Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 112 (Friday, July 25, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 112 (Friday, July 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7655-H7713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 338 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2861.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) to assume the chair temporarily.

{time} 1405

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2861) 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, 2004, and for other purposes, with Mr. Nussle
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, 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).

General Leave

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 2861, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the House today H.R.
2861, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for 2004.
Prior to proceeding, Mr. Chairman, in discussing the bill before us,
I would like to offer my sincere recognition and thanks to my ranking
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for his help
in bringing this bill to the floor. He and I have forged a strong
relationship over the last 5 years working on this bill. I feel the
result reflects most of our shared priorities. We consulted during
hearings during the formation of the bill, during markups, and his
advice has been remarkable and we would not be here if we had not had
it.
I would also like to thank and recognize the staff on both sides of
the aisle for their hard work and assistance. My personal thanks to Tim
Peterson, the clerk of the subcommittee; Dena Baron; Jennifer Whitson;
Jennifer Miller; and Doug Disrud on the majority side, and to Michelle
Burkette, Mike Stephens, and Jerry Johnson for the minority.
I would also like to express my appreciation to Gavin Clingham and
Angela Ohm on the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Mollohan)
personal staff, as well as Ron Anderson and Art Jutton on my personal
staff for their assistance in getting this bill to this point in the
process.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just sum up briefly the bill. Most of
the attention has been focused on the veterans portion, and I will
address that at the end. In housing, we have provided an increase of
about close to $1 billion to provide for full funding for section 8
housing vouchers. There are no new incremental vouchers, but we have
fully funded the existing vouchers that include vouchers that are
targeted for housing for people with AIDS. It is also for disabled
individuals in our society. So those are dedicated funds, and they will
continue to flow.
In the Environmental Protection Agency, we provided approximately $8
billion, and I think we have done a good job in continuing the progress
that we have made in protecting the environment; and we do expect
several amendments in that area of the bill, some of which we will
accept.
In NASA, NASA really is a status quo budget, pending the outcome and
the release of the Gehman Commission report. We expect that that report
will have profound implications for NASA, and we expect that the
administration, once that report is available, will come forward and
express their views to us, which may result in additional supplemental
expenditures depending on what the report says, but we do await that
report.
The National Science Foundation, the Congress is on record as
requesting that we double the National Science Foundation in 5 years.
We cannot keep that pace, although in the past we have done close to
double-digit increases in the past 3 or 4 years in NSF; and I think the
subcommittee has shown great leadership in supporting the investment in
the new technologies, information technologies and others that this
country leads the world in. We will have a 5 percent increase, which I
think given our allocation is a remarkable commitment to our scientific
community. These are all peer reviewed, non-earmarked funds. So they
encourage some of our finest educational institutions across the
country and our finest young people.
Lastly, the veterans budget, which has been the focus of most of the
discussion so far. Mr. Chairman, we have increased veterans medical
care by approximately $1.3 billion over last year. It is about a 6
percent increase in medical care. We have provided about $1 billion
increase in the mandatory portion of the bill which is veterans
benefits. It is a $2.5 billion increase.
We were asked to provide additional funds to veterans. We were unable
to do that, given the allocation that we had. It is an increase, it is
a substantial increase, but it is not a record increase similar to what
we provided 2 years ago and then again last year. But, in fact, this
subcommittee has increased the veterans budget and the medical care
side by close to 50 percent in the last 5 years. So since 1998, close
to a 50 percent increase in veterans medical care. The difficulty is
that the number of customers, the number of patients that we have had
at the veterans hospitals has outstripped those increases.
The Congress has tried diligently and this has been the number one
priority of the subcommittee to fully fund veterans health care, and we
are trying. It is pretty clear by the discussion that Members expect us
to provide more, veterans expect us to provide more, veterans service
agencies expect us to provide more.
This is not the end of the process. The process continues after this
bill is hopefully passed today. We have to go to conference with the
Senate. And I pledge to work with the minority, with the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), with our Republican leadership, the
leadership of the House, and with the Senate to find any way we can to
improve the funding for veterans medical care and at the same time
looking down the road at things that the Congress can do to improve the
situation by making administrative decisions to bring veterans in
through the process more quickly, to take some of the pressure off the
prescription drug problem by passing a prescription drug benefit for
all Americans, by looking at the Medicare subvention issue which would
allow veterans to use their Medicare payments to pay for going to the
veterans hospital.
There are a number of things we can do. We cannot do them all in this
bill, but I do pledge to continue to work to try to improve the
situation as we go towards the conference.

[[Page H7656]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.001

[[Page H7657]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.002

[[Page H7658]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.003

[[Page H7659]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.004

[[Page H7660]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.005

[[Page H7661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.006

[[Page H7662]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.007

[[Page H7663]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first let me express my appreciation to the gentleman
from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his hard work and very capable
efforts in putting together a very tough bill. I would like to express
my appreciation to him. He has always been courteous. He is extremely
capable and very responsive to both the substantive and procedural
issues associated with moving this bill forward. That is greatly
appreciated.
I want to join the gentleman in expressing our appreciation to our
very capable staff. He has mentioned them all. Let me associate myself
with his remarks. Both the majority and the minority have done a
tremendous job under very tough circumstances.
Mr. Chairman, the appropriations bill being considered today provides
appropriations for a broad array of Federal agencies. While our
allocation of $112.7 billion, of which $90 billion represents
discretionary spending, sounds large it is, in fact, not adequate to
meet the varied needs of these important Federal agencies. It is a
stretch to fund the growing number of veterans newly eligible for
health care coverage, the renewal of long-standing housing commitments,
and the necessity to increase investments in our Nation's research
activities. Many accounts in this bill have been flat-funded for too
long a period of time. Yes, this bill could use more money.
The veterans medical care increase of $1.3 billion is far short of
the $2.4 billion increase provided last year. The Hope VI program is
funded at a mere $50 million, down from the current year's $570
million. The EPA Clean Water Revolving Fund is $150 million below the
current year. And the CDFI fund is only provided the President's
request of $51 million, down from $75 million.

{time} 1415

I do intend to work with the Chairman to improve these accounts as
the bill moves forward.
Of particular concern, Mr. Chairman, are the veterans accounts. They
need attention. There were representations made by those who passed the
budget resolution which created expectations that the budget resolution
itself did not provide the allocation to meet. Those expectations are
fairly out there, they were produced by the budget resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I rise in support of this bill, as a member of the committee
but also as a veteran.
Since 1999, our Congress has provided an almost 40 percent increase
for VA medical services. We provided in this bill over $200 million in
construction to repair and rehabilitate and realign VA facilities, and
this bill also fully funds the demand for a National Cemetery
Administration.
It is important to point out one key fact, though, that this bill
fully funds the projected medical needs for all veterans 50 percent,
service-connected disability and above. This bill funds all of the
medical needs for all veterans 30 to 40 percent, service-connected.
This bill fully funds all of the medical needs for prisoners of war,
Purple Heart veterans and service-connected, 10 to 20 percent, service
disability veterans.
We fully fund all of the medical needs for veterans with catastrophic
problems. We fully fund all of the medical needs for no- and very-low-
income veterans and, of course, fully fund the needs for the service-
connected World War I, Mexican incident and Gulf War veterans.
Our veteran brothers want to make sure that this government honors,
first, its commitment to service-connected veterans, and we want to
make sure that our comrades in arms who are wounded and are still
suffering have their needs fully met.
As a veteran, I can say that I want service-connected veterans to
stand first; but there is another opportunity in this bill, and it will
be addressed in an amendment coming up, and that is the chance to share
resources with other Federal agencies, particularly the military. We
have the chance in this legislation to save several hundred million
dollars by sharing facilities between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
For example, in my own congressional District in north Chicago,
Illinois, we provide excellent military health care at a naval hospital
and excellent veterans health care at a VA center, but those two
Federal institutions with separate galleys, separate security forces,
separate steam and heating plants, separate medical staffs are 1 mile
apart. This kind of geographic collocation happens in many parts of the
country and the ability to combine these institutions gives us the
opportunity to upgrade medical care, not just for the active duty, but
for veterans.
It will happen in northern Illinois. It is happening in Denver. It is
happening in New Mexico. It is happening in South Carolina.
So I urge support for this bill. I think this bill moves us forward,
especially on the sharing issue, and it is important to note this bill
meets all of the medical needs for veterans in categories 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, and 6.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill,
H.R. 2861, VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. As a member of the
Subcommittee that oversees the VA, HUD appropriations, we are all in
agreement that this bill leaves a lot to be desired. However, I applaud
the Chair, Mr. James T. Walsh and the Ranking Member, Mr. Alan B.
Mollohan for their leadership in moving this measure to the floor for a
vote.
I also want to thank Mr. Obey for his leadership in the Appropriation
process and for raising so many concerns that we all have regarding
funding cuts in programs in this bill and in other areas. He has so
poignantly made it clear to all parties involved that ``the tax cuts
fostered by the Bush administration are swallowing up a huge share of
the available money.''
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill because of my deep concerns for the
veterans in the 2nd District of Georgia and across the country, the
needy and poor that live in substandard housing, and for all those who
are affected by the downturn of the economy. I concur with some of my
colleagues that some of the programs are woefully under-funded.
However, I believe we must pass this bill to avoid any further delays
in stimulating the economy. This bill provides $137,500,000 for
economic development initiatives.
We began the 108th Congress at FY02 funding levels. Many of the FY03
Appropriations bills were not passed until February of this year. We
must not bog down this process any further. My constituents and others
around the country are hurting. We must move this bill through the
House in hopes of working out some of the major differences in
Conference.
H.R. 2861 provides for $90 billion in discretionary funds for the
Veterans Affairs and, the Housing and Urban Development departments and
other independent agencies for fiscal 2004. This bill also includes
$27.2 billion in fiscal 2004, an increase of $1.4 billion. The largest
component of the VA total is $15.8 billion ``for medical services for
veterans with service-connected health needs.''
Further, H.R. 2861 provides funding in fiscal 2004 for NASA in the
amount of $15.5 billion; $5.6 billion for the National Science
Foundation, a $329 million increase over fiscal 2003; $8 billion for
the Environmental Protection Agency, which is $375 million above the
President's request but $74 million below 2003; $37 billion for HUD,
which is $942 million above last year and $98 million over the
President's request; $480 million for the Corporation for National and
Community Service, which is $96 million above last year and $118
million below the President's request. This funding level will be able
to sustain 55,000 volunteers, and increase of 5,000 and $60 million for
the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I also applaud both Mr. Walsh and Mr. Mollohan for recognizing the
need to maintain the HOPE VI program. The allocation of $50,000,000 is
not nearly enough to meet the needs of many of the severely distressed
public housing facilities in my district and others alike. However, the
committee has recognized the need to continue the program and went on
record as willing to work with HUD in order to improve the overall
performance and operation of the program.
The Committee's recommendation to zero out the Samaritan Housing
Initiative, that provides assistance to the homeless community, was
very alarming to many of the advocates in the housing community. Again,
I am hopeful this issue will be addressed at the Conference level.
The Committee has made a valiant attempt to increase the funding for
the National

[[Page H7664]]

Science Foundation (NSF). The Committee allocated $5,639,070,000 to NSF
to enhance its national policy on science, and to support basic
research for research and education.
Further, H.R. 2861 provides for other allocations such as:
One VA Enterprise Architecture in the Veterans Administration budget,
public Housing Operating Fund, HOPWA, Rural Housing and Economic
Development; Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities; Community
Development Fund, CDBG; Community Development Block Grant-Formula
grants; Habitat for Humanity capacity building; Historically Black
Colleges and Universities; Brownfield Redevelopment; HOME Program;
HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance; Homeless Program; Housing for the
Disabled; Rental Housing Assistance; Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity; Community Development Financial Institutions; Corporation
for National and Community Service; STAG--State and Tribal Assistance
Grants; Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP); HBCU-
UP and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
Finally, H.R. 2861 provides for the establishment of a new provision
in the Veterans' Budget to establish a $250 enrollment fee for priority
7 and 8 veterans (those veterans who are not service connected or not
impoverished). This level is nearly identical to the annual enrollment
fee charged to TRICARE retirees. This new provision increases the co-
pay on prescription drugs from $7 to $15 for a 30-day supply of
pharmaceuticals prescribed for non-service connected conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I have some real concerns about the ability of some
veterans to pay the $250 enrollment fee and the increased fees for co-
pay on prescription drugs, I am also hopeful that further consideration
will be given to this issue at the Conference Committee level.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition of the rule for
the VA/HUD Appropriations bill that shortchanges health care for our
nation's veterans. The bill is $2.1 billion below the GOP House Budget
Resolution and $3.3 billion below the veterans' consensus budget.
The Rules Committee created a rule for the VA/HUD bill that does not
allow two amendments. The first seeks to add $1.8 billion for veterans'
health care, in order to fulfill the promise of the Republican budget.
The second blocks an amendment by Representative Edwards of Texas to
increase veterans' spending for VA medical by $2.2 billion--to meet the
funding promises in the GOP budget resolution, taking into account the
costs of offsetting the enrollment fees and drug co-payments from the
President's budget.
As it stands now, the VA/HUD bill provides $25.2 billion for
veterans' health care--$1.8 billion less than was promised in the
budget resolution House Republicans passed earlier this year (H. Con.
Res. 95). Its increase from last year is $1.4 billion, which does not
keep pace with hospital inflation or the growth in the numbers of
veterans enrolled. It is plain to me that the VA-HUD Appropriations
bill will not meet veterans' needs.
My question is: when does the hypocrisy stop? When will Republicans
realize that they can't pay lip-service to men and women who have shed
blood on the battlefield for the very freedoms they enjoy? Since his
inauguration, President Bush has championed the cause of the veteran,
and along with the House Majority, he has continually failed to put his
money where his mouth is. We are fighting two wars under his
Administration, creating thousands of new veterans--soldiers looking to
come home and start their life with the help of the government they
just defended. That same government has said, ``Thanks for your
sacrifice; sorry we can't do the same.'' No matter how many aircraft
carriers you land on, Mr. President, that does not shrink waiting lines
at VA clinics!
The Republican Party has provided a terrific show for veterans this
year. Initially, the President's budget requests underfund the VA, and
the House Budget Resolution approves funding levels below that of the
President's. Then, the Appropriations Committee allocates $1.8 billion
less than the House Budget Resolution, and the Rules Committee approves
a rule that bars amendments seeking to fill those funding gaps. All the
while, they spin patriotism and ``support the troops'' rhetoric to
further their political agenda.
This show has gone on long enough, and I think it is time this circus
and its elephants left town.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
VA-HUD appropriations bill.
The funding level in the bill for veterans' health care is totally
inadequate and breaks Congress' promise to America's veterans.
As a proud member of the American Legion, I agree with Minnesota
Department Commander Michael Neubarth that it is ``blatantly wrong to
slash veterans' medical care by $41.8 billion.''
We should not break our promise to veterans to keep pace with
hospital inflation and the increase in the number of enrolled veterans.
America's 25 million veterans deserve better. It's outrageous that
200,000 veterans have been waiting over 6 months for a basic health
care appointment.
Congress should honor our Nation's veterans and take care of their
medical needs as promised.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member offers his strong support for
H.R. 2861, the Veterans Affairs (VA)/Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Appropriations Act for FY2004. This Member would like to thank
the chairman of the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee, the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the ranking
member of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their dedication to crafting this measure.

1. Department of Veterans Administration (VA)

This measure provides $60.7 billion for veterans programs including
$27.2 billion for veterans health care. Although H.R. 2861 does not
provide veterans funding equal to the levels authorized in the FY2004
congressional budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 95), the funding levels
in H.R. 2861 exceed not only FY2003 appropriation levels by 5 percent
but also the Administration's budget request. (This Member would remind
his colleagues what he reminds his constituents about the congressional
budget process--the levels in the budget resolution are a framework as
Congress determines actual funding levels. Of course, the actual
funding levels are determined through the annual appropriations
process.)
Mr. Chairman, it is simply not true that, as often recently alleged
by numerous sources, the Federal Government is cutting back on
financial support for veterans' health care or that Congress or recent
presidents are not supportive of veterans. Each year, Congress sets new
records on the amount of appropriations for veterans' health care, not
only because of higher health care costs but also due to a huge bulge
of WWII and Korean War veterans who are understandably making larger
demands for health care because of their age, plus a very large number
of Vietnam War and other veterans who require medical care. During
2002, approximately 4.7 million individual veterans received VA medical
care. Outpatient visits are increasing rapidly, with 43.8 million
visits last year. Both the general VA inpatient caseload and acute care
cases are also increasing, with the daily inpatient caseload projected
to be over 57,000 and the acute care up 2,700 over last year. Yet
thousands of veterans are on waiting lists for medical care, after
waiting months for appointments to see medical staff.
Between FY1998 and FY2003, the appropriation has increased 4 percent,
an increase nearly six times greater than the average increase of
federal domestic programs. The appropriation for VA medical care in
fiscal year 2003 jumped to $23.8 billion--$1.1 billion more than the
President's request. Each year, the President asks for a far larger
increase than in almost any other domestic program, and each year the
Congress exceeds that request. In his budget request for FY2004, for
example, the President has requested $25.2 billion for VA medical care.
Mr. Chairman, the health care needs of military veterans must be met
to the fullest extent possible, and this Member is committed to
continuing to see that veterans receive the benefits they deserve with
the resources available. Veterans fought to protect our freedom and way
of life. As they served this nation in a time of need, the Federal
Government must remember them in their time of need. The people of the
U.S. owe veterans a great deal and should keep the promises made to
them. Voting for H.R. 2861 is an important step in keeping those
promises.

2. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Economic
Development Initiative

This Member is pleased and appreciative that $450,000 is appropriated
in this bill as a HUD Economic Development Initiative (EDI) for Falls
City, Nebraska. This appropriation, which could be used for economic
development and job creation, represents a continuation of my efforts
for Falls City. In the FY2003 appropriations bill, $526,500 was
earmarked as a CDBG EDI for the renovation of a Falls City business
industry incubator building which is necessary for job creation.
Falls City is a community in extreme Southeast Nebraska, an area of
the state with serious economic needs. For example, 51 percent of Falls
City's population is categorized as either low or low-moderate income.
Moreover, continuing a forty-year trend, the population of the City
again has declined by 3.2 percent from 1990 to 2000. In addition, in
July of 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture designated Richardson
County, of which Falls City is the county seat, as a county in severe
economic distress. As a result, this funding request for infrastructure
is needed to help maintain the economic viability of Falls City.

[[Page H7665]]

This is the largest community and employment center in a four-county
region that needs economic stimulation: very recent job losses have
accentuated the problems; and this community and area really needs the
help.

3. Missouri River Sanitary Sewer Connection Between Nebraska and Iowa--
$400,000

This Member greatly appreciates the inclusion in the bill of $400,000
toward the construction of a sanitary sewer connection across the
Missouri River which is the boundary between Nebraska and Iowa. This
new connector is a very immediate need for the community of South Sioux
City, Nebraska, and a much more cost-effective approach than adding to
a separate sewage treatment program in this Nebraska suburb of Sioux
City, Iowa.
The existing connection is 40 years old and early last year, the
trunk sewer carrying sewage between South Sioux City to the treatment
plant in Sioux City, Iowa, broke, For several weeks, about 1.6 million
gallons of raw sewage each day was dumped into the Missouri River. The
sewer connector was eventually replaced, but the incident highlighted
the need for a second connector. The new trunk line connector proposed
is to be located south of the city. It would provide a more direct link
to the regional sewage treatment plant in Sioux City.
Since the original sewer pipe was installed in the early 1960s, South
Sioux City's population has increased more than 60 percent. Also, the
community's industrial base (with difficult treatment requirements)
continues to grow, which places an additional burden on the sewer
system. In an effort to meet the growing needs for an improved sewer
system, the city's residents have seen significant rate increases over
the past several years, including a 27 percent jump in 2001 and a 37
percent jump in 2002. It is now clear that Federal assistance is
necessary to assist this municipality meet this unusual and expensive
infrastructure project.

4. Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program

This Member commends the support for the Section 184, American Indian
Housing Loan Guarantee Program. An amount of $5.3 million is
appropriated for FY2004 for the Section 184 program which, it is
estimated, would guarantee up to $197.2 million in commercial loans for
Indian families who would otherwise be unable to secure conventional
financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. As the
author of the Section 184 program, this Member strongly supports this
innovative program.
This Member is particularly supportive of this funding level in light
of the Administration's inadequate request of $1 million for the
Section 184 loan guarantee program for FY2004 . Unfortunately, the
Administration's request for FY2004 is projected to only guarantee up
to $27.5 million of commercial home lands for American Indians.
The Administration's inadequate request for the Section 184 program
is also inconsistent with the Indian Lands Title Report Commission
which was authorized into law in year 2000. In some parts of the
country and on some Indian reservations, the Section 184 program is
bringing results, while on others it is stymied. This can be attributed
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) apparent inability to oversee and
track the leases and the rights in trust-held land which continues to
inhibit mortgage loans on American Indian reservations.
To help solve this problem, the Indian Lands Title Report Commission
was authorized to study the system of the BIA for maintaining land
ownership records, title documents, and title status reports.
Subsequently, Congress or the Executive Branch will be able to use the
findings from this one-year commission to eliminate any BIA/HUD
national or regional problems or barriers remaining to the use of
Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program on American Indian
reservations.

5. Rural Housing Efforts by HUD

This Member also would note his disappointment with the fact that the
$25 million which is appropriated for the Office of Rural Housing and
Economic Development in the Department of Housing and Urban Development
in this appropriations bill. This Member testified earlier this year
and also last year before the Veterans, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee, that HUD should not be the source of
funding rural housing and rural economic development projects. Although
this Member has been and remains a strong and long-term advocate of
rural housing and rural development during my tenure in the House, he
believes that we need to avoid inappropriate duplication in the efforts
of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic development.
This Member supports the full funding (and even larger funding) of
rural housing and economic development programs through the Rural
Development offices of the United States Department of Agriculture.
This is the agency that has the real interest and expertise to make
such programs work in the more rural parts of non-metropolitan America;
HUD doesn't.

6. AmeriCorps Funding

This Member is concerned about AmeriCorps funding. The bill provides
a 25-percent increase in funds over FY2003. Indeed, including the $64
million in the first supplemental appropriation passed in April, there
is still a slight increase over last year. However, this amount is
still inadequate to deal with the results of the bad management
decisions that have occurred possibly since the very beginning of the
program.
As a long-time AmeriCorps supporter and one of 19 original Republican
cosponsors which created this program in 1993, this Member is
disappointed to say that the administrative incompetence at the
national level of AmeriCorps is largely responsible for creating the
current situation. For example, it is amazing and totally unacceptable
that AmeriCorps could not even provide an accurate count of the number
of participants when asked. Instead, a very faulty and under-estimated
count was provided to the Congress which then was used to establish
what seemed a reasonable employee cap of 50,000 participants. A basic
requirement of proper program administration, at least, is to know the
number of people employed by the organization. Another problem is that
the AmeriCorps drop-out rate was grossly over-estimated in allocating
sufficient educational trust funds.
Real reforms must happen in this program that provides such excellent
opportunities for thousands of people around the United States. This
Member is hopeful that significant improvements can be made in a
reauthorization bill before the end of the year.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to vote in
support of this important bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I rise in
support of this bill, H.R. 2861, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriation Act for FY
2004; however, I do not agree with the rule regarding amendments that
was published and allowed to govern the amendment process. H.R. 2861
provides $25.2 billion for the health care of our war heroes, which is
$1.8 billion less than the amount promised under H. Con. Res. 95
introduced by the House Republicans and passed earlier this year.
Because the rule precluded a bipartisan amendment that was offered by
Reps. Evan and Smith, the $1.8 billion for veterans' health care was
effectively reneged on the Republicans' promise--at the expense of the
lives of those who fought for us.
In providing $25.2 billion overall for veterans' care, the
Republicans congratulate themselves for increasing this budget
allocation by $1.4 billion from FY 2003. However, a $1.4 billion
increase fails to factor in hospital inflation, growth in the number of
veterans' enrolled in the programs, and the new costs associated with
must needed infrastructure improvements associated with homeland
security.
Last week, I supported H.R. 2318, the Assured Funding for Veterans
Health Care Act of 2003. That legislation proposed to address
shortfalls in the FY 2003 budget appropriations for Veterans' health
care. Of our 25 million living veterans, nearly 19 million have
served during times of war. There are 19 million stories to tell and 19
million histories to preserve. However, time is of the essence. There
are only a few thousand World War I veterans left and they are all more
than 100 years old. The average age of our World War II veterans is
more than 77 and we are losing 1,500 of them a day. We need to preserve
their great legacy now.

Republican tax cuts and the shortfalls to the veterans' health plan
will have a negative impact on the veteran community and the veteran-
service healthcare facilities of Texas. In the State of Texas, there
are approximately 1.721 million veterans. Currently, 3,400 veterans are
on the waiting list and due to the war in Iraq we will have new
veterans in need of services. The Veterans' Administration Medical
Center in the 18th Congressional District of Texas has seen an 18
percent increase in its need for its services this year already. There
must be additional funding to meet that need. I am adamantly opposed to
any efforts that would reduce the accessibility or the extent of health
care to our veterans. The House Republican budget cuts veterans'
benefits, including health care and education, by $14.6 billion. The
Republican budget cuts veterans programs in order to finance additional
tax cuts that we cannot afford. To pay for those tax cuts, we will be
leaving thousands of veterans who were disabled during their brave
service to this country without the medical services they require--
which is an atrocity and a national embarrassment. At a time when our
economy is suffering, the Republican Party wants to take from the poor
and disabled to give to the rich.
If H.R. 2861 passes without measures to make up for the $1.8 billion
lost in the Committee on Rules, a large economic burden would befall
thousands of veterans who will then be forced to bear their medical
expenses on their limited incomes. We must renew our

[[Page H7666]]

commitment to our nation's veterans who have already given to us.
In Congressional District 18, Harris County alone in 1998, total
Veterans Administration patient care costs rose to $240,868,665 and
$1,071,793,244 for all of Texas. An extrapolation of this figure with
inflationary factors gives but a glimpse of the national shortfall for
our veterans. This paints a dismal picture in light of the fact that
five of the VA's 22 networks have already projected shortfalls in
funding for veterans medical care by the year's end.

In a January 2003 letter, the Disabled American Veterans, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., Paralyzed Veterans of America and
AMVETS, called on President Bush to propose a veteran's medical care
appropriation of $24.5 billion. However, the Administration has not
heeded this budget advice from our veterans' organizations in any of
the appropriations legislation passed thus far.
The Administration's budget emphasizes the need to reduce the huge
backlog in claims for benefits submitted by veterans. During the first
four months of fiscal year 2002, the number of rating cases awaiting a
decision for over 180 days increased from 172,294 to 204,006. Our
veterans are waiting for the VA to reduce claims processing time
without sacrificing decision-making quality or the shirking of the VA's
statutory duty to assist veterans develop their claims.
The budget as drafted in H.R. 2861 needs re-examination of its
misguided priorities that will cause us to provide inadequate funding
for health care for the men and women who have served our nation in
uniform in order to allow tax cuts that will primarily benefit
wealthier Americans.
Unfortunately, too often the President is simply unwilling to work
with Congress to develop a fair budget. This means veteran's programs
consistently fall prey to political considerations that have little to
do with veterans. This year, funding lost to the tax cut will have a
direct effect upon the amount of funds that remain available for
discretionary priorities, like veterans' health care.
Absent protective amendments or other measures would mean there would
be no additional funds available to implement the Homeless Veterans
Comprehensive Assistance Act to work toward the goal of eliminating
chronic homelessness in a decade. Furthermore, the Capital Assets
Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) program, a comprehensive
planning and evaluation process undertaken by the VA to assess the best
use of its physical infrastructure would become a ``de facto'' closure
commission with no ability to respond to veterans' needs for primary
care, long-term care, and mental health projected by its own models.
There would be little money leftover for any of the system's
desperately needed construction and improvement projects.

Even more horrifying than the simple health care system problems, the
scheduled shortfall for veterans' benefits would carry far-reaching
negative implications. The Administration's Budget for 2004 in this
bill makes no provision for additional service-connected disability
benefits resulting from the present war with Iraq. As we know from the
last war in the Persian Gulf, war results in adverse health effects and
justifiable claims for service-connected disability compensation. It
does acknowledge the expected increase in veteran's claims and an
expected worsening of the disabilities of some service-connected
veterans. Under these circumstances, cuts in mandatory spending can
only be made by cutting benefits to veterans with service-connected
disabilities. With a death toll of 153 U.S. Troops since the start of
the Iraqi War that is rising on a daily basis, it is incumbent upon our
government to plan ahead for expenses that will stem from these
deaths--as a courtesy to our fallen heroes at the very least.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I thank you for this opportunity I
also thank those of my colleagues who supported my amendment to
prohibit any funds from being used for ``buyouts''--financial
incentives to encourage retirement-until the National Aeronautics and
Space Administrator assures Congress that the loss of that employee
will not compromise the safety of future shuttle missions or the
International Space Station.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the committee report for H.R.
2861, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (H. Rept. 108-235) contains non-legislative language
concerning the phase out of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) containing
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This report language addresses a citizen
petition which has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration as
well as theoretical, future decisions by the Parties to the Montreal
Protocol and contains various statements urging certain actions. I
strongly object to directive language being placed within H. Rept. 108-
235 since this language has not been subject to regular order and
process in the committee of jurisdiction.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the phase-out
of CFCs by virtue of its jurisdiction over Title VI of the Clean Air
Act. The Committee, in fact, has substantially reviewed this matter in
the past, holding numerous hearings concerning the implementation of
Title VI, matters concerning methyl bromide, the structure and
disbursements of the Multilateral Fund established by the Montreal
Protocol, the schedules applicable to hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
and other matters within the ambit of this title. In specific, the
Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Energy and Commerce
Committee held a hearing on May 6, 1998 concerning Regulatory Efforts
to Phaseout Chlorofluorocarbon-Based Metered Dose Inhalers which
received testimony from numerous witnesses, including the Department of
State, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug
Administration. This hearing extensively explored the legal background
and ongoing regulatory efforts concerning essential use allocations for
CFC-based MDIs and the work of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in
this matter. The Committee has not acted, however, to review the
citizen petition referred to in H. Rept. 108-235, nor has it considered
what action may or may not be appropriate for the United States to take
at upcoming Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. First, let me thank and
congratulate Chairman Young, Chairman Walsh, and Members of the
Appropriations Committee for all of the hard work they have done in
crafting this excellent bill. I am especially thankful for the increase
of $2.75 million to the Grants for Construction of State Extended Care
Facilities, funding this vital program at a total of over $102 million.
These grants are of great importance to America's veterans, providing
many veterans with services they would otherwise be unable to receive.
There is one such facility in my district I want to talk about, the
Illinois Home for Veterans in LaSalle.
Located in my district, this Home provides intermediate and skilled
nursing services for veterans, with a total capacity of 120 beds
including 18 special needs beds for veterans suffering Alzheimer's
Disease or related dementias. As successful as the Home has been, it is
in need of new funding to expand its bed capacity.
With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis,
States already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our
veterans. The waiting list for admittance to the LaSalle home is as
long as 2 to 3 years, with over 250 veterans waiting, many of which
will go untreated or under treated due to lack of beds.
Recently, the State of Illinois enacted legislation authorizing an
increase in the number of beds in this facility by 80. I have asked the
State of Illinois to apply for the 65 percent Federal funding under
this grant and to secure its 35 percent share of the matching funds for
the LaSalle home to proceed with the construction.
In the past, the State has had problems with Federal funding from the
State Home Construction Grant program. Specifically, the State made
repairs and improvements to the Home in LaSalle and had not been
awarded funding by the Federal Government for these projects through
the grant program, or reimbursements from the program had been slow and
piecemeal.
In consideration of this, I ask for inclusion into the VA-HUD
Appropriations Conference Report, priority language which would read,
``The Committee further encourages the Department to work with the
State of Illinois as that State applies for a grant to expand the
LaSalle facility.''
With so many veterans in need of care, the Illinois Valley can no
longer wait to obtain more beds in the veterans home.
Again, let me thank the Appropriations Committee for their hard work,
and attention to this important matter.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,
July 18, 2003.
Hon. Rod Blagojevich,
Governor, State of Illinois, Statehouse, Springfield, IL.
Dear Governor Blagojevich, I am pleased to be writing you
in regards to the legislation that you recently signed into
law that will expand the Illinois Home for Veterans in
LaSalle. Congratulations on this accomplishment!
As a result of this landmark legislation, I urge you to
apply for federal funds from the State Home Construction
Grant program, which could reimburse the State for up to 65%
of the cost of the expansions.
As you may know, in the past, the State of Illinois had
expressed concerns about the State Home Construction Grant
program. Specifically, the State had made repairs and/or
improvements to the home in LaSalle and

