[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)

       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 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)''.

       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 $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

  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 217, 
noes 208, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [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

  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 114, 
noes 309, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [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

  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 192, 
noes 232, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [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.''

                          ____________________