing from a housing standpoint.
  The last few years, we worked together in a bipartisan basis to 
restore funding for housing programs that were cut in 1995, and to 
provide new vouchers for almost 200,000 low-income families.
  The conference report being considered today reverses this progress, 
by making modest funding cuts in some important programs, and by 
dramatically reducing the level of incremental section 8 vouchers for 
low-income families and seniors. Moreover, this is taking place just at 
the time when we appear to be entering into a recession, which will 
make it harder for low- and moderate-income families and seniors to 
keep a roof over their head.
  It is true that on a purely technical basis, budget authority for HUD 
will increase under this bill. However, when you factor out the 
increase just to renew expiring section 8 contracts, and factor out the 
offsetting increased receipts from FHA and Ginnie Mae, this bill 
actually cuts housing and community development programs by over $250 
million.
  Specifically, the bill makes $215 million in net cuts in public 
housing programs, including termination of the Drug Elimination 
Program. It cuts funding for CDBG and Empowerment Zones, just as 
virtually everyone agrees we need to do more to stimulate economic 
development in the face of a recession. And, it cuts the number of new 
Fair Share Section 8 vouchers from 79,000 last year to only 18,000 this 
year--a 77 percent cut.
  The simple truth is that the housing cuts in this bill are 
unnecessary. Earlier this year, Congress diverted $114 million in 
unused section 8 funds to nonhousing purposes. A portion of the $300 
million in savings we will generate from the mark-to-market extension 
will be diverted to nonhousing purposes. And FHA and Ginnie Mae 
continue to produce billions of dollars in profits to the taxpayer--
profits which could be reinvested in housing, but are instead used to 
increase the Federal budget surplus.
  On various policy issues, the bill is also disappointing. I am 
pleased that the conference report in effect adopts the amendment 
offered by myself and Congresswoman Lee during House consideration 
which restores the $100 million cut in homeless funding for Shelter 
Plus Care renewals, funding this through a reduction in the as-yet 
unauthorized administration down payment initiative. However, we failed 
to do what we should have done, which is to renew expiring Shelter Plus 
Care grants through the section 8 certificate fund, as we do all other 
expiring rental assistance.

[[Page H7937]]

