[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11513-11566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4635.

                              {time}  1640


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4635) 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, 2001, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Pease in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, June 
19, 2000, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) had been disposed of and the bill was open to amendment from 
page 9, line 1, to page 9, line 3.


Request For En Bloc Consideration of Amendments Numbered 40, 28, And 26

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
at this time that the Ney amendment No. 40, the Guttierez amendment No. 
28, and the Tancredo amendment No. 26 be considered en bloc.
  I further ask unanimous consent that after disposition of these 
amendments, that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, 
line 8.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to object to the request 
at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I have another amendment on the same subject as 
yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to inquire if this is the 
appropriate time in the bill to offer that amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. As the Committee proceeds further on page 10 the 
gentleman will be in order in the reading, but at the moment another 
Member of the House, a member of the committee, is seeking recognition 
to strike the last word.
  After that the Clerk will read to the proper point in the bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see that a number of Members have 
recognized that the VA medical research account is underfunded in this 
bill, and that they want to increase this funding through amendments 
that we are going to consider soon. The chairman and the ranking member 
have done a good job under tough constraints on this legislation, but 
this is one item that we really need to tend to here today. I am glad 
to see that we will have the opportunity to do so.
  I have been a strong proponent of VA medical research, and I offered 
an amendment during the full Committee on Appropriations markup that 
would have increased that account by $23 million. I want to take just a 
minute today to explain why I support increasing the VA medical 
research account and why it is so important for us to find a way of 
doing so.
  The original request from the VA to OMB was to fund the research 
account at $397 million. Outside supporters of the program believe the 
program should be funded at $386 million. These recommendations are 
both well above the current bill's level of $321 million.
  Most of us have heard about the Seattle foot, that remarkable 
artificial limb that has been depicted in television commercials by a 
double amputee playing pick-up basketball or by a woman running a 100-
yard dash. It is not obvious that she has two artificial legs until the 
camera zooms in at the end of the commercial. The technology for this 
prosthesis was developed by VA researchers in Seattle.
  Research at VA hospitals is important because it is clinical 
research, mainly. The researcher, who is almost always affiliated with 
a neighboring teaching hospital, also treats patients, veterans. The VA 
research program is the only one dedicated solely to finding cures to 
ailments that affect our veteran population. It is not interchangeable 
with other research efforts.
  At the Durham, North Carolina, VA, which is affiliated with Duke 
University, there is a great range of research being done, from working 
to find a cure for AIDS to finding a shingles vaccine to important 
advances in brain imaging and telemedicine. This work, of course, 
assists veterans, but it also helps the population at large.
  The VA does a great job of leveraging its funds. Dr. Jack Feussner, 
the director of the VA medical research program, testified that for 
every dollar of increase that the program has received over the last 5 
years, it has received $3 from other sources. Therefore, if we were to 
add $23 million here today, it could translate into $92 million more 
for research.
  What will these additional funds be used for? Eleven million dollars 
is needed just to maintain current services, to keep up with medical 
inflation. Another $12 million could be used for any number of research 
projects.
  The VA is starting a research oversight program vital to the 
integrity of the human-based research programs. It could be a model for 
other federally-assisted research. This program needs $1 million.
  To bring the program back to the high water mark of 1998 would take 
$43 million. Dr. Feussner has listed four areas that would benefit 
particularly from additional research dollars: Parkinson's Disease, 
end-stage renal failure, diabetes, and Post-Traumatic Shock Disorder. 
Additional research into the treatment and cure for hepatitis C would 
also be looked at carefully.

                              {time}  1645

  We also need to increase the commitment to training the next 
generation of clinician and nonclinician investigators. To keep that 
program on track would take an additional $10 million.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, difficult decisions will need to be made on these 
upcoming amendments, and there are several of them. They all offer an 
offset of some sort. Most of the offsets I would not support if they 
stood alone. But the overall allocation for our VA-HUD subcommittee is 
just not sufficient, and these difficult trade-offs must be made.
  I am hopeful that, at the end of this process, an additional 
allocation will be available and that we will be able to fund VA 
medical research at close to $386 million and that any offsets that we 
adopt can largely be restored. However, it is very important to raise 
the appropriations level here today for medical research before this 
bill goes any farther in the appropriations process.
  I hope this is helpful, this overview of how these monies might be 
spent and why we need them. Additional funding for VA research will 
benefit our veterans and our country, and I hope Members will pay 
attention closely to the arguments on the amendments to follow.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the 
bill?