[[Page H7667]]

had not been awarded funding by the federal government for
these projects through the grant program. Last July, after
working with the Ryan Administration and the VA, the State
was paid $7.3 million as a reimbursement for renovations/
improvements made to State veterans' homes. The State is no
longer due any reimbursement funds from this program.
Included in legislation enacted in the 106th Congress were
changes for the requirements needed for submitting an
application. After submitting the application, the VA will
assign it a priority (if it approves the application), and
the State will then have 180 days to meet all necessary
requirements, including proof of the 35 percent matching
funds. With the new law that you have just signed that
guarantees the State has the matching funds for the project,
the expansion will likely be placed high on the priority list
for FY2004 funding. The application deadline for submitting
projects for FY2004 is August 15, 2003. Due to the budget
problems that the State is now having, I strongly urge you to
apply for federal funds through the State Home Construction
Grant program.
As you may know, I offered amendments to the VA, Housing
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
appropriations bills in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 to
increase the funding for veterans' state grants, which are
used by the Manteno and LaSalle facilities for construction
or addition of new beds or facilities. In FT2002 and FY2003,
Congress fully funded the State Home Construction Grant
Program, and President Bush has indicated that he will fully
fund it in upcoming fiscal years. Our success with fully
funding this program increases the chance that the state
could be reimbursed for the LaSalle expansion project.
I am optimistic that funding for the LaSalle expansion
would be awarded soon since this would most likely be
designated by the VA as a Priority One project.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Jack Dusik on my staff.
Thank you for your support of the expansion.
Sincerely,
Jerry Weller,
Member of Congress.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my serious concerns about
the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. This bill
fundamentally shortchanges our veterans and it is no way to thank them
for their sacrifice and their service.
Just about every day, we hear about one of our soldiers dying in Iraq
for a war that was based on questionable evidence and inaccurate
information from both our intelligence community and from the
Administration.
Just as often, although we don't hear about it as much, our soldiers
are being injured in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, the Philippines and the
dozens of other countries to which they have been deployed. I thank
each and every soldier for his or her courage, dedication and sacrifice
made in order to protect our country and defend our freedom.
However, when it comes to thanking our soldiers and our veterans, it
is not enough just to stand up and give a speech or wave a flag. My
colleagues and I want to ensure that our soldiers have all the
resources they need whenever they are deployed. Yet, we also must make
certain that our soldiers have the resources they need when they return
home. We must provide our soldiers and our veterans with the health
care, the disability compensation, education and the many other
benefits that they have earned and deserve.
This bill fails to provide the necessary resources our veterans need.
the President and his party would rather provide trillions of dollars
in tax cuts than pay for the health care of those who protect our
freedom. It's tragic the way that this Administration pays lip-service
to our soldiers but fails to fund programs that can improve the quality
of lives of those who serve.
Because of the Bush tax cuts, this bill provides the VA with $1.8
billion less than was promised even in the Republican Budget
Resolution. In fact, the $25.2 billion in VA funding in this bill does
not even keep up with inflation which will put an even greater strain
on the VA's already scarce resources.
There is already a shortage of qualified doctors and nurses. This
bill will only exacerbate the problem. Too many of our veterans are
forced to wait six or eight months to see a doctor. Because of the
seriousness of their injuries, some even die before they have the
opportunity to see a doctor. The inadequate funding in this bill will
do nothing to alleviate the waiting periods. This is no way to treat
our veterans.
We can and must do better than this sorry bill. I urge my colleagues
to reject this bill, reject these unfair tax cuts, and provide the
resources our veterans need.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to recall that George
Washington once said that the ``willingness of future generations to
serve in our military will be directly dependent upon how we have
treated those who have served in the past.'' Unfortunately, that is a
lesson that still hasn't been learned in the city that bears his name.
Today, the House considered legislation funding the Veterans
Administration. This bill funds veterans' programs at a level $1.8
billion less than was promised in the budget passed through the House
just a few months ago.
Veterans' health care is no place to start slashing funding. We
cannot send troops into war today and cut their vets benefits tomorrow.
We cannot ask them to fight in Iraq and, then, when they come home tell
them that we've slashed spending, causing veterans to lose access to VA
health care. There is no excuse for trying to balance domestic budgets
on the back of those willing to fight to protect our freedoms.
The funding level set out in the bill today does not keep pace with
hospital inflation or the growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled.
There is a staggering crisis in veterans' medical care: an average of
200,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for an appointment at
Veterans Administration hospitals. Some are even dying before they get
to see a doctor.
I have been working with colleagues in the House to prevent increases
in prescription drug co-payments and enrollment fees and to increase
investments in veterans' health in order to reduce these waits for
medical appointments. It is generally acknowledged that veterans
deserve a $3.3 billion increase for medical care. The $1.4 billion
increase is inadequate to allow us to fulfill our obligations to those
who have served our country so well.
This stinginess with our veterans health needs is unacceptable. As
Americans are fighting for our freedom abroad, we must stand with them
at home. But where will we stand tomorrow? Will we remember what we owe
them? At the end of WWI, the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George
asked: ``What is our task? To make Britain a fit country for heroes to
live in.'' Our task is to make America a country fit for heroes to live
in.
Our veterans deserve better. I urge my colleagues in voting to return
this bill to the Appropriations Committee for reconsideration.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, while I voted in favor of H.R. 2861, the
FY04 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies bill, I am hopeful that more funding
for veterans programs will be included in the conference report.
America's brave servicemen and servicewomen deserve to have adequate
health care and other benefits. I support increasing the funding for
critical programs including Montgomery GI bill education benefits and
compensation for service-connected disabilities.
Throughout history, America's military men and women have traveled
around the world to fight for the causes of freedom and democracy. In
this selfless pursuit, they knew that the battle would not always be
easy. We owe them all an enormous debt of gratitude. It's up to us to
fight for our veterans.
As this legislation moves forward it is my hope that significant
improvement can be made in the housing sections. I am pleased that the
bill contains none of the Administration's ill-conceived plans to
privatize public housing, impose mandatory minimum rents or block grant
Section 8. At the same time, I am hopeful that the funding levels for
Hope VI, Section 8 and public housing can be increased. The
insufficient funding for the public housing capital funds and operating
funds will do severe damage to the nation's public housing residents.
These citizens deserve better. The funding levels are so low that they
thoroughly and finally refute HUD's claim that the public housing
authorities can make up for the elimination of the drug elimination
program with other funds. I also want to signal my strong support for
increasing HOPWA funding as dictated by the Nadler-Shays-Crowley and am
pleased it has been included in the bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, today, I regretfully rise in
opposition to this bill.
I am satisfied with some parts of the bill. The Appropriations
Committee has sensibly held off on making all funding decisions for
programs at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
until the Columbia Accident Investigation Board completes its report.
The Committee will use the report of the board, along with NASA's
response to the board's findings, as the basis for final action on NASA
funding. I will be watching closely to see what the Committee provides.
NASA funding has been relatively flat over the years, so I hope that
final funding levels for NASA will exceed the 1 percent increase over
fiscal year 2003 levels that is so far provided in this bill. I am
pleased that the National Space Grant College and Fellowship program is
funded at $25.3 million, a level over the President's request and an
increase from last year's levels.
Nonetheless, I am not at all satisfied with the funding this bill
provides our Nation's veterans.
The freedom we enjoy in the United States has not just been given to
us. Men and women have made great sacrifices, some with their lives, to
protect our way of life. For making these sacrifices they have been
promised some benefits in return.
One of those benefits is adequate healthcare. Unfortunately, this
bill falls far

[[Page H7668]]

short of what America's veterans were promised.
The Joint Explanatory Statement from the House and Senate managers on
the fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution states the ``Conference
Agreement provides for discretionary budget authority of $29.96 billion
for fiscal year 2004, an increase of $3.4 billion, or 12.9 percent--
nearly all of which is expected to be for Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) medical programs.'' But this bill only provides an
increase of $1.4 billion, which will not provide adequate funding for
services these veterans deserve.
According to the VA, as of June 13, there were 134,287 veterans on
waiting lists to receive treatment and over 51,000 of these veterans
had been waiting for at least 6 months to just get an appointment. This
is the result of the lack of resources the VA has today because of past
underfunding.
American men and women are serving on the front lines in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and around the world. When they are no longer serving under
active duty for their country they should not be pushed aside and
forgotten. Unfortunately, that is what the bill does.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, our veterans have made great
personal sacrifices, and members of Congress have a responsibility to
serve our retired military personnel, just as they served our country.
But the needs of our veterans are not being met. Funding for medical
care per veteran has steadily declined in constant dollars over the
past decade while the number of veterans seeking health care has
increased.
This bill includes a $1.4 billion increase for veterans' health care
from last year. Yet even this increase is woefully inadequate. This
bill is still $1.8 billion less than the amount promised in the House
budget resolution and will do little to improve timely access to much-
needed medical care.
In Oregon, the cost of medical care rose 7 percent last year, and the
number of veterans seeking VA services rose 17 percent. And the number
of veterans using the VA will only continue to increase. We must
provide VA with the funds they need to provide veterans with the health
care they deserve. This bill does not keep pace with hospital inflation
or the growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled. It is plain that the
VA-HUD Appropriations bill will not meet veterans needs.
Without adequate funds for the VA, our veterans will continue to wait
in long lines at overburdened facilities.
The Portland VA Medical Center in Oregon currently has a waiting list
of over 6000 veterans who want to see a primary care physician and it
takes about 6 monthsh for even high priority veterans to see a
physician. Last year, to make up a $19 million budget shortfall, the
Portland VA began reducing services and laid off about 10 percent of
their personnel. The VA cannot provide quality health care to our
veterans when they are forced to cut physicians while their caseload is
increasing by 17%. Our veterans deserve better.
We must ensure that our promise to provide health care for all
veterans is kept. We made that promise, we need to keep that promise.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my concerns about
how H.R. 2861 would adversely affect affordable housing in my home
State of Illinois and across the United States. As a former vice
chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority, I am keenly aware of the
benefits of ``Section 8'' grants.
The Section 8 voucher program enables low-income families with
children, the elderly, and the disabled to rent apartments in the
private market. This program provides a critical source of support for
more than 2 million families by making up the difference between what
low-income people can afford to pay for housing and the cost of private
rental payments. Without vouchers, many of these families would have no
other choice but to live in overcrowded or unsafe housing, or worse
yet, to become homeless.
Although today's bill improves upon the Bush Administration's Section
8 funding request, it still falls short of the amount needed to
continue all vouchers in use, according to estimates by the
Congressional Budget Office. The result of this shortfall will be that
85,000 families will not have the funding for their vouchers renewed.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we can address these concerns when
the Conference Committee meets later this year. If we fail to do so,
85,000 families will pay the price. We cannot in good conscience allow
that to happen.
I am also concerned that this bill did not fund my priority request
for the largest locally funded rent subsidy program in the country, the
Chicago Low Income Housing Trust Fund. This highly successful program
helps house almost 3,000 families with incomes as low as $10,000 per
year. It has had an enormously beneficial impact on my hometown, but
there is considerable need for affordable housing, and we must do all
that we can to continue supporting affordable rental units.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004
Veterans Affairs/Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD) and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Bill which was approved Monday by the House
Appropriations Committee.
Veterans' medical care has received generous funding increases over
the last several years, an average of $1.6 billion a year over the past
5 years. This represents an almost 50 percent increase under Republican
leadership since 1999.
Building on that record, the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD bill provides a
$1.4 billion increase over the previous year, making a total of $27.2
billion available for Veterans' Health Administration. This brings
veterans' health funding to the highest level in history.
It also triples funding over last year to repair and replace aging VA
medical facilities and fully funds the VA's request to expedite claims
processing at the Veterans Benefits Administration, bringing total
funding to $1 billion for this important initiative to reduce the
backlog of claims for veterans' benefits.
This record level of funding will maintain nursing home care and
ensure that all needy veterans receive the health care they deserve.
I am very pleased that the legislation also includes $500,000, for
the preliminary planning of a new ambulatory clinic at the Defense
Supply Center campus in Columbus, OH.
The new clinic has been strongly supported by Rep. Deborah Pryce, Pat
Tiberi (R-Columbus) and other Members of the Ohio delegation; I am
pleased it has been included in this bill to improve health care for
the thousands of veterans in Central Ohio.
As a veteran, I am proud to support this legislation, which addresses
the special needs of veterans across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I join today with my colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee, and urge the approval of this appropriation bill by the
House.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to the
fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. After passing sweeping tax
cuts for the wealthy, the Republican majority in this House is once
again telling the American people that not enough money is available to
adequately fund programs for our Nation's veterans and poor.
Consider, for example, that this appropriations bill provides $25.2
billion for veterans' health care--$1.8 billion less than was promised
in the Republican budget resolution passed earlier this year. While
Republicans may assert that $25.2 billion is a $1.4 billion increase
over fiscal year 2003 levels, the truth is that this modest
``increase'' does not keep pace with hospital inflation or the growth
in the numbers of veterans enrolled.
The bill will only exacerbate the crisis in veterans' medical care.
In fact, in a recently released report, the American Legion concluded
that an average of 200,000 veterans must routinely wait 6 months or
more for an appointment at the Veterans Administration's hospitals.
Sadly, some veterans die before they even see their doctor. It is
shameful that this Congress is turning its back on the same veterans
that fought for the safety of this nation. I will continue to fight to
fulfill our obligation to those who have served our country so well.
Just as this bill shortchanges America's veterans, it also fails
thousands of poor Americans that rely on Federal housing assistance.
The VA-HUD Appropriations bill provides funding for the ``Section 8''
housing choice voucher program. The voucher program enables low-income
families with children, the elderly, and the disabled to rent
apartments in the private market. It makes up the difference between
what low-income people can afford to pay for housing and what private
rents are, and is a critical source of support for more than 2 million
families. Without vouchers, many of these families would be stuck in
overcrowded or unsafe housing, or even worse, wind up homeless.
While the bill before us today improves upon the President's
inadequate request for this program, it still falls short of the amount
needed to continue all vouchers in use, according to estimates by the
Congressional Budget Office and outside experts. Specifically, the
House bill uses data on voucher costs that date as far back as April
2001. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, housing costs in most parts of the
country have been steadily rising since then, and it is unrealistic to
ignore those market trends in setting HUD's budget for the year.
If the shortfall in this bill is not addressed, 85,000 families will
not have the funding for their vouchers renewed. This kind of cut would
be unprecedented in the history of the voucher program. In fact, what
we should be talking about today is how to make more vouchers available
to families, not fewer. Only a fraction of eligible households receive
vouchers, and most people face a several-year wait for a voucher.
And last but not least, I will be opposing the fiscal year 2004 VA-
HUD Appropriations bill because it makes rash and unwise cuts in the
AmeriCorps program, a program that embodies the spirit of altruism and
service that has made our nation great.

[[Page H7669]]

In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush introduced the
Freedom Corps program to further encourage volunteerism across our
nation, asserting that ``we need mentors to love children, especially
children whose parents are in prison, and we need more talented
teachers in troubled schools.'' At that time, the President announced
his goal for the Freedom Corps to ``expand and improve the good efforts
of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new
volunteers.'' In providing 20 percent less than the President's
request, the House fails to heed the President's call for national
service. Indeed, this bill will limit new enrollment in AmeriCorps to
55,000. The House, once again, is falling short of its responsibility
to support all those Americans who so desperately need our help.
We can do much better than the bill before us today. I urge my
colleagues to oppose H.R. 2861.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no amendment to the bill
may be offered except pro forma amendments by the chairman or ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designee
for the purpose of debate:
An amendment by Mr. Walsh striking provisions in title III and title
IV, which may be offered en bloc;
Two amendments by Mr. Smith of New Jersey, each regarding medical
care for veterans;
An amendment by Mr. Smith of New Jersey striking section 114, which
shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Edwards regarding medical care for veterans;
An amendment by Mr. Stearns regarding medical and prosthetic
research;
An amendment by Mr. Kirk regarding sharing agreements with the
Department of Defense;
An amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding the housing certificate fund,
which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Fattah or Mr. Davis of Illinois regarding public
housing, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding housing opportunities, which
shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mrs. Capps regarding science and technology programs
of the Environmental Protection Agency;
An amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida regarding environmental
programs and management;
An amendment by Mr. Dingell regarding environmental programs and
management;
An amendment by Mr. Markey regarding hazardous substance Superfund,
which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Hall regarding NASA;
An amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas regarding beneficiary travel;
An amendment by Mr. Allen regarding the Clean Air Act, which shall be
debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Manzullo regarding the Buy America Act;
An amendment by Mr. Sanders or Mr. Kanjorski regarding veterans
integrated service networks;
An amendment by Mr. Lynch regarding veterans;
An amendment by Mr. Moore regarding Capital Asset Realignment and
Enhanced Services;
An amendment by Mr. Case regarding redesignation of Hawaiian
counties;
An amendment by Ms. Lee or Ms. Schakowsky regarding homeless
assistance grants, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Inslee or Mr. Hinchey regarding environment
programs and management;
Two amendments by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding NASA, each of
which shall be debatable for 5 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Bishop of New York regarding human testing of
pesticides;
An amendment by Mr. Meeks of New York regarding VA clinics, which
shall be debatable for 20 minutes.
Each amendment may be offered only by the Member designated, or a
designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question. Except as specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2861

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Benefits Administration

Compensation, Pension and Burial Benefits

(including transfer of funds)

For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51,
53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans
as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and
61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other
officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and
certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life
insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of article
IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50
U.S.C. App. 540 et seq.) and for other benefits as authorized
by law (38 U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51,
53, 55, and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45
Stat. 735; 76 Stat. 1198), $29,845,127,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed
$17,617,000 of the amount appropriated under this heading
shall be reimbursed to ``General operating expenses'' and
``Medical services for priority 1-6 veterans'' for necessary
expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the
Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53,
and 55), the funding source for which is specifically
provided as the ``Compensation, pension and burial benefits''
appropriation: Provided further, That such sums as may be
earned on an actual qualifying patient basis, shall be
reimbursed to ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to
augment the funding of individual medical facilities for
nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized.

readjustment benefits

For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C.
chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61),
$2,529,734,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That expenses for rehabilitation program services and
assistance which the Secretary is authorized to provide under
section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, other than
under subsection (a)(1), (2), (5), and (11) of that section,
shall be charged to this account.

veterans insurance and indemnities

For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat.
487, $29,017,000, to remain available until expended.

veterans housing benefit program fund program account

(including transfer of funds)

For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapters I-III, as amended:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That during fiscal year 2004, within the resources
available, not to exceed $300,000 in gross obligations for
direct loans are authorized for specially adapted housing
loans, 38 U.S.C. 3711(i).
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $154,850,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.

education loan fund program account

(including transfer of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including
the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of
direct loans not to exceed $3,400.

[[Page H7670]]

In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $70,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.

vocational rehabilitation loans program account

(including transfer of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, $52,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That funds made available
under this heading are available to subsidize gross
obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to
exceed $3,938,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $300,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.

native american veteran housing loan program account

(including transfer of funds)

For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as
amended, $571,000, which may be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses'':
Provided, That no new loans in excess of $40,000,000 may be
made in fiscal year 2004.

guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program
account

For the administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
transitional housing loan program authorized by 38 U.S.C.
chapter 37, subchapter VI, not to exceed $350,000 of the
amounts appropriated by this Act for ``General operating
expenses'' and ``Medical services for priority 1-6 veterans)
may be expended.

Veterans Health Administration

medical services for priority 1-6 veterans

For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs other
than veterans described in paragraphs (7) and (8) of section
1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, including care and
treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction of the
department and including medical supplies and equipment and
salaries and expenses of health-care employees hired under
title 38, United States Code, and aid to State homes as
authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United States Code;
$15,779,220,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the
funds made available under this heading, not less than
$200,000,000 is for the equipment object classification,
which amount shall not become available for obligation until
August 1, 2004, and shall remain available until September
30, 2005: Provided further, That of the funds made available
under this heading, not to exceed $700,000,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2005.

medical services for priority 7-8 veterans

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs who are
veterans described in paragraphs (7) and (8) of section
1705(a) of title 38, United States Code, including care and
treatment in facilities not under the jurisdiction of the
Department and including medical supplies and equipment and
salaries and expenses of health-care employees hired under
title 38, United States Code, and aid to State homes as
authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United States Code;
$2,164,000,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the
amounts provided under this heading, $1,500,000,000 shall be
derived from amounts deposited during the current fiscal year
in the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care
Collections Fund under section 1729A of title 38, United
States Code, and transferred to this account, to remain
available until expended.

medical and prosthetic research

For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by
chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, to remain
available until September 30, 2005, $408,000,000, plus
reimbursements.

medical administration

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses in the administration of the
medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,
supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;
administrative expenses in support of capital policy
activities; information technology hardware and software;
uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections
5901-5902 of title 5, United States Code; and administrative
and legal expenses of the department for collecting and
recovering amounts owed the department as authorized under
chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, and the Federal
Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651 et seq.);
$4,854,000,000, of which $300,000,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2005, plus reimbursements: Provided, That
funds available under this heading may be transferred to
``Medical Services for Priority 1-6 Veterans'' or to
``Medical Services for Priority 7-8 Veterans'' after notice
of the amount and purpose of the transfer is provided to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives and a period of 30 days has elapsed.

medical facilities

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities and
other necessary facilities for the Veterans Health
Administration; for administrative expenses in support of
planning, design, project management, real property
acquisition and disposition, construction and renovation of
any facility under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
department; for oversight, engineering and architectural
activities not charged to project costs; for repairing,
altering, improving or providing facilities in the several
hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of the department,
not otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire
of temporary employees and purchase of materials; for leases
of facilities; and for laundry and food services,
$4,000,000,000: Provided, That of the funds made available
under this heading, not less than $80,000,000 is for the land
and structures object classification, which amount shall not
become available for obligation until August 1, 2004, and
shall remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided
further, That funds available under this heading may be
transferred to ``Medical Services for Priority 1-6 Veterans''
or to ``Medical Services for Priority 7-8 Veterans'' after
notice of the amount and purpose of the transfer is provided
to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House
of Representatives and a period of 30 days has elapsed.

Departmental Administration

general operating expenses

For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
administrative expenses in support of department-wide capital
planning, management and policy activities, uniforms or
allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services
Administration for security guard services, and the
Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail,
$1,283,272,000: Provided, That expenses for services and
assistance authorized under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(1), (2), (5),
and (11) that the Secretary determines are necessary to
enable entitled veterans: (1) to the maximum extent feasible,
to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable
employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily
living, shall be charged to this account: Provided further,
That the Veterans Benefits Administration shall be funded at
not less than $1,005,000,000: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading, not to exceed
$66,000,000 shall be available for obligation until September
30, 2005: Provided further, That from the funds made
available under this heading, the Veterans Benefits
Administration may purchase up to two passenger motor
vehicles for use in operations of that Administration in
Manila, Philippines: Provided further, That travel expenses
for this account shall not exceed $17,082,000.

national cemetery administration

For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery
Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise
provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor;
cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one
passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations; and
hire of passenger motor vehicles, $144,223,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $61,750,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2005.

construction, major projects

For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of
the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes
set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106,
8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code,
including planning, architectural and engineering services,
maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated
with equipment guarantees provided under the project,
services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm
drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition,
where the estimated cost of a project is $4,000,000 or more
or where funds for a project were made available in a
previous major project appropriation, $274,690,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $173,000,000 shall be for
Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES)
activities; and of which $10,000,000 shall be to make
reimbursements as provided in 41 U.S.C. 612 for claims paid
for contract disputes: Provided, That except for advance
planning activities, including needs assessments which may or
may not lead to capital investments, and other capital asset
management related activities, such as portfolio development
and management activities, and investment strategy studies
funded through the advance planning fund and the planning and
design activities funded through the design fund and CARES
funds, including needs assessments which may or may not lead
to capital investments, none of the funds appropriated under
this heading

[[Page H7671]]

shall be used for any project which has not been approved by
the Congress in the budgetary process: Provided further, That
funds provided in this appropriation for fiscal year 2004,
for each approved project (except those for CARES activities
referenced above) shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of
a construction documents contract by September 30, 2004; and
(2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September
30, 2004: Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall promptly report in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations any approved major construction project in
which obligations are not incurred within the time
limitations established above: Provided further, That no
funds from any other account except the ``Parking revolving
fund'', may be obligated for constructing, altering,
extending, or improving a project which was approved in the
budget process and funded in this account until one year
after substantial completion and beneficial occupancy by the
Department of Veterans Affairs of the project or any part
thereof with respect to that part only.

construction, minor projects

For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning and
assessments of needs which may lead to capital investments,
architectural and engineering services, maintenance or
guarantee period services costs associated with equipment
guarantees provided under the project, services of claims
analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system
construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the
purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103,
8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, 8122, and 8162 of title 38, United
States Code, where the estimated cost of a project is less
than $4,000,000, $252,144,000, to remain available until
expended, along with unobligated balances of previous
``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are
hereby made available for any project where the estimated
cost is less than $4,000,000, of which $35,000,000 shall be
for Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES)
activities: Provided, That from amounts appropriated under
this heading, additional amounts may be used for CARES
activities upon notification of and approval by the
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds in
this account shall be available for: (1) repairs to any of
the nonmedical facilities under the jurisdiction or for the
use of the Department which are necessary because of loss or
damage caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2)
temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize
further loss by such causes.

parking revolving fund

For the parking revolving fund as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
8109, income from fees collected, to remain available until
expended, which shall be available for all authorized
expenses except operations and maintenance costs, which will
be funded from ``Medical facilities''.

grants for construction of state extended care facilities

For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8131-8137, $102,100,000,
to remain available until expended.

grants for the construction of state veterans cemeteries

For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by 38
U.S.C. 2408, $32,000,000, to remain available until expended.

administrative provisions

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 101. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2004 for
``Compensation, pension and burial benefits'', ``Readjustment
benefits'', and ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be
transferred to any other of the mentioned appropriations.
Sec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2004 for salaries and
expenses shall be available for services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109 hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a
facility or land or both; and uniforms or allowances
therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902.
Sec. 103. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for
``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor
projects'', and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be
available for the purchase of any site for or toward the
construction of any new hospital or home.
Sec. 104. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospitalization or
examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled
under the laws bestowing such benefits to veterans, and
persons receiving such treatment under 5 U.S.C. 7901-7904 or
42 U.S.C. 5141-5204), unless reimbursement of cost is made to
the Medical care collections fund account at such rates as
may be fixed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2004 for ``Compensation,
pension and burial benefits'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for
payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be
recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts
within the last quarter of fiscal year 2003.
Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2004 shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from title X of
the Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable from ``Compensation, pension and burial
benefits''.
Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance
Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating
expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the
insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided,
That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus
earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year
2004 that are available for dividends in that program after
claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves
have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of
administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of
surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement
shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost
of administration for fiscal year 2004 which is properly
allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to
the provision of any total disability income insurance
included in such insurance program.
Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Department of Veterans Affairs shall continue the Franchise
Fund pilot program authorized to be established by section
403 of Public Law 103-356 until October 1, 2004: Provided,
That the Franchise Fund, established by title I of Public Law
104-204 to finance the operations of the Franchise Fund pilot
program, shall continue until October 1, 2004.
Sec. 109. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease proceeds
to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by that account
during a prior fiscal year for providing enhanced-use lease
services, may be obligated during the fiscal year in which
the proceeds are received.
Sec. 110. Funds available in any Department of Veterans
Affairs appropriation for fiscal year 2004 or funds for
salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be
available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management
and the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint
Adjudication for all services provided at rates which will
recover actual costs but not exceed $29,318,000 for the
Office of Resolution Management and $3,010,000 for the Office
of Employment and Discrimination Complaint Adjudication:
Provided, That payments may be made in advance for services
to be furnished based on estimated costs: Provided further,
That amounts received shall be credited to ``General
operating expenses'' for use by the office that provided the
service.
Sec. 111. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs shall be available to enter into any new
lease of real property if the estimated annual rental is more
than $300,000 unless the Secretary submits a report which the
Committees on Appropriations of the Congress approve within
30 days following the date on which the report is received.
Sec. 112. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospitalization or
treatment of any person by reason of eligibility under
section 1710(a)(3) of title 38, United States Code, unless
that person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in such form as the Secretary may require--
(1) current, accurate third-party reimbursement information
for purposes of section 1729 of such title; and
(2) annual income information for purposes of section 1722
of such title.
Sec. 113. Of the amounts provided in this Act, $25,000,000
shall be for information technology initiatives to support
the enterprise architecture of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Sec. 114. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
implement sections 2 and 5 of Public Law 107-287.
Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs may establish a priority for
treatment for veterans who have service-connected disability,
who are lower-income veterans, or who have special needs.
Sec. 116. (a) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
conduct by contract a program of recovery audits for the fee
basis and other medical services contracts with respect to
payments for hospital care. Notwithstanding section 3302(b)
of title 31, United States Code, amounts collected, by setoff
or otherwise, as the result of such audits shall be
available, without fiscal year limitation, for the purposes
for which funds are appropriated under ``Medical services for
priority 7-8 veterans'' and the purposes of paying a
contractor a percent of the amount collected as a result of
an audit carried out by the contractor.
(b) All amounts so collected under subsection (a) with
respect to a designated health care region (as that term is
defined in section 1729A(d)(2) of title 38, United States

[[Page H7672]]

Code) shall be allocated, net of payments to the contractor,
to that region.
Sec. 117. Amounts made available for Medical Services are
available--
(1) for furnishing veterans provided Medical Services with
recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; and
(2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other
expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries
receiving care in the department.
Sec. 118. Balances in excess of $1,500,000,000 in the
Medical Care Collections Fund as of August 1, 2004 shall be
transferred to ``Medical services for priority 7-8 veterans''
for the purposes under that heading to be available until
expended.
Sec. 119. Amounts made available for fiscal year 2004 under
the ``Medical services for priority 1-6 veterans'' and
``Medical services for priority 7-8 veterans'' accounts may
be transferred between either account to the extent necessary
to implement the restructuring of the Veterans Health
Administration accounts after notice of the amount and
purpose of the transfer is provided to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives and
a period of 30 days has elapsed: Provided, That the
limitation on transfers is ten percent in fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 120. The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center
in Houston, Texas, shall after the date of the enactment of
this Act be known as designated as the ``Michael E. DeBakey
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''. Any
reference in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or
other paper of the United States to such medical center shall
be considered to be a reference to the Michael E. DeBakey
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Public and Indian Housing

housing certificate fund

(including transfer and rescission of funds)