  On the $640 million reduction in funded section 8 reserves, I am 
pleased that the conferees included report language dealing with the 
issue of providing additional funds beyond the remaining 1 month of 
funded reserves. I urge HUD to implement this provision in a way that 
maximally increases section 8 utilization, that is, by promptly 
providing additional funds to section 8 administrators who exhaust 
their reserve funds and need additional funds to serve their authorized 
number of families.
  So, in conclusion, we have averted the devastating impact of earlier 
versions of the HUD budget, but in so many ways we can and should do 
better.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the conference report directs the EPA 
administrator to put into effect without delay the 10 parts per billion 
standard for arsenic that was promulgated in the Clinton 
administration. The Bush administration has, without justification, 
delayed the effective date of the January 22d rule and has been in 
clear violation of Federal law. Congress had set a deadline to have a 
new final standard for arsenic in effect no later than June 22 of this 
year. The House of Representatives, in July, sent the administration a 
clear message when it voted to have an arsenic standard no higher than 
10ppb so the United States could be inline with the World Health 
Organization and the European Union.
  Despite extensive scientific proof that the current standard for 
arsenic in tap water of 50 ppb is unsafe, it remained unchanged from 
1942 until the Clinton administration reduced it to 10ppb in January 
2001. In 1942, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) established a 
standard for arsenic in tap water of 50 ppb, which remained in effect 
for over half a century even though it did not consider evidence 
accumulated over the past 50 years that arsenic causes cancer.
  In 1962, the USPHS recommended that potable water supplies not exceed 
10ppb arsenic. Nearly 39 years later, EPA finally adopted that 
recommendation in January 2001.
  The National Academy of Sciences issued a report in 1999 finding that 
``it is the subcommittee's consensus that the current EPA standard for 
arsenic in drinking water of 50ppb does not achieve EPA's goal for 
public health protection and, therefore, requires downward revision as 
promptly as possible.''
  The NAS, EPA, International Agency of Research on Cancer, and many 
other scientific international bodies have declared arsenic in drinking 
water a known human carcinogen, based on numerous studies from around 
the world showing that people get bladder, kidney, lung, skin, and 
other cancers from arsenic in their tap water.
  Despite all of that information, tens of million of Americans drink 
arsenic in their tap water supplied by public water systems, at levels 
that present unacceptable cancer and noncancer risks. According to EPA, 
about 12 million Americans drink tap water containing over 10ppb 
arsenic, about 22.5 million drink tap water containing over 5ppb, and 
about 35.7 million drink water containing in excess of 3ppb. Thus, 
according to EPA's occurrence estimates and NAS' most recent cancer 
risk estimates, about 36 million Americans drink water every day that 
contains arsenic at a level presenting over 10 times EPA's maximum 
acceptable cancer risk.
  It is for that reason I was pleased that the Bush administration 
finally--at a bare minimum--accepted the 10ppb rule after months of 
unnecessary delay. However, in reviewing the language in this 
conference report, I would say to my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee that it is a mistake to encourage small communities to seek 
lengthy compliance time extensions so they continue to drink unhealthy 
water. We should work together to develop additional cost-effective 
technologies and provide targeted financial assistance where necessary 
to bring small water systems into compliance with the new protective 
standard for arsenic. No person no matter where they live in our 
country should have arsenic in their drinking water which presents an 
unreasonable risk to health.
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to thank Chairman 
Walsh and Ranking Member Mollohan for taking a reasonable first step in 
responding to the escalating concerns parents have voiced over the 
effects of arsenic-treated wood playground equipment on their children.
  Included in the VA-HUD conference report is a provision requested by 
myself and Senator Ben Nelson of Florida.
  The provision directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the 
Environmental Protection Agency to report to the committee within 3 
months on their most up-to-date understanding of the potential health 
and safety risks to children playing on and around arsenic-treated wood 
playground equipment.
  The report will also include the steps the EPA and the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission are taking to keep state and local 
governments, and the public, informed about the risks associated with 
arsenic-treated wood.
  It responds to a study released today by the Environmental Working 
Group and the Healthy Building Network, which estimates that one our of 
every 500 children who regularly play on swing sets and decks made from 
arsenic-treated wood will develop lung or bladder cancer later in life 
as a result of these exposures.
  It is important in these times of changing priorities that the health 
and well-being of children remain foremost in our minds.
  The parents of Indianapolis and communities all over the Nation are 
looking forward to the findings of this report.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the chairman and 
ranking member of the subcommittee under difficult circumstances. As 
most Members know, the allocation of the subcommittee was insufficient 
to adequately fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, and particularly 
veterans medical care. While I am disappointed about the appropriations 
provided in the conference agreement for veterans, I realize the 
extraordinary conditions under which we have had to work this session. 
I hope that we can redress some of the shortcomings in this year's 
budget in the next fiscal year.
  As a nation, we are now engaged in the first war of the 21st century. 
We must be prepared to provide the benefits and services of our future 
veterans as well as meet the needs of those men and women who have 
honorably served our Nation in uniform in years past. This is a moral 
obligation of our Nation.
  Undoubtedly, major additional funding for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and particularly veterans medical care and services can be 
fully justified. As the need for additional funding becomes more 
obvious in the weeks and months ahead, I look forward to the 
administration submitting a request for the additional funding which is 
clearly needed.
  Until that time, VA will continue to do its best to meet its 
missions. But VA can only do more with insufficient resources for so 
long. A day of reckoning is fast approaching. We must do better by our 
Nation's veterans. While we have improved upon the President's request, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs still estimates shortfalls for 
delivering current services in FY 2002. This year we will continue to 
pass legislation encouraging VA to do more, including managing its role 
as a backup provider to the Department of Defense in times of war or 
national emergency and combating bioterrorism. I want VA to fulfill 
these roles, but I also want to ensure that they have adequate 
resources to take on these challenges.
  This Sunday, November the 11th, when Members of this body are 
praising our veterans' past deeds and stressing the importance of a 
strong national defense, I ask all Members of this House to make a 
commitment to our deeds and our actions reflect our words. We must 
provide adequate resources to our past and present servicemembers. We 
can do less.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2620 and to thank 
Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Mollohan for their hard work on this 
bill. The chairman and ranking member have worked on a wide range of 
issues within this bill and I believe my colleagues in this body owe 
them a debt of gratitude for the dedication and spirit of 
bipartisanship they demonstrated while reaching compromise on their 
differences.
  There is, however, language in this report which concerns me greatly. 
The language pertains to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and 
the treatment of veterans with mental illness.
  Mr. Speaker, there is still enormous concern among veterans' 
organizations, Members of this body and mental health advocates about 
the VA's desire to implement treatment guidelines for veterans who 
suffer from schizophrenia. The language included in the House version 
of the conference report accompanying the VA-HUD appropriations bill 
would have held the VA accountable by requiring them to wait until a 
scientific review of newer atypical antipsychotic medications was 
completed by the National Institute of Mental Health--the premiere 
Federal scientific research agency. By contrast, the Senate conference 
report language for the VA-HUD bill would have left the VA free to 
implement their new treatment guidelines with little congressional 
oversight.
  The compromise contained in this conference report is not what many 
of us in this body had hoped for. Specifically, the compromise does not 
go far enough to ensue the guidelines the VA seeks to promulgate will 
follow the most up-to-date science regarding the treatment of 
schizophrenia. In fact, it is precisely because there is a dearth of 
scientific research on the use of different antipsychotic medications 
that I fought for inclusion for the House-passed language in the 
conference report. Without sound scientific research, I am concerned 
the VA will institute treatment protocols which could jeopardize the 
health of veterans with schizophrenia.
  As many Members know, mental illness is no small thing, and it's 
certainly not something