[[Page 11514]]




                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Filner

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

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Filner:
       Page 9, after line 3, insert the following:
       In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $35,200,000 for health 
     care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans who were 
     excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946 and to 
     increase service-connected disability compensation from the 
     peso rate to the full dollar amount for Filipino World War II 
     veterans living in the United States: Provided, That the 
     Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: 
     Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to 
     the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that 
     is included in an official budget request transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress and that is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a 
point of order.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an issue which has been before this 
House before, an issue of, I think, great moral urgency but financially 
responsible; and that is to right a wrong that was committed in this 
country by the Congress of 1946, which took away the veterans' benefits 
that had been promised to our Filipino allies who were drafted into 
World War II, fought bravely at Corregidor and Bataan. Many died. But 
were ultimately extremely helpful, if not responsible, for our slowing 
up of the Japanese advance and then our ultimate victory in the 
Pacific.
  What we did do to these brave men was to take away their benefits 
after the war, and they have yet to be recognized in this way. Many are 
in their late 70s and early 80s. Many will not be here in a few years. 
I think this is an emergency item that ought to be considered by this 
House.
  My amendment would provide $35,200,000 for health care benefits to 
these veterans of World War II. This is the benefit that they need the 
most in their twilight years.
  Like their counterparts, they fought as brave soldiers. They helped 
to win the war. Many of them marched to their deaths, in fact, in the 
famous Bataan death march. Yet we rewarded them by taking away their 
benefits. We owe them a fair hearing. We owe them the dignity and honor 
of considering them veterans. My amendment would restore just some of 
those benefits to these veterans.
  I think all of my colleagues know that veterans are entitled to, 
under certain conditions provided by law, certain preventions and 
certain medical care. But this amendment divides the benefits from the 
pensions from the medical benefits and says let us at least now, within 
our budget means, give health care to those brave Filipino soldiers.
  My amendment would make available monies for care in this country, a 
small portion also for our VA clinic in Manila to serve the Filipino 
World War II veterans and U.S. citizens there alike. What we are saying 
here is that the honor and bravery of veterans of World War II will 
finally be recognized by this Congress 54 years after they were taken 
away.
  I would ask this body to recognize the bravery of our allies, the 
Filipinos who we drafted, provide them with eligibility for benefits, 
health care benefits that are given to American soldiers who fought in 
the same war for the same honorable cause.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being challenged on a point of 
order because authorization has not been given. I would make the point 
that, not only did these veterans earn this benefit in the war, not 
only are there dozens of programs in this bill that are not authorized, 
but that, through the regular legislative process, we have not been 
allowed to bring this bill up.
  I ask the floor, I ask the Chair to allow us to finally grant honor 
and dignity to these brave soldiers, many of whom, as I said, are in 
their 80s, and finally right a historical wrong of great proportions.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by applauding the 
gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), for his efforts. I 
know he has done this over many years, trying to fight for the justice 
of many of the veterans for World War II who fought under the flag of 
the United States, in fact fought at the insistence of this country.
  Simply put, what the gentleman is trying to do is trying to restore 
benefits to which these individuals as veterans were entitled to but 
were stripped of by affirmative action by this Congress back in the 
late 1940s. But for the action of this Congress, some 50-odd years ago, 
these individuals would be receiving these benefits that the gentleman 
from California are now trying to restore.
  So I would like to add my voice to the many in this Congress who are 
supportive of the gentleman's efforts, and, unfortunately, at this time 
is unable to proceed with this particular amendment. I would hope that 
my colleagues would recognize the efforts of the gentleman from San 
Diego, California (Mr. Filner), and at some point soon recognize that 
we must do something for the ladies and gentlemen who fought in the 
1940s to defend this country and are now at the point of passing on. It 
is time for us to recognize their effort and recognize that this 
Congress some 54 years ago or so denied them the rights that they had 
under this Constitution.
  So I applaud the gentleman for what he does.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order against the amendment?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment may be struck on a 
point of order. Many of us have been trying for many, many years to get 
this through, both under Democrat and Republican administrations.
  I served in the United States military, and a large portion of that 
was in Southeast Asia, eight different deployments on carriers all 
going through the Philippines, and based there for training. I was also 
stationed there at San Miguel for some 18 months.
  I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I would hope that 
the conference chairman, in some way, even though this may be struck 
with a point of order, see that the gentleman is correct, there was a 
promise made by the United States Government, if these individuals 
fought on the side of the allies, that we would give them certain 
benefits. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is not asking even 
for the full-blown benefits that were promised, but even a neck-down 
version so that the cost is not too high. This does not affect the 
health care of American veterans; this will actually enhance it.
  I hope there is some way that in the conference when additional 
monies from revenues come into the coffers that we can find some way in 
the conference to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  The Negridos were like the Native Americans to the United States; 
they were native to the Philippines. They are infamous on their ability 
to disrupt the enemy's lines during World War II in the Philippines.
  The Filipino people, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
mentioned, actually walked in the Bataan death march with us; and many 
of those people died right alongside of Americans. Many of them died 
trying to free Americans in hiding and protecting them. They were 
executed. I mean, there is movie after movie depicting their heroism.
  I also want my colleagues to take a look at the involvement of the 
Filipino