For activities and assistance under the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.)
(``the Act'' herein), not otherwise provided for,
$18,430,606,000, and amounts that are recaptured in this
account, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
of the amounts made available under this heading,
$14,230,606,000 and the aforementioned recaptures shall be
available on October 1, 2003 and $4,200,000,000 shall be
available on October 1, 2004: Provided further, That amounts
made available under this heading are provided as follows:
(1) $16,295,578,000 for expiring or terminating section 8
project-based subsidy contracts (including section 8 moderate
rehabilitation contracts), for amendments to section 8
project-based subsidy contracts, for contracts entered into
pursuant to section 441 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act, for the renewal of section 8 contracts for
units in projects that are subject to approved plans of
action under the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation
Act of 1987 or the Low-Income Housing Preservation and
Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, and for renewals of
expiring section 8 tenant-based annual contributions
contracts (including amendments and renewals of enhanced
vouchers under any provision of law authorizing such
assistance under section 8(t) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
1437f(t))): Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary shall renew expiring section
8 tenant-based annual contributions contracts for each public
housing agency, (including for agencies participating in the
Moving to Work demonstration, unit months representing
section 8 tenant-based assistance funds committed by the
public housing agency for specific purposes, other than
reserves, that are authorized pursuant to any agreement and
conditions entered into under such demonstration, and
utilized in compliance with any applicable program obligation
deadlines) based on the total number of unit months which
were under lease as reported on the most recent end-of-year
financial statement submitted by the public housing agency to
the Department, adjusted by such additional information
submitted by the public housing agency to the Secretary which
the Secretary determines to be timely and reliable regarding
the total number of unit months under lease at the time of
renewal of the annual contributions contract, and by applying
an inflation factor based on local or regional factors to the
actual per unit cost as reported on such statement: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available in this
paragraph may be used to support a total number of unit
months under lease which exceeds a public housing agency's
authorized level of units under contract;
(2) $568,503,000 for a central fund to be allocated by the
Secretary for amendments to section 8 tenant-based annual
contributions contracts for such purposes set forth in this
paragraph: Provided, That subject to the following proviso,
the Secretary may use amounts made available in such fund, as
necessary, for contract amendments resulting from a
significant increase in the per unit cost of vouchers or an
increase in the total number of unit months under lease as
compared to the per unit cost or the total number of unit
months provided for by the annual contributions contract:
Provided further, That if a public housing agency, at any
point in time during their fiscal year, has obligated the
amounts made available to such agency pursuant to paragraph
(1) under this heading for the renewal of expiring section 8
tenant-based annual contributions contracts, and if such
agency has expended fifty percent of the amounts available to
such agency in its annual contributions contract reserve
account, the Secretary shall make available such amounts as
are necessary from amounts available from such central fund
to fund amendments under the preceding proviso within thirty
days of a request from such agency: Provided further, That
none of the funds made available in this paragraph may be
used to support a total number of unit months under lease
which exceeds a public housing agency's authorized level of
units under contract: Provided further, That the Secretary
shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate on the obligation
of funds provided in this paragraph in accordance with the
directions specified in the report accompanying this Act;
(3) $206,495,100 for section 8 rental assistance for
relocation and replacement of housing units that are
demolished or disposed of pursuant to the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-134), conversion of section 23 projects to
assistance under section 8, the family unification program
under section 8(x) of the Act, relocation of witnesses in
connection with efforts to combat crime in public and
assisted housing pursuant to a request from a law enforcement
or prosecution agency, enhanced vouchers under any provision
of law authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the
Act (42 U.S.C.1437f(t)), and tenant protection assistance,
including replacement and relocation assistance;
(4) $48,000,000 for family self-sufficiency coordinators
under section 23 of the Act;
(5) not to exceed $1,209,020,000 for administrative and
other expenses of public housing agencies in administering
the section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program:
Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary shall allocate funds provided in
this paragraph among public housing agencies in a manner
prescribed by the Secretary: Provided further, That none of
the funds provided in this Act or any other Act may be used
to supplement the amounts provided in this paragraph:
Provided further, That, hereafter, the Secretary shall
recapture any funds provided under this heading in this Act
or any other Act for administrative fees and other expenses
from a public housing agency which are in excess of the
amounts expended by such agency for the section 8 tenant-
based rental assistance program and not otherwise needed to
maintain an administrative fee reserve account balance of not
to exceed five percent: Provided further, That all such
administrative fee amounts provided under this paragraph
shall be only for activities directly related to the
provision of rental assistance under section 8;
(6) $100,000,000 for contract administrators for section 8
project-based assistance; and
(7) not less than $3,010,000 shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund for the development of and modifications
to information technology systems which serve programs or
activities under ``Public and Indian Housing'': Provided,
That the Secretary may transfer up to 15 percent of funds
provided under paragraphs (1), (2) or (5), herein to
paragraphs (1) or (2), if the Secretary determines that such
action is necessary because the funding provided under one
such paragraph otherwise would be depleted and as a result,
the maximum utilization of section 8 tenant-based assistance
with the funds appropriated for this purpose by this Act
would not be feasible: Provided further, That prior to
undertaking the transfer of funds in excess of 10 percent
from any paragraph pursuant to the previous proviso, the
Secretary shall notify the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies of the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
and shall not transfer any such funds until 30 days after
such notification: Provided further, That incremental
vouchers previously made available under this heading for
non-elderly disabled families shall, to the extent
practicable, continue to be provided to non-elderly disabled
families upon turnover: Provided further, That $1,372,000,000
is rescinded from unobligated balances remaining from funds
appropriated to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development under this heading or the heading ``Annual
contributions for assisted housing'' or any other heading for
fiscal year 2003 and prior years, to be effected by the
Secretary no later than September 30, 2004: Provided further,
That any such balances governed by reallocation provisions
under the statute authorizing the program for which the funds
were originally appropriated shall be available for the
rescission: Provided further, That any obligated balances of
contract authority from fiscal year 1974 and prior that have
been terminated shall be cancelled.

public housing capital fund

(including transfer of funds)

For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out
capital and management activities for public housing
agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g) (the
``Act'') $2,712,255,000, to remain available until September
30, 2007: Provided, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, in addition to amounts otherwise allocated
under this heading, $429,000,000

[[Page H7673]]

shall be allocated for such capital and management activities
only among public housing agencies that have obligated all
assistance for the agency for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 made
available under this same heading in accordance with the
requirements under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 9(j) of
such Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law or regulation, during fiscal year 2004, the
Secretary may not delegate to any Department official other
than the Deputy Secretary any authority under paragraph (2)
of such section 9(j) regarding the extension of the time
periods under such section for obligation of amounts made
available for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
or 2004: Provided further, That with respect to any amounts
made available under the Public Housing Capital Fund for
fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 that remain
unobligated in violation of paragraph (1) of such section
9(j) or unexpended in violation of paragraph (5)(A) of such
section 9(j), the Secretary shall recapture any such amounts
and reallocate such amounts among public housing agencies
determined under section 6(j) of the Act to be high-
performing: Provided further, That for purposes of this
heading, the term ``obligate'' means, with respect to
amounts, that the amounts are subject to a binding agreement
that will result in outlays, immediately or in the future:
Provided further, That if the Secretary issues a regulation
for effect implementing section 9(j) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(j)), the first and third
provisos under this heading shall cease to be effective:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, up to $51,000,000 shall be for carrying out
activities under section 9(h) of such Act, of which
$13,000,000 shall be for the provision of remediation
services to public housing agencies identified as
``troubled'' under the Section 8 Management Assessment
Program and for surveys used to calculate local Fair Market
Rents and assess housing conditions in connection with rental
assistance under section 8 of the Act: Provided further, That
of the total amount provided under this heading, up to
$500,000 shall be for lease adjustments to section 23
projects, and no less than $10,610,000 shall be transferred
to the Working Capital Fund for the development of and
modifications to information technology systems which serve
programs or activities under ``Public and Indian housing'':
Provided further, That no funds may be used under this
heading for the purposes specified in section 9(k) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended: Provided
further, That of the total amount provided under this
heading, up to $40,000,000 shall be available for the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make grants to
public housing agencies for emergency capital needs resulting
from emergencies and natural disasters in fiscal year 2004:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, $55,000,000 shall be for supportive services,
service coordinators and congregate services as authorized by
section 34 of the Act and the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
The first proviso under this heading in the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, is amended by
striking ``1998, 1999''.

public housing operating fund

For 2004 payments to public housing agencies for the
operation and management of public housing, as authorized by
section 9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g(e)), $3,600,000,000: Provided, That
of the total amount provided under this heading, $10,000,000
shall be for programs, as determined appropriate by the
Attorney General, which assist in the investigation,
prosecution, and prevention of violent crimes and drug
offenses in public and federally-assisted low-income housing,
including Indian housing, which shall be administered by the
Department of Justice through a reimbursable agreement with
the Department of Housing and Urban Development: Provided
further, That no funds may be used under this heading for the
purposes specified in section 9(k) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended: Provided further, That in
2004 and hereafter, no amounts provided under this heading
may be used for payments to public housing agencies for the
costs of operation and management of public housing in any
year prior to the current year.

revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope VI)

For grants to public housing agencies for demolition, site
revitalization, replacement housing, and tenant-based
assistance grants to projects as authorized by section 24 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended,
$50,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005, of
which the Secretary may use up to $500,000 for technical
assistance and contract expertise, to be provided directly or
indirectly by grants, contracts or cooperative agreements,
including training and cost of necessary travel for
participants in such training, by or to officials and
employees of the department and of public housing agencies
and to residents: Provided, That none of such funds shall be
used directly or indirectly by granting competitive advantage
in awards to settle litigation or pay judgments, unless
expressly permitted herein.

native american housing block grants

(including transfers of funds)

For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as
authorized under title I of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (25
U.S.C. 4111 et seq.), $661,600,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $2,200,000 shall be contracted through the
Secretary as technical assistance and capacity building to be
used by the National American Indian Housing Council in
support of the implementation of NAHASDA; of which $5,000,000
shall be to support the inspection of Indian housing units,
contract expertise, training, and technical assistance in the
training, oversight, and management of Indian housing and
tenant-based assistance, including up to $300,000 for related
travel; and of which no less than $2,720,000 shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for development of
and modifications to information technology systems which
serve programs or activities under ``Public and Indian
housing'': Provided, That of the amount provided under this
heading, $1,000,000 shall be made available for the cost of
guaranteed notes and other obligations, as authorized by
title VI of NAHASDA: Provided further, That such costs,
including the costs of modifying such notes and other
obligations, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize the
total principal amount of any notes and other obligations,
any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed
$8,049,000: Provided further, That for administrative
expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program, up to
$150,000 from amounts in the first proviso, which shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Salaries and expenses'', to be used only for the
administrative costs of these guarantees.

indian housing loan guarantee fund program account

(including transfer of funds)

For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section
184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 1715z-13a), $5,300,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $197,243,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan program, up to $250,000 from amounts in the
first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'', to be
used only for the administrative costs of these guarantees.

native hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund program account

(including transfer of funds)

For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section
184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 1715z-13b), $1,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $35,347,985.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan program, up to $35,000 from amounts in the
first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'', to be
used only for the administrative costs of these guarantees.

Community Planning and Development

housing opportunities for persons with aids

For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity
Act (42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.), $297,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the
Secretary shall renew all expiring contracts for permanent
supportive housing that were funded under section 854(c)(3)
of such Act that meet all program requirements before
awarding funds for new contracts and activities authorized
under this section: Provided further, That the Secretary may
use up to $2,000,000 of the funds under this heading for
training, oversight, and technical assistance activities.

rural housing and economic development

For the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, $25,000,000
to remain available until expended, which amount shall be
competitively awarded by June 1, 2004, to Indian tribes,
State housing finance agencies, State community and/or
economic development agencies, local rural nonprofits and
community development corporations to support innovative
housing and economic development activities in rural areas.

empowerment zones/enterprise communities

For grants in connection with a second round of empowerment
zones and enterprise communities, $15,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005, for ``Urban Empowerment
Zones'', as authorized in section 1391(g) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1391(g)), including
$1,000,000 for each empowerment zone for use in conjunction
with economic development activities

[[Page H7674]]

consistent with the strategic plan of each empowerment zone.

community development fund

(including transfers of funds)

For assistance to units of State and local government, and
to other entities, for economic and community development
activities, and for other purposes, $4,959,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That of the
amount provided, $4,538,650,000 is for carrying out the
community development block grant program under title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended
(the ``Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.): Provided
further, That unless explicitly provided for under this
heading (except for planning grants provided in the third
paragraph and amounts made available in the second
paragraph), not to exceed 20 percent of any grant made with
funds appropriated under this heading (other than a grant
made available in this paragraph to the Housing Assistance
Council or the National American Indian Housing Council, or a
grant using funds under section 107(b)(3) of the Act) shall
be expended for planning and management development and
administration: Provided further, That $72,000,000 shall be
for grants to Indian tribes notwithstanding section 106(a)(1)
of such Act; $3,300,000 shall be for a grant to the Housing
Assistance Council; $2,400,000 shall be for a grant to the
National American Indian Housing Council; $5,000,000 shall be
available as a grant to the National Housing Development
Corporation, for operating expenses not to exceed $2,000,000
and for a program of affordable housing acquisition and
rehabilitation; $5,000,000 shall be available as a grant to
the National Council of La Raza for the HOPE Fund, of which
$500,000 is for technical assistance and fund management, and
$4,500,000 is for investments in the HOPE Fund and financing
to affiliated organizations; $43,000,000 shall be for grants
pursuant to section 107 of the Act, of which $9,500,000 shall
be for the Native Hawaiian block grant authorized under title
VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996; no less than $4,900,000 shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the development
of and modification to information technology systems which
serve programs or activities under ``Community planning and
development''; $28,000,000 shall be for grants pursuant to
the Self Help Homeownership Opportunity Program; $33,250,000
shall be for capacity building, of which $28,250,000 shall be
for Capacity Building for Community Development and
Affordable Housing for LISC and the Enterprise Foundation for
activities as authorized by section 4 of the HUD
Demonstration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as in effect
immediately before June 12, 1997, with not less than
$5,000,000 of the funding to be used in rural areas,
including tribal areas, and of which $5,000,000 shall be for
capacity building activities administered by Habitat for
Humanity International; $65,000,000 shall be available for
YouthBuild program activities authorized by subtitle D of
title IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act, as amended, and such activities shall be an eligible
activity with respect to any funds made available under this
heading: Provided That local YouthBuild programs that
demonstrate an ability to leverage private and nonprofit
funding shall be given a priority for YouthBuild funding:
Provided further, That no more than 10 percent of any grant
award under the YouthBuild program may be used for
administrative costs: Provided further, That of the amount
made available for YouthBuild not less than $10,000,000 is
for grants to establish YouthBuild programs in underserved
and rural areas and $2,000,000 is to be made available for a
grant to YouthBuild USA for capacity building for community
development and affordable housing activities as specified in
section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993, as amended.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
$21,000,000 shall be available for neighborhood initiatives
that are utilized to improve the conditions of distressed and
blighted areas and neighborhoods, to stimulate investment,
economic diversification, and community revitalization in
areas with population outmigration or a stagnating or
declining economic base, or to determine whether housing
benefits can be integrated more effectively with welfare
reform initiatives: Provided, That amounts made available
under this paragraph shall be provided in accordance with the
terms and conditions specified in the report accompanying
this Act.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
$137,500,000 shall be available for grants for the Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) to finance a variety of targeted
economic investments in accordance with the terms and
conditions specified in the report accompanying this Act:
Provided, That none of the funds provided under this
paragraph may be used for program operations.
The referenced statement of the managers under this heading
in Public Law 107-73 is deemed to be amended with respect to
the amount made available to the North Carolina Community
Land Trust Initiative by striking ``North Carolina Community
Land Trust Initiative'' and inserting ``Orange Community
Housing and Land Trust.''
The referenced statement of the managers under this heading
in Public Law 107-73 is deemed to be amended with respect to
the amount made available to the Willacy County Boys and
Girls Club in Willacy County, Texas by striking ``Willacy
County Boys and Girls Club in Willacy County, Texas'' and
inserting ``Willacy County, Texas''.
The referenced statement of the managers under this heading
in Public Law 108-10 is deemed to be amended with respect to
item number 17 by striking ``for sidewalks, curbs, street
lighting, outdoor furniture and facade improvements in the
Mill Village neighborhood'' and inserting ``for the
restoration and renovation of houses within the Lincoln or
Dallas mill villages''.
The referenced statement of the managers under this heading
in Public Law 107-73 is deemed to be amended with respect to
the amount made available to the Metropolitan Development
Association in Syracuse, New York by inserting ``and other
economic development planning and revitalization activities''
after the word ``study''.
The referenced statement of the managers under this heading
in Public Law 107-73 is deemed to be amended with respect to
the amount made available to the Staten Island Freedom
Memorial Fund by striking all ``Staten Island Freedom
Memorial Fund for the construction of a memorial in the
Staten Island community of St. George, New York'' and
inserting ``Staten Island Botanical Garden for construction
and related activities for a healing garden''.
The referenced statement of the managers under this heading
in title II of division K of the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7; H. Rept. 108-10) is
deemed to be amended with respect to item number 526 by
striking ``for an economic development study for the
revitalization of Westchester'' and inserting ``for the
reconstruction of renaissance plaza at Main and Mamaroneck in
downtown White Plains''.
The referenced statement of the managers under this heading
in title II of division K of the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7; H. Rept. 108-10) is
deemed to be amended with respect to item number 877 by
striking ``West Virginia High Technology Consortium
Foundation, Inc. in Marion County, West Virginia for
facilities construction for a high-tech park'' and inserting
``Glenville State College in Glenville, West Virginia for
construction of a new campus community education center''.
The referenced statement of the managers under this heading
in title II of division K of the Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108-7; H. Rept. 108-10) is
deemed to be amended with respect to item number 126 by
striking ``for construction of'' and inserting ``for
facilities improvements and build out for''.

urban development action grants

(rescission)

From balances of the Urban Development Action Grant
Program, as authorized by title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, $30,000,000
are canceled.

brownfields redevelopment

For competitive economic development grants, as authorized
by section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974, as amended, for Brownfields redevelopment
projects, $25,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2005.

home investment partnerships program

(including transfer of funds)

For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized
under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act, as amended, $1,939,100,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2006: Provided, That of the total amount
provided in this paragraph, up to $40,000,000 shall be
available for housing counseling under section 106 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and no less than
$2,100,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund
for the development of and modifications to information
technology systems which serve programs or activities under
``Community planning and development''.
In addition to amounts otherwise made available under this
heading, $125,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2006, for assistance to homebuyers as authorized under
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act, as amended: Provided, That the Secretary shall provide
such assistance in accordance with a formula to be
established by the Secretary that considers a participating
jurisdiction's need for, and prior commitment to, assistance
to homebuyers.

homeless assistance grants

(including transfer of funds)

For the emergency shelter grants program as authorized
under subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act, as amended; the supportive housing program as
authorized under subtitle C of title IV of such Act; the
section 8 moderate rehabilitation single room occupancy
program as authorized under the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended, to assist homeless individuals pursuant to
section 441 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act;
and the shelter plus care program as authorized under
subtitle F of title IV of such Act, $1,242,000,000, of which
$1,222,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2006,
and of which $20,000,000 to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not less than 30 percent of funds made
available, excluding amounts provided for renewals under the
shelter plus care program, shall be used for permanent
housing: Provided further, That all funds awarded for
services shall be matched by 25 percent in funding by each
grantee:

[[Page H7675]]

Provided further, That the Secretary shall renew on an annual
basis expiring contracts or amendments to contracts funded
under the shelter plus care program if the program is
determined to be needed under the applicable continuum of
care and meets appropriate program requirements and financial
standards, as determined by the Secretary: Provided further,
That all awards of assistance under this heading shall be
required to coordinate and integrate homeless programs with
other mainstream health, social services, and employment
programs for which homeless populations may be eligible,
including Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance
Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Food
Stamps, and services funding through the Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Block Grant, Workforce Investment Act, and
the Welfare-to-Work grant program: Provided further, That
$12,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading
shall be available for the national homeless data analysis
project and technical assistance: Provided further, That no
less than $2,580,000 of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for
the development of and modifications to information
technology systems which serve programs or activities under
``Community planning and development''.

Housing Programs

housing for the elderly

(including transfer of funds)

For capital advances, including amendments to capital
advance contracts, for housing for the elderly, as authorized
by section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended, and
for project rental assistance for the elderly under section
202(c)(2) of such Act, including amendments to contracts for
such assistance and renewal of expiring contracts for such
assistance for up to a 1-year term, and for supportive
services associated with the housing, $773,320,000, plus
recaptures and cancelled commitments, to remain available
until September 30, 2006, of which amount $50,000,000 shall
be for service coordinators and the continuation of existing
congregate service grants for residents of assisted housing
projects, and of which amount up to $25,000,000 shall be for
grants under section 202b of the Housing Act of 1959 (12
U.S.C. 1701q-2) for conversion of eligible projects under
such section to assisted living or related use: Provided,
That of the amount made available under this heading,
$16,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development only for making competitive grants to
private nonprofit organizations and consumer cooperatives for
covering costs of architectural and engineering work, site
control, and other planning relating to the development of
supportive housing for the elderly that is eligible for
assistance under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12
U.S.C. 1701q): Provided further, That no less than $470,000
shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the
development of and modifications to information technology
systems which serve programs or activities under ``Housing
programs'' or ``Federal Housing Administration'': Provided
further, That the Secretary may waive the provisions of
section 202 governing the terms and conditions of project
rental assistance, except that the initial contract term for
such assistance shall not exceed 5 years in duration:
Provided further, That all balances outstanding, as of
September 30, 2003, for capital advances, including
amendments to capital advances, for housing for elderly, as
authorized by section 202, for project rental assistance for
housing for the elderly, as authorized under section
202(c)(2) of such Act, including amendments to contracts
shall be transferred to and merged with the amounts for those
purposes under this heading.

housing for persons with disabilities

(including transfer of funds)

For capital advance contracts, for supportive housing for
persons with disabilities, as authorized by section 811 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, for
project rental assistance for supportive housing for persons
with disabilities under section 811(d)(2) of such Act,
including amendments to contracts for such assistance and
renewal of expiring contracts for such assistance for up to a
1-year term, and for supportive services associated with the
housing for persons with disabilities as authorized by
section 811(b)(1) of such Act, and for tenant-based rental
assistance contracts entered into pursuant to section 811 of
such Act, $250,570,000, plus recaptures and cancelled
commitments to remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That no less than $470,000 shall be transferred to
the Working Capital Fund for the development of and
modifications to information technology systems which serve
programs or activities under ``Housing programs'' or
``Federal Housing Administration'': Provided further, That of
the amount provided under this heading, other than amounts
for renewal of expiring project-based or tenant-based rental
assistance contracts, the Secretary may designate up to 25
percent for tenant-based rental assistance, as authorized by
section 811 of such Act, (which assistance is five years in
duration): Provided further, That the Secretary may waive the
provisions of section 811 governing the terms and conditions
of project rental assistance and tenant-based assistance,
except that the initial contract term for such assistance
shall not exceed five years in duration: Provided further,
That all balances outstanding, as of September 30, 2003, for
capital advances, including amendments to capital advances,
for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as
authorized by section 811, for project rental assistance for
supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as
authorized under section 811(d)(2), including amendments to
contracts for such assistance and renewal of expiring
contracts for such assistance, and for supportive services
associated with the housing for persons with disabilities as
authorized by section 811(b)(1), shall be transferred to and
merged with the amounts for these purposes under this
heading.

flexible subsidy fund

(transfer of funds)

From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted
balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2003,
and any collections made during fiscal year 2004, shall be
transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by
section 236(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended.

rental housing assistance

(rescission)

Up to $303,000,000 of recaptured section 236 budget
authority resulting from prepayment of mortgages subsidized
under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z-1) shall be rescinded in fiscal year 2004: Provided,
That the limitation otherwise applicable to the maximum
payments that may be required in any fiscal year by all
contracts entered into under section 236 is reduced in fiscal
year 2004 by not more than $303,000,000 in uncommitted
balances of authorizations of contract authority provided for
this purpose in prior appropriations Acts.

manufactured housing fees trust fund

For necessary expenses as authorized by the National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.), up to $13,000,000
to remain available until expended, to be derived from the
Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund: Provided, That not to
exceed the total amount appropriated under this heading shall
be available from the general fund of the Treasury to the
extent necessary to incur obligations and make expenditures
pending the receipt of collections to the Fund pursuant to
section 620 of such Act: Provided further, That the amount
made available under this heading from the general fund shall
be reduced as such collections are received during fiscal
year 2004 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2004
appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more
than $0 and fees pursuant to such section 620 shall be
modified as necessary to ensure such a final fiscal year 2004
appropriation.

Federal Housing Administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

(including transfers of funds)

During fiscal year 2004, commitments to guarantee loans to
carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of
$185,000,000,000.
During fiscal year 2004, obligations to make direct loans
to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $50,000,000:
Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to
nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales
of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and
formerly insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed and direct loan program, $359,000,000, of which
not to exceed $355,000,000 shall be transferred to the
appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''; and not to
exceed $4,000,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Office of Inspector General''. In addition, for
administrative contract expenses, $85,000,000, of which no
less than $20,744,000 shall be transferred to the Working
Capital Fund for the development of and modifications to
information technology systems which serve programs or
activities under ``Housing programs'' or ``Federal Housing
Administration'': Provided, That to the extent guaranteed
loan commitments exceed $65,500,000,000 on or before April 1,
2004, an additional $1,400 for administrative contract
expenses shall be available for each $1,000,000 in additional
guaranteed loan commitments (including a pro rata amount for
any amount below $1,000,000), but in no case shall funds made
available by this proviso exceed $30,000,000.

general and special risk program account

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections
238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3
and 1735c), including the cost of loan guarantee
modifications, as that term is defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, $15,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That these funds
are available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of
which is to be guaranteed, of up to $25,000,000,000.
Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans,
as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238, and 519(a) of
the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $50,000,000, of
which not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be for bridge financing
in connection with the sale of multifamily real properties
owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under such Act;
and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for loans to
nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with the
sale

[[Page H7676]]

of single-family real properties owned by the Secretary and
formerly insured under such Act.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $229,000,000, of
which $209,000,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Salaries and expenses''; and of which $20,000,000 shall
be transferred to the appropriation for ``Office of Inspector
General''.
In addition, for administrative contract expenses necessary
to carry out the guaranteed and direct loan programs,
$93,780,000, of which no less than $16,946,000 shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the development
of and modifications to information technology systems which
serve programs or activities under ``Housing programs'' or
``Federal Housing Administration'': Provided, That to the
extent guaranteed loan commitments exceed $8,426,000,000 on
or before April 1, 2004, an additional $1,980 for
administrative contract expenses shall be available for each
$1,000,000 in additional guaranteed loan commitments over
$8,426,000,000 (including a pro rata amount for any increment
below $1,000,000), but in no case shall funds made available
by this proviso exceed $14,400,000.

Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

(including transfer of funds)

New commitments to issue guarantees to carry out the
purposes of section 306 of the National Housing Act, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall not exceed
$200,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2005.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $10,695,000,
to be derived from the GNMA guarantees of mortgage-backed
securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to
exceed $10,695,000, shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Salaries and expenses''.

Policy Development and Research

research and technology

For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs
of research and studies relating to housing and urban
problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title
V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out
the functions of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $47,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That of the
total amount provided under this heading, $7,500,000 shall be
for the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing
(PATH) Initiative.

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

fair housing activities

For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise
provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987, as amended, $46,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2005, of which $20,250,000
shall be to carry out activities pursuant to such section
561: Provided, That no funds made available under this
heading shall be used to lobby the executive or legislative
branches of the Federal Government in connection with a
specific contract, grant or loan.

Office of Lead Hazard Control

lead hazard reduction

For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, as authorized by
section 1011 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, $130,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2005, of which $10,000,000 shall be for
the Healthy Homes Initiative, pursuant to sections 501 and
502 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 that
shall include research, studies, testing, and demonstration
efforts, including education and outreach concerning lead-
based paint poisoning and other housing-related diseases and
hazards.

Management and Administration

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary administrative and non-administrative
expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
not otherwise provided for, including purchase of uniforms,
or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109; and not to exceed $25,000 for official reception
and representation expenses, $1,122,130,000, of which
$564,000,000 shall be provided from the various funds of the
Federal Housing Administration, $10,695,000 shall be provided
from funds of the Government National Mortgage Association,
$150,000 shall be provided by transfer from the ``Native
American housing block grants'' account, $250,000 shall be
provided by transfer from the ``Indian housing loan guarantee
fund program'' account and $35,000 shall be transferred from
the ``Native Hawaiian housing loan guarantee fund'' account:
Provided, That funds made available under this heading shall
only be allocated in the manner specified in the report
accompanying this Act unless the Committees on Appropriations
of both the House of Representatives and the Senate are
notified of any changes in an operating plan or
reprogramming: Provided further, That no official or employee
of the Department shall be designated as an allotment holder
unless the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has
determined that such allotment holder has implemented an
adequate system of funds control and has received training in
funds control procedures and directives: Provided further,
That the Chief Financial Officer shall establish positive
control of and maintain adequate systems of accounting for
appropriations and other available funds as required by 31
U.S.C. 1514: Provided further, That for purposes of funds
control and determining whether a violation exists under the
Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341 et seq.), the point of
obligation shall be the executed agreement or contract,
except with respect to insurance and guarantee programs,
certain types of salaries and expenses funding, and
incremental funding that is authorized under an executed
agreement or contract, and shall be designated in the
approved funds control plan: Provided further, That the Chief
Financial Officer shall: (a) appoint qualified personnel to
conduct investigations of potential or actual violations; (b)
establish minimum training requirements and other
qualifications for personnel that may be appointed to conduct
investigations; (c) establish guidelines and timeframes for
the conduct and completion of investigations; (d) prescribe
the content, format and other requirements for the submission
of final reports on violations; and (e) prescribe such
additional policies and procedures as may be required for
conducting investigations of, and administering, processing,
and reporting on, potential and actual violations of the
Anti-Deficiency Act and all other statutes and regulations
governing the obligation and expenditure of funds made
available in this or any other Act: Provided further, That
the Secretary shall fill 7 out of 10 vacancies at the GS-14
and GS-15 levels until the total number of GS-14 and GS-15
positions in the Department has been reduced from the number
of GS-14 and GS-15 positions on the date of enactment of
Public Law 106-377 by 2\1/2\ percent: Provided further, That
the Secretary shall submit a staffing plan for the Department
by November 15, 2003.
The tenth proviso under this heading in the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, is amended by
striking ``the purpose of'' and inserting ``purposes of funds
control and'' and before the colon insert the following ``,
except with respect to insurance and guarantee programs,
certain types of salaries and expenses funding, and
incremental funding that is authorized under an executed
agreement or contract''.

working capital fund

For additional capital for the Working Capital Fund (42
U.S.C. 3535) for the development of, modifications to, and
infrastructure for Department-wide information technology
systems, and for the continuing operation of both Department-
wide and program-specific information systems, $240,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That
any amounts transferred to this Fund under this Act shall
remain available until expended.

office of inspector general

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $100,080,000, of which $24,000,000 shall be provided
from the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration:
Provided, That the Inspector General shall have independent
authority over all personnel issues within this office:
Provided further, That no less than $300,000 shall be
transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the development
of and modifications to information technology systems for
the Office of Inspector General.

consolidated fee fund

(rescission)

All unobligated balances remaining available from fees and
charges under section 7(j) of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development Act on October 1, 2003 are rescinded.

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, including not to exceed
$500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$32,415,000, to remain available until expended, to be
derived from the Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight Fund:
Provided, That not to exceed such amount shall be available
from the general fund of the Treasury to the extent necessary
to incur obligations and make expenditures pending the
receipt of collections to the Fund: Provided further, That
the general fund amount shall be reduced as collections are
received during the fiscal year so as to result in a final
appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more
than $0.

Administrative Provisions

Sec. 201. Fifty percent of the amounts of budget authority,
or in lieu thereof 50 percent of the cash amounts associated
with such budget authority, that are recaptured from projects
described in section 1012(a) of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1437
note) shall be rescinded, or in the case of cash, shall be
remitted to the Treasury, and

[[Page H7677]]

such amounts of budget authority or cash recaptured and not
rescinded or remitted to the Treasury shall be used by State
housing finance agencies or local governments or local
housing agencies with projects approved by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development for which settlement occurred
after January 1, 1992, in accordance with such section.
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the Secretary may
award up to 15 percent of the budget authority or cash
recaptured and not rescinded or remitted to the Treasury to
provide project owners with incentives to refinance their
project at a lower interest rate.
Sec. 202. None of the amounts made available under this Act
may be used during fiscal year 2003 to investigate or
prosecute under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise lawful
activity engaged in by one or more persons, including the
filing or maintaining of a non-frivolous legal action, that
is engaged in solely for the purpose of achieving or
preventing action by a Government official or entity, or a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Sec. 203. (a) Notwithstanding section 854(c)(1)(A) of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)(1)(A)), from
any amounts made available under this title for fiscal year
2004 that are allocated under such section, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development shall allocate and make a
grant, in the amount determined under subsection (b), for any
State that--
(1) received an allocation in a prior fiscal year under
clause (ii) of such section; and
(2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for fiscal
year 2004 under such clause (ii) because the areas in the
State outside of the metropolitan statistical areas that
qualify under clause (i) in fiscal year 2004 do not have the
number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
required under such clause.
(b) The amount of the allocation and grant for any State
described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on the
cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that State
that are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that
qualify under clause (i) of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in
fiscal year 2004, in proportion to AIDS cases among cities
and States that qualify under clauses (i) and (ii) of such
section and States deemed eligible under subsection (a).
Sec. 204. (a) Section 225(a) of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law 106-74 (113
Stat. 1076), is amended by striking ``year 2000, and the
amounts that would otherwise be allocated for fiscal year
2001 and fiscal year 2002'', and inserting ``years 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004''.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate to
Wake County, North Carolina, the amounts that otherwise would
be allocated for fiscal year 2004 under section 854(c) of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)) to the City
of Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill, North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Any amounts allocated to Wake County shall be used to carry
out eligible activities under section 855 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 12904) within such metropolitan statistical area.
Sec. 205. (a) During fiscal year 2004, in the provision of
rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) in connection with a
program to demonstrate the economy and effectiveness of
providing such assistance for use in assisted living
facilities that is carried out in the counties of the State
of Michigan specified in subsection (b) of this section,
notwithstanding paragraphs (3) and (18)(B)(iii) of such
section 8(o), a family residing in an assisted living
facility in any such county, on behalf of which a public
housing agency provides assistance pursuant to section
8(o)(18) of such Act, may be required, at the time the family
initially receives such assistance, to pay rent in an amount
exceeding 40 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family by such a percentage or amount as the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development determines to be appropriate.
(b) The counties specified in this subsection are Oakland
County, Macomb County, Wayne County, and Washtenaw County, in
the State of Michigan.
Sec. 206. Except as explicitly provided in law, any grant,
cooperative agreement or other assistance made pursuant to
title II of this Act shall be made on a competitive basis and
in accordance with section 102 of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
Sec. 207. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of
the Federal National Mortgage Association, Government
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or
any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured
bank within the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
Sec. 208. Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or
through a reprogramming of funds, no part of any
appropriation for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development shall be available for any program, project or
activity in excess of amounts set forth in the budget
estimates submitted to Congress.
Sec. 209. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to each such
corporation or agency and in accordance with law, and to make
such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of such Act as may be
necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the
budget for 2003 for such corporation or agency except as
hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these
corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or
mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly
provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of
other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior
appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not
apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of
these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 210. None of the funds provided in this title for
technical assistance, training, or management improvements
may be obligated or expended unless HUD provides to the
Committees on Appropriations a description of each proposed
activity and a detailed budget estimate of the costs
associated with each program, project or activity as part of
the Budget Justifications. For fiscal year 2004, HUD shall
transmit this information to the Committees by November 15,
2003 for 30 days of review.
Sec. 211. A public housing agency or such other entity that
administers Federal housing assistance in the states of
Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi shall not be required to
include a resident of public housing or a recipient of
assistance provided under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 on the board of directors or a similar
governing board of such agency or entity as required under
section (2)(b) of such Act. Each public housing agency or
other entity that administers Federal housing assistance
under section 8 in the states of Alaska, Iowa and Mississippi
shall establish an advisory board of not less than 6
residents of public housing or recipients of section 8
assistance to provide advice and comment to the public
housing agency or other administering entity on issues
related to public housing and section 8. Such advisory board
shall meet not less than quarterly.
Sec. 212. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations regarding all uncommitted,
unobligated, recaptured and excess funds in each program and
activity within the jurisdiction of the Department and shall
submit additional, updated budget information to these
Committees upon request.

TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

American Battle Monuments Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official
motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of
such countries, $47,276,000 (of which $10,000,000 shall not
become available until Septmeber 1, 2004), to remain
available until expended.

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant
to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
including hire of passenger vehicles, uniforms or allowances
therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, and for
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem equivalent to the
maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5
U.S.C. 5376, $8,550,000: Provided, That the Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board shall have not more than three
career Senior Executive Service positions.

emergency fund

For necessary expenses of the Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board for accident investigations not otherwise
provided for, $450,000, to remain available until expended.

Department of the Treasury

Community Development Financial Institutions

community development financial institutions fund program account

To carry out the Community Development Banking and
Financial Institutions Act of 1994, including services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for ES-3,
$51,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005, of
which $3,000,000 shall be for financial assistance, technical
assistance, training and outreach programs designed to
benefit Native American, Native

[[Page H7678]]

Hawaiian, and Alaskan Native communities and provided
primarily through qualified community development lender
organizations with experience and expertise in community
development banking and lending in Indian country, Native
American organizations, tribes and tribal organizations and
other suitable providers, and up to $13,000,000 may be used
for administrative expenses, including administration of the
New Markets Tax Credit, up to $6,000,000 may be used for the
cost of direct loans, and up to $250,000 may be used for
administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program:
Provided, That the cost of direct loans, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross
obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to
exceed $11,000,000.

Consumer Product Safety Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles,
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
maximum rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5376, purchase of nominal
awards to recognize non-Federal officials' contributions to
Commission activities, and not to exceed $500 for official
reception and representation expenses, $60,000,000: Provided,
That up to $1,000,000 is for purposes of carrying out the
Inspector General Act of 1978.

Corporation for National and Community Service

national and community service programs operating expenses

For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and
Community Service (the ``Corporation'') in carrying out
programs, activities, and initiatives under the National and
Community Service Act of 1990 (the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501
et seq.), $363,452,000, to remain available until September
30, 2005: Provided, That not more than $30,500,000 shall be
available for administrative expenses authorized under
section 501(a)(4): Provided further, That not more than
$2,500 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That $244,352,000 of the amount
provided under this heading shall be available for grants
under the National Service Trust program authorized under
subtitle C of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.)
(relating to activities including the AmeriCorps program),
and for grants to organizations operating projects under the
AmeriCorps Education Awards Program (without regard to the
requirements of sections 121(d) and (e), 131(e), 132, and
140(a), (d), and (e) of the Act): of which not more than
$50,000,000 may be used to administer, reimburse, or support
any national service program authorized under section
121(d)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12581(d)(2)): Provided
further, That to the maximum extent feasible, funds
appropriated under subtitle C of title I of the Act shall be
provided in a manner that is consistent with the
recommendations of peer review panels in order to ensure that
priority is given to programs that demonstrate quality,
innovation, replicability, and sustainability: Provided
further, That not more than $10,000,000 of the funds made
available under this heading shall be for the Points of Light
Foundation for activities authorized under title III of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 12661 et seq.), of which not more than
$2,500,000 may be used to support an endowment fund, the
corpus of which shall remain intact and the interest income
from which shall be used to support activities described in
title III of the Act, provided that the Foundation may invest
the corpus and income in federally insured bank savings
accounts or comparable interest bearing accounts,
certificates of deposit, money market funds, mutual funds,
obligations of the United States, and other market
instruments and securities but not in real estate
investments: Provided further, That no funds shall be
available for national service programs run by Federal
agencies authorized under section 121(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 12571(b)): Provided further, That not less than
$24,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading
shall be available for the Civilian Community Corps
authorized under subtitle E of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C.
12611 et seq.): Provided further, That not more than
$40,000,000 shall be available for school-based and
community-based service-learning programs authorized under
subtitle B of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12521 et seq.):
Provided further, That not more than $6,100,000 shall be
available for quality and innovation activities authorized
under subtitle H of title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 12853 et
seq.): Provided further, That not more than $5,000,000 of the
funds made available under this heading shall be made
available to America's Promise--The Alliance for Youth, Inc.
only to support efforts to mobilize individuals, groups, and
organizations to build and strengthen the character and
competence of the Nation's youth: Provided further, That not
more than $3,500,000 shall be available for audits and other
evaluations authorized under section 179 of the Act (42
U.S.C. 12639).

NATIONAL SERVICE TRUST

For payment of educational awards authorized under subtitle
D of title I of the National Community Service Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12601), $110,771,000, to remain available until
expended; of which $5,000,000 shall be available for national
service scholarships for high school students performing
community service, and $10,000,000 shall be held in reserve
as defined in Public Law 108-45: Provided, That the
Corporation for National and Community Servcice shall enroll
no more than 55,000 volunteers in the National Service Trust
with the funds provided in this Act.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $6,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2005.

administrative provisions

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term
``qualified student loan'' with respect to national service
education awards shall mean any loan determined by an
institution of higher education to be necessary to cover a
student's cost of attendance at such institution and made,
insured, or guaranteed directly to a student by a State
agency, in addition to other meanings under section 148(b)(7)
of the National and Community Service Act.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds made
available under section 129(d)(5)(B) of the National and
Community Service Act to assist entities in placing
applicants who are individuals with disabilities may be
provided to any entity that receives a grant under section
121 of the Act.

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by
38 U.S.C. 7251-7298, $15,938,000 of which $1,175,000 shall be
available for the purpose of providing financial assistance
as described, and in accordance with the process and
reporting procedures set forth, under this heading in Public
Law 102-229.

Department of Defense--Civil

Cemeterial Expenses, Army

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery,
including the purchase of one passenger motor vehicle for
replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, $25,961,000, to remain
available until expended.

Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

national institute of environmental health sciences

For necessary expenses for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences in carrying out activities set
forth in section 311(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended, and section 126(g) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, $80,000,000.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

toxic substances and environmental public health

For necessary expenses for the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in carrying out activities set
forth in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 111(c)(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended; section 118(f) of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), as amended; and section 3019 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended, $73,467,000, to be derived from the
Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund pursuant to section
517(a) of SARA (26 U.S.C. 9507): Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, in lieu of
performing a health assessment under section 104(i)(6) of
CERCLA, the Administrator of ATSDR may conduct other
appropriate health studies, evaluations, or activities,
including, without limitation, biomedical testing, clinical
evaluations, medical monitoring, and referral to accredited
health care providers: Provided further, That in performing
any such health assessment or health study, evaluation, or
activity, the Administrator of ATSDR shall not be bound by
the deadlines in section 104(i)(6)(A) of CERCLA: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated under this
heading shall be available for ATSDR to issue in excess of 40
toxicological profiles pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA
during fiscal year 2004, and existing profiles may be updated
as necessary.

Environmental Protection Agency

science and technology

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

[[Page H7679]]

rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to exceed
$75,000 per project, $767,115,000 which shall remain
available until September 30, 2005.

environmental programs and management

For environmental programs and management, including
necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel
and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5
U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints;
library memberships in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members; construction,
alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of
facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; and not to
exceed $9,000 for official reception and representation
expenses, $2,192,552,000, which shall remain available until
September 30, 2005, including administrative costs of the
brownfields program under the Small Business Liability Relief
and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration,
repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to
exceed $75,000 per project, $36,808,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2005.

buildings and facilities

For construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of,
or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency,
$42,918,000, to remain available until expended.

hazardous substance superfund

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project;
$1,275,000,000, to remain available until expended,
consisting of $200,000,000, as authorized by section 517(a)
of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), as amended, and $1,075,000,000 as a payment from
general revenues to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for
purposes as authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended:
Provided, That funds appropriated under this heading may be
allocated to other Federal agencies in accordance with
section 111(a) of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds
appropriated under this heading, $13,214,000 shall be
transferred to the ``Office of Inspector General''
appropriation to remain available until September 30, 2005,
and $44,697,000 shall be transferred to the ``Science and
technology'' appropriation to remain available until
September 30, 2005.

leaking underground storage tank trust fund

For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground
storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and
for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project,
$72,545,000, to remain available until expended.

oil spill response

For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental
Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, $16,209,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.

state and tribal assistance grants

For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance,
including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and
performance partnership grants, $3,601,950,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be
for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State
Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (the ``Act''), of which up to
$68,000,000 shall be available for loans, including interest
free loans as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)(A), to
municipal, inter-municipal, interstate, or State agencies or
nonprofit entities for projects that provide treatment for or
that minimize sewage or stormwater discharges using one or
more approaches which include, but are not limited to,
decentralized or distributed stormwater controls,
decentralized wastewater treatment, low-impact development
practices, conservation easements, stream buffers, or
wetlands restoration; $850,000,000 shall be for
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, none of the funds made
available under this heading in this Act, or in previous
appropriations Acts, shall be reserved by the Administrator
for health effects studies on drinking water contaminants;
$50,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering,
planning, design, construction and related activities in
connection with the construction of high priority water and
wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico
Border, after consultation with the appropriate border
commission; $25,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of
Alaska to address drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages;
$195,000,000 shall be for making grants for the construction
of drinking water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure
and for water quality protection in accordance with the terms
and conditions specified for such grants in the report
accompanying this legislation; $8,250,000 for grants for
construction of alternative decentralized wastewater
facilities under the National Decentralized Wastewater
Demonstration program, in accordance with the terms and
conditions specified in the report accompanying this
legislation; $93,500,000 shall be to carry out section 104(k)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including
grants, interagency agreements, and associated program
support costs; and $1,180,200,000 shall be for grants,
including associated program support costs, to States,
federally recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal
consortia, and air pollution control agencies for multi-media
or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement
and related activities, including activities pursuant to the
provisions set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-
134, and for making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air
Act for particulate matter monitoring and data collection
activities, of which and subject to terms and conditions
specified by the Administrator, $50,000,000 shall be for
carrying out section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, and
$20,000,000 shall be for National Environmental Information
Exchange Network grants, including associated program support
costs: Provided, That for fiscal year 2004, State authority
under section 302(a) of Public Law 104-182 shall remain in
effect: Provided further, That notwithstanding section
603(d)(7) of the Act, the limitation on the amounts in a
State water pollution control revolving fund that may be used
by a State to administer the fund shall not apply to amounts
included as principal in loans made by such fund in fiscal
year 2004 and prior years where such amounts represent costs
of administering the fund to the extent that such amounts are
or were deemed reasonable by the Administrator, accounted for
separately from other assets in the fund, and used for
eligible purposes of the fund, including administration:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2004, and
notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Act, the Administrator
is authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal
year under section 319 of that Act to make grants to Indian
tribes pursuant to sections 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act:
Provided further, That for fiscal year 2004, notwithstanding
the limitation on amounts in section 518(c) of the Act, up to
a total of 1\1/2\ percent of the funds appropriated for State
Revolving Funds under title VI of that Act may be reserved by
the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of such
Act: Provided further, That no funds provided by this
legislation to address the water, wastewater and other
critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United
States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made
available to a county or municipal government unless that
government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or
other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the
development or construction of any additional colonia areas,
or the development within an existing colonia the
construction of any new home, business, or other structure
which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary
infrastructure: Provided further, That the referenced
statement of the managers under this heading in Public Law
108-7, item number 383, is deemed to be amended by adding
after the word ``overflow'', ``and water infrastructure'':
Provided further, That the referenced statement of the
managers under this heading in Public Law 108-07, item number
255, is deemed to be amended by inserting ``water and'' after
the words ``Mississippi for'': Provided further, That the
referenced statement of the managers under this heading in
Public Law 108-07, item number 256, is deemed to be amended
by adding after the word ``for'', ``water and''.

administrative provisions

For fiscal year 2004, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and
6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement
directly Federal environmental programs required or
authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal
program, may award cooperative agreements to federally-
recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if
authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the
Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs
for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that
no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds
designated for State financial assistance agreements.
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act shall be used to promulgate a final regulation to
implement changes in the payment of pesticide tolerance
processing fees as proposed at 64 Fed. Reg. 31040, or any
similar proposals. The Environmental Protection Agency may
proceed with the development of such a rule.

[[Page H7680]]

The Environmental Protection Agency may not use any of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act to
implement the Registration Fee system codified at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Subpart U (sections 152.400 et seq.) if
its authority to collect maintenance fees pursuant to FIFRA
section 4(i)(5) is extended for at least 1 year beyond
September 30, 2003.
Section 136a-1 of title 7, U.S.C. is amended--
(1) in subsection (i)(5)(C)(i) by striking ``2003'' and
inserting ``2004'';
(2) in subsection (i)(5)(H) by striking ``2003'' and
inserting ``2004'';
(3) in subsection (i)(6) by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2004''; and
(4) in subsection (k)(3)(A) by striking ``2003'' and
inserting ``2004''.

Executive Office of the President

office of science and technology policy

For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $7,027,000.

council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, and not to
exceed $750 for official reception and representation
expenses, $3,238,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section
202 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the
Council shall consist of one member, appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
serving as chairman and exercising all powers, functions, and
duties of the Council.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $30,125,000, to be derived from the Bank
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and
the FSLIC Resolution Fund.

General Services Administration

federal citizen information center fund

For necessary expenses of the Federal Citizen Information
Center, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$12,500,000, to be deposited into the Federal Citizen
Information Center Fund: Provided, That the appropriations,
revenues, and collections deposited into the Fund shall be
available for necessary expenses of Federal Citizen
Information Center activities in the aggregate amount of
$18,000,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections
accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2004 in excess of
$18,000,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be
available for expenditure except as authorized in
appropriations Acts.

Interagency Council on the Homeless

operating expenses

For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries,
authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and
the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109
of title 5, United States Code) of the Interagency Council on
the Homeless in carrying out the functions pursuant to title
II of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended,
$1,500,000.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

space flight capabilities

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of space flight capabilities research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, support and services; maintenance; construction
of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
revitalization and modification of facilities, construction
of new facilities and additions to existing facilities,
facility planning and design, and acquisition or condemnation
of real property, as authorized by law; environmental
compliance and restoration; space flight, spacecraft control
and communications activities including operations,
production, and services; program management; personnel and
related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase
and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $35,000
for official reception and representation expenses; and
purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $7,806,100,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2005, of which amounts
as determined by the Administrator for salaries and benefits;
training, travel and awards; facility and related costs;
information technology services; science, engineering,
fabricating and testing services; and other administrative
services may be transferred to ``Science, aeronautics and
exploration'' in accordance with section 312(b) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended by
Public Law 106-377.

science, aeronautics and exploration

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics and exploration
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, support and services; maintenance;
construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction
of new facilities and additions to existing facilities,
facility planning and design, and acquisition or condemnation
of real property, as authorized by law; environmental
compliance and restoration; space flight, spacecraft control
and communications activities including operations,
production, and services; program management; personnel and
related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase
and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $35,000
for official reception and representation expenses; and
purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $7,707,900,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2005, of which amounts
as determined by the Administrator for salaries and benefits;
training, travel and awards; facility and related costs;
information technology services; science, engineering,
fabricating and testing services; and other administrative
services may be transferred to ``Space flight capabilities''
in accordance with section 312(b) of the National Aeronautics
and Space Act of 1958, as amended by Public Law 106-377.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $26,300,000.

administrative provisions

Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Science, aeronautics and exploration'', or
``Space flight capabilities'' by this appropriations Act,
when any activity has been initiated by the incurrence of
obligations for construction of facilities or environmental
compliance and restoration activities as authorized by law,
such amount available for such activity shall remain
available until expended. This provision does not apply to
the amounts appropriated for institutional minor
revitalization and construction of facilities, and
institutional facility planning and design.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Science, aeronautics and exploration'', or
``Space flight capabilities'' by this appropriations Act, the
amounts appropriated for construction of facilities shall
remain available until September 30, 2006.
From amounts made available in this Act for these
activities, the Administration may transfer amounts between
aeronautics of the ``Science, Aeronautics and Exploration''
account and crosscutting technologies of the ``Space flight
capabilities'' account.
Funds for announced prizes otherwise authorized shall
remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the
prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn.
The unexpired balances of prior appropriations to NASA for
activities for which funds are provided under this Act may be
transferred to the new account established for the
appropriation that provides such activity under this Act.
Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the newly
established account and thereafter may be accounted for as
one fund under the same terms and conditions.

National Credit Union Administration

central liquidity facility

(including transfer of funds)

During fiscal year 2004, gross obligations of the Central
Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct
loans to member credit unions, as authorized by 12 U.S.C.
1795 et seq., shall not exceed $1,500,000,000: Provided, That
administrative expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility in
fiscal year 2004 shall not exceed $310,000.

community development revolving loan fund

For the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund program
as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 9812, 9822 and 9910, $1,000,000
for technical assistance to low-income and community
development credit unions.

National Science Foundation

Research and Related Activities

For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and
the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C.
1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight
services for research support; acquisition of aircraft; and
authorized travel; $4,306,360,000, of which not more than
$355,000,000 shall remain available until expended for Polar
research and operations support, and for reimbursement to
other Federal agencies for operational and science support
and logistical and other related activities for the United
States Antarctic program; the balance to remain available
until September 30, 2005: Provided, That receipts for
scientific support services and materials furnished by the
National Research Centers and other National Science
Foundation supported research facilities may be credited to
this appropriation: Provided further, That to the extent that
the

[[Page H7681]]

amount appropriated is less than the total amount authorized
to be appropriated for included program activities, all
amounts, including floors and ceilings, specified in the
authorizing Act for those program activities or their
subactivities shall be reduced proportionally and used for
authorized purposes of this account.

major research equipment and facilities construction

For necessary expenses for the acquisition, construction,
commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment,
facilities, and other such capital assets pursuant to the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended,
including authorized travel, $192,330,000, to remain
available until expended.

education and human resources

For necessary expenses in carrying out science and
engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia, $910,680,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That
to the extent that the amount of this appropriation is less
than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for
included program activities, all amounts, including floors
and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those
program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced
proportionally.

salaries and expenses

For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire
of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia;
reimbursement of the General Services Administration for
security guard services; $215,900,000: Provided, That
contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and expenses''
in fiscal year 2004 for maintenance and operation of
facilities, and for other services, to be provided during the
next fiscal year.

office of the NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries,
authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and
the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109
of title 5, United States Code) involved in carrying out
section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42
U.S.C. 1863) and Public Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.),
$3,800,000: Provided, That not more than $9,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $10,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2005.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $115,000,000.

administrative provision

Section 605(a) of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Act (42 U.S.C. 8104) is amended by--
(1) striking out ``compensation'' and inserting ``salary'';
and striking out ``highest rate provided for GS-18 of the
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5 United States
Code''; and inserting ``rate for level IV of the Executive
Schedule''; and
(2) inserting after the end the following sentence: ``The
Corporation shall also apply the provisions of section 5307
(a)(1), (b)(1), and (b)(2) of title 5, United States Code,
governing limitations on certain pay as if its employees were
Federal employees receiving payments under title 5.''.

Selective Service System

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System,
including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training
for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service
System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian
employees; purchase of uniforms, or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and not to
exceed $750 for official reception and representation
expenses; $28,290,000: Provided, That during the current
fiscal year, the President may exempt this appropriation from
the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, whenever the President
deems such action to be necessary in the interest of national
defense: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in connection
with the induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the
United States.

TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 402. No funds appropriated by this Act may be
expended--
(1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee
of the United States unless--
(A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a
voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and
the items or services for which such expenditure is being
made; or
(B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such
certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is
specifically authorized by law; and
(2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the
General Accounting Officer or is specifically exempt by law
from such audit.
Sec. 403. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency may be obligated or expended for: (1)
the transportation of any officer or employee of such
department or agency between the domicile and the place of
employment of the officer or employee, with the exception of
an officer or employee authorized such transportation under
31 U.S.C. 1344 or 5 U.S.C. 7905 or (2) to provide a cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of such department or agency.
Sec. 404. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients
that do not share in the cost of conducting research
resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the
Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the
recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the
grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
Sec. 405. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used, directly or through grants, to pay or to provide
reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant
(whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at
more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV
of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by
law.
Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory
proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
Sec. 407. Except as otherwise provided under existing law,
or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an
existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any
appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting
service shall be limited to contracts which are: (1) a matter
of public record and available for public inspection; and (2)
thereafter included in a publicly available list of all
contracts entered into within 24 months prior to the date on
which the list is made available to the public and of all
contracts on which performance has not been completed by such
date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall be
updated quarterly and shall include a narrative description
of the work to be performed under each such contract.
Sec. 408. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of
any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or
expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive
agency: (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in
full compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder; and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to
such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies,
analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency
which is substantially derived from or substantially includes
any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain
information concerning: (A) the contract pursuant to which
the report was prepared; and (B) the contractor who prepared
the report pursuant to such contract.
Sec. 409. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 410. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for
indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-21.
Sec. 411. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2004 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 412. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 413. Except in the case of entities that are funded
solely with Federal funds or any natural persons that are
funded under this Act, none of the funds in this Act shall be
used for the planning or execution of any program to pay the
expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties to
lobby or litigate in respect to adjudicatory proceedings
funded in this Act. A chief executive officer of any entity
receiving funds

[[Page H7682]]

under this Act shall certify that none of these funds have
been used to engage in the lobbying of the Federal Government
or in litigation against the United States unless authorized
under existing law.
Sec. 414. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other
than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the
Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
Sec. 415. All departments and agencies funded under this
Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing
statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of
``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of
their business practices and public service activities.
Sec. 416. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government except pursuant to a transfer
made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any
other appropriation Act.
Sec. 417. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001
with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than
22 miles per gallon.
Sec. 418. Section 312 of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration of 1958, as amended, is further amended--
(1) by striking the second Sec. ``312'' and inserting
``313'';
(2) by inserting the title, ``Full Cost Appropriations
Account Structure'', before Sec. 313;
(3) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``Human space flight'' and inserting
``Space flight capabilities'';
(B) by striking ``technology'' and inserting
``exploration''; and
(C) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''; and
(4) by striking subsection (c), and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(c) The unexpired balances of prior appropriations to the
Administration for activities authorized under this Act may
be transferred to the new account established for such
activity in subsection (a). Balances so transferred may be
merged with funds in the newly established account and
thereafter may be accounted for as one fund under the same
terms and conditions''.

Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the bill through page 106, line 11, be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order?
Are there any amendments?

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kirk

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

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Kirk:
Under Title I, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Administrative Provisions, add the following new section:
Sec. . The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall maximize,
to the greatest extent possible, sharing agreements for
services, programs and facilities with the Department of
Defense, particularly in areas where facilities and/or
targeted populations are in close proximity: Provided, That
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit a report to
the Committees on Appropriations no later than December 1,
2003,detailing restrictive regulations, policies, and
regulatory redundancies that inhibit resource sharing, and
provide milestone dates to address each identified issue.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that calls on
the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress on resource
sharing agreements for services, programs and facilities the Department
undertakes with the Department of Defense.
I understand this amendment has been cleared with the majority and
minority.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are
prepared to accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman for his
diligence, and we think this will help the bill.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, our
distinguished ranking minority member.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the Kirk
amendment.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a technical amendment
that calls on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to submit a
report to Congress reporting on resource sharing agreements for
services, programs and facilities the department undertakes with the
Department of Defense (DoD).
Every American knows that the face of health care has changed
dramatically over the past decades. This is no less true for military
and veterans' health care. It is clear from all the studies undertaken
by the departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs that the
integration of health care services--where possible--will enhance the
quality of care for the men and women who are serving our country today
and those who served blur nation in the past.
My district is home to the North Chicago VA Medical Center and the
Great Lakes Naval Hospital. During the last Administration, officials
cafe two attempts to close ate North Chicago VA Medical Center. On June
19, 2001 the VA released its Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced
Services (CARES) study. The CARES study developed four options to
impose veterans health care in the Chicago area, each of which
recommended the preservation of services offered at North Chicago. The
CARES study also recommended increasing the level of cooperative
between North Chicago VA and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital, located
less than a mile apart.
Integration of the two medical facilities is both practical and also
urgent in North Chicago, Illinois, where the Great Lakes Naval training
Center Hospital and the North Chicago Veterans Medical center both sit
underutilized and in such close proximity. Combining these two
facilities in a state of the art, federal health care center will
maximize the use of tax payer dollars, enhance the training
opportunities for young naval medical corps personnel, and, most
importantly, bring the health care we promised them men and women into
the twenty first century. By directing the VA to report Congress on the
issues facing resource sharing Congress will be able to better
understand and utilize resource sharing agreements when moving forward
with this cost shaving approach.
I have met with Secretary Principi and Secretary Rumsfeld to discuss
enhanced cooperation and health care resources sharing between the DoD
and the VA. Both secretaries are committed to providing our men and
women in uniform, veterans and retirees with world-class health care in
an efficient manner. Both agree that cooperation between the two
agencies when possible, will enable the departments to meet the growing
needs of active and retired soldiers.
As an officer in the Naval Reserve and fellow veteran, I understand
the sacrifices made by the men and women who wore their country's
uniform. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I would like to close by thanking Chairman Walsh, ranking member
Mollohan, and the staff of the VA-HUD subcommittee for their help with
this amendment. I hope to continue working with them on this issue as
this bill moves into a conference committee with the other body.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency--environmental programs and management'',
after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $550,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency--buildings and facilities'', after the
aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$550,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.

[[Page H7683]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will not take that amount of
time. My understanding is that the chairman and the ranking member have
cleared this matter, and if that is the case and either the Chair or
both would speak to it, then I will include my statement in the Record
at this point.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that increases
funding in the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Programs
and Management account by $550,000.
While the rules of the House preclude me from specifying in the text
of the amendment what the increase is to be used for, it is my
intention that this $550,000 be utilized as additional funding for the
EPA's environmental justice programs. My amendment is straight-forward,
germane, and more than fair.
Since the creation of an Office of Environmental Justice in the EPA,
the agency has worked to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income. Further, it seeks to include all communities--white, black,
brown, or green--in the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
However, despite increases in the number of environmental justice
complaints to the EPA, as well as a growing awareness about this issue,
Congress has not increased funding to meet the agency's growing
demands. This bill's allocation for EPA environmental justice programs
of $5.5 million is the same as last year's even though the strains on
the programs, as well as the immediate need for the programs, have
increased.
My amendment provides a 10 percent increase in funding to the EPA's
environmental justice programs, a modest increase I should add. It is
long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Walsh

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Walsh:
In title III in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency; state and tribal assistance grants'',
strike ``, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n)''
through ``water contaminants''.
In title IV, strike sections 408 and 409.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would strike three provisions in the bill which are
legislative in nature, and I have been asked to do this by the relevant
authorization committee Chairs, and I would ask for the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Dingell

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

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Dingell:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency--environmental programs and management'',
after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of my
colleagues from Michigan, especially my three good friends and
colleagues Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Rogers, all of whom are
interested very much in this matter.
We in Michigan are awash in Canadian waste, 180 truckloads a day. EPA
can help Michigan citizens control the flow of municipal solid waste
from Canada. We have an agreement with the Canadians signed in 1992
that requires the EPA to implement a notice and consent procedure on
the flow of trash.
The EPA has spent 11 years shirking its duty. They have determined
that they will not implement this safe, simple and internationally
recognized agreement.
The amendment is simple. It proposes to take $1 million out of EPA's
Office of Media Relations and put the money into the Office of
Enforcement, specifically for the enforcement of this bilateral
agreement.
I know of no controversy with regard to this amendment. I note that
it is a message to EPA bureaucrats to stop stalling and start
protecting our citizens in Michigan.
I would note that I would, out of gratitude to my dear friends on the
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh)
and also the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), I now
terminate my remarks at this time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, we have a crisis in Michigan. We have
become the dumping ground for 100 percent of Toronto Canada's trash.
At a hearing earlier this week we heard excuse after excuse from the
EPA as to why they are not enforcing a bilateral agreement that was
reached back in 1992 which requires United States officials be notified
of all shipments of trash coming in from Canada. When I asked the EPA
if they have ever received such notification from Canada in the past 11
years, they said no. When I asked exactly when EPA would begin
implementing the agreement they answered ``hopefully soon.'' This is
very similar to a response they gave the Congress 10 years ago.
In the mean time, Michigan landfills are being filled with Canadian
trash and Canada is now considering sending their human waste to
Michigan! When will it end, Mr. Speaker.
This amendment will provide $1 million to the EPA for implementing
the requirements in the bilateral agreement, end the excuses, and begin
the enforcement! I urge its adoption.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask all my colleagues to
support an amendment I have offered with my good friends and colleagues
from Michigan, Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Rogers.
We in Michigan have a bit of a problem, Mr. Speaker. You see, we are
awash in Canadian trash. Every single day, 180 truckloads of the stuff
cross over the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron and the Ambassador
Bridge in Detroit.
Luckily, in 1986 the United States and Canada signed the Agreement
Between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of Canada Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous
Waste, which was amended in 1992 to also govern the transport of
municipal waste.
While we are fortunate to have that agreement, the EPA unfortunately
had declined to enforce it. They have had 11 years to implement the
notice and consent procedure required by the agreement. Eleven years,
Mr. Speaker, and incredibly EPA has taken no action!
Meanwhile, Customs officials have told us in no uncertain terms that
they consider these trucks ``high risk'' and nearly impossible to
inspect. A recent shipment included 50 pounds of marijuana. During the
SARS outbreak in Toronto, where much of the garbage comes from, a
Michigan State Trooper found a trash can dripping blood.
These truckloads of trash are a nuisance and a danger to
Michiganders. In fact, on two separate occasions, innocent citizens
were hit by these semi-trucks. Citizens who once lived on quiet country
roads now must contend with nearly 200 truckloads of garbage that begin
rolling in at six in the morning. Nice summer breezes are a thing of
the past for these folks, now houses must be shut up year round in an
effort to avoid the stench.
Our amendment, Mr. Speaker, is simple. We take $1 million from EPA's
Office of Media

[[Page H7684]]

Relations, and put that money into the Office of Enforcement,
specifically the enforcement of this Bilateral Agreement.
On Wednesday, July 23, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee heard
testimony from EPA. They were able to give us a timeline for when
Canada might be done with their regulatory process. Unfortunately, they
were unable to give Members of the Subcommittee any idea when EPA might
be through their regulatory process. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this
bears repeating: U.S. EPA testified as to when Canada might be through
their regulatory process, but they were not able to give us any
indication of when they might be through their own.
I would note that Article 5.3 of the Bilateral Agreement expressly
provides that ``to the extent any implementing regulations are
necessary to comply with this Agreement, the Parties will act
expeditiously to issue such regulations consistent with domesic law.''
Article 5.3 further and expressly provides that ``pending such
issuance, the Parties will make best efforts to provide notification in
accordance with this Agreement where current regulatory authority is
insufficient.''
Well, by EPA's own admission, this is not being done. They have not
used their best efforts and they have not even begun the regulatory
process. How long does it take, Mr. Speaker? How long do the citizens
of Michigan have to wait?
My fellow colleagues from Michigan, and indeed, all Michiganders,
find it outrageous that EPA has shirked its duty and determined that
our health and well-being is not worth their time and effort. This
amendment tells them to do their job: issue regulations and enforce
them. As they move forward with these regulations, we would request
that before EPA consents to a shipment, they consider the views of the
state and local governments, as well as the impact of the importation
of continued public support and adherence to recycling programs,
landfill capacity, air emissions from increased vehicular traffic, road
deterioration from increased vehicular traffic, and public health and
the environment.
I would ask my colleagues to support this common sense amendment to
help protect the citizens of Michigan and to force the EPA to do its
job.
Again, I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues from
Michigan, Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Rogers for their cosponsorship
of this important amendment and their leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1430