[[Page H7938]]

we can describe in terms of dollars and cents. Unless you meet some 
suffering from am illness like schizophrenia, it's hard to imagine how 
it can impact a person's life as well as those who love them. Without 
proper treatment, victims are often completely unable to function in 
society, accounting for 1 out of 5 hospital admissions and 4 of 10 beds 
in long-term care facilites--not to mention countless encounters with 
the corrections system. This is why I was disappointed stronger 
language did not make its way into the conference report.
  I am heartened, however, to see we are sending a clear message to the 
VA that it is not to use the total sum cost of drugs which are 
prescribed at VA facilities as a measure of a pharmacy manager's or 
physician's performance. Rest assured I will continue working with 
veterans' organizations and advocates for veterans with mental illness 
to ensure the VA and individual VISN's closely follow the guidance the 
conference report provides for respect to the freedom that doctors in 
the VA system should have to prescribe clinically appropriate 
medications for their patients without fear of reprisal.
  Let me be clear on this. Diagnosis and treatment of mental illness 
should be based on medical judgment and need, not price. Restrictive 
formulary policies jeopardize patient care by taking treatment 
decisions out of the hands of doctors. Because patients differ in their 
clinical responses to different drugs, in their sensitivity to specific 
side effects, and in their tolerance for these side effects when they 
occur--and because the atypical anti-psychotic agents are different 
from one another in their clinical effects for a particular patient and 
in their side effects--I have a difficult time believing that any 
treatment protocol or formulary can embody the best clinical care. 
Veterans with schizophrenia--60 percent of whom have a service-
connected disability--should never be subject to 2nd-rate treatment.
  Those who wore the uniform and served to protect our freedom should 
have access to the newest and most effective treatment available. While 
this conference report still leaves us with work to do in overseeing 
the VA's schizophrenia treatment guidelines, I am pleased to see that 
we have made some progress. Rest assured I will continue to work, along 
with Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Hobson, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. 
Tauscher and many others, to ensure veterans with mental health receive 
the best treatment possible.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, nearly 83 years ago, our Nation 
signed an armistice agreement that ended the First World War. Though 
many bright-eyed optimists heralded this as ``the war to end all 
wars,'' just two decades later the world was plunged into another war 
more brutal and bloody than the first. In both world wars, as in the 
Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, millions of men and 
women answered their country's call to defend liberty at home and 
abroad.
  And now America finds itself embroiled in yet another war, a new 
conflict in which we stand together against the enemies of freedom and 
order. Just as we have so many times before, we send soldiers sailors, 
airmen, and Marines forth in the cause of liberty for which so many 
have given the last full measure of devotion. For their service and 
sacrifice our Nation's soldiers and veterans deserve our eternal 
gratitude. But they deserve more than gratitude, for our government has 
promised veterans that it will provide them health care both during and 
after their service.
  Yet we are constantly confronted with our failure to honor these 
promises. Our failure to meet our obligations to our veterans can be 
seen in the decision by the Portland Veterans Administration Medical 
Center (VAMC) to cut hundreds of staff and reduce services to thousands 
of veterans because of a multi-million dollar budget shortfall. Anyone 
who has used the VAMC in recent years knows that the center is already 
understaffed; hundreds of veterans contact me each year complaining 
about their inability to get in to see a doctor at the Portland VA. 
These cutbacks will affect the VAMC's new outpatient clinic in Salem, 
for which the community, veterans groups, and I have labored so hard to 
secure funds. Though the clinic was designed to save veterans from 
having to travel to Portland for care, the clinic will now take only a 
fraction of the patients it was meant to serve.
  Mr. Speaker, although many pay lip service to helping veterans, too 
few put the money where their mouth is. For example, President Bush 
campaigned extensively on veterans issues, but essentially requested 
the same amount of funding for the VA (when adjusted for inflation) as 
appropriated last year under President Clinton. Likewise, in this 
Conference Agreement, Congress plans to scarcely spend a billion 
dollars in excess of President Bush's request. I for one am tired of 
this charade and refuse to stand idly by I know that I am just one 
member of this body, and that I can't halt the inevitable passage of 