[[Page 11515]]

Americans in this country and what they have done for the United States 
of America. Every university we see is filled with Filipinos. Why? 
Because they believe in education. They believe in patriotism. They 
believe in the family unit. There has been no better group to immigrate 
to this country.
  Secondly, the United States Navy for many, many years used the 
Filipinos. They would give up their lives, in some cases actually give 
up their lives, to serve in the military.
  During Desert Storm, they would volunteer to serve in the military, 
even though they were killed, their spouses may have been shipped back 
to the Philippines, giving their life. We thought that that was wrong 
also.
  But I rise in support, and I would say to the Filipino community--
(the gentleman from California spoke in Tagolog)--which means I will 
love the Philippines forever. I was stationed there, so I speak a 
little Tagolog.
  But in this case, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is 
absolutely correct. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to bring 
about this amendment. It is a very small measure of what we have been 
trying to do for a long time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
The gentleman from California is adjacent to me in San Diego. He is a 
powerful voice for our Filipino American citizens. I thank him. There 
are no two people I would prefer to have talking on this from the other 
side of the aisle than the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I appreciate 
the support.
  This is a bipartisan effort. It is a matter of historical and moral 
righteousness and truth. I so appreciate the statement of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for 
espousing the cause of our Philippine veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to 
provide $35.2 million in VA health care benefits for our Filipino 
nationals who fought with our American troops against the Japanese in 
World War II.
  For almost 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine 
Commonwealth Army fought alongside the allies to reclaim the 
Philippines from the Japanese. Regrettably, in return, what did 
Congress do? Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946. Despite 
President Truman having approved all of this, that measure limited 
veterans' eligibility for service-connected disabilities and death 
compensation and also denied the members of the Philippine Commonwealth 
Army the honor of being recognized as veterans of our own Armed Forces.
  A second group, the special Philippines Scouts, called New Scouts, 
who enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945, primarily 
to perform occupation duty in the Pacific were simply excluded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Filner, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham 
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I believe it is long past time to try to correct this injustice and 
to provide the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the 
Special Philippine Scouts with a token of the appreciation for the 
courageous services that they valiantly earned during their service in 
World War II.
  Given the difficulty in extending full veterans' benefits without 
adversely impacting other domestic veterans programs, health benefits 
are the most appropriate to extend. With this in mind, the amendment of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), with the support of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), provides funding for such 
benefits which are sorely needed by an aging population of veterans 
well into their twilight years.
  I commend both gentleman from California, Mr. Filner and Mr. 
Cunningham, for supporting this amendment. I urge our colleagues to 
lend their full support.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I 
would say that this is a promise made by the United States Government.
  Most of us were not here when that promise was made, much like our 
friends from Guam. But there is a promise, and that promise was taken 
away after the war. They fulfilled their contract, and this government 
reneged on that particular contract.
  I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the chairman to 
give this consideration in the conference even though it will probably 
be struck with a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth standing here for the next few 
minutes to continue this dialogue. I want to congratulate the words of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who just spoke, along 
with those of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), as 
well. Both of the gentlemen from California have spoken very 
righteously about this particular issue.