Amendments Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman identify which amendment he is
offering.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. It is the medical care amendment. I have
two, Mr. Chairman, and this would be the first one.
Since they are very similar, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
they be considered en bloc with the time allotted. We could dispose of
both of them at the same time.
Never mind, do them one at a time.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman further identify the amendment,
since there are two.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. The amendment would seek to add $1.8 billion
to the medical care budget.
I offered two amendments last night, Mr. Chairman, or asked that two
be made in order at the Committee on Rules, and I submitted 50 copies
of each to the Committee on Rules, so there should be at least one
copy.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
In title I, strike the heading ``Veterans Health
Administration'' and all of the paragraphs under that heading
and insert the following:

Veterans Health Administration

medical care

For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for
furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient
care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities
not under the jurisdiction of the department; administrative
expenses in support of planning, design, project management,
real property acquisition and disposition, construction and
renovation of any facility under the jurisdiction or for the
use of the department; oversight, engineering and
architectural activities not charged to project cost;
repairing, altering, improving or providing facilities in the
several hospitals and homes under the jurisdiction of the
department, not otherwise provided for, either by contract or
by the hire of temporary employees and purchase of materials;
uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections
5901-5902 of title 5, United States Code; aid to State homes
as authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United States
Code; administrative and legal expenses of the department for
collecting and recovering amounts owed the department as
authorized under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code,
and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651 et
seq.), $27,068,220,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That
of the funds made available under this heading, not to exceed
$900,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2005.

medical care collections fund

(including transfer of funds)

Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year in the
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund
under section 1729A of title 38, United States Code, may be
transferred to ``Medical care'', to remain available until
expended.

medical and prosthetic research

(including transfer of funds)

medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

For necessary expenses in the administration of the
medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,
supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;
administrative expenses in support of capital policy
activities, $79,000,000, of which $3,000,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2005, plus reimbursements:
Provided, That technical and consulting services offered by
the Facilities Management Field Support Service, including
project management and real property administration
(including leases, site acquisition and disposal activities
directly supporting projects), shall be provided to
Department of Veterans Affairs components only on a
reimbursable basis, and such amounts will remain available
until September 30, 2004.
In section 116(a), strike ``under `Medical services for
priority 7-8 veterans' and'' and insert ``under `Medical
care' and''.
In section 117, strike ``Medical Services'' both places it
appears and insert ``Medical care''.
In section 118, strike ``transferred to'' and all that
follows through ``for the'' and insert ``transferred to
`Medical care' for the''.
Strike section 119.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has reserved a
point of order against the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, despite significant and sustained efforts by Secretary
Principi and the VA to boost effectiveness and efficiencies in the VA
health care delivery; despite enhanced DOD-VA sharing of resources,
individual facilities, administration, and pharmaceuticals; despite
improved collections from individual veterans' insurance companies, and
as a matter of fact my committee passed legislation that will boost
that even further, and collections are up 70 percent since fiscal year
2001; despite an ongoing crackdown of waste, fraud, and abuse by the
VA, and I point out that PL 107-103, one of my bills, goes after
fugitive felons and we expect to glean about $209 million per year by
recapturing those dollars; despite all of this and increases in the VA
health care funding over the past few years, there remains what
President Bush's 15-member task force calls a serious mismatch between
need and resources.
After 2 years of vigorous investigation and analysis, President
Bush's task force, and I would invite every Member to read the Bush
task force report, it was co-chaired by Dr. Gail Wilensky and John Paul
Hammersmith, the former ranking member of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, and before then by Congressman Solomon, who has regrettably
passed away, but was an outstanding man and lawmaker, and he was co-
chair before passing away. This task force found, and I quote, ``that
funding provided through the authorization in the appropriations
process for VA health care

[[Page H7685]]

delivery has not kept pace with demand.''
There are reasons for it, of course. Since 1996, we have seen some
600 new outpatient clinics created. So there are feeder points. Our men
and women, either in their wheelchairs or by their feet, are walking
into VA health care facilities and getting the kind of care they need;
we have seen a 70 percent increase in unique users, new patients since
1996.
The Bush task force pointed out, and I think it needs to be
underscored, that there is a significant core underfunding. And you
have to read this report because it talks about doing everything
humanly possible, realizing every synergy, every efficiency; but when
all is said and done, there is still this significant shortfall that
needs to be breached by appropriated dollars.
And, of course, one of the outcomes of not having sufficient money is
that many of our veterans wait unconscionably long periods in order to
get the care they need. The task force found a snapshot in January:
236,000 veterans waiting 6 months or longer to get a first visit or a
follow-up visit to their doctor.
An individual can get awfully sick and awfully diseased waiting that
long to get health care. And I would respectfully submit that our
veterans get sicker and more diseased by that inattention. We can close
that gap by providing the proper amount of money.
Let me just say to my colleagues, as well, that last night I went to
the Committee on Rules, joined by my good friend, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health;
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Rodriguez), the two ranking members of the full committee and the
Subcommittee on Health, and asked that this amendment be made in order
to add back $1.8 billion.
What are we talking about? That is the number that was in the House-
and Senate-passed congressional budget resolution, $27 billion for
medical care, so that we meet the needs of our veterans for fiscal year
2004. Sadly, we were turned down.
What is the predictable outcome? I would respectfully submit it will
be an awful outcome if we do not provide these resources. The VA has
given us an indication, a blueprint, if you will, of 1.2 million
veterans being disenrolled. 1.2 million, every State of the Union, men
and women currently enrolled will no longer be enrolled. Five thousand
nursing home beds for the spinal cord injury patients and others who
have very highly skilled needs will be idled, will be done away with if
we do not add back this $1.8 billion.
This is a very significant need, I would say to my colleagues,
especially at a time when we are at war in Iraq. The war is over, but
we have deployments and people are still getting injured and even
killed. We need, in a bipartisan way, to step up to the plate and
provide this necessary money.
And I would say to my colleagues with regret and with respect for the
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, that I will be
voting ``no'' on final passage of this bill, and, hopefully, we will go
back to committee, get this funding problem solved there and do this
right.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud my colleague for his
statement. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the
priorities of this country when we have men and women who have put
their lives on the line, who in Vermont and all over this country are
on waiting lists, people who served this country and who are thrown off
of VA health care.
When we talk about giving huge tax breaks to people who do not need
it and then say that we do not have $1.8 billion for our veterans, that
is absolutely outrageous. And I want to commend my friend for his
efforts.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to claim time in opposition?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, but I rise in support of the amendment.
(Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
The amendment would add $1.8 billion in additional funding to VA
medical care. It is demonstrably true that veterans' medical care is in
need of additional funding. More than 235,000 veterans are currently
waiting six months or more that for initial appointments. Veterans in
certain areas of the country have reported waiting two years to see a
doctor. The VA has now reached capacity at many health-care facilities
and has closed enrollment to new patients at many hospitals and
clinics. The VA has even taken the step of placing a moratorium on all
marketing and outreach efforts.
These problems are all symptoms of a larger illness--the VA
consistently is not provided enough funds to provide all the benefits
that are authorized for all veterans--not even in the area of medical
care.
The Chairman without a doubt did the best he could by veterans in
this bill. However, the fiscal year 2004 Budget Resolution did not
allow the VA-HUD Subcommittee to have an allocation that would permit
the promises the Republican leadership made to be kept. I know that
this amendment will be stricken on a point of order, but I was to
express my support of it because we need to do more for veterans
medical care.
The gentleman's amendment rightly points out the need for more
funding for veterans medical care and is providing an invaluable
service by allowing the House to debate the consequences of
irresponsible budget agreements and tax cuts to millionaires.
Consequences such as not being able to adequately fund promised
services to the most deserving among us--our Nation's veterans.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2004 on July 22 of
this year. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess
of the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not
permitted under section 302(f) of this act.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget
Act by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that an amendment
providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would
cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey would increase
the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such,
the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Fattah:
In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT--Public and Indian Housing--revitalization of
severely distressed public housing (hope vi)'', after the
second dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by
$4,500,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the HOPE VI program, which received a very significant
allocation last year in this bill, has only a $50 million allocation.
Part of the rationale for not aggressively supporting what is the most
successful neighborhood revitalization program and the largest in our
country is that there is in the pipeline some projects that have not
moved as quickly as we might want them to.
I met with the officials at HUD, and my staff has interacted with any
number of people since we have become aware of this problem, and I am
convinced that part of the problem, which was identified by the GAO in
a study done, is that HUD has backed away from and withdrawn services
and support, including the use of expediters to move these projects
through the pipeline.

[[Page H7686]]

So I have offered an amendment to substantially increase technical
assistance from $500,000 to $5 million to help move these projects
through the pipeline. Hopefully, as we go between now and conference,
because a lot of Members are very interested in HOPE VI on a bipartisan
basis, we would like to see this subcommittee find a way, and I know
that the chairman and my ranking member would work with us on this, to
try to see how we could have a greater commitment to seeing this
program move forward. It is also up for reauthorization.
But I think at a minimum, at least at this moment, the one thing that
the House should do is to substantially increase technical assistance
and say to HUD that we want the communities around this country that
receive HOPE VI grants to have the type of expertise that they need to
be able to make those projects go and to go as quickly as possible so
that we never again have any rationale offered that projects previously
funded that are desperately needed are not moving as quickly as some
might want them to.
I have talked both with the majority and the minority, Mr. Chairman,
and I believe this amendment might find acceptance.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment, we think it
helps the bill, and we are prepared to accept it.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
For every reason I can think of, Mr. Chairman, this is an important
thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I also have an amendment at the desk which I had
understood was going to be handled at the same time as the Fattah
amendment.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce that under the order of the
House, the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois was not made in
order separately from this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I will then discuss my amendment
at the same time as the Fattah amendment, though it is different from
the Fattah amendment.
My amendment dealt with the fact that section 8 is underfunded and
HOPE VI housing is underfunded in this appropriation. The bill funds
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The single largest
low-income housing program at HUD is the section 8 housing choice
voucher program.
The voucher program enables low-income families with children, the
elderly and the disabled to rent apartments in the private market. It
makes up the difference between what low-income people can afford to
pay for housing and what private rents are, and is a critical source of
support for more than 2 million families. Without vouchers, many of
these families would be stuck in overcrowded and unsafe housing, or
even worse, homeless.
If the shortcomings of this bill are not addressed, 85,000 families
will not have the funding for their vouchers renewed. These families
need affordable housing assistance. The current funding in H.R. 2861
does not address nor take into consideration inflation and the high
cost of living, unemployment, and the failure of corporations and small
businesses.
Another housing program which is underfunded is HOPE VI. The purpose
of the HOPE VI program is to revitalize severely distressed public
housing developments and transform them into safe, livable
environments. A required element of the program is the provision of the
effective, targeted self-sufficiency initiatives so that public housing
can regain its role as housing for low-income families who are
determined to improve their status.
HOPE VI funds are used to provide three types of grants: planning,
implementation, and demolition. Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of
public housing in Chicago is in my district and, of course, we need
public housing assistance. Without HOPE VI, many of the people will
lose hope and lose what they have had.
My amendment would have added $300 million to HOPE VI to replace some
of the $500 million that is being cut. But since most of the money has
already been given back to the wealthy in the form of huge tax cuts, I
am afraid that very little is left for HOPE VI for the poor, for
veterans health care, for the needy, for the disadvantaged, and for the
3 million people who have lost their jobs.
Since the money is gone, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me in conclusion
say that I share the sympathies that have been articulated by the
gentleman from Illinois. I do, however, want to say that I think this
technical assistance addition is important, and I want to thank the
majority and the ranking member.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and in
support of the HOPE VI program.
Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed Congress would all but eliminate funding for
this highly successful program.
While the $50 million for HOPE VI contained in this bill is $50
million more than the President requested for this program, this is
still a cut of $524 million from 2003, a reduction of 90 percent, and
will gut a program that brings hope and opportunity to so many.
In Stamford, Connecticut, a HOPE VI grant transformed a dim, crime-
ridden, and dilapidated housing project into a beautiful place to live
and raise your children. As a result of this federal assistance,
Southwood Square is now a safe place for children to play, its
residents receive job training on site, and working parents have access
to a child care facility. Just as importantly, residents are involved
in their community.
I wish Members could see the transformation that has taken place
there. If they did, I doubt they would be cutting this program.
The most beautiful part of HOPE VI the way a grant from the federal
government produces a ripple effect in the neighborhood. The
transformation that occurs in HOPE VI communities is funded with a
small investment in the form of a federal grant, but primarily is
funded with local and private money.
The lesson there is that when the federal government demonstrates its
interest in improving the housing needs of low-income families, the
community responds in a big way.
The question that begs to be asked is: Why would such a successful
program be cut so drastically?
I recognize the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle, but this is
not time to weaken our commitment to HOPE VI. I urge passage of this
amendment.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1445

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
The agreement was agreed to.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Earlier on the amendment I called up
regarding the $1.8 billion add-back, there were two amendments. I asked
that they be considered en bloc. It was objected to by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) so they stayed separate, but we were
allocated only 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for those additional 5
minutes to hear from a few Members who were precluded from speaking.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, further on my parliamentary
inquiry, it is my understanding, especially after a consultation with
the Chair, that the time was improperly accorded us. It was not a
matter of seeking unanimous consent of any kind. We asked that they not
be en bloc, so if they were not en bloc, I do call up the other
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentlemans' amendments
were considered en bloc by unanimous consent.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. And only 5 minutes was allocated?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct for the proponent and an opponent under
the order of the House, but the those amendments have been disposed of.
Without unanimous consent on the

[[Page H7687]]

pending amendment, there is no additional debate time available.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Smith of new jersey

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

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey:
Strike section 114.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 114 of the bill to
remove a provision that would bar the VA from using funds to implement
provisions of Public Law 107-287, the Department of Veterans Affairs
Emergency Preparedness Act. This vital veterans legislation would
create new research centers to help protect future veterans and current
ones from the effects of weapons of mass destruction.
For the benefit of my colleagues who are not familiar with this law,
the VA Emergency Preparedness Act was designed to give the VA health
care system better tools and information to prepare for the possibility
of injuries and illnesses to servicemembers caused by weapons of mass
destruction.
Dr. Susan Mather, the Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards
Officer, is ready to move forward to let these kinds of programs go
forward so the research will be done, so if the unthinkable happens to
our men and women in uniform with regards to biological, radiological
or chemical, that we will have a more adequate response than we do
right now.
Let me point out that the VA excels in establishing Centers of
Excellence. It does it on a myriad of fronts, including for combat and
war-related injuries that are suffered on the battlefield. Two recent
centers were established for that purpose.
The VA is ready to go, and Dr. Mather made the point to the Under
Secretary of Health that the VA health care system is ``more likely
than any large, small, private or public health care system to be
required to identify and respond to threats of chemical and biological
or other threats to public health or safety.'' Thus, the Medical
Emergency Preparedness program will facilitate the best medical care
and services to veterans.
The VA is ready to go. This provision in the bill that precludes
that, I think, is unfortunate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds another bureaucratic arm to the
Veterans Administration by creating a new assistant secretary. This
function, the function of emergency preparedness, is already under the
Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning. Emergency activities are
well planned, managed and executed under the current arrangement.
Another part of this amendment takes money away from regular medical
care. We just heard some debate about the cost of medical care and the
need for additional funds for medical care. This would take money out
of medical care to create these new crisis centers.
I believe the money should be prioritized to treating sick veterans.
That is the mission of the Veterans Health Administration, and the
focus should remain there.
Emergency response and research centers and activities are already
funded under the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense and
Health and Human Services, where they rightly belong. I would urge a
strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Health.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The
amendment makes sense. These types of emergency preparedness activities
have historically taken place within the VA. They should continue to
take place within the VA, especially at a time when the United States
of America is threatened by chemical, biological and possibly even
dirty nuclear weapons; especially when our veterans overseas, those in
Iraq in particular, have the potential of being exposed to these types
of weapons.
We cannot afford to let some bureaucratic arguments get in the way of
implementing this legislation. It is important legislation. We cannot
afford to get bureaucratic rules in the way of restoring $1.8 billion
to this bill, so we can properly fund veterans' health care.
I was told earlier this afternoon by a colleague that certain
categories of veterans are fully funded. Yes, they are, but that does
not meet the obligations and requirements of this body to fund all
veterans.
In 1996, when we in this Chamber passed unanimously H.R. 3118, no
``no'' votes, we opened the Veterans Health Administration to all
veterans. All veterans, to all veterans. We have not kept that promise.
In April of this year, when we passed a budget resolution which
adequately funded health care to all veterans, to all veterans, we have
walked away from that promise as well.
I do not blame the chairman of the subcommittee or the ranking
member; they have done the best they can with the allocation they have.
They have done a brilliant job with the allocation they have. But the
allocation they have is inadequate for us to meet the promise to our
veterans.
It is interesting to note that we have money in this bill for
cemeteries because if we deny our veterans the health care they deserve
and earned, and we have promised to them, we are going to need those
cemeteries.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, I see and hear firsthand the scars of battle borne by our
veterans during the carnage of war. Veterans do receive affordable,
quality health care. However, in expanding the eligibility requirement
for health care in 1996, we now have veterans waiting months for an
appointment because we are not keeping up with the funding demands.
We are obligated to honor the promise this Chamber made to fund
veterans' medical care at the March budget leave. As the son of a
retired two-star general, I was raised to believe that a man's word is
his bond. Those who vote in favor of this bill, whether Republican or
Democrat, vote to underfund the needs of those who shed their blood so
we can breathe free.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, certainly coming from
Florida I have a very large veterans population. I have the second
largest veterans population in this Congress.
When I went back home and told them about the amount of funding that
was in the budget that we passed, I can tell Members they were
delighted. It was not enough even then, but it sure made a big
difference.
Today, the bill that we will be voting on will be cutting $1.8
billion from the veterans' health care appropriation. That is wrong. We
are breaking a promise that we made when we went home and told them
about the funding that was in the budget. I think veterans deserve
better. They have defended our country.
Tomorrow, I am going to be presenting medals to Korean War veterans,
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Korean War. Can we give them a
medal and turn our backs on what they may have in health care needs?
We also have men and women coming home from Iraq. What kind of health
care are they going to have?
I know how hard the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New

[[Page H7688]]

York (Mr. Walsh), worked on this and how hard the members of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on the Budget worked
on this, because I serve on both. We took some tough votes because we
were told there would be additional funding in the final appropriations
bill that was passed.
I cannot vote for this bill, and I think that there are many in this
Chamber who are really, as we used to say back in New York, having
agita over this vote. This is not a vote that I can cast affirmatively.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we know it is a very
difficult budget year and lots of decisions have to be made. I have
61,000 retired veterans and military retirees, combined, that live in
the Third District of North Carolina, the home of Camp Lejeune, Cherry
Point, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base. And like each and every one
of my colleagues, I know we all care about our vets, but let me say
that sometimes, for all of us who serve, you get a little bit
wondering, what are our priorities? And with all of the
responsibilities we have, should those vets be number one for this
country?
I believe those of us who had the privilege to serve--and no, I do
not have a military background, but Members do not need a military
background to appreciate those who put the uniform on for this country.
Mr. Chairman, I think about those young kids at Walter Reed and those
young kids at Bethesda who lost a limb, many are paralyzed, and in the
short term they will be taken care of, but how about 3 and 4 and 5
years down the road? We are losing beds and losing care. America is too
great to let this happen.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, that many of my vets ask me, we
find this money for foreign aid, we find $15 billion for Africa, and
they want to help the AIDS victims in Africa, but they agree and I
agree, they should come first. Then if we have extra money, let us help
the other people; but for God's sake, let us not forget our vets. We
made a promise a few months ago that it would be $1.8 billion.
I know the chairman and the ranking member are two of the finest men
here in the House, and this is not their doing or their fault, but let
us reestablish our priorities and let us take care of those who are
willing to give their lives for us.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the right
to close.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
This amendment that has been made in order is not the amendment to
add back $1.8 billion, and I say that with great sadness on behalf of
our veterans.
What this amendment would do is lift a prohibition in the underlying
bill that would prevent the VA from establishing already authorized
medical preparedness centers, Centers of Excellence, to work the issue
on weapons of mass destruction.

{time} 1500

As I said earlier, the VA is ready to go. We already have their time
line. It is in print. They are ready to go. They want to do this. I
would say to my colleagues that if we are saying we do not have the $5
million approximate in start-up costs, let us grow this budget. That is
what we have been saying in this entire debate. I hope my colleagues
will vote for this. I would again remind my colleagues that the VA
already operates dozens of specialized research centers, the center for
limb loss, the center for spinal cord injury, the center for brain
rehab, the center for wheelchair and related technology; in May of
2001, two new centers to study war-related illnesses. We are not
breaking new ground here; we are moving in a direction that heretofore
has not been addressed and that is weapons of mass destruction. I would
hope my colleagues would vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs and a combat veteran.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs for his leadership. There are a lot of
different individuals here on many different committees that after
September 11 did an assessment. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith), the chairman, also did his assessment. At the same time so were
other committees. The real question right now is over the issue on
redundancy. I want to applaud the chairman for having his bill passed
and it is authorized.
The real question now is on the funding and the timeliness of that
funding. I recognize the present objection of the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations. With regard to some of the comments from
my other colleagues with regard to whether the funding has been
underfunded or not and we have been citing back to when we did
eligibility reform here on the House floor, I want everybody to note
this, that during that time period, the Congressional Budget Office and
GAO provided testimony to the House and the Senate. They said, if you
change eligibility from the core competencies of the VA and let non-
service-connected disabled veterans be treated the same in line with
combat- or peace-disabled veterans, you will open up the system and you
will have a tremendous cost impact.
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs staff and members on the House and
the Senate did not agree with what the recommendations were nor
testimony of CBO and OMB. As a matter of fact, the veterans service
community and organizations, some in particular mocked CBO and OMB for
their testimony. Their testimony was correct. We were wrong.
So what we are doing today is we are trying to now catch up. Members
may ask, what do you mean catch up? In the last 5 years in which the
gentleman from New York has chaired the subcommittee, we have increased
the health budget in the VA 50 percent. Members might say, my gosh, 50
percent, why? Because the category 7's and 8's are rushing into the
system. Today we have a system called a no-shame system. A no-shame
system. There are things in our society, if you are in a food line and
you have already eaten and there are people that have not eaten, do you
get in line and cut before them? No, that is shameful. What happens
today is that you have individuals who are non-service-connected
disabled veterans who are in line before combat-disabled veterans. I
think that is shameful. Others can disagree with that, but I think that
is. Today this present theme has become that every veteran is a veteran
is a veteran. That is the present theme, because we do not want to look
back and see what the mistakes were that we made. No one in this House
wants to accept the responsibility for having gotten it wrong: Oh,
please, Steve, don't tell us the mistakes that we made. Just fund it.
Just throw more money at it.
Folks, we are creating a problem. If we do not accept some
responsibility here, I am fearful of what is happening to the VA. We
need to restore the core competencies of the VA in those categories 1
through 6. I want to applaud the chairman for his work along with the
ranking member. It is quality work.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hall

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

Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Hall:

[[Page H7689]]

In title III, in the item relating to ``National
Aeronautics and Space Administration; space flight
capabilities'', insert ``of which $15,000,000 of amounts for
the Space Shuttle Life Extension Program shall be for the
development and independent assessment of concepts to
increase Space Shuttle crew survivability for crew sizes of 4
to 7 astronauts by at least a factor of 20 relative to the
demonstrated crew survival rate of the Space Shuttle to date,
and'' after ``September 30, 2005,''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Walsh and Ranking
Member Mollohan. I am offering an amendment to the NASA portion of the
bill. That issue is the safety of the astronauts who fly the Space
Shuttle.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today would start NASA
down the path to developing a new crew escape system for the entire
Space Shuttle crew, not just the pilot and the copilot. My amendment is
focusing on increasing the safety of the Space Shuttle astronauts
through the development of concepts for crew escape in the event of an
accident. It is that simple.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to the NASA portion of the
bill. It concerns an issue that I feel as strongly about as anything I
have fought during my time in Congress. That issue is the safety of the
astronauts who fly the space shuttle.
These brave young men and women risk their lives to advance our
knowledge and to help this Nation explore space. They know that space
travel involves risk. However, I'm not sure that the rest of us fully
comprehend how risky it can be until we are confronted with a tragedy
like last February's loss the space shuttle Columbia and its crew. Yet
the fact that space travel involves risk doesn't mean that we shouldn't
be taking all prudent measures possible to reduce that risk--which
brings me to the objective of my amendment.
The sad reality is that 17 years after the space shuttle Challenger
accident, the loss of a space shuttle almost inevitably means the loss
of its crew. I don't think that is right, and I don't think it has to
be that way. And I'm not alone in that belief. For years, the
independent Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) and others have
argued that NASA needs to pay more attention to improving space shuttle
crew survivability in the event of an accident. For example, in its
March 2002 report to the NASA Administrator, the ASAP expressed its
concern that: ``there is no in-flight crew escape system for the [Space
Shuttle] Orbiter other than for abort below 20,000 feet during a
controlled glide'', and it strongly recommended that NASA: ``complete
the ongoing studies of crew escape design options and implement and
improved system as soon as possible.''
Moreover, in their meeting with the NASA Administrator earlier this
year, ASAP members were vocal in their belief that NASA needed to give
serious attention to the development and installation of a space
shuttle crew escape system.
I agree with the ASAP members. I think that if we are going to fly
the shuttle for an extended period--which I believe we are--then NASA
needs to develop and install a crew escape system on the remaining
Orbiters in the space shuttle fleet as soon as practicable. And we need
to size it so that we are able to fly enough astronauts to the
International Space Station (ISS) annually to allow a permanent ISS
crew of seven.
The amendment that I am offering today would start NASA down the path
to developing a crew escape system for the entire space shuttle crew--
not just the pilot and co-pilot.
My amendment would use $15 million from the as yet unallocated funds
in the fiscal year 2004 Space Shuttle Life Extension Program ``Future
Projects'' account to solicit the best concepts from the aerospace
industry and elsewhere for significantly improving shuttle crew
survivability. Those concepts, including estimates of their costs and
impacts on shuttle performance, would be independently so that Congress
and NASA will know what the best options care. We can then make an
informed decision on what to do next. I would hope that the
solicitation and independent assessment could be completed
expeditiously, certainly in less than a year.
Now I know that some at NASA would agree that it can't be done at a
reasonable cost or without a big negative impact on shuttle
performance. My reply is that I don't believe that the combined talents
of the aerospace industry and NASA aren't capable of rising to the
challenge of developing a viable space shuttle crew escape system and
dramatically improving shuttle crew survivability. I may be wrong, but
I don't think so.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a modest first step toward achieving my
goal of significantly improving the odds for our brave astronauts when
they fly the space shuttle. It is only one step. I intend to keep
pressing for the development of a capable space shuttle crew escape
system if the nation decides to continue to flying the shuttle.
While my amendment may be only a first step, I believe it is an
important role. I hope Members will join me in support of this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Stearns:
In title I, in the item relating to ``Veterans Health
Administration--medical and prosthetic research'', after the
aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased
by $5,000,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``Corporation for
National and Community Service--national and community
service programs operating expenses'', after the first
(aggregate) and fourth (AmeriCorps grants) dollar amounts,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $12,217,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a simple amendment, and I will not take long. It transfers 5
percent of the fiscal year 2004 funding from the Corporation for
National and Community Service's AmeriCorps grants to the Veterans
Health Administration, Medical and Prosthetic Research.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I would summarize my amendment basically as
one of priorities. It is interesting on July 27 now, we are going to
celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Korean War armistice. Perhaps
this is a perfect time for all of my colleagues to think about the
priorities relative to this anniversary of the Korean War.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has a history of producing
beneficial research in medicine and prosthetics, the latter of which
will be sadly in demand as amputated veterans return from Iraq. Arguing
for the transfer of these funds is based upon, I think, the
accomplishments of the VA research department. Perhaps many Members do
not realize it has produced three Nobel Prize winners, developed the
cardiac pacemaker, conducted the first successful drug treatments for
high blood pressure and schizophrenia, is undergoing trials of a
smallpox treatment in mice, and developed the technology that recently
enabled paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve to regain the ability to
breathe on his own temporarily. The money is going to go to this
research. They have a history, Mr. Chairman, of success. The long-term
consequences of helping these people is immense. But from our reading
of this bill, their increase in this area is only 2.7 percent. So I
thought, well, that is pretty low, why do we not transfer some money
over there?
I might point out that when we are talking about volunteer
organizations or people that volunteer, I would like to really tout an
organized group of committed volunteer military veterans in my hometown
of Ocala, Florida. They do not get paid, Mr. Chairman. It is called
Vets Helping Vets. Vets Helping Vets lend assistance to their veteran
brothers and sisters and volunteer for numerous activities, including
helping the homeless. The program is administered by Hank Whittier from
my hometown, Ocala, Florida. He has done a great job. I think it is a
pilot program that could be done throughout this country.
Let us observe the 50th anniversary of the Korean War by reexamining
our priorities, our policy. A vote for my amendment is in support of
promising

[[Page H7690]]

beneficial medical and prosthetic research for deserving veterans.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing
his amendment. One thing that we often must recognize with regard to
the recruiting pool for the United States military, AmeriCorps competes
with our recruiting pool for an all-volunteer force. It makes it very
difficult and very expensive for DOD to go out there and recruit those
soldiers.
I have a question for the author of the bill. When President Clinton
created the AmeriCorps, he was touting volunteerism. It is my
understanding that at AmeriCorps, they do not call them volunteers
anymore. Do you know whether that is true or not?
Mr. STEARNS. I do not know. I think they are using the term paid
volunteers. I think when you look at it, compared to those who have
already served their country, maybe even the word ``paid volunteers''
is an area that we might talk further about. I think the point of my
amendment is not to discredit any one government agency but just to set
priorities here and say that the amount of research increase in dollars
in the VA is very small. And so I am just in a very small way asking my
colleagues to consider this amendment and moving it forward.
Mr. BUYER. I would just urge my colleagues to support the gentleman
from Florida's amendment. If we can move some quality dollars here and
prioritization into veterans health care, I think his amendment is in
the right intent. I support it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I am also in opposition and am in the
opposite party. Who has control?
The CHAIRMAN. The Member managing the bill and a member of the
committee has the prior right to recognition to control debate time in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in reluctant opposition to my good friend and colleague and
classmate, the gentleman from Florida's amendment. This is a small
amount of money, but I think it would be significant either for
AmeriCorps or for VA research. There are a lot of really tough choices
in this bill. The gentleman from Florida has created for us another.
But I would urge that we resist the temptation to move this money from
AmeriCorps into veterans. We are talking about a program in AmeriCorps
that has had its problems; but I think it is pretty clear, in the
discussion that we had in committee and on the floor of the House
regarding the supplemental, that there is broad support for AmeriCorps.
These are young people who are idealistic, altruistic, energetic. They
want to serve their country, too. I think we owe that to them. I think
it is something the government should be involved with, in supporting
that activity.
The discussion has been somewhat about the fact that they are paid
volunteers. What they are paid is minimum wage. They often live in
communities outside of their home so they have to pay rent. They have
to pay for food. The only way that they can meet their obligations is
by getting paid. But clearly they are volunteering their time and that
year of their life to serve their country. I think that should be
continued and rewarded. The program AmeriCorps is a priority program
for this Congress. We have said that time and time again. It is a
priority for the President of the United States. He has asked us to
increase funding. We have increased funding in the 2004 request. I
would urge Members to give this some thought. We are talking about a
very difficult choice between veterans health and AmeriCorps, but this
money is needed in AmeriCorps.
I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I respect what my good colleague and classmate, the
distinguished gentleman from New York, has said. I might just read from
the committee's report itself:
``The committee is completely frustrated at the financial situation
created by the lack of financial and grant program accountability at
the corporation, even after years of providing funds specifically for
the purpose of grant management and assurances made by the corporation
during the conference that the corporation, AmeriCorps, was on the path
to reform.'' Yet the committee gave it an 11.7 percent increase. When
we look at the VA funding for research, it is 2.7 percent. I ask my
colleagues to put that in perspective and also put it in the
perspective, as the gentleman from New York said, this is a small
amount of money but this has a symbolic value to veterans, people who
need prosthetic support. To think that you are taking some of the money
that is in a program like AmeriCorps and giving it to veterans
research, I think, is saying, We're behind you.
I urge support for the Stearns amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I again urge a ``no'' vote on the
gentleman's amendment. I respectfully disagree. I urge that the House
oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1515

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns)
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mrs. Capps

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

Amendment No. 7 offered by Mrs. Capps:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency; science and technology'', after the last
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$7,300,000)''.