this spending bill. However, I will not lend my approval to a bill that 
ensures veterans in Oregon are worse off than they were at this time 
last year--especially when hundreds of Oregon Guardsmen and Reservists 
have been called up to fight in and support our first war of the 21st 
century. As such, I will vote against this spending bill, and I urge 
every single one of my colleagues to work with me to seek the 
allocation of more funding.
  Moreover, in the coming months, I plan to continue using my position 
on the House Budget Committee to fight to keep our promise to veterans. 
When we ask people to put their lives on the line to protect our 
country, we have a profound obligation to honor our promises to those 
whose service has kept our Nation free. The men and women who have 
served our country so honorably know best that freedom is never free, 
that it is only won and defended with great sacrifices. And we should 
honor those sacrifices by keeping our promises to our veterans.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
VA/HUD Conference Report.
  I am particularly pleased that the conferees have included a 
significant increase in funding for the National Science Foundation 
(NSF). Today, NSF is at the forefront of innovation, supporting 
cutting-edge research to answer fundamental questions within and across 
scientific disciplines. Often the potential for failure is as great as 
that for success. But by encouraging such risks, NSF has helped fuel 
new industries and jobs that have propelled economic prosperity and 
changed the way we live.
  Many of the technologies that come from NSF research may also help us 
in the fight against terrorism. Nanotechnology, for example, promises 
revolutionary advances. Research will enable the development of sensors 
for biological and chemical agents that may be used on the battlefield 
or even, unfortunately, may find there way into domestic civilian 
systems. NSF-sponsored research in this area has led to the development 
of a simple, relatively inexperience sensor that can selectively detect 
the DNA of biological agents. It is now in commercial development with 
successful tests against anthrax and tuberculosis.
  NSF has also demonstrated the dual use of its research by quickly 
dispatching its earthquake engineering experts to the World Trade 
Center who will use the knowledge gained to improve building designs. 
Robots, developed with NSF support were also sent to New York to help 
in the search for victims and I understand that FEMA is now considering 
adopting these robots for all of its search and rescue operations.
  As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research, I will be looking for 
ways to engage NSF more fully in this effort. It seems clear that basic 
research enables so many unforeseen advances that will help us face 
this new terrorism threat and that now more than ever we must renew our 
commitment to supporting this research.
  NSF programs also play a big role in increasing the pool of talented 
scientists in our universities and workforce. This is critical. It is 
estimated that by 2020, 60 percent of the jobs will require the skills 
only 22 percent of the workforce has today.
  As this Conference Report shows, there is strong bipartisan support 
for increased investment in basic science. It includes an 8.2 percent 
increase in the NSF budget to nearly $4.8 billion for fiscal year 2002. 
This is the largest budget ever for NSF.
  I am particularly pleased that the conferees have specified $75 
million for plant genomics research on commercially important plants, 
an area in which I have a great interest. Agricultural biotechnology is 
beginning to fulfill its potential, but we have only just scratched the 
surface. This funding will help scientists develop new knowledge that 
will propel this field forward. The enhanced crop plants coming from 
this research will help feed the world, reduce our use of chemicals, 
and create new markets for farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, the science funding in this bill will help keep the 
pipeline of new ideas and innovation flowing. I urge my colleagues to 
support this Conference Report.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to speak during the 
Floor consideration of the VA-HUD-IA appropriations conference report. 
However, I have changed my mind because I believe that it is important 
that we give some consideration to the future of the International 
Space Station program as we debate the level of funding for the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Given all of the 
uncertainty that has been surrounding the Space Station program of 
late, I am pleased that the appropriations conference has been able to 
provide almost all of the requested funding for the Station. I also am 
heartened that the conference retained funding needed for the eventual 
restoration of capabilities that were cut from the Space Station 
program by the Administration earlier this year.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Science Committee, on which I am 
privileged to serve as

[[Page H7939]]

the Ranking Member, held a hearing on the report of the independent 
task force that was charged with examining the current state of the 
International Space Station program. I expect that the task force's 
report will be an important input into the decisions that Congress and 
the Administration will have to make concerning the future of the Space 
Station program. All of us owe Tom Young and his team a debt of 
gratitude for their dedicated efforts over the last several months.
  As many of you know, I have long been a supporter of the Space 
Station. And I believe that NASA and the International Partners should 
be proud of what they have accomplished to date. It has been a stunning 
technical achievement, and the assembly and operation of the Space 
Station have gone much more smoothly than any of us had the right to 
expect. Nevertheless, there has been significant cost growth in the 
program since the 1993 redesign, and there is not now adequate 
confidence in Congress and the Administration that we know what the 
total cost of the Station program is likely to be. It is important that 
we take whatever steps are prudent and sensible to ensure that the 
Space Station program is well managed and that taxpayer dollars are not 
wasted. The task force has made a number of recommendations to improve 
the situation, and we will need to examine them carefully.
  At the same time, I hope that we don't let a preoccupation with cost 
issues cause us to lose sight of the fundamental decision we need to 
make about the future of the International Space Station program. That 
decision is quite simple: Are we committed to a Space Station that 
achieves its unique research potential, and if so, are we willing to 
budget honestly for it? We have clear guidance from the Space Station 
task force about what kind of Station won't meet that goal. One of the 
principal findings included in the task force's report reads as 
follows: ``The U.S. Core Complete configuration (three-person crew) as 
an end state will not achieve the unique research potential of the 
International Space Station.'' The reason is quite simple: with a 3-
person crew, there won't be time to do any significant research--all 
the astronauts' time will be taken up with maintenance and operations 
activities.
  Our International Partners have also made it quite clear that a 3-
person Space Station as an end-state instead of the originally agreed-
upon 7-person Station and a unilateral U.S. decision to walk away from 
its long-standing commitment to provide crew rescue and habitation 
facilities are not consistent with the international agreements 
governing the Space Station program. We are asking our international 
friends to stand with us in the global fight against terrorism; while 
the two situations are not comparable, I think that is only right that 
we continue to meet our commitments to them in the Space Station 
program. They are looking to us for leadership in this partnership, and 
I think that it is important for both Congress and the Administration 
to send a strong, clear signal that we are not going to walk away from 
that responsibility.

  In its report, the task force concluded that: ``Lack of a defined 
program baseline has created confusion and inefficiencies.'' However, 
the approach the task force seems to recommend--that is, keeping the 
question of the ultimate Space Station ``end-state'' open for two or 
more years--seems to me to be a prescription for keeping the program in 
just the sort of limbo that the task force properly decries. As I said 
at yesterday's hearing, I think we need a different approach. If we 
believe that it is important to build a Space Station with the unique 
potential that the scientific community and successive Administrations 
and Congresses have sought, we need to say so now and plan accordingly. 
We should be explicit that we are committed to completing the Space 
Station with its long-planned 7-person crew capability. We should not 
keep the dedicated researchers, the International Partners, and our 
U.S. Space Station team in continuing uncertainty about the end-goal of 
this program--doing so will just lead to waste and inefficiency down 
the road that could otherwise be avoided.
  At the same time, we should be unwavering in our determination to 
make whatever changes are required to the Station's management 
structure and cost control system to minimize the future cost and risk 
of this program. The task force is very clearly telling us that 
``business as usual'' will not suffice for a program that is as 
important as the International Space Station.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Administration needs to make clear 
its commitment to the ultimate restoration of the full capabilities of 
the Space Station even as it takes steps to improve the program's cost 
management processes and operations strategy over the near term. If it 
does so, I believe that Congress will work constructively with the 
Administration over the coming weeks and months to put the Space 
Station program on a sound footing.
  For more than a decade, successive Administrations and Congresses 
have reaffirmed the importance of the Space Station. 15 nations have 
joined with the United States to build an orbiting research facility 
that I am confident will deliver unprecedented benefits to all of our 
citizens as well as position our nation for eventual exploration of the 
rest of the solar system. We should not falter in meeting our national 
commitment just as we are beginning to reap the rewards of our past 
investments in the Space Station program.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of increasing the FHA 
multifamily loan limits. Tens of thousands of working families in our 
country pay more than 50 percent of their income toward housing, or 
live in severely inadequate housing. Yet, the FHA multifamily loan 
program has not kept pace with construction costs. For example, in the 
last four years only one project with 192 units was produced in 
Cincinnati, despite the nearly twenty thousand working families facing 
critical housing needs there. Without affordable financing, developers 
cannot produce affordable housing stock.
  With the increasing need for housing far outpacing the available 
supply, the need for available FHA financing is critical. By increasing 
the loan limits by 25 percent, the first increase since 1992, we can 
provide a vehicle to alleviate the housing crisis facing our nation. I 
urge strong support for this provision.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Conference Report directs the EPA 
Administrator to put into effect without delay the 10 parts per billion 
standard for arsenic promulgated in the Clinton administration rule 
published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001. The Bush 
administration has, without justification, delayed the effective date 
of the January 22nd rule and has been in clear violation of Federal 
law. Congress had set a deadline to have a new final standard for 
arsenic in effect no later than June 22 of this year. The House of 
Representatives, in July, sent the administration a clear message when 
it voted to have an arsenic standard no higher than 10 parts per 
billion so the United States would be in line with the World Health 
Organization, the U.S. Public Health Service, and the European 
Community. The current standard of 50 parts per billion has not been 
updated in 60 years.
  We informed Administrator Whitman last spring that her action on the 
arsenic standard was a serious mistake and it has proven to be so. Late 
last week she publicly acknowledged that the Clinton administration 
standard of 10 parts per billion was the right standard for arsenic and 
2006 was the appropriate compliance date.
  According to EPA data, there may be as many as 367,000 individuals in 
approximately 176 communities in Michigan drinking water that contains 
arsenic at concentrations that exceed 10 parts per billion. The 
Congress and the Administration must work together to provide the 
financial assistance necessary for small communities to rapidly come 
into compliance with the new standard. No person, whether living in a 
small community or large, should have arsenic in their drinking water, 
presenting an unreasonable health risk. Especially when the best peer-
reviewed science tells us that exposure to arsenic in drinking water 
causes lung, bladder, and skin cancer.

  Mr. Speaker, the 10 parts per billion standard for arsenic is 
supported by more peer-reviewed science than perhaps any other drinking 
water standard ever promulgated by EPA. In just the last two years, two 
National Academy of Science reports were issued. The June 1999 report 
called on the EPA to move to a more protective standard ``as promptly 
as possible.'' The second National Academy of Sciences' study, 
completed two months ago, found that the risks of bladder and lung 
cancer from arsenic contaminated water were much greater than 
previously assessed. This finding was based on the best and most recent 
scientific research and is based on studies of human populations. The 
independent Science Advisory Board at EPA also found evidence linking 
arsenic consumption to heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension.
  I would say to my fiends on the Appropriations Committee that it is a 
mistake to encourage small communities to seek lengthy compliance time 
extensions as they continue to drink water with unhealthy levels of 
arsenic. Nor should they seek a rollback in our environmental 
protection laws. We would work together to identify or develop 
additional cost-effective technologies and provide targeted financial 
assistance where necessary to bring small water systems into compliance 
with the new protective standard for arsenic.
  The existing drinking water State Revolving Loan Fund contains $850 
million for grants and loans to public water systems. This fund is 
authorized at one billion dollars and the appropriation is $150 million 
less than the

[[Page H7940]]

authorized level. I am, therefore, surprised and concerned that the 
Conference Report fails to direct any financial assistance to help 
small systems come into compliance with the new arsenic standard. I 
would hope this problem is rectified in the future.
  In conclusion, I support the Conference Report and I am pleased that 
it requires the adoption of the safe arsenic standard without delay.

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                 Washington, DC, October 31, 2001.
     Hon. John Dingell,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Dingell: As you know, the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been conducting a 
     thorough review of the appropriate standard for arsenic in 
     drinking water, based upon the best available science. 
     Throughout this process, I have made in clear that EPA 
     intends to strengthen the standard for arsenic by 
     substantially lowering the maximum acceptable level from 50 
     parts per billion (ppb), which has been the lawful limit for 
     nearly half a century.
       I can now report that the drinking water standard for 
     arsenic will be 10 ppb, and we will maintain the compliance 
     date of 2006. This standard will improve the safety of 
     drinking water for million of Americans, and better protect 
     against the risk of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.
       As required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, a standard of 
     10 ppb protects public health based on the best available 
     science and ensures that the cost of the standard is 
     achievable. Over the past several months, we have had the 
     benefit of insight provided by national experts who conducted 
     three new independent scientific studies--the National 
     Academy of Sciences, the National Drinking Water Advisory 
     Council, and EPA's Science Advisory Board. In addition, we 
     have received more than 55,000 comments from the public.
       Nearly 97 percent of the water systems affected by this 
     rule are small systems that serve fewer than 10,000 people 
     each. I recognize the challenges many small systems will face 
     in complying with this standard, given their higher per 
     capita costs. Therefore I am committed to working closely 
     with states and small water systems to identify ways to 
     reduce arsenic levels at a reasonable cost to ratepayers.
       EPA plans to provide $20 million over the next years for 
     research and development of more cost-effective technologies 
     to help small systems to meet the new standard. EPA will also 
     provide technical assistance and training to operators of 
     small systems, which will reduce their compliance costs. EPA 
     will work with small communities to maximize grants and loans 
     under the existing State Revolving Fund and Rural Utilities 
     Service programs of the Department of Agriculture. Finally, I 
     have directed my staff to identify other ways that we may 
     help smaller water systems reduce arsenic levels at a 
     reasonable cost. Our goal is to provide clean, safe, and 
     affordable drinking water to all Americans.
       I look forward to working with Congress; my colleagues in 
     the Administration; state, local and tribal governments; and 
     other interested parties as we move forward with this 
     protective standard. It's not enough just to set the right 
     standard--we want to work with local communities to help them 
     meet it. Working together, we can ensure the continuing 
     viability of small, rural water systems, and meet our common 
     goal of improving water quality and protecting public health.
           Sincerely,
                                           Christine Todd Whitman.