                              {time}  1700

  And while we know this amendment will be ruled out of order in the 
next few minutes, it does bear saying.
  I do not know if all my colleagues are aware of what we are talking 
about here, nor perhaps the American people who might be watching; but 
what we are talking about here is the fact that during World War II 
Americans encountered a very rough time in the Pacific. There was a 
point there where it was not clear how the battles would turn and how 
the war would turn; and in the Philippines, things were tough. It got 
to a point where our President, President Roosevelt, called upon the 
Filipino people to come forward and fight under the American flag. In 
fact, it was an edict. They were to serve under the American flag. And, 
sure enough, they did, and they did so with honor.
  These were individuals from the Philippines who were fighting not 
just for their country but for the United States of America. They were 
under the command of U.S. forces. They were under the direction of 
generals of the United States of America. When they were told to go to 
battle, it was by American generals; and it was to provide for the 
security and safety not just of Philippine soldiers but of American 
soldiers. When many of these Philippine soldiers died, they died under 
the American flag.
  At the conclusion of the war, these Filipino veterans who fought so 
valiantly were entitled, because they had fought under the flag of the 
United States and at the direction of our President, to receive the 
benefits of Americans who had served under our flag. And had everything 
proceeded as it normally would, these Filipino veterans would have 
received every single type of benefit that an American soldier received 
having fought for this country at the direction of this government. But 
in 1946, Congress affirmatively took steps to rescind those rights that 
those veterans from the Philippines had. The Rescission Act of 1946 
stripped Filipino veterans of any rights they had as American veterans.
  Last session, this Congress, working in a bipartisan manner, actually 
restored a modicum amount of those benefits. It allowed some of those 
Filipino veterans who were in this country, had been here for the last 
50-some-odd years, and who actually decided to go back to the 
Philippines, to retain their SSI benefits, these are folks that are in

[[Page 11516]]