In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency; leaking underground storage tank trust
fund'', after the last dollar amount, insert the following:
``(increased by $7,300,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of House of today, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I understand that the majority has agreed to accept this amendment,
and I am very grateful. Briefly, I would state that the amendment would
increase Federal efforts to clean up leaking underground storage tanks
by $7.3 million. The amendment pays for this increase by transferring
the same amount from the EPA's Science and Technology account. The hope
is that we can increase our attention to the problem that MTBE
contamination is causing to drinking water across this country.
When MTBE gets into groundwater, even at very low levels, it makes
water smell and taste like turpentine. This contamination has resulted
in closing important drinking water supplies all over the country. To
be sure, owners and operators of underground tanks are responsible for
cleanup, and that is where this responsibility should lie, but the
Federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund provides additional
cleanup resources, enforces corrective action and steps in when
responsible parties cannot be found.
The LUST fund has a $2.2 billion balance. The bill before us, the
underlying bill, only appropriates $73 million of that amount to
support cleanup efforts for leaking tanks, and I think we can do better
than that.
My amendment today is only a small step toward addressing those
cleanup

[[Page H7691]]

needs. Perhaps one day we can take a giant leap. So I urge my
colleagues to support this common-sense amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to accept the amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, since no one took time in opposition, can I
ask unanimous consent to take that time in opposition?
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleagues for allowing me this time.
Because of the unanimous consent request, there was little time for
those of us who wanted to speak on behalf of the veterans of the United
States to make that argument. We simply have before us a bill that is
inadequate to the needs of our Nation's veterans. There are a lot of
reasons that have been advanced, and there are a lot of understandings
of the parameters which we have to work with, but that is the reality.
We simply have not put the money in.
And we see some of these trade-offs that have to go on, like moving
money from AmeriCorps to prosthetic research. We have to make those
kinds of decisions because we do not have enough money for research in
the budget. We do not have enough money for our veterans.
We are $2 billion under the amount that left this House when we
passed the budget resolution. And I love when my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle get up and say we should have 2 billion more,
but they voted for the rule that puts this bill on the floor and they
have not voted for any of the amendments which would put that money
back in. The Committee on Rules rejected the amendments that would give
us this additional $2 billion.
Do my colleagues know that we have 160,000 veterans who have been
waiting for more than 6 months for their first appointment at the VA
center? More than 6 months. Some of them will die before they have
their first appointment.
We have disabled veterans who have fought for our Nation who have
been waiting 2, 3 or more years to get their adjudication settled. Some
will die before they get that claim settled.
Nurses are being laid off from the VA health care system. We do not
seem to have enough money for those nurses.
We have a system where we had one member of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana, say the Priority 7s and
8s are clogging up our system. He has said that our veterans, because
they have a certain income or because they did not have a certain level
of disability, they are categorized as 7s and 8s. They are veterans,
they have protected our Nation; and we have a Member who says they clog
the system.
Let us open the system by giving us the resources that we need. Let
us open up that system. We cannot leave off veterans because they are
clogging it up. The Secretary of our VA, Secretary Principi, and his
chief Health Under Secretary, had to send a memo out to his employees,
Do not tell any veterans about their rights because we cannot handle
them. Do not tell veterans about their rights because we cannot handle
their business. That is wrong.
We should give the Secretary the amount of money so we can handle all
the veterans that are eligible for that and who need that care.
So I thank my colleagues for allowing me this time, but this bill
does not honor our Nation's veterans. When our folks in Iraq and Kuwait
and Korea and Liberia and Germany and wherever else they are, when they
hear that we do not give the VA health care sufficient funds, what
happens to their morale? What happens to their sense of what this
country is about? We have to respect the men and women in our Armed
Forces by giving the respect to our veterans who have fought for our
Nation.
I yield back, but I yield back hoping that we put this money back
into this budget at the end of the process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the distinguished gentlemen from New York (Mr. Boehlert),
my neighbor and colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the outstanding
work he is doing with a very difficult bill under tough fiscal
restraints. I think he has demonstrated repeatedly his recognition of
the importance of providing the resources necessary to meet so many
demands on the Treasury.
I want to enter into a colloquy to draw attention to one particular
program in this bill that is of great concern to him and to me.
Last fall, President Bush signed into law the Cybersecurity Research
and Development Act of 2002, which had passed the House by a vote of
400 to 12. Under the act, the National Science Foundation should be
spending $105 million in fiscal 2004 in activities under that act; yet
NSF requested only $35 million for cybersecurity and was not
necessarily directing that the money be spent in accordance with the
provisions of the act.
Given the importance of cybersecurity research, is it the chairman's
view that in its current plan for fiscal year 2004 NSF should fund
cybersecurity research activities under the act at a level as close to
the authorized level as possible?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, I agree. NSF needs
to make implementation of the Cybersecurity Research and Development
Act a priority.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree then that the
level must be significantly above the $35 million level?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I concur.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me
and look forward to continuing to work with him and all my colleagues
in the House for whom this is such an important subject to strengthen
our Nation's research enterprise.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his leadership in the Committee on Science.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors of
the Veterans Integrated Service Networks from conducting
outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their
respective Networks.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Kanjorski), who is a leader on this issue and has a related
freestanding bill which I am happy to have cosponsored.
The purpose of this amendment is simple. It will reverse an ill-
conceived policy at the VA to forbid outreach to veterans who may be
eligible for VA health care. This policy is unacceptable. The men and
women who have put their lives on the line for this country should be
fully informed of the benefits that their service has earned them.
Finally, let me thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking
member, who I understand have agreed to accept this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for
yielding me this time.

[[Page H7692]]

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I appreciate the
effort of the chairman and the ranking member to support this
amendment.
What it basically does is, it allows us to refuse to expend moneys
from the Veterans Affairs appropriation for the further advance of the
policy to stop the outreach program which was most recently referred to
in comment. Imagine, we have veterans out there who do not know the
benefits that they are entitled to under health care, and the Veterans
Administration determines a policy to say, Do not tell them, do not
inform them, do not let them know.
The passage of this amendment will implement into law what H.R. 813,
my original bill on this subject, would accomplish and send a message
to American soldiers and veterans that we care and that we direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to stop interfering with the outreach
program but to implement the outreach program once again.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his comments. The bottom line
is, it is not acceptable that the veterans of this country not know the
benefits to which they are entitled.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and
Vermont for the amendment, and we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman
very much and I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development; Housing Opportunities For Persons with
Aids'', after the first dollar amount insert ``(increased by
$5,000,000)''
In title III, in the item relating to ``National Science
Foundation; Research and Related Activities'', after the
first and second dollar amounts insert ``(reduced by
$5,000,000).''

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, known as HOPWA, by $5
million. It is a far cry from what is truly needed, but it represents
an important first step towards full funding.
I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for
cosponsoring the amendment, and I would like to thank the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for cosponsoring the amendment and for
demonstrating bipartisan support for this amendment and for this
program.
I have a lengthy statement, but since the distinguished chairman has
indicated he is prepared to accept the amendment, I will say nothing
further other than to thank him.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or HOPWA, progam by $5
million. This is a far cry from what is truly needed, but it represents
an important first step toward full funding.
I would like to thank Mr. Shays and Mr. Crowley for joining me on
this amendment and for demonstrating the bipartisan support for HOPWA.
Mr. Chairman, at any given time, one-third to one-half of all
Americans living with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of
losing their homes. Without assistance, they face almost certain death
on the streets.
This is where HOPWA comes in. Through a variety of services, HOPWA
helps thousands of people each year put a roof over their heads and
create a stable living environment for themselves.
But HOPWA is not just about being compassionate, it's also good
public policy. Having stable, decent housing is the key to maintaining
strict treatment regimens which have allowed thousands of people with
AIDS to resume normal, productive lives.
HOPWA is a locally controlled program that provides communities with
the flexibility to address local housing needs. It also supplies a low-
cost alternative to acute-care hospital beds, typically paid for by
Medicaid, which are often the only available shelter for people living
with AIDS. In fact, while an acute-care facility costs Medicaid, on
average more than $1,000 a day assistance under HOPWA costs just $55 to
$110 a day.
In Fiscal Year 2002 alone, HOPWA funds served over 60,000 people in
74 cities and 34 states across the nation. This is a well-run, far-
reaching and successful program.
When I meet with members of the AIDS community, there is one need
that is stressed about all others, and that is housing. Finding
affordable housing can be extremely difficult for anyone. Throw in the
added complications of living with AIDS--paying for expensive
medication, the difficulty in holding a steady job, and perhaps facing
discrimination--and it becomes nearly impossible. That's why HOPWA
fills such a critical void.
But without sufficient funding, thousands of people will continue to
be unable to access these critical services. In San Francisco alone,
over 4,700 people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA-funded housing. We
must do all we can to reduce this backlog.
The housing crisis facing people living with HIV/AIDS exacts an
enormous toll on individuals, their families, and communities across
the country. HOPWA dollars help lessen this toll. Without proper
funding for HOPWA, people with HIV and AIDS will continue to die
prematurely in hospital rooms, shelters, and on the streets of our
cities. This amendment is a small step toward what is truly necessary,
but even this modest increase will mean the difference between life and
death for thousands of people. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment, which would reduce funding for research through the National
Science Foundation, NSF, polar research and to briefly discuss the
overall NSF funding. Last year, the President signed into law my bill
to re-authorize NSF, allowing for a doubling of funds over the next
five years. Among other things, the bill expanded federally funded
basic research efforts at America's colleges and universities.
Improving science and math education in our country is important
because this is how we train new generations of scientists and
inventors. Just one example of how crucial NSF is; approximately half
of the U.S. Nobel Prize laureates in science and engineering have
received NSF research grants. Some of these Nobel laureates gained
experience through polar research.
In addition to the purely scientific value that NSF contributes to
society, the technological advancements that have resulted from
cutting-edge basic research have been the primary force behind the
economic and productivity gains of the last fifty years. I am
disappointed that the overall increase for NSF is a lessor reduction
then last year. Good research leads to the development of new and
better products and more efficient ways to produce those goods at a
competitive cost. Some examples of what basic federal R&D funding has
given us today are the silicon chip, internet, web browsers,
supercomputers resulting in more products and more efficient
production. The world is getting more competitive, and we must keep
finding ways to develop high-quality products that people want at a
competitive cost.
Under my re-authorization bill that passed last year, NSF is
authorized at nearly $6.4 billion for fiscal year 2004, $4.8 billion of
that for research. The bill that we are considering today would only
appropriate $5.6 billion for NSF, with $4.3 billion designated for
research.
I understand that given the economy and the budget situation, it is
necessary for Congress to make tough choices with funding. Still, I am
disappointed that the bill before us today would fund NSF at nearly
$800 million less than its authorization level. Due to a lack of
funding, NSF is currently forced to reject more than 30 percent of its
highest rated peer-reviewed proposals. In addition, more resources are
needed to invest in emerging fields of research like cyber security,
information technology, and nanotechnology.
Mr. Chairman, this Nadler amendment would reduce funding for NSF
polar research by $5 million dollars. In light of the significant
funding shortfalls that NSF already faces, it would be unwise to drain
any more money out of this research program.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
to increase

[[Page H7693]]

HOPWA funding. This amendment is tremendously important for thousands
of people afflicted with AIDS.
I appreciate the good work the Chairman has done on this bill, as
well as the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle. The bottom line,
Mr. Chairman, is when it comes to the HOPWA program I think we can do
better.
The National Institutes of Health estimates there are between 850,000
and 950,000 Americans living with HIV and AIDS. A majority of these
individuals will face a housing crisis at some point during their
illness as a result of increased medical expenses and lost wages.
More than 200,000 people living with HIV/AIDS are in need of housing
assistance and HOPWA is the only federal program specifically designed
to meet this need.
The HOPWA program is one of the most cost-effective ways to provide
people living with HIV/AIDS with adequate and affordable housing.
Acute care facilities under Medicaid cost more than $1,000 a day as
compared to HOPWA community housing, which averages $55 to $110 per
day.
The program keeps those living with HIV/AIDS off the streets and out
of expensive acute care facilities.
My predecessor, Stewart B. McKinney, died of AIDS-related pneumonia.
His wife, Lucie, carries on his work as chairman of the Stewart B.
McKinney Foundation. This foundation is dedicated to providing housing
to persons and families living with HIV/AIDS.
The McKinney House and other HOPWA programs approach the HIV crisis
in a truly caring, community-based and cost-effective manner. Because
90 percent of HOPWA funds are distributed to states by formula, states
and localities control how money is spent--not the federal government.
Communities are empowered to use HOPWA funds to meet their unique
housing needs, from providing short-term supportive housing for low-
income persons with HIV/AIDS, to building new community residences.
The flexibility has, in large measure, contributed to the widespread
success of the HOPWA program.
The bottom line is that money for HOPWA is money well spent. I urge
support for the HOPWA Amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Allen

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Allen:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:

Sec. 421. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
expended to apply, in a numerical estimate of the benefits of
an agency action prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866
or section 812 of the Clean Air Act, monetary values for
adult premature mortality that differ based on the age of the
adult.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and a Member opposed each will control
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) to offer an amendment which prevents the EPA from placing a
lower statistical value on the lives of older Americans than the lives
of other adults. The amendment is necessary because last year, under
pressure from the Office of Management and Budget, EPA began applying
an economic technique that assumes that the value of a life of an
elderly person is worth less than other citizens.

{time} 1530

After a public outcry, EPA Administrator Whitman announced that EPA
would stop using that technique. But OMB is still pursuing techniques
that discriminate between people based on their age.
This amendment prevents EPA from asserting that older Americans are
worth less than other adults. The effect of advocating methods that
devalue the lives of some Americans makes health regulations that save
lives appear less worthwhile.
Make no mistake, there is no dispute here over how many lives are
saved; this dispute is over whether we are going to let EPA cook the
books to make some people's lives worth less than others.
This amendment is supported by AARP and a host of different
environmental organizations. I appreciate the supports of the Chair and
ranking member. I understand the Chair of the subcommittee is willing
to accept this amendment to ensure that EPA does not shortchange
protections for senior citizens when considering proposals to protect
the public health.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have
looked at the amendment. We compared it to what EPA's position is. We
are very confident that the EPA has made it very clear that it will not
use statistical analysis that devalues the lives of older people, that
that was the right decision.
The gentleman's language is perfectly acceptable, and I have no
objection to the amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congressman
Allen's amendment to protect seniors.
This amendment bars EPA from applying the discredited ``senior death
discount'' when evaluating the benefits of pollution control. Instead,
the amendment requires EPA to place an equal value on each adult life
saved.
You may wonder why we need this amendment. After all, the right of
equal protection is enshrined in our Constitution.
Well, here's the problem. When EPA adopts a pollution control
requirement, EPA often looks at the public health benefits to decide
whether to make the requirement more or less protective. In particular,
EPA looks at the number of lives we could save by reducing pollution
that causes cancer, heart attacks, strokes and other fatal diseases.
Then EPA translates the lives saved into a dollar value. You may or
may not agree with putting dollar values on human life, but that's what
the agency does.
Traditionally, EPA has said that all lives have an equal value. But
recently, the White House Office of Management and Budget has been
pushing agencies to base the dollar value of a life on the age of the
person. Specifically, the Administration said that the life of each
person older than 70 was worth 37 percent less than the life of a
younger person.
That's just wrong.
It's so wrong that this past May EPA said it will stop. Then-
Administrator Christie Todd Whitman said: ``EPA will not, I repeat,
not, use an age-adjusted analysis in decision making.''
But OMB didn't make any promises. According to Dr. John Graham, who
oversees all of the Administration's rulemaking, the only thing wrong
with the senior death discount was a technical flaw--the 37 percent
discount wasn't the right number. OMB still insists that the value of
saving a life may depend on a person's age. And OMB is still pushing
EPA to use this technique.
This amendment says no. We're not less worried about air pollution if
it ``only'' kills our parents and grandparents. Cancer isn't less
painful when it strikes the elderly. Senior Americans have worked hard
all their lives, and they don't deserve to be abandoned now.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ban the Senior
Death Discount.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Lynch

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

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Lynch:
To insert after final bill section:

SEC. . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WAIT TIMES FOR VETERANS

An amendment expressing the sense of Congress that no
veteran should wait more than thirty days for an initial
doctor's appointment.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, and I understand
that the

[[Page H7694]]

gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) may be willing to accept the
amendment. So I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) for a clarification.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LYNCH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We do agree. It is a good amendment, it helps the bill, and this is a
worthy goal for the Veterans Administration; and we endorse the
amendment.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment targets
the long waiting periods faced by our armed service veterans. Many of
those are World War II veterans who are trying to access for the first
time in their lives the VA system itself. Many of those are trying to
access the VA pharmacies in order to get prescription drugs. We have
160,000 veterans who have been on the waiting list for over 6 months.
This is an opportunity with this amendment to address that problem.
In addition to our World War II veterans, I do want to say several
weeks ago I returned from Iraq visiting our veterans in Baghdad, armed
service people in Baghdad and Kerkook. I visited the 804th Military
Battalion in Camp Wolf over in Kuwait. We have every reason to be proud
of the men and women of our armed services and the job they are doing
in the Mideast.
I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh)
and also the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan), for their great leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop of New York:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to accept, consider, or rely on third-party
intentional dosing human studies for pesticides.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the House to pass the Bishop
amendment, which will continue the ban on the human testing of
pesticides. Human testing of pesticides is wrong on many levels. It is
morally wrong, it is ethically wrong, it is environmentally wrong, and
it is even scientifically wrong.
In the wake of World War II and the horrendous crimes committed
against humanity, many of them by doctors, American judges wrote what
is called the Nuremberg Code when those doctors went on trial. This
code prohibits non-therapeutic medical testing. Pesticide testing does
not meet that criteria. Pesticide testing is not about public safety;
it is about private interests.
Because of the stricter requirements of the unanimously passed Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996, the pesticide industry has been under
mounting pressure to reduce the risks that pesticides pose to infants
and children. The industry has adopted a strategy to evade these
requirements by testing pesticides on a small number of adult human
subjects and to thereby remove safety factors and other protective
requirements.
And unlike human testing of drugs, which has the potential to benefit
test subjects or to directly improve human health, the pesticide
industry's purpose in conducting human tests of pesticides is to weaken
otherwise applicable health protections and to increase their profits.
Intentional dosing of humans with pesticides is unethical since it is
done to advance industry interests and to weaken otherwise applicable
health protections, not to benefit test subjects or the public health.
At the end of the day, these tests are scientifically irrelevant for
several reasons. Human tests of pesticides are scientifically invalid
because they routinely test tiny numbers of healthy people, often just
eight adult males, whereas a test of thousands of people is needed to
yield statistically valid results for certain effects.
The results of these tests are non-applicable because they are
testing self-selected, healthy adult males; yet the protections we seek
are for all Americans, including vulnerable children. It is ridiculous
to somehow infer if you do not witness symptoms in a small number of
adult males, that the level of pesticide is therefore safe for a child.
When media reports first informed the American people that the
pesticide industry was conducting human testing, the resulting outrage
resulted in an EPA moratorium of the studies, as well as a panel to
study the morality of the issue. In 2000, that panel concluded if the
use of human subjects in pesticide testing can be justified, that
justification cannot be to facilitate the interests of industry or of
agriculture, but only to better safeguard the public health. That
standard has never been met by the pesticide industry.
More recently, in December of 2001, in the wake of a public outcry
after reports that the Bush administration was considering using such
human tests, EPA Administrator Whitman announced the EPA would not use
these tests to make decisions. However, the pesticide industry sued,
arguing that the EPA failed to follow the procedures required by the
Administrative Procedures Act in adopting the policy. On June 3, 2003,
a court agreed and set aside the Bush administration's temporary
moratorium, ruling that the EPA followed the wrong procedures in
adopting it.
We simply cannot allow human testing of pesticides to proceed on a
loophole. Let us be ethically right, environmentally right and
scientifically right, and pass this amendment to prohibit human testing
of pesticides.
Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in strong support of the Bishop amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is simply wrong to intentionally test pesticides on
humans. Yet as we speak here today, the pesticide industry is doing
just that.
These studies don't stand up to scientific and ethnical requirements.
In many cases, the pesticide industry conducts these studies overseas
where it can more easily avoid public scrutiny and accountability.
Often the studies are conducted without the informed consent of the
test subjects. Sometimes, the test subjects are not even told they are
being exposed to pesticides.
For example, in Scotland one company paid volunteers to drink orange
juice that contained doses of the extremely toxic insecticide
``aldicarb.''
Some of the participants in this study are now suffering ill health.
They are embittered because they say they would not have participated
had they known they were being exposed to pesticides.
For most of the last 5 years, EPA has refused to consider these kinds
of studies. Since the studies often violate the ethical standards that
apply to most research, EPA has simply refused to consider pesticide
studies conducted on humans.
However in November 2001, we learned that EPA had departed from its
previous policy and was beginning to use these unethical tests.
Congress and the public were outraged. As a result, EPA reestablished a
moratorium on using these studies.
Unfortunately, just last month, the D.C. District Court of Appeals
overturned the moratorium when the pesticide industry argued that EPA
had made procedural mistakes in issuing the moratorium.
EPA's procedural mistakes are no reason to allow industry to
intentionally expose humans to pesticides.
A number of religious groups including the Coalition on the
Environment and Jewish Life and the Washington Office of the
Presbyterian Church have written to Congress today on this issue. Let
me tell you what they say:

We believe that it is deplorable and unethical to
intentionally dosed humans with substances designed to be
toxic, with no conceivable benefit to the subject, solely for
eliminating or lessening regulatory safety margins.

Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to act to stop this unethical and
unscientific practice.
The Bishop amendment addresses this important ethical issue by
reestablishing the EPA

[[Page H7695]]

moratorium in the coming fiscal year. Specifically, the amendment
prohibits EPA from using studies which have intentionally dosed humans
with pesticides. If EPA cannot use the studies, industry will have no
incentive to conduct them.
I commend the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this
issue.
I urge all Members to support the Bishop amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency--environmental programs and management'',
after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $5,400,000) (increased by $5,400,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to restore personnel
levels at the Environmental Protection Agency's budget for compliance
monitoring and civil enforcement to the FY 2003 level. I understand the
committee's estimate of the number of positions for inspections and
civil enforcement, that the current appropriations bill would reduce
that level by about 54 positions.
This amendment would take $5.4 million from the EPA's Environmental
Programs and Management Account of nearly $2.2 billion and redirect
those funds to the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
for salaries and other expenses to increase the personnel level for
civil enforcement by 54 positions on the assumption that this amount is
sufficient to cover the salary and expense of these employees.
It is also my understanding that these additional funds would be
redirected from within the agency's entire operating budget and not
reprogrammed from other enforcement functions such as lab support or
travel inspectors.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize we have worked hard in a very difficult
funding year to meet the needs of the EPA, and I would be most hopeful
if the gentleman could accept this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas

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

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:

Sec. ____. None of the funds in this Act may be used by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide reimbursement for
beneficiary travel under section 111 of title 38, United
States Code, based upon a mileage allowance rate that is less
than the rate in effect under title 5, United States Code,
for Federal employee travel.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offer today would raise the
reimbursement rate for veterans traveling to health care facilities.
The current standard reimbursement rate for Federal employees is 36
cents per mile, while veterans are currently reimbursed at the much
lower rate of 11 cents per mile for beneficiary travel. This amendment
would require the VA Secretary to reimburse veterans at the standard
Federal rate.
In 1978, Congress enacted authority for the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs to have the discretion to adjust
reimbursement for certain veterans' travels to and from VA health care
centers. At the time, the standard rate for reimbursement was set at 11
cents per mile. Reimbursement for eligible veterans is also subject to
a $3 deductible for each one way visit, not to exceed $18 in one
calendar month.
Each year, the VA is required to review the beneficiary travel rate
and has not taken any action to increase it, despite that review. As a
result, the VA beneficiary travel rate has not been adjusted for 25
years. In comparison, travel reimbursement for Federal employees is
currently 36 cents, more than three times the rate we pay veterans.
I currently serve as the vice chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Health, and have been long an advocate for
improving veterans' access to VA health care. This is particularly true
for those of us who represent rural districts, and in my case there is
no veterans hospital in that district.
A reasonable reimbursement rate for travel is integral for our
veterans actually being able to have access to the VA health care they
are entitled to. I support an increase in the beneficiary mileage
reimbursement rate; but, unfortunately, the only way that it can be
paid for in today's proceedings is through compromising medical care.
Therefore, at the end of my remarks, I intend to withdraw this
amendment, but I would use this as an opportunity to urge not only my
colleagues, but the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to request
additional funding from Congress for a rate increase for beneficiary
mileage.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask the cooperation of my colleagues in
achieving this goal. I would ask that the Secretary work with us to
come up with the necessary funding to increase that rate.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Nadler:

In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT--Public and Indian Housing--housing certificate
fund'', after each of the first, second, and fourth dollar
amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by
$150,000,000)''.

In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT--Management and Administration--working capital
fund'', after the first dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will upset the normal order of things by
first yielding 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
offering this amendment and for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this budget is clearly inadequate for our housing
needs. The Committee on Appropriations was given too little to work
with. I would be more sympathetic to the majority on the Committee on
Appropriations if they had not all voted for the budget, which is the
reason they had too little to work with. But by the time they are
through with the tax cuts and other things, there is simply too little
left here for basic housing needs, even to keep where we now are, and
that has been too low.

[[Page H7696]]

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a document from the National
Low Income Housing Coalition, which makes clear exactly how much of a
shortfall there is.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from New York for his
amendment, which goes part of the way towards undoing the damage this
bill will do to our housing programs.

Housing Appropriations Inadequate; 85,000 Families at Risk

Tens of thousands of low income families, seniors, and
people with disabilities are at risk of losing their housing
under the VA-HUD-IA Appropriations bill passed by the House
Appropriations Committee on July 21 and set to be considered
by the full House on Friday, July 25.
The most serious problem lies in the funding of the Housing
Choice Voucher program. The Appropriations Committee
appropriated $583 million less to the program than is needed
to renew every voucher currently in use by low income
families, making it almost a certainty that at least 85,000
households will lose their housing assistance sometime in the
coming year.
The Committee appropriated $13.26 billion for the voucher
program. Although the funding represents an improvement over
the Bush Administration's request, which was $1.26 billion
short and would have jeopardized the housing of more than
180,000 families, the cut represents the first time in the
history of the voucher program that Congress or an
Administration would break the federal government's
longstanding commitment to renew all existing vouchers.
``Housing is a foundation of our communities and our
families,'' said NLIHC President Sheila Crowley. ``The
reality today is that millions of families just do not earn
enough to be able to afford even modest housing. It is
outrageous that in a time of economic downturn Congress not
only is failing to address the unmet need, but is actually
taking the unprecedented step of cutting families from the
voucher program.''
In addition, the House bill does not provide funding for
existing vouchers that are not in use at the beginning of
FY04. As a result, a further 95,000 authorized vouchers that
could potentially have been used to serve additional families
from waiting lists will be de-funded, according to the most
recent data analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities.
The cuts come while only a fraction of eligible households
receive vouchers, which typically pay the difference between
30% of the family's income and the rent on a modest rental
home. Most families seeking assistance face a several year
wait. In larger cities, waiting lists can be as long as eight
to 10 years.
``The Administration and Congress enacted reckless tax cuts
benefiting the wealthiest elites of this country, and now it
is hard-working families and seniors struggling to make ends
meet who will pay,'' Ms. Crowley added.
The Committee did rebuff the Administration by failing to
take steps to turn the voucher program into a block grant to
the states, something the Administration has been urging.
Advocates have expressed serious concern about the block
granting plan, as block grants typically decrease in value
over time and allow states to make changes to programs that
can lessen their effectiveness and original intent.
The Committee has allocated a net appropriation of $31.8
billion to HUD, not including offsets. The $31.8 billion is
an increase of $817 million from last year's budget and a $96
million increase from the President's requested budget. While
the appropriation looks as if it is a slight increase, the
amount is inadequate because housing costs have risen rapidly
in the past year, meaning that additional funding is required
to serve the same number of households.
In addition, the appropriation does not consider the
increasing number of low income people who are unable to
afford a home. There is currently a 2 million home gap in the
number of lowest income families (those in bottom income
quintile) and the number of rental homes affordable to them,
and the committee does not address this need.
In constant dollars, the amount appropriated to housing for
low income people continues to decline. HUD's FY04 budget of
$31.8 billion would be only one-third of the FY1976 HUD
budget (in the last year of the Ford Administration, in 2002
constant dollars).
Besides the voucher program, key provisions of the bill
include:
HOPE VI. The Administration targeted the HOPE VI program
for elimination in FY04. The Appropriators instead allocated
$50 million to the program, a small fraction of the $574
million it has received in recent years. The program, which
helps communities rehabilitate and demolish distressed public
housing, has received bipartisan support by many Members of
both the subcommittee and the full House. However, it is
unlikely the full House will find funding for the program
equal to current levels.
Public Housing. The public housing capital fund would
receive $2.7 billion, level funding from FY03 and $71 million
more than the President requested. The funding for capital
needs remains wholly inadequate, given the $20 billion
estimated backlog in capital needs. The public housing
operating fund, which funds operating expenses such as
utility payments and maintenance, was appropriated a total
funding level of $3.6 billion. The appropriation represents a
$250 million shortfall, although it is $26 million more than
the President's request and $23 million above the FY03
funding level.
Two of the President's much-touted initiatives were not
fully funded: The American Dream Downpayment Initiative,
which would provide downpayment assistance to first-time
homebuyers, received only $125 million of the $200 million
the President had requested. His Samaritan Initiative, which
would provide $50 million for housing and services for people
experiencing long-term homelessness, was not funded.
In addition, the Committee tempered other of the Bush
Administration's attempts to cut funding. As it has done for
the past two years, the Administration did not request any
funds at all for the Rural Housing and Economic Development
program. Appropriators reinstated funding to $25 million,
last year's level. The Brownfield Redevelopment program,
intended to redevelop contaminated sites and provide jobs to
low income people, was appropriated $25 million despite the
Administration's attempts to eliminate the program. The
subcommittee suggested in the report that HUD work
collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency to
redevelop sites.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for
section 8 housing vouchers by $150 million to help low-income families
afford safe, decent housing. To offset this increase, the amendment
cuts the working capital fund from the management and administration
accounts by an equal amount.
The need for housing assistance is staggering. As of January 1, the
New York City Housing Authority had 142,000 applicants on its waiting
list for section 8. And it gets worse. The section 8 waiting list has
been closed to new applicants since December 1994, and there is still
142,000 people waiting, just in New York City. In 1999, a HUD study
concluded there were nearly 5 million low-income families who paid more
than 50 percent of their income for rent or lived in severely
substandard housing.
In the last several years, housing prices have continued to
skyrocket, and with the stagnant economy and rising unemployment rates
the problem is probably even worse and more severe today. We must not
ignore the desperate situation facing these families any longer.
I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do
not achieve their goals. More than 2 million American families benefit
from section 8 vouchers. For these families, section 8 is a lifeline
and enables them to live in decent housing.

{time} 1545

Mr. Chairman, why are we planning to undermine the program in this
bill by not expanding it?
The fact is, as recently as a few years ago, in fiscal year 2001, we
increased the number of vouchers by 79,000. In fiscal year 2002, we
increased it by 18,000. Last year we increased it by zero. This budget
proposes to increase it by zero.
The amount of money I am proposing to put into this bill will
increase a mere 23,000 new vouchers. Waiting lists are in the millions.
We can afford the offset. We have already appropriated over $1 billion
in the last couple of years to upgrade the computer system. We are
proposing $330 million more this year. We are saying, take about half
of that, less than half of that, and provide services for people. If it
takes HUD a little longer to upgrade its computer system, they will
live with that, so 23,000 people will have decent housing.
Mr. Chairman, that is a fair trade, and that is why I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.

July 25, 2003.
To: Members of the House of Representatives.
Re funding for the Housing Choice (``Section 8'') Voucher
Program.

As members of the faith community, we are writing to
express our concern about funding for the Section 8 housing
voucher program. Our organizations serve millions of low-
income individuals and families who, despite their best
efforts, are struggling to meet their basic needs and to
achieve economic stability. To many of those we assist, the
lack of affordable housing presents a considerable obstacle,
and the Section 8 voucher program offers in turn a critical

[[Page H7697]]

form of assistance. Through our work, we are witness to the
important role that housing vouchers play in preventing
homelessness, and in helping low-income individuals and
families to make progress towards economic stability.
Congress has for many years expressed a strong commitment
to the Section 8 voucher program, consistently voting to
increase the number of vouchers authorized and to fully fund
all authorized vouchers. This commitment has been important,
as the need for housing assistance has continued to expand.
In most communities, there are long waiting lists for Section
8 vouchers, and it is estimated that only one third of
eligible households receive voucher assistance.
To our disappointment, however, Congress appears to be
retreating from this commitment. In the appropriations law
for 2003, Congress failed, for the first time in recent
memory, to include funding for incremental Section 8
vouchers. This week, the House Appropriations Committee
reported out a VA-HUD appropriations bill for 2004 that
would, by its own estimate, fund only 96 percent of
authorized Section 8 vouchers, and again includes on funding
for incremental vouchers.
Moreover, while we appreciate that the House Appropriations
Committee has made a sincere effort to improve on the
President's budget request for the voucher program, and we
recognize that estimating future voucher costs is difficult,
there is reason to believe that the Committee's estimate is
overly optimistic. Recent analyses performed independently by
the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's
estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too
low. For example, in an analysis of the most recent voucher
cost data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation
in the House bill would be sufficient to renew only 91
percent of authorized vouchers, and is approximately $580
million short of the funding that will be necessary to fully
renew vouchers leased in 2004. A shortfall of this magnitude
would have a destructive impact on thousands of vulnerable
households--85,000 households, by CBPP's estimate--the great
majority of which are working families, elderly, or disabled.
We therefore urge you to renew Congress's commitment to
fully fund the Section 8 voucher program. Specifically, we
ask that you increase the Section 8 appropriation
sufficiently to ensure that all authorized vouchers will be
funded, and to make certain that no households using vouchers
in the coming year will be denied funding.
As faith-based organizations, we are committed to
strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the
most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a
matter of charity, but of responsibility, righteousness, and
justice. We urge you to assist us in our work by renewing
Congress's commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8
voucher program.
Sincerely,
American Baptist Churches USA.
Call to Renewal.
Catholic Charities USA.
The Episcopal Church, USA.
McAuley Institute.
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office.
United Jewish Communities.
Volunteers of America.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering, with Congresswoman Velazquez, this
amendment to increase funding for Section 8 vouchers by $150 million to
help low-income families afford safe, decent housing. To offset this
increase, we propose to cut the working capital fund from the
management and administration account by the same amount.
The need for housing assistance is staggering. As of January 1, 2003,
the New York City Housing Authority had 141,837 applicants on its
Section 8 waiting list. And it gets worse. The Section 8 waiting list
has been closed to new applicants since December 1994. That is just in
New York City.
In 1999, a HUD study concluded that there were nearly 5 million low-
income families who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent
or who lived in severely substandard housing. In the last several years
housing prices have continued to skyrocket, and with the stagnant Bush
economy and rising unemployment rates the problem is probably even more
severe today. We must not ignore the desperate situation facing many
families or the severity of their needs any longer.
I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based Section 8 vouchers do
not achieve their goals. More than 2 million American families benefit
from Section 8 vouchers. For these families, Section 8 is more than a
contract or a subsidy; it is often the foundation upon which they can
build lifelong economic self-sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to
enter the private housing market and choose where they want to live,
helping them to escape from the cycle of poverty and creating better
income mixes throughout our communities. Thanks to Section 8, families
are able to afford decent, safe housing. Nothing extravagant and,
frankly, sometimes not very nice at all, but much better than the
alternative.
Research supports the benefits of Section 8 housing. Section 8
children are much less likely to be involved in violent crime, and they
are more likely to stay in school and improve their educational
performance. Section 8 families are more than twice as likely to leave
welfare, and have success moving into the workforce. Based on these and
other findings, the bipartisan, congressionally-chartered Millennial
Housing Commission strongly endorsed the voucher program in its May
2002 report, describing the program as ``flexible, cost-effective, and
successful in its mission.''

So why are we planning to undermine the program in this bill?
The bill, in its current form, does a terrible disservice to those
most in need. Unlike the previous administration which in the year 2000
requested 120,000 incremental Section 8 vouchers, the Bush
Administration would prefer to block grant the program and cut its
funding. Thankfully, not even the Republicans agreed to such a radical
proposal. However, this bill would contribute to the growing backlog of
families who can't afford decent, safe and sanitary housing.
I want to quote from a letter from religious organizations throughout
the country who write that ``Recent analyses performed independently by
the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's estimate is based on
voucher cost assumptions that are too low. . . . CBPP estimates that
the Section appropriation . . . is approximately $580 million short of
the funding that will be needed to fully renew vouchers leased in
2004.'' That means that 85,000 households will be affected.
Our amendment will allow about 23,500 more families to live in safe,
affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We can and
should do more. But today, we only ask for a very modest amount.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact hat,
and I quote: ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic
security and independence. Necessitous men are not freemen.'' FDR was
right--every family deserves a decent home.
President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable
housing to those who could not afford the rents in the private market
continued through both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush all--to some
degree--continued that commitment. And yet today, this bill does not
properly fund Section 8 housing vouchers. Families in need will suffer
under this bill if we cannot amend it.
We must house our people. Let's continue the legacy of this great
nation. Please vote yes on the Nadler-Velazquez amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would not slow down HUD's ability to
operate; it would slash their annual funding that is required to keep
their information technology systems, it would cut it about 67 percent,
two-thirds of their ability to manage their information in that
department.
The adoption of this amendment would likely bring the department's
day-to-day operations to a halt. Public housing authorities would not
get paid, grants would not be made, commercial lenders would be unable
to process FHA-insured loans.
I share the sponsor's desire to ensure that adequate funding is
available for Section 8 renewals, and I believe that the bill does just
that. Last year, we instituted major reforms for Section 8 to better
estimate actual funding requirements and to end the chronic problems of
recapture. This bill continues these reforms.
We have provided $11.6 billion for Section 8 renewals, the full
amount necessary to support the projected actual requirement based on
the latest verified cost and use data. In addition, we have included
another $568 million in Central Fund as a cushion, should actual
renewal needs be greater than projected. This means that in total, the
bill provides over $12 billion for Section 8 voucher renewals, an $810
million increase over our 2003 bill, and $205 million more than was
requested in the budget, 7 percent above the 2003 level.
Last year, there was much discussion and debate over the funding
methods that we used, if they would provide adequate funding for 2003.
Based on current spending to date, it appears that our new funding
methodology is pretty close to the target. In fact, of

[[Page H7698]]

the $381 million cushion we provided in Central Fund for 2003, only $99
million is estimated to actually be spent this year, leaving those
funds available for 2004, in addition to the $568 million we have
included in this bill.
I understand that an outside interest group has provided its own
analysis of Section 8 funding requirements, a group that I would note
fought the reforms we adopted in 2003. This analysis was not based on
HUD data; it was based on unverified information submitted by public
housing authorities. It is my understanding that HUD's experts have
repeatedly warned this group and others that this information was
neither appropriate nor reliable for accurately predicting Section 8
funding needs.
Let me assure my colleagues that this subcommittee will continue to
work closely with the experts at HUD to monitor and examine the
estimated Section 8 funding needs as we move through the process and
verified, reliable data becomes available.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York for
yielding me this time.
I rise in strong support of the Nadler-Velazquez amendment to provide
decent, affordable housing to the working poor. While I salute the work
of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from
West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) for making the best possible
bill with the awful budget constraints they were given by the
leadership of the House, the facts demonstrate that the Section 8
housing program is badly underfunded and, at this level, will lead to
the possible eviction and homelessness of 85,000 families.
Who are Section 8 families? They are the working poor who cannot
afford housing in today's high-priced markets, in my district in such
places as Queens and the Bronx. They contribute 30 percent of their
income to housing, so it is not free housing we are talking about.
Section 8 serves as a vital tool to help those families whose only
other choice is the streets.
In my district, I see a number of Section 8 houses threatened, such
as the Seward Manor in the Bronx in New York, which I represent. I am
working to save the homes of those families, but without Section 8
vouchers, this will be a losing battle.
I can also just add to this that I know there are landlords in New
York City who are refusing Section 8 vouchers as they exist right now.
We should be enhancing this program, making them more lucrative to
landlords to accept. In fact, the enhanced vouchers are threatened by
landlords of being rejected.
This is a real crisis, potential crisis in the City of New York. We
see homelessness on the streets rising on a daily basis. We should not
be contributing to that factor. These are hard-working people, working
people, not just poor people. They are working poor people. They are
people struggling each day to put food on their plates, to afford to
buy prescription drugs and, at the same time, affording themselves the
opportunity to have a roof over their heads, that are being threatened
right now with the decrease in enhancement of vouchers in Section 8:
So I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and give an
opportunity of hope to people who desperately need that in Section 8
vouchers.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, compliment
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez) for their leadership on this issue. Let me dwell
for a moment on the 185,000 families that my colleague from New York
alluded to earlier.
At a time when unemployment in this country is rising, at a time when
poverty is rising in major parts of this country, it strikes me that
this, frankly, is the kind of program that we ought to be investing
more into, and not less.
Section 8 has a bipartisan history. There was a time, Mr. Chairman,
when many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle firmly
embraced this program as an example of the public sector and the
private sector combining together.
In so many ways in this budget, particularly in the area of housing,
we are dismantling tools, we are deconstructing tools that we ought to
be putting more behind. I am deeply concerned about that. Just 3 weeks
ago in my district, we held a Section 8 event and we drew in, in
Birmingham, Alabama on a Wednesday night, 250 people to come out
because they were concerned about the changes in this program.
Now, I compliment the leadership of the subcommittee for not doing
the block-granting that the President wanted to do, and I compliment
them for putting more money behind this program than what the President
wanted to provide. But as I looked into the faces of those 250 people
who came out, it was clear to me that they need this kind of program.
They need it to be well-funded. A number of them, close to 1,000 of
them in the State of Alabama, stand to lose their funding under this
budget. That is a very cruel signal for us to send these hard-working
Americans who are not getting the child tax credit check today that
they ought to be getting, and who are facing so much economic anxiety
and insecurity right now.
This bill is flawed in so many ways, Mr. Chairman, because it makes
the wrong set of investments, it chooses the wrong set of priorities.
So many of us in this House regularly talk about extending opportunity.
This is a means of extending opportunity, because when we give people a
chance at housing, when we give people a chance to have the spark of
homeownership, this is a huge benefit to them.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first, let me note and thank the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez) for coauthoring this amendment with me. She could
not be here on the floor right now, but it is her amendment as well as
mine, and I want to express my appreciation to her in public for all
the work that she has done on this amendment.
Second, the distinguished chairman said that an outside interest
group estimated the costs of the vouchers. The fact of the matter is,
and I quote from a letter from some church groups, religious
organizations throughout the country who wrote, ``Recent analyses
performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggest the committee's estimate
is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low'' because, in
fact, they are a couple of years out of date. ``CBPP estimates that the
Section 8 appropriation is approximately $580 million short of the
funding that will be needed to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004.''
That means that about 85,000 vouchers will not be paid for, assuming
the Congressional Budget Office and the Center of Budget and Policy
Priorities are more correct than those of the Department, for which I
would rather give them the benefit of the doubt than I would the
Department.
This amendment would restore funding for 23,500. Frankly, it is
simply unacceptable in a time of rampant homelessness, in a time when
in New York City, and I use this as an example because conditions are
bad in many places, the waiting list for public housing was closed in
1994 and the waiting list is almost 200,000 since then. You cannot get
on the waiting list in the last 9 years.
People are desperate for housing. It is unacceptable to have a budget
that purports to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers by zero, and
that may very well, if in fact the CBO and the CBPP were correct in
saying that HUD estimates of costs are wrong, may very well cut it by
85,000. That is just not acceptable.
So I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. Yes, it will
present some difficulties perhaps with computerization. HUD can survive
that. But this will enable 23,500 additional households to have decent
housing, maybe 23,500 additional kids to be able to learn in school
instead of not being able to learn in school because they have no place
to do their homework

[[Page H7699]]

and no decent place to literally hang their hats.
This is a modest, minimal amendment. It is minimal decency. We should
be doing it 10 times larger, but given the constraints of the budget,
the constraints of the tax cut, this is the least we can do.
I am sorry, by the way, if it were not for the constraints of the tax
cuts and the budget that were forced on this side of the aisle by the
other side of the aisle, we would not have to take $150 million away
from this computerization program. We would not have to have that
offset. We could simply say, in decency, let us help provide more
people with decent housing.
But we must do this offset. The offset may not be the best thing, but
it is a heck of a lot better than 23,500 families not having decent
housing.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler-
Velazquez amendment to increase funding for Section 8 vouchers. This
successful program is the principal form of housing assistance for low-
income families, the elderly and the disabled.
For the last several years, I have taken to the floor with like-
minded colleagues time and time again to decry the deep and sweeping
cuts being made to the HUD budget. In FY 2001, 79,000 new vouchers were
appropriated--that was the last year of the Clinton Administration. As
soon as President Bush took office, the number of new vouchers dropped
to 18,000. In FY 2003, no new vouchers were appropriated.
During these debates we have discussed how rising housing costs are
far outstripping income growth for low-income Americans. We contrasted
the growing need for housing assistance, with the drastic cuts to HUD's
budget. And we warned that by allowing the housing crisis to take firm
root in time of economic prosperity it would grow beyond control during
an economic downturn. Well, Mr. Chairman, you reap what you sow.
Unemployment is up, the markets are down, and housing costs continue
to rise. The need for housing assistance is skyrocketing across the
nation, and homelessness is at a 10-year high. In fact, the housing
crisis is so bad in New York City that low-income families were
actually housed in jail cells.
Our cities and States have continuously called on the Federal
Government for assistance--yet never has a HUD budget so directly
exacerbated this national housing crisis. President Bush's FY 2004 HUD
budget proposal called for a mere 5,500 new vouchers.
This spring, my colleague from New York and I sent a letter to
chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, signed by 66 Members
of the House, urging funding for 79,000 new vouchers. This request was
soundly ignored. We were all well aware that the Republican tax cuts
would put us in such a budget crisis that funding for all low-income
programs would be on the chopping-block. But I never thought that we
would be standing here today voting on a budget that actually cuts
current Section 8 assistance for 85,000 families, and will likely lead
to their eviction.
The Nadler-Velazquez amendment offers some relief by providing an
additional $150 million for this account. It would protect nearly
22,000 low-income families whose housing is jeopardized by this bill.
Clearly, the entire VA-HUD appropriations bill is underfunded. And
using funding from one Federal program to offset another is less than
ideal. While Mr. Nalder and I reluctantly included this offset, we
unequivocally support increasing Section 8 funding. I urge my
colleagues to support the Nadler-Velazquez amendment--and the right of
low-income American families to safe, decent, affordable housing.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Nadler-Velazquez amendment to provide an additional $150 million for
the Housing Certificate Fund for housing vouchers.
First I want to acknowledge that Chairman Walsh and his staff
improved upon the President's request for the Housing Certificate Fund,
particularly by using a more up-to-date estimate of the average annual
cost of each housing voucher. But I am concerned that the average cost
estimate used may yet be insufficient to actually renew all currently
used vouchers.
I understand the need to base estimated costs for the housing voucher
program on financial statements that have been audited by HUD. But the
audit work takes time, such that by the time the audited data is
available, it is almost certainly out-of-date. The bill before us does
not use the most recent estimates from HUD on the number of vouchers
currently in use and the average cost of each voucher.
It it true that the most recent data, based on information provided
to HUD by State and local housing agencies in April 2003, does not come
from audited financial statements. But we should not completely ignore
what it tells us about average voucher costs, in particular.
The experts at the Center on Budget and Policy priorities have
produced a report indicating that, based on this most recent HUD data,
the bill before us is very likely $583 million short of what is needed
to fully renew all currently used vouchers. That shortfall, if borne
out next year, would result in at least 85,000 fewer families with
access to vouchers--and the number could be much higher depending on
how public housing agencies might decide to absorb the reduction in
real funding.
Most of the shortfall, according to the Center, comes from an
underestimation in the House bill of the average annual cost of each
voucher by some $300. And before anyone dismisses this estimated cost
out of hand, I want to point out that it is very close to the average
annual voucher cost estimated by the Congressional Budget Office for FY
2004.
The Nadler-Velaquez amendment is not proposing to provide the full
$583 million that the voucher program may well need during the next
fiscal year. Instead it proposes a much more modest increase in funding
that would provide a margin of safety for the many low-income families
around the country who rely on housing vouchers. At the very least, we
should provide this incremental amount of funding for the program, and
we should also be prepared to supplement funding for the program next
year as the more up-to-date can be better verified by HUD.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for voluntary separation incentive payments as
provided for in subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 5,
United States Code, unless the Administrator has first
certified to Congress that such payments would not result in
the loss of skills related to the safety of the Space Shuttle
or the International Space Station or to the conduct of
independent safety oversight in the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

{time} 1600

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee on
VA-HUD appropriations, first of all, for the excellent work they have
done. This is a tough legislative appropriations or appropriations bill
to manage with several agencies. And I do know that many of us are
still struggling to work to ensure greater assistance of veterans, but
I believe that this has been a cooperative effort and look forward to
supporting this legislation.
I offer a very simple amendment on one of the supporting agencies,
NASA. NASA is an agency that gives us great pride, but in the last 6
months we have suffered with the Columbia 7 tragedy. I serve as a
member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and have worked
over the years as a member of that committee on one question: beyond
the question of human space flight is safety, safety, safety.
What this amendment does as we begin to prepare ourselves for Admiral
Gehman's report on what happened with the Columbia 7 tragedy and the

[[Page H7700]]

loss of life of those brave young men and women, it is to understand
that NASA must change its culture and begin to promote safety as an
important issue.
I am very gratified that the chairman and ranking member of the
committee are concerned about these issues and realize that they will
be addressing them as the Gehman report is rendered. We would like to
work with you in collaboration. The Committee on Science ranking
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and the gentleman from New
York (Chairman Boehlert) have worked on this question; we would like to
work with you and be prepared to assist in whatever resource is
necessary to promote safety.
This amendment says that we should not lose the skills and the
expertise of employees that deal with safety as it relates to the
international space station and as well the Space Shuttle. We should
not lose those employees in terms of any buy-outs that might be pending
at this time. All of the expertise we can muster to save lives and
promote safe human Space Shuttle flights and safety on the
international space station should be our goal as part of this
Congress. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I appreciate
the consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I have always been a staunch supporter of NASA and its
manned and unmanned space exploration missions. However, the Columbia
disaster and the loss of seven of my neighbors from Johnson Space
Center outside of Houston has opened our eyes to some deep seeded
problems at NASA that need to be addressed. NASA needs a new culture of
safety and a renewed commitment to the well-being of their spacecraft
and crew. I am troubled by the fact that on Tuesday of this week, the
Chairman of the Science Committee pushed through legislation, urged by
the NSAS Administrator, that will give the NASA Administrator
unprecedented flexibility to reorganize the NASA workforce. The bill
was about bonuses, and buyouts, designations, and transfers. The bill
was rushed through, over protests from the minority, despite the fact
that Admiral Gehman and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, will
be giving us a detailed report next month regarding the cause of the
Columbia-7 disaster, and the technical and workforce changes necessary
to prevent further losses.
It was only after hard work and pressure from us Democrats, with
great leadership from my colleague from Texas, Ranking Member Hall, and
my colleague from Tennessee, Space Subcommittee Ranking Member Gordon,
that some common sense safety provisions were added to that workforce
bill. But again, safety seemed to be an afterthought, rather than a top
priority in NASA policy.
Two more excellent safety provisions offered by Mr. Hall were blocked
by the majority in the Science Committee, and I am concerned that due
to long delays in putting forth a NASA reauthorization bill, these
provisions might not be able to be put into place in time to prevent
loss of lives, or the loss of multi-billion dollar spacecraft, so I
hope my colleagues can support their insertion here.
My first amendment will prohibit any funds from being used for
``buyouts''--financial incentives to encourage retirement--until the
Administrator assures Congress that the loss of that employee will not
compromise the safety of future shuttle missions or the International
Space Station.
This amendment will help ensure that we do not put management
``flexibility'' before safety. I am concerned by reports that NASA may
not have given high enough priority to safety and quality assurance in
the past. We will learn more about that from the Gehman report later,
however, I understand that in some cases there is only a single safety
expert responsible for a given project subsection.
Therefore, I am worried that if we give the Administrator a
flexibility offer to encourage experienced people to retire--we could
lose critical knowledge and expertise, and compromise missions in the
future.
This amendment will not let that happen. It is a smart and
unobtrusive provision. I hope my colleagues can support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) still insist
on his point of order?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation. After hearing
the explanation, we are willing to accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Members seeking time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question will be on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Environmental
Protection Agency; hazardous substance superfund'' after the
second and fourth dollar amounts insert ``(increased by
$114,716,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``National
Aeronautics and Space Administration; science, aeronautics
and exploration'' after the second dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $114,716,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I are
at this point going to attempt to move money from the program which has
funded the Prometheus program in NASA's budget over to deal with the
shortfall in the Superfund clean-up program which is one that has not
met the amount which President Bush requested in this budget. Now, as
the bill itself is structured, there is such an increase in the program
for Prometheus that it does leave over substantial money that if it was
shifted over, that would ensure the full funding of the Superfund
program as President Bush requested it, combined with a still
substantial increase in the Prometheus program, and that is what we
will consider today.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we had to make some really tough choices in this bill.
I believe that the $1.3 billion that we provided for the Superfund
program given our allocation and the demands of the bill is the right
level. This level keeps cleanups going at a steady pace. A cut of $115
million to NASA would severely hamper the operations of NASA, and I
think it would send a terrible signal. It would seem like the Congress
is bailing out on NASA at a time when they are in a crisis, and we are
awaiting the report from the Gehman Commission.
If the gentleman wants to find money somewhere else in the bill,
well, at this point I guess it is too late to do that. But NASA is
dealing with unknown costs associated with the return to flight
following the Columbia accident. We have to await the Gehman Commission
report, and this would really send a bad signal.
It would also place in jeopardy many worthwhile space and Earth
missions which would improve the understanding of our world, basic
knowledge, which we, as humans, strive for. So I would urge Members to
support the Superfund budget at $1.3 billion to maintain critical
funding at NASA, and reject the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the co-sponsor of the amendment.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) for yielding me time. I agree and I appreciate the fact that
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has to make funding priorities
in these difficult times. However, what this amendment seeks to do is
to return funding or raise funding to what the President's request was
for this program.
I certainly support NASA in such respects, but this Project
Prometheus is still going to receive a 30 percent increase after the
money is removed for Superfund clean-up. And what the project basically
is is an effort to study 3 moons of Jupiter. Even NASA space science
chief Ed Weiler told Science Magazine in late March of this year that
``Prometheus is more vision than reality'' and the entire effort must
cost between 8 and 9 billion over the next 10 years.
Now I am not here to bash NASA or Project Prometheus, but it is an
issue

[[Page H7701]]

of priorities. Now, of the 10 sites that will not be addressed this
year because of this reduction in funding, three of them are in New
England and one of them is in Merimack, New Hampshire, and it is an
extremely dangerous area which is emitting all sorts of noxious
chemicals which need to be addressed immediately.
I hope that this Congress and this Committee on Appropriations will
seriously consider this small reallocation which will address a problem
10 different places around the country facing very significant issues
now.
Project Prometheus is a project that is going on for a long time. The
moons of Jupiter are going nowhere, but the people who live around
these Superfund sites are people that are affected and potentially
affected by this issue every single day. I urge the Congress to adopt
this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment shines the
light on the problem we have in this bill: to provide additional funds
for one account, you have to raid another account. There has to be an
offset. That is why so many of the account funding levels are very
similar this year as to last year.
In this case, the amendment seek to add funds for EPA Superfund
clean-up efforts. It is a good thing, certainly. I think that all of us
or at least a great majority of us support the Federal Government
playing an important role in providing some of the resources that
communities across this country need to ensure that former industrial
sites are not a health risk and are reclaimed and reused.
The funds permit EPA to not only provide resources for removal and
remedial actions, but also to ensure that primary responsible parties
contribute to the clean-up of the site, all very good things.
As an indication of the support for these efforts, the bill as
presented provides $1.275 billion for the hazardous substance
Superfund. This represents a small increase of $10 million from the
current year's funding. The amendment would add a further $114 million
to the account in bringing the funding level to what the administration
requested, but at what cost?
To allow for the increase the President proposed, cuts and program
elimination throughout the bill would be the cost. The gentleman has a
different offset in mind. He would look to a NASA program, Project
Prometheus. NASA is an agency that as many of you know has been
essentially flat-funded for most of the past decade. This program
started last year would develop radio isotopes, thermo-electric
generators, and nuclear propulsion for planetary exploration space
craft technology. And this is technology that if developed would make
the exploration of different planets cheaper and more reliable.
The bill provides the budget request for the program, $279 million. A
reduction of $114 million would cause a severe disruption to this
program at a time when NASA cannot afford budget cuts and should be
receiving additional resources.
The bill contains funding for $1.275 billion for Superfund
activities. That is a slight increase over last year's level. The
funding the amendment would add represents an increase of less than 10
percent. However, the cut proposed for the NASA initiative is roughly
40 percent of that program. If the bill before us had reduced funding
for Superfund, I might be in a different position, might be; but as it
stands, that account is treated as well as any in this bill. One
account should not be gutted to provide funding for another when this
bill has been as delicately balanced by the chairman as it has been.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy,
and I appreciate the leadership that the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) have
provided.
I rarely take exception to what I hear from my good friend from New
York and the good work that he does with his colleague from West
Virginia. But the fact is that we are not keeping up with our Superfund
responsibilities. We have backed away from having the Superfund
polluter paid concept to having a stream of money. We are cutting back
on sites. There are places around the country, including some that I
have seen in Upstate New York, that would benefit from this
dramatically.
I would feel different if I felt that we were somehow taking some
finely balanced program. We have been trying to get information about
Prometheus and find out why it would be crippled if it had only a 30
percent increase, which is what the gentleman's amendment would
provide. I think this is nebulous. It is a decade-long project that is
going to involve billions of dollars. Right now if we are going to
promote livable communities in our cities, in our districts, we ought
to approve this amendment, be able to provide at least another 10
sites, including one in my district. I think the American people would
be well-served. I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I want to rise as a strong supporter of the Superfund program. We
have dealt with real challenges in southern California with Superfund
clean-up. I want to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman
Walsh) for the $1.3 billion level for the Superfund that exists. And I
know that there are other needs that continue to exist out there, and I
would support efforts to find ways in which we could address those
needs. But, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I believe as we look at
the challenge of space exploration and the NASA program, it would be
extraordinarily short-sighted of us to make this kind of attack, and it
is an attack on NASA and the Prometheus program.

{time} 1615

In the last couple of weeks we have just seen the launching of the
very, very innovative and a program with great potential, a Mars
program which will have a scheduled landing for January, 5 months from
now. The Prometheus program is designed, Mr. Speaker, to enhance the
opportunity to increase the speed of travel. As we look toward ways to
increase that, I believe the Prometheus program is the one way in which
we can pursue it.
My very good friend from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), cosponsor of this
amendment, used the term ``going nowhere'' in describing this
Prometheus program, and I have to say from having spent a great deal of
time, as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), and
I have, with a number of the engineers, those who are involved in this
program, we know that if you do not take risks, you are not going to
learn anything. That was said to me by the former director of the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, Dr. Ed Stone, and I
believe that we do need to do everything that we possibly can to pursue
it.
My friend from New Hampshire loves Model A automobiles, and I know
that at the time that that brilliant new vehicle came on line, the
Model A, there were many people around who were focused simply on the
horse as a means of transportation.
It is obvious that, as we look towards our future, we have great
potential in space. We also know that the NASA program itself has been
undergoing some great challenges after the Challenger disaster and
other difficulties that they have faced in the past. That is why I urge
my colleagues to, while we support the concept of dealing with
Superfund and want to enhance that, please do not attack this very,
very important Prometheus program in so doing.
I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am struck by the number

[[Page H7702]]

of Members of the majority party who come up and concede, there is not
enough here and not enough there. That was their decision. They voted
to cut taxes on wealthy people and then voted for a budget that
constrains them. So as they complain about these constraints, remember
that this is self-flagellation in almost the literal sense.
Given the bad position they have put us in, we have to make choices.
Nothing in the gentleman's amendment would interfere with NASA's
ability to solve the problems that led to the tragedy of a few months
ago. Indeed, the opposite is the case. At this point, NASA ought to be
focused on preventing that kind of tragedy, rather than going into new
programs that would divert resources and attention; and instead, we
have the Superfund program.
The gentleman from California said, Well, you have got to take risks.
If, as a society, we decide to take risks, that is one thing. But I do
not think the people who live in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, ought to
have to take the risk of living next to a Superfund site that has been
certified by the EPA as a Superfund site; and now they tell us they
have not got enough money to continue.
The gentleman from New York says this is $10 million more, a slight
percentage increase than what we now have, but what we now have is a
recent announcement by the EPA that existing Superfund sites will get
no work. The EPA has just announced some of the hazardous sites in this
country will be left in their current situation because they have not
had enough money, and we are being told, well, you should be happy we
are continuing the situation in which existing Superfund sites will not
get the money.
I think it is important to deal with space, but not at the expense of
exposing citizens of this country today to the hazards of Superfund
sites, and that is what this bill does. It carries forward a situation
in which EPA admits it does not have enough money, and that is
intolerable.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I want to join the chairman and my colleague and friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) from the San Gabriel Valley in
strong opposition to the Markey amendment.
I appreciate the colleague's interest in increasing funding for the
Superfund program, and I share that desire, but this is most
emphatically not the way. To divert $115 million in funds away from a
critical NASA project, Prometheus, is not the way.
Project Prometheus and the exploration of the icy moons of Jupiter
has been rated as top priority by the National Academy of Sciences. JPL
has recently launched two Mars Rovers, aptly named Spirit and
Opportunity, to land on the red planet and determine whether there was
or has been water on that planet and help science unlock the geologic
mysteries of our solar system.
This work in Project Prometheus is a bold, new venture and will
revolutionize solar system exploration using nuclear power and
propulsion. Project Prometheus will enable more robust and ambitious
scientific missions by supporting more complex scientific instruments,
enabling significantly larger and faster data communication networks
and allowing a single spacecraft to visit multiple targets per mission.
Using nuclear power and propulsion systems will exponentially
increase the amount of power available to spacecraft instruments and
enable vastly greater amounts of scientific data to be returned to
home, 120 CDs worth of data compared to one or two floppy disks of
information today. It will allow much more time for scientific
observation of the moons, 180 days, opposed to only 1 to 5 hours using
conventional technology.
This project's spearheading the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission
will be the first application of these new technologies for a flight
mission. It will search for evidence of global, subsurface oceans on
Jupiter's icy moons.
This is a top priority, and I urge rejection of this effort to rob
Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The amendment which I am making is a win-win amendment. All we do in
our amendment is say to those who are fans of the Prometheus program,
and it is a program which has strong support in the Congress in our
country, that in my amendment you get a 31 percent increase in the
Prometheus budget for next year, a 31 percent increase, and the
remainder of the money goes over to Superfund and they get a 9 percent
increase in their budget.
How can anyone complain if space science is increased by 31 percent?
Here on Earth the residue of the industrial age is still leaving
neighborhood nightmares all across our country to the point where the
Bush administration has decreased Superfund cleanup by 50 percent over
the last 2 years.
All we are saying is, is not it possible for us to give a 31 percent
increase between this year and next year to Prometheus, which we will
vote for, and have a 9 percent increase for the Superfund program so we
can take care of the last Industrial Age that still torments
neighborhoods all over our country?
Win-win: Prometheus wins a 31 percent increase; Superfund gets a 9
percent increase. This is not anything other than something which
everyone should be able to embrace.
Back in history, during the Clinton administration, in the mid- to
late-1990s, there was an average of 86 Superfund sites cleaned up each
year. In the Bush EPA, it only cleans up about 40 sites in 2003 and
2004. It is slowing down at half the rate that it was used as a program
to help neighborhoods in the 1990s.
In Massachusetts, Fairhaven, Massachusetts, has now been taken off
the list. There are 10 sites, including Fairhaven, taken off the list;
sorry, we cannot help you with the residue of the last era of research.
All we are saying is, within this budget, without hurting Prometheus,
giving it a 31 percent increase, we can also ensure that we take what
the President requested, that is the number that I am building in here,
President Bush requested the number $1.39 billion for Superfund. That
is the number I am using, the number they sent to us. President Bush,
his EPA, his OMB, they gave us that number; and you can get to the
number President Bush wanted just by taking a relatively small amount
of money and leaving a 31 percent increase for Prometheus.
That is only fair to those communities across America that still have
these sites, and I ask and I implore Members to listen to President
Bush, to give that money, that $1.39 billion, over to Superfund and
still leave the 31 percent for space exploration, which all of us
believe is so important. But a balance has to be struck between our
exploration of the stars and our preservation of the Earth in a way
that is respectful of neighborhoods that were ravaged by the Industrial
Revolution. This is the balance which works for both projects.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I
have just 30 seconds to close, so I will be brief.
We have increased funding for Superfund in this budget by over $50
million. The subcommittee strongly supports environmental cleanup, but
if we adopted this gentleman's amendment, we would cut our increase in
the entire NASA budget by half.
I think it is the wrong time to send that kind of a signal, and I
urge my colleagues to reject the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) will be postponed.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
(Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)

[[Page H7703]]

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great jubilation
and excitement and also great appreciation that this legislation has
accepted my bill filed just last year and again this year, H.R. 91, to
name the veterans hospital in the city of Houston in the 18th
Congressional District after a great American hero, Dr. Michael E.
DeBakey, who played a critical role in helping to establish and develop
the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and, as well, served valiantly as a
World War II hero and as the creator and orchestrator of the MASH unit.
Now, almost 95 years old, he is a great American, and it is a great
privilege that we have the opportunity to honor him. I am grateful to
my Texas colleagues and to the ranking member and the chairman for
allowing this to occur, and I will include the bill for the Record at
this point.
Mr. Chairman. One provision in this bill that is of great importance
to me and to the 18th Congressional District of Texas, which I
represent, is language that calls for the Veterans Affairs Hospital in
Houston, Texas to be renamed the Michael DeBakey Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center. Inclusion of this provision is the culmination
of over a year of hard work and collaboration with members of the
American Legion, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of
Foreign Wars, and the Paralyzed Veterans Association; my colleagues in
the Texas Congressional Delegation; and numerous other Houstonians--all
committed to bestowing this honor upon the great Dr. Michael DeBakey.
Dr. Michael DeBakey is an internationally renowned physician, known
foremost for his pioneering work as a cardiovascular surgeon. Although
known as ``the father of modern cardiovascular surgery'' due to his
introduction of now common-place procedures as arterial bypass
operations, artificial hearts, and heart transplants, Dr. DeBakey has
also contributed greatly to other fields diverse as military medicine,
veterans affairs, and public health policy.
Born in 1908 in Lake Charles, Louisiana, Dr. Michael DeBakey received
his bachelors and medical degrees from Tulane University. After
receiving surgical training in Europe, Dr. DeBakey returned to the
United States and enlisted in the Army at the onset of World War II.
His service on the Surgeon General's staff during the War was pivotal;
studies conducted there led to the formation of mobile army surgical
hospital (MASH) units that would save countless lives in that and
subsequent wars. For his wartime contributions to the nation, Lt. Col./
Dr. DeBakey was awarded a Legion of Merit Award in 1945. Following the
war, Dr. DeBakey's expertise in the development of specialized medical
and surgical center-systems became crucial to the formation of the
Veterans Administration Medical Center System. In addition, Dr. DeBakey
was instrumental in securing congressional support for the creation of
the National Library of Medicine, where records of the nation's medical
research activities are stored for the benefit of future researchers.
Dr. DeBakey's arrival in Houston at the Baylor College of Medicine
heralded the development of Baylor and Houston's Texas Medical Center
into world-renowned centers of medical excellence. As Baylor's Chairman
of Surgery and later President, Dr. DeBakey spearheaded efforts to
associate Baylor with the TMC's network of hospitals, secured federal
funding for research, and recruited numerous highly-acclaimed faculty
and researchers to Baylor. During that time, Dr. DeBakey was also an
active and innovative clinician: introducing the Dacron artificial
arteries in 1953, the first successful coronary bypass in the early
1960s, and the first successful multi-organ transplant in 1968.
Dr. DeBakey's wisdom has been sought by virtually every U.S.
president since Harry S. Truman. He served on presidential commissions
during both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and thus provided
essential support in the passage of the landmark 1965 Medicare
legislation. Dr. DeBakey was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom
with Distinction in 1969 and the National Medal of Science by President
Ronald Reagan in 1987. He currently serves as Chancellor Emeritus of
the Baylor College of Medicine and continues to see patients, pursue
his research, serve on national advisory committees, and consult on
projects to help develop health care systems in the Middle and Far
East.
This legislation honoring the contributions of Dr. DeBakey was also
supported by a variety of organizations including: the University of
Texas Health Science Center at Houston, the Texas Medical Center, the
Harris County Medical Society, Methodist Hospital. Senators Hutchison
and Cornyn have recently introduced the Senate companion to my
legislation.
I am pleased to see this endeavor clearing this important milestone,
and passing out of the House of Representatives. I look forward with
great anticipation to a ceremony in the near future: renaming the
Veterans Affairs Hospital in Houston after Dr. Michael DeBakey; it is
an honor that is long overdue.

H.R. 91

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds as follows:
(1) Dr. Michael E. DeBakey played a critical role in
establishing and developing the Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center in Houston, Texas. He has successfully
elevated its professional staff and quality healthcare to
meet high standards of excellence and encouraged minorities
to fulfill their potential in education, and particularly in
the health professions.
(2) Dr. DeBakey's dedication to the Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Center is ongoing. He is still chairman of
the Dean's Committee of that medical center, as he has been
since the beginning of that institution.
(3) Dr. DeBakey brought both the City of Houston and the
State of Texas international recognition for the Texas
Medical Center through his pioneering of medical research,
his leadership at Baylor College of Medicine, his national
and international medical statesmanship, and his championing
of the rights and the welfare of the underprivileged.
(4) Dr. DeBakey is credited with the development of the
Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals (MASH) concepts for the
military, which led to saving thousands of lives during the
Korean and Vietnam conflicts, as well as the development of
specialized medical and surgical center systems in order to
treat returning military personnel.
(5) During World War II, Dr. DeBakey served as a colonel in
the United States Army and was assigned to the Surgical
Consultant Division in the office of the Surgeon General. His
active duty service was from 1942 to 1946. He remained on
active duty in 1946 and recruited 100 additional specialists
to care for World War II wounded military personnel in Army
specialty centers.
(6) For his service in the Armed Forces, Dr. DeBakey
received the Legion of Merit.

SEC. 2. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL
CENTER, HOUSTON, TEXAS.

(a) Name.--The Department of Veterans Affairs medical
center in Houston, Texas, shall after the date of the
enactment of this Act be known and designated as the
``Michael E. DeBakey Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center''.
(b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map,
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the
medical center referred to in subsection (a) shall be
considered to be a reference to the Michael E. DeBakey
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank and commend the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her farsightedness in
writing a bill which now will be incorporated into this measure to name
the Houston VA Medical Center after the renowned American, Dr. Michael
DeBakey.
My mentor in politics, Olin Teague, one of the greatest of all World
War II veterans, has a VA hospital named after him in Temple.

{time} 1630

I think that kind of honor meant more to him than all the awards
given to him through his lifetime. And I want to congratulate the
gentlewoman from Houston for honoring our veterans, for honoring Dr.
DeBakey by writing the legislation, which now, through this bill, will
become the law of the land. This is an honor deserved by Dr. DeBakey,
and I appreciate her for bringing this legislation to the forefront so
that it could be put in this bill.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman, and
the ranking member as well, for their gracious cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the House conferees on this bill work
to include language in the conference report that addresses concerns I
have about a Superfund site in my district, the Gloucester
Environmental Management Services, or GEMS, landfill. Specifically, I
request that report language direct the Inspector General of the EPA to
conduct an investigation into all financial transactions, including
revenue and spending, by the GEMS Trust, a collection of responsible
parties who are required to conduct the remediation of this highly
polluted landfill. I am concerned about

[[Page H7704]]

how the trust has financed its actions so far and have reason to
believe that the trust has not seriously considered all viable
remediation options.
Mr. Chairman, 38,000 of my constituents live within a 3-mile radius
of this landfill, some as close as 300 feet. We owe it to them to
choose the safest and most environmentally sound remediation method,
not simply the cheapest. The responsible parties should not get away
with a Band-Aid solution to a major environmental hazard. I seek this
Inspector General investigation because I fear that the EPA may be
endorsing a treatment method that does not sufficiently protect the
health of my community.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for the concern he has expressed for his constituents in his community.
We will work with EPA and have the Inspector General look at this site
to ensure that any remedy gives adequate consideration to the health of
the gentleman's constituents and other environmental impacts.
I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue as we move
towards the conference.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
thank the chairman and the ranking member for their cooperation.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to be heard?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moore

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Moore:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:

Sec. ____. (a) None of funds appropriated in this Act may
be expended to take any action proposed under the Capital
Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services initiative of the
Department of Veterans Affairs until--
(1) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits to Congress a
written notification of the intent to take such action; and
(2) there has elapsed--
(A) a period of 60 days beginning on the date on which such
notification is submitted; and
(B) a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress
beginning on the date on which such notification is
submitted.
(b) For purposes of subsection (a)(2)(B)--
(1) the continuity of session of Congress is broken only by
an adjournment of Congress sine die;
(2) the days on which either House is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than three days to a day
certain are excluded in the computation of any period of time
in which Congress is in continuous session; and
(3) if either House of Congress is not in session on the
date when a notification is submitted under subsection
(a)(1), the counting of days shall begin as of the first day
after such date that both Houses of Congress are in session.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about an amendment
that I want to offer to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I ask that the
House consider as an amendment H.R. 2808, which the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and I filed just this week.
The concept is simple. Our amendment would require that the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs give 60 days' advance notice to Congress before
closing any Veterans Hospital facilities or medical facilities or beds
currently serving veterans.
At the Kansas City Veterans Administration facility, which serves my
district, veterans already have to wait 6 months for nonemergency care.
Closure of beds at a VA facility in Leavenworth, just north of my
district, would put more people in the pool in Kansas City, making the
wait even longer, as much as 8 months 9 months or a year, which is
unconscionable. Asking veterans to wait even longer for care is wrong;
we should not sacrifice treatment for those who fought for our country.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to bring this matter to
the House's attention. It is vital that we keep our promises to our
veterans as we are asking even more young men and women to serve our
country in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and perhaps even Liberia.
We owe them quality care when they return from their service and they
have the absolute right to know that that quality care will be there
for them.
Mr. Chairman, Bob Ulin, State president of the Association of the
United States Army, I think said it best: ``It is a budget issue for
the VA; it is a life and death issue for our vets.''
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment is subject to a point
of order, but I ask my colleagues to consider the status of VA care in
our country and join as cosponsors on H.R. 2808.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Meeks of New York

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks of New York:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act, may be used to terminate the
furnishing of services to veterans by the Department of
Veterans Affairs medical facility located in St. Albans
Queens, New York.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asks that Members turn off electronic devices
on the floor.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment just simply says that no funds in fiscal
year 2004 can be used to close the St. Albans Veterans Facility.
Basically, the St. Albans veterans care facility has been a key
provider of services and jobs at St. Albans for as long as I can
remember. It sits in the heart of my district on what was formerly a
military base in Queens County, New York.
The St. Albans VA Primary and Extended Care Center provides primary
care and offers specialized geriatric programs and restorative
rehabilitation. Geriatric programs provide comprehensive evaluation and
safe, effective management of elderly cognitively impaired veterans. An
outpatient adult day care health care program and home-based primary
care program exists and cares for the physically disabled, medically
complicated elderly veterans who are at risk of nursing home placement
or recurrent hospitalization. A comprehensive psychosocial
rehabilitation domiciliary program providing incentive therapy,
vocational counseling, and independent living skills training for
patients seeking to return to independent living is provided by the VA
Primary and Extended Care Facility.
This facility has 386 beds. This facility provides inpatient extended
care services, including skilled nursing, antibiotic therapy, and
respite care. Also provided is subacute restorative rehabilitation for
the elderly. The campus also hosts an ambulatory care center that
provides primary care and specialty care, including podiatry,
audiology, dental service, and optometry. VA adult health care and
home-based primary care programs, providing outpatient geriatric care,
is present at the St. Albans campus. A homeless domiciliary emphasizing
comprehensive psychosocial rehabilitation exists at the extended care
center.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Queens, for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong
support of the Meeks-Crowley-Ackerman amendment to ensure that the St.
Albans Veterans Medical Center is not closed by the VA this year.

[[Page H7705]]

Queens County has the largest veterans population in the New York
metropolitan area, with over 115,000 living veterans. St. Albans serves
thousands of Queens County veterans. The facility provides inpatient
extended care services, including skilled nursing, IV antibiotic
therapy, and respite care.
The campus also hosts an ambulatory care center that provides primary
care and specialty care, including optometry, podiatry, audiology, and
dental services. VA adult day care and home-based primary care
programs, providing outpatient geriatric care, are present at the St.
Albans campus, as are programs and services to benefit homeless
veterans.
I understand that as part of a cost savings measure the VA is
contemplating the closure of St. Albans. This is not because of a lack
of veterans but rather, in my opinion, misplaced priorities. We must
keep this hospital and all of our VA hospitals and clinics open.
I have had a conversation with the chairman, and I appreciate the
situation he finds himself in at this time, and I know that we are
waiting for the CARES Phase II proposal to be published. I hope that
after that document is released, we will have an opportunity to really
evaluate what it says and not close this particular facility as the VA,
I believe, is suggesting may happen.
There are just too many veterans in the City of New York. Many of
these people have absolutely no one; they have nobody. If it were not
for the St. Albans Medical Center and what this center provides for
these individuals, there would be no one there to take care of these
poor veterans.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the CARES program that the VA is
looking to is to reduce wasteful and underutilized space; that it is
costing $1 million a day. I understand the need not to be wasteful, but
the St. Albans facility is not a place of waste. It is not only a key
to the County of Queens, it is a key for all of New York City and is
also a huge economic engine in the City of New York.
We need this facility, particularly now; and it is really something
that is not underutilized. In fact, it is overutilized. And so I would
urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and keep the St.
Albans VA Facility for fiscal year 2004 and accept this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this CARES process is something that the Congress voted
to support. It is an ongoing process. Certainly we are all nervous
about its impact upon our own veterans medical centers. This is of
great concern to us. We all have an affinity and a relationship with
our VAs, with the vets that go there, and the doctors and nurses and
staff who serve there. But it would be wrong for us to step in on
behalf of one center, because all Members have the same concern.
The Secretary has not seen the proposals yet on realignment. Any
protection built into this bill for any specific facility would
undermine the overall plan. I think this discussion is best left until
next year when the capital assets studies are completed and an official
proposal is on the table.
So at this time, Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this
amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Meeks-
Crowley-Ackerman amendment to prevent the unnecessary closing of the
St. Albans Primary & Extended Care Center. This center provides primary
care and offers specialized geriatric programs and restorative
rehabilitation to veterans from New York City and Nassau County. To
close it would be a disservice to the Veterans of Queens and Nassau
County.
At a time, when we have sent over 150,000 troops to fight in Iraq, it
is indefensible that these men and women may come home to find that the
Veterans Center is no longer there. Closing this facility would be an
insult to those who have served our country so bravely.
The Veterans Administration is currently dangerously under-funded. To
save dollars, the Administration wants to close Veterans' health
centers. However, the administration did manage to find the money to
give the wealthiest Americans a tremendous tax cut. We must fulfill our
promises to our veterans and continue to provide access to the quality
health care they were promised.
Currently, veterans sometimes have to wait months for doctors'
appointments at VA Hospitals. Closing St. Albans will simply exacerbate
this problem. If St. Albans is closed, veterans will have to go to
other already overcrowded facilities in New York.
We owe it to our veterans to provide them access to quality health
care. St. Albans needs to remain open.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Lee:
In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT--Community Planning and Development--homeless
assistance grants'', after the first and second dollar
amounts, insert the following: ``(increased by
$83,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the ranking member, the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the chairman, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Walsh), for this bill and for their hard work and
leadership in terms of trying to address the very complicated issues of
housing and our veterans population.
Mr. Chairman, 20 percent of our homeless population hold jobs, 22
percent are mentally ill, and 11 percent are veterans. Now, on any
given day in my home State of California, there are approximately
350,000 people who are homeless, including as many as 100,000 children.
I rise today because we must help the over 3 million homeless
nationwide and millions of low-income families struggling to find
shelter across this country.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is woefully underfunding homeless programs
for one of our Nation's most vulnerable and most consistently neglected
populations. Now, I understand that this bill provides $25 million more
than fiscal year 2003 levels. But given the cost of inflation, this
bill really does provide a net cut. Moreover, and what is very
important that we understand here is that this bill falls $83 million
short of the President's request. The President's request. Our
amendment simply funds the McKinney-Vento homeless programs at the
President's request.
This Congress and the administration have championed the need for
more supportive housing, more comprehensive transitional housing and
homeless assistance programs, and really ending the chronic cycle of
homelessness. President Bush and Secretary Martinez have both committed
to ending homelessness in the next 10 years.

{time} 1645

As we make these commitments and promises, the rates of homelessness
continues to rise. Since the start of 2003, people requesting emergency
homeless assistance and food has sky-rocketed. At a time of record and
rising unemployment and economic uncertainty, when more people are
forced to live on the streets, to suffer the elements and the stigma of
homelessness, we must commit and live up to our promise and our
obligation to end this crisis.
By increasing the funds used in the McKinney-Vento account, we can
devote the much-deserved funding and attention to homelessness. The
Lee-Schakowsky amendment would provide a modest response to this often
unavoided yet urgent problem by simply funding the McKinney-Vento
account at the President's requested level of $1.3 billion for fiscal
year 2004.

[[Page H7706]]

This $83 million would translate into housing to over 14 million
families who have critical housing needs and over 2.5 million
households with children living in severely substandard housing. By
supporting McKinney-Vento at the President's requested amount, we could
provide shelter for the over 1 million homeless children in our
country.
What would we be giving up in order to fund these accounts and do the
right thing? The answer is nothing that HUD could not live without.
This offset comes from an already bloated working capital account which
pays for IT consultants and computer supplies at HUD. Even with the
passage of the Lee-Schakowsky amendment, the HUD working capital would
have received over $1 billion from 2001 to 2003.
The real question that our amendment poses, is very simple: Do
Members support helping to alleviate homelessness or do they support a
nameless, faceless account used to provide the tools to process the
information about the homeless. It is really about choice.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment that I am so proud to cosponsor along with the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee), who has done so much on behalf of low-income
families.
The Bush administration's budget request for homeless programs was
actually slashed in this appropriations bill. In this legislation,
funding for homeless programs is $133 million below the
administration's budget request, a total request that really does not
even come close to addressing the critical problem of homelessness, and
the growing problem of homelessness.
A modest amendment would increase HUD's homeless assistance and
prevention programs by $83 million to provide desperately needed
services for 20,000 homeless children and adults.
Homelessness does not discriminate. It affects people in rural and
urban communities, and every single Member of Congress represents
constituents who cannot afford a roof over their head. I do not care
how wealthy Members think their district is, there are people who do
not have a permanent residence.
Despite stereotypes, 39 percent of the homeless are children, and
half of all homeless women and children are the victims of domestic
violence. Over the course of a year, 3.5 million people will experience
homelessness in the United States.
The underlying bill will actually increase the number of homeless
people because it takes away vouchers from 85,000 families, including
3,200 families in Illinois. Our amendment would take $83 million from
HUD's working capital fund and direct it right to homeless people.
The working capital account, which the money comes from, helps pay
for computer upgrades and consultants. While I am sure that the capital
account is helpful for HUD, there is no doubt that it is more important
to provide housing for those that need it the most. $83 million could
fund transitional housing and supportive services that could
permanently end homelessness for 20,000 children and adults.
In 2002, Chicago alone had a 22 percent increase in requests for
emergency shelter and a 35 percent increase in requests for shelter by
families, compared to 2001. In Illinois, 1 million renters in need of
housing assistance compete for 230,000 assisted housing units, while 80
percent of the shelters throughout the State reported an increase in
family homelessness in the past year. As a result, families with
children are being forced to choose between paying their rent, food,
heat, and other necessities. This money would help emergency providers
give aid to those who need it right now.
The Bush administration itself has stated on several occasions that
it wants to end homelessness, and it can. This is not some sort of a
problem like a hurricane or a tornado. We can decide to end
homelessness, but the problem is, we consistently underfund the housing
programs.
In communities like Chicago where our mayor, Mayor Daley, and
community leaders have developed an historic 10-year plan to end
homelessness, it will not succeed if it does not receive Federal
support. I urge the support of this modest amendment to end
homelessness.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me follow up with that by saying, failing to fund
the administration's budget request for homeless programs undercuts HUD
Secretary Martinez's pledge to end chronic homelessness within the next
decade. By repudiating the administration's homeless budget, which is
at the heart of that pledge, it will be impossible to provide the
permanent housing and supportive services that are needed for the
150,000 chronically homeless individuals.
Underfunding in the homeless account really comes on top of the
bill's deep cuts in public housing and underfunding of section 8
renewals. Public housing and section 8 are the key provisions providing
rental assistance to the poorest. Program cuts now will result in an
increase in the level of homelessness nationwide, and that is one of
the reasons why we are standing today with the President in terms of
his funding request of $83 million, so we can move forward and begin to
address those who have been shut out, really, of the benefits of this
very wealthy country.
I want to close with this poem from a 7-year-old homeless child. It
is called ``Being Homeless'':
``If you are a kid, it is cold, lonely, scary. I guess I need to
hurry and grow up.''
It does not seem much of a choice to me in terms of restoring or
putting in the $83 million that the President wants. I am asking for
this House to please support the Lee-Schakowsky amendment.
It is really a matter of choices. We can decide, do we want to help
those who are vulnerable, those who are out on the streets with no
place to go, those who barely have enough to eat, those who have severe
mental difficulties, physical difficulties who have no health care; or
do we want to fund some information technology account over at HUD.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, to correct a point, there are
no cuts for the homeless in this bill. There is an increase of $35
million. There are no cuts in section 8 housing vouchers, there is an
increase of over $900 million.
But if we accepted this amendment, it would cut HUD's information
technology by 35 percent and make it very difficult for them to
continue their operation. For that reason I oppose the amendment, and I
urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Edwards

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards:
In title I, in the item relating to ``MEDICAL SERVICES FOR
PRIORITY 1-6 VETERANS'', insert at the end of the following
In addition for such purposes, $1,800,000,000: Provided,
That, from such sum, amounts may be transferred to ``Medical
Services for Priority 7-8 Veterans'' without regard to the
percentage limitation established in section 119 of this Act.

In title I, in the item relating to ``medical
administration'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $264,000,000)''.

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

Sec. ____. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross
income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax year beginning in
2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of
the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
(Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced by 12.5 percent.

[[Page H7707]]

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
``The House leadership has deceived us.'' Those are not our words,
those are the words of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander-in-Chief
Ray Sisk in his press release of July 17, just a few days ago.
``A clear betrayal of the assurances made to America's veterans by
the House Republican leadership.'' Those are not my words, those are
the words of the VFW press release of July 17.
``This meager increase is simply inadequate to provide health care to
sick and disabled veterans, and represents a flagrant disregard to
promises made to veterans by this Congress.'' Those are not my words.
They come from the National Legislative Director of AMVETS, Paralyzed
Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add a desperately needed $2.2
billion to our veterans' health care system. Our veterans deserve those
dollars. My view is that a Nation that can afford trillion dollar tax
cuts that help our wealthiest citizens can and should afford to take
care of our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country.
I think it is time for some straight talk with veterans. They need to
know what this debate is all about. Let me tell Members the steps we
have gone through to get here.
Step 1. On March 20 during the first days of the Iraqi war this year,
House Republicans voted for a budget resolution that, yes, cut
veterans' benefits by $28 billion over the next 10 years.
Step 2. When Democrats and veterans organizations expressed outrage
from one end of our country to another, the Republicans in the House,
who drastically cut veterans programs even during a time of war in
Iraq, during the first days of that war, Republicans scrambled to find
some cover.
Step 3. The Republicans found the cover. It was to offer the promise
of a $1.8 billion increase in funding for VA health care this year. In
fact, on March 20, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) put out a
press release, ``I am pleased we reached agreement for a $1.8 billion
increase.'' Republicans sent out releases like this bragging about this
commitment to our veterans all over the country. That was step 3, and
then what happened:
Step 4. It was not good news for veterans. The House Republican
leadership, after allowing these kinds of press releases to go out from
its Members, said, Nope, we are going to take away every dime of those
$1.8 billion that we promised to you, America's veterans.
Step 5. Veterans groups made the quotes that I just read to you,
``clear betrayal,'' ``House leadership has deceived us.'' Then what
happened?
Step 6. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I, a Republican
and a Democrat respectively, offered amendments to the Committee on
Rules to increase veterans' health care spending by $1.8 and $2.2
billion respectively.

{time} 1700

Even though the Committee on Rules protects amendments from points of
order on a daily basis in this process and we all know that, in this
case the Committee on Rules and the Republicans on it last night said,
you know, we are not going to make that kind of exception for veterans
even in time of war. We are not going to protect amendments that would
actually increase VA health care spending.
Step 7. By voting ``no'' on that rule, we could say to the House
Republican leadership, you are wrong, we should stand up for veterans
today because tomorrow's veterans are fighting today in Iraq. 189
Democrats voted with veterans to kill that rule but only seven out of
229 Republicans voted against that rule. Why? We know. The Republican
leadership threatened them. If they voted ``no'' on that rule, they
were going to pay a terrible price for it.
Step 8. Republicans who were missing in action when we could have
actually killed the rule that prohibited an increase in veterans
spending said, I better get down to the floor and give an eloquent
speech about standing up and fighting for veterans. So they have done
that over the last couple of hours, knowing full well that this bill is
going to pass even though they vote ``no.'' So they were missing in
action when we needed them; but after the cease-fire was drawn, the
agreements were made, they came running in with their rifles and said,
boy, I want to stand up and fight for our veterans.
Step 9. This bill will pass and we all know it. VA health care
funding will be $2 billion less than it should be.
Step 10. The Members who were missing in action and voted against
veterans when they voted for this rule that stopped our helping
veterans with more money, they will put out press releases telling
veterans how they gave eloquent speeches on the floor of the House
opposing this terrible bill.
Mr. Chairman, this is how our veterans get the shaft while Members
are covering themselves. It is wrong. We ought to pass this amendment
that will now be ruled out of order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order continues to be reserved.
The gentleman from New York will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a veteran and distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am a veteran. The gentleman who just
spoke is not. I am a combat veteran. The gentleman is not. I was
wounded in combat. The gentleman was not. And I resent the implications
that we are trying to cut veterans benefits. This bill increases
veterans benefits $1.3 billion. In my mind, that is a good thing, not a
bad thing. If you take a look at what the Republicans have done since
we have been in the majority, every single year we have increased
veterans benefits.
While Bill Clinton's budget fought against veterans health care,
actually cut, not increased, Republicans came together with moderate
Democrats and increased the veterans budgets every single year. I
resent a gentleman saying, well, we do it just for tax breaks for the
rich. Those jobs that the gentlemen are talking about, 70 percent of
the jobs are created by small business, that enhance. We want those
veterans to have business and we want them to have jobs. We did not, as
the Democrats in 1993 when they had the White House, the House and the
Senate, cut veterans COLAs. They cut military COLAs.
They gave us the highest middle-class tax increase in history. That
tax increase also hurt our veterans. Republicans along with moderate
Democrats restored those veterans COLAs, we restored the military
COLAs, and we gave middle-income taxpayers tax relief. For the
gentleman to sit up here and say that we are cutting veterans benefits
when this bill increases it $1.3 billion aggravates me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is not that the
chairman and the subcommittee has not increased funding for veterans in
this bill. We certainly have done that. I think the point is that the
expectation with the budget resolution, with the advertising the
increase in veterans benefits in the budget resolution which the
majority passed was significantly higher than the actual allocation
that we were able to deal with in the appropriation bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Taking back my time, I agree with the gentleman. I
want more money in veterans. But to insinuate that it is a tax break
for the rich when they say that about every bill is a political shot
that is wrong.

Point of Order

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would insist on my point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2, rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:

[[Page H7708]]

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
The amendment modifies existing law. I ask for a ruling from the
Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language
imparting direction. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had not wanted to speak any more on this, but in
light of the comments of my friend from California, I feel compelled
to. I want to read some words: ``The fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD
appropriations bill as it pertains to funding levels for veterans
health care is inadequate and represents a clear betrayal of the
assurances promised to America's veterans by the House Republican
leadership.'' I did not say that. Ray Sisk, Commander in Chief of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, said it on July 17 of this year. I could
insert four other quotes in the Record from veterans organization
leaders as well.
The gentleman from California says that this is a good budget for
veterans. Let me explain why it is not. This bill has a 6 percent
nominal increase in funding for veterans health care, so it sounds
good. But the fact is that inflation eats up 3 percent of that 6
percent and then you have a 9 percent growth in the veterans population
eligible for these programs. So when you add 9 and 3, that means that
you need a 12 percent increase in veterans health care programs just in
order to stay even. This bill only meets half that. While the gentleman
is shaking his head, it is simple mathematics. His daughter got a
perfect 600 on the SATs. She would know that that statement was right.
Let me say, also, Mr. Chairman, that I totally agree with the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who has time and time again taken
this floor to lead the effort to help veterans. The fact is that
veterans are not going to be conned by someone who says, Oh, oh, I was
a really good friend of veterans that day when that bill was up. I
voted against final passage.
Mr. Chairman, the only practical chance that any Member of this House
had to get more money for veterans was to beat the rule so you could go
back and have made in order the amendment that the gentleman talked
about. My friend from California can resent all he wants the fact that
we talk about what the tax cut cost us in services, but the fact is the
Republican leadership of this Congress put tax cuts before anybody else
and the fact is that under those tax cuts if you make a million bucks
next year, you are going to get an $88,000 tax cut. The fact is that
what we are trying to do with his amendment is to reduce that by
$11,000 so they will only get a $77,000 tax cut. We are trying to do
that so that there is enough room to fund additional veterans health
care benefits.
That is what we are trying to do. You may not like the fact that we
bring it up, but the consequences of your providing $3 trillion in tax
cuts the next 11 years, the consequences are that there will be no room
in the inn for adequate education funding, adequate health care
funding, or adequate help for veterans. That is a fact. You may not
like the fact that we bring it up, but we are going to bring it up
every day of the year because it is a hard, cold fact of budgeting.
When you make choices, you have to be able to take the heat for those
choices; and we are going to turn up the heat, baby, because you were
wrong.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for his assistance
in creating this bill and steering it through the floor debate. I would
like to give him and our colleagues in the House my promise that as all
these bills move through to conference as CBO and OMB reexamine the
estimates and costs of the bills and if, and that is a hope, more funds
become available to the VA-HUD bill, increasing the funding for VA
medical service will be our first priority.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with that. As has been
expressed here on the floor, expressed through the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards), expressed with the gentleman from Wisconsin's comments,
I agree that should funds under the VA-HUD allocation increase, VA
medical service would most definitely be one of our first priorities.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I thank him for
his help. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 12 offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), amendment No. 10 offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), amendment No. 6 offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), an amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and an amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 347,
noes 77, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 451]

AYES--347

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore

[[Page H7709]]

Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES--77

Aderholt
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Bonilla
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Castle
Collins
Culberson
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Everett
Flake
Foley
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Granger
Hastings (WA)
Hobson
Houghton
Hulshof
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lewis (CA)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Pearce
Petri
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rogers (KY)
Saxton
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Simpson
Souder
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Cooper
Fletcher
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Hinchey
McCrery
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Ros-Lehtinen
Sullivan

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.

{time} 1733

Messrs. COLLINS, PETRI, HOUGHTON, FRANKS of Arizona, and WALDEN of
Oregon changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. KILPATRICK, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mrs. CUBIN and Messrs.
SHIMKUS, UPTON, SHUSTER, BURGESS, CALVERT, GARY G. MILLER of
California, ROTHMAN, and CUNNINGHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the remainder of
this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
The Chair will inform Members that this is a lengthy series of votes
and will ask Members to cast their vote within the time provided for
each vote.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154,
noes 264, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 452]

AYES--154

Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Duncan
Edwards
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Manzullo
McCotter
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Obey
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Stenholm
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)

NOES--264

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Grijalva
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--16

Cooper
Fletcher
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Holt
Issa
Kelly
McCrery
Millender-McDonald
Oberstar
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Sullivan

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.

[[Page H7710]]

{time} 1740

Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 452, due to a technical
difficulty with my voting card, my vote was not recorded. I would have
voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 452, I was
detained by constituents that precluded me from getting to the floor.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I was detained on rollcall vote number 452,
the Stearns amendment. If I had been here, I would have voted ``no.''
At a time when AmeriCorp is already underfunded by $100 million, this
is no time to cut it further.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 453]

AYES--217

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Goss
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--208

Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Cooper
Fletcher
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Hinchey
McCrery
Oberstar
Ros-Lehtinen
Sullivan

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1749

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 454]

AYES--114

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chocola
Clay
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hoeffel
Holden
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Ramstad
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Shays
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey

[[Page H7711]]

NOES--309

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Cooper
Fletcher
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Hinchey
Hunter
McCrery
Oberstar
Ros-Lehtinen
Sullivan
Wilson (NM)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1756

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 454 I was
unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 455]

AYES--192

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--232

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus

[[Page H7712]]

Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Cooper
Fletcher
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Hinchey
McCrery
Oberstar
Ros-Lehtinen
Sullivan
Wilson (NM)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there are 2
minutes left in this vote.

{time} 1804

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 455 I was
unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments? If not, the Clerk
will read the last three lines.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004''.

The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2861)
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, 2004, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 338, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining
votes on final passage, if ordered, and on the concurrent resolution on
adjournment and on the Toomey amendment be conducted as 5-minute votes
if there are no intervening recorded votes ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to the order of the House just adopted, this will be a 5-
minute vote. This vote will be followed by a series of other 5-minute
votes on the adjournment resolution and on the postponed proceedings of
H.R. 2859. Because of the unusual nature of the unanimous consent
request, the Chair will make certain that all Members have the
opportunity to vote during this 5-minute series.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 316,
nays 109, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 456]

YEAS--316

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barton (TX)
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--109

Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boozman
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Chocola
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
English
Evans
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hart
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hill
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kind
King (NY)
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
McCollum
McCotter
McInnis
McIntyre
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nussle
Obey
Paul
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Renzi
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schakowsky
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Simmons
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Watt
Wexler

NOT VOTING--10

Cooper
Fletcher
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Hinchey
McCrery
Oberstar
Ros-Lehtinen
Sullivan
Wilson (NM)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1815

Messrs. POMEROY, DELAHUNT, LARSEN of Washington and McINTYRE changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. EMANUEL, MOORE, HAYES, and MARKEY changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''

[[Page H7713]]

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 456 I was
unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

____________________