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of the 
conference report for H.R. 2620, providing appropriations for the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD), and other Independent agencies for fiscal year 2002. This Member 
would like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), the distinguished Ranking Member from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) and all the members of the Subcommittee for their work on 
this important bill.
  This Member is especially pleased that funding was included for 
several important projects in the 1st Congressional District of 
Nebraska. First, $490,000 was included in the conference report for 
Doane College in Crete, Nebraska, which will be used for the continuing 
effort to rehabilitate the historic Whitcomb Conservatory for joint use 
by the college and the community as a performing arts center. This 
Member greatly appreciated the previous inclusion of $430,000 for this 
project in the FY2001 appropriations legislation. The additional 
funding provided for FY2002 should provide much of the resources to 
complete this project.
  The Whitcomb Conservatory is a unique, five-sided structure, built on 
the ``Prairie'' or ``Frank Lloyd Wright'' architectural style, which 
was completed in 1907 and is a component of the Doane College Historic 
District National Register listing. The additional funding is needed 
for major structural repair of its roof, installation of a new 
mechanical system (including a new heating and cooling plant), new 
wiring, and a complete cosmetic refurbishing.
  The Conservatory has been vacant for more than 30 years. However, the 
Crete community--as well as the student population of Doane College is 
growing--and necessitates refurbishing the building. Doane College and 
the Crete community have a close and long-standing working relationship 
and have a formal joint-use agreement for the future use of Whitcomb 
Conservatory. The restoration of the Conservatory will create a 
community resource and provide a setting for musicals, summer community 
theater, special concerts and lectures.
  Second, this Member is most pleased that $240,000 was allocated for 
the Walthill Public School in Walthill, Nebraska, to be used to improve 
the facilities for science education in this school district. The 
resources are badly needed by this school system which has a very large 
Native American student body. The students at Walthill are 97 percent 
Native American and come from primarily low-income families.
  Therefore, this Walthill initiative will serve to supplement a state 
initiative focused on serving a predominately Native American 
population. Almost certainly, this school is the least adequate public 
education facility in the 1st Congressional District of Nebraska. Since 
the school district's land consists primarily of Indian reservation 
land, which is not subject to the property tax that is the predominant 
source of funding for public schools in Nebraska, Walthill Public 
School receives Federal Impact Aid funds. As a result, Walthill has 
virtually no tax base available for bond issues. This proposal is an 
attempt to reverse the recent re-segregation of the Native American 
population at the school, which has resulted from the declining level 
of education and education services at Walthill.
  Third, this Member appreciates the $500,000 in funds provided in the 
Environmental Protection Agency's portion of this conference report for 
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Water Sciences Laboratory at the 
Water Center. These funds are needed by the Water Sciences Laboratory 
to assist in the purchase of the next generation in field and 
laboratory equipment so that it can maintain its capability to address 
ground and surface water quality problems.
  The Water Sciences Laboratory does both regional field research and 
analytical research in ground and surface water quality throughout the 
north-central United States. The Laboratory is responsible for the 
development of innovative field methods to remediated hazardous water 
contamination.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support the 
conference report for H.R. 2620.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
the conference report will be followed immediately by a 5-minute vote 
on the motion to instructed conferees on H.R. 3061.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 401, 
nays 18, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 434]

                               YEAS--401

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo

[[Page H7941]]


     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--18

     Berry
     Capuano
     Filner
     Flake
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Kerns
     Paul
     Roemer
     Royce
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Burton
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Ganske
     Kilpatrick
     Largent
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Ose
     Otter
     Traficant

                              {time}  1337

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon, Mr. KERNS and Mr. HOEKSTRA changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. BIGGERT and Messrs. WEINER, WU and THOMPSON of California 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, because my beeper malfunctioned, I did not 
arrive here in time to vote on the conference report on H.R. 2620, 
otherwise known as the VA-HUD bill.
  Had I been here I would have voted in favor.

                          ____________________