their 80s, at reduced levels. In fact, we ended up saving money having 
them do that. Because rather than having them collect supplemental 
security income at the price of what it would cost by their staying 
here in America, if they did it in the Philippines, it would cost even 
less. That was, in a way, a token to those Filipino veterans, but it 
actually saved us money.
  What the two gentlemen from San Diego are talking about is trying to 
restore some semblance of decency, who are now in their 80s and dying 
away, and it is the right thing to do. It is something we owe them. 
Because when it was time to take to that battle and they were charged 
to do so, they did not ask what would happen; and they did not ask what 
would be the return, they just did so.
  For that reason, we should try to work in support of the amendment by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), which would simply say give 
these veterans, now in their 80s, for the most part, access to health 
care that most American veterans are entitled to receive. That is the 
right thing to do. And I would join with my two friends from San Diego 
who are fighting for this, to say that it is something I hope that the 
conference committee will take up, that the chairman and ranking member 
will consider, because we should do this. At a time when many of these 
veterans may not see the next year, as we come closer to doing this, it 
is the right thing to do.
  In the last session of Congress, in the 105th Congress, we had 209 
Members of Congress who cosponsored legislation that contained these 
precise provisions. Just eight sponsors away from having a majority of 
this House saying they wanted to see this happen. We are very close. 
Most Members do support this when they are told about this, but it is 
just so difficult bureaucratically, procedurally, to get this done. I 
would hope that the chairman and the ranking Members and the committees 
of jurisdiction, when in conference, would consider this.
  I join with my colleagues from California who have spoken, along with 
the many others who would like to speak on this, to say it is the right 
thing to do and we should move forward.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind all Members that remarks in 
debate should be addressed to the Chair and not to a viewing or 
listening audience.
  Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his 
point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I too rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), that would provide health care 
benefits for Filipino World War II veterans that were excluded from 
benefits by the 1946 Rescission Act.
  For all the reasons that have been stated by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra), this is an issue that is really a no-brainer. It is an issue 
that when people hear the entire story, they will support full equity, 
full World War II benefits for Filipino World War II veterans.
  These veterans are comprised mostly of Filipino volunteers and 
recruits, augmented by American soldiers, who were the defenders of 
Bataan and Corregidor and who delayed the Japanese effort to conquer 
the western Pacific. This enabled U.S. forces to adequately prepare and 
launch the campaign to finally secure victory in the Pacific theater of 
World War II.
  Filipino veterans swore allegiance to the same flag, wore the same 
uniforms, fought, bled, and died in the same battlefields alongside 
American comrades, but were never afforded equal status. And even after 
the surrender of American forces in the initial part of the battle of 
the Philippines, they continued to fight on in guerilla units.
  Prior to the mass discharges and disbanding of their unit in 1949, 
these veterans were paid only a third of what regular service members 
received at the time. Underpaid, having been denied benefits that they 
were promised, and lacking proper recognition, General MacArthur's 
words, ``No army has ever done so much with so little,'' truly depicts 
the plight of the remaining Filipino veterans today as they certainly 
did a half century ago.
  In terms of my own people of Guam, since we are closest to the 
Philippines, I guess of all the areas that are represented in Congress, 
and the people of Guam share deep cultural and historic ties with the 
Philippines, we also understand the trauma and the tragedy that they 
endured because we too suffered horrendous occupation, a long and 
painful and brutal occupation under the Imperial Japanese Army. And we 
certainly appreciate, understand, and support the efforts of peoples 
who are trying to resolve the issue of Filipino World War II veterans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment. I know that I 
certainly will probably be ruled out of order here before too long, but 
the issue will not go away until we certainly see justice for these 
veterans no matter how many are left. And I must remind the Members of 
the House that they continue to pass away as we continue to not address 
this issue fully.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I know we cannot fix this problem here today, but I 
want the gentlemen to know that we are sympathetic on this issue.
  These Filipino veterans enlisted in the United States Armed Services 
during World War II to fight against the Japanese. At the time, the 
Philippines were a protectorate of the United States and not an 
independent country. They fought bravely, at great sacrifice, under the 
orders of the U.S. military commands, and had every reason to expect 
full veterans benefits.
  For the reasons which I do not fully understand, however, in 1946, 
the law established for this particular group of veterans a two-tier 
system with less benefits. In particular, they have less health care 
and lower rates of disability compensation, even when they now live in 
the United States.
  I would hope that the authorizing committee could look into this 
situation, and hopefully look into it expeditiously, and make 
appropriate adjustments for these Filipino veterans who fought both for 
their country and for the United States.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman very much for his remarks, and I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) for the amendment, as well as the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his support, and the others who 
have spoken on this amendment.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment. Unfortunately, I guess a 
point of order has been raised against it. But I agree, I would hope 
that the authorizing committee would report this legislation out so 
that these Filipino veterans would get what is in fact due to them 
under the promises that we have made, and I look forward to working 
with the others supporting this matter.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his warm 
support of this. He is absolutely right.
  And, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) indicated 
that well over 200 Members of the House signed onto legislation. I 
would point out to the House that that legislation was for both health 
care and for pension benefits. So if 209 Members of this body supported 
a bill which was costed out at roughly $500 million or $600 million, 
surely this session of Congress could approve just the health benefits 
at $35 million. But I thank the gentleman for his kind words.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say

[[Page 11517]]

that I think the authorizing committee has been invited to bring that 
legislation to the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Filner amendment.
  I do not quite understand the legislative precedence which, in some 
instances, allow appropriation bills to come to the floor with a waiver 
of points of order which would allow the inclusion of appropriations 
for matters that have not cleared the authorizing committee. When so 
many Members of this Chamber support this legislation, it seems to me 
in order for the rule to have come out allowing this amendment to be 
made to correct this very, very grave injustice that has been permitted 
to exist for these numbers of years.
  These Filipino veterans, if they were aged 20 at the time they were 
enlisted to help the United States Government, if they were 20 years 
old, today they are at least 80 or 85. There will not be much more time 
for this Congress to rectify this injustice, so I plead with the people 
who are taking this bill over to the other side to give consideration 
to the emergency of this situation and to find a way to at least 
provide the health care which the Filner amendment allows this Congress 
to permit these individuals.
  A lot has been said about the sacrifice that these individuals made. 
I want it to be made perfectly clear that it was 5 months before the 
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that President Roosevelt issued an 
Executive Order calling upon the Filipino Commonwealth Army into the 
service of the United States Forces in the Far East. The date was July 
26, 1941, long before Pearl Harbor. The Filipino soldiers complied 
without hesitation. They were part of the United States in their hearts 
and in their minds.
  The Philippines was considered a possession of the United States. In 
fact, perhaps they had no choice but to agree to enlist and become a 
part of the U.S. forces. They had grown up under the U.S. rule. They 
spoke English. They knew a lot about our government and about our 
democracy. And so when they were called upon to defend this freedom for 
which we fought and died, they willingly signed up, stood in line and 
gave of their lives. And it seems to me that the promises made to them 
at the time that they went into service should be honored.
  The fact of the matter is that there is almost a concession that the 
promises were made. Why else do we have a rescission, which is a 
cancellation, of benefits that were promised? We do not have a 
rescission if there is not an acknowledgment that there were promises 
made and commitments given to these veterans. But, anyway, in 1946, the 
Congress of the United States passed a rescission bill and took away 
all possibility that the promises made to the Filipino veterans would 
be honored by the United States Government. And that is the shameful 
act that we are seeking at least partially today to correct.
  These veterans are very old. They are in their 80s, 85, perhaps 90s. 
Many of them live in my district. I see them every time that there is a 
veterans holiday or a Memorial Day or a gathering in the community, and 
I know how deeply they feel about this issue. They see the Congress 
dealing with it, and yet due to some legislative thing there is a point 
of order and the matter cannot be brought to a vote.
  I think it is a very, very sad travesty that we are permitting, 
through a parliamentary situation, not to bring up to the House of 
Representatives. Because I feel sure, as the previous speaker from 
California indicated, that more than 218 Members of this House would 
vote for this measure. This is not the full measure that we feel they 
are entitled to, but it is the most urgent piece of this promise, and 
that is the health care that they so desperately need.
  Many of these veterans have returned back to the Philippines because 
that is probably the only way that they could be cared for by their 
families or some friends, or perhaps the health system there would 
permit them to be cared for.

                              {time}  1715

  But for those few thousand veterans that are here in the United 
States, the delay of a day, a month, a year means a delay in 
perpetuity.
  So I call upon those who will be working on this matter, taking it to 
conference and discussing it, not to wait another day but to call the 
compassion and the commitment and the moral obligation that this 
country has to these veterans and enact it into law this year.


                             point of order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) now insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  Mr. Chairman, there are any number of Members who sympathize with the 
intent of this language. The problem is it is unauthorized. This 
decision needs to be determined in the committee of authorization, the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not in the context of an appropriation. 
And, therefore, I insist on my point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the courtesy of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) in not insisting on the point 
of order until we had a chance for those who wanted to speak on it, and 
I sincerely thank him for that courtesy.
  But I would point out to the Chair of our committee and to the Chair 
of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that this insistence on this 
point of order is rather arbitrary. The same argument could be made, as 
I have said earlier, to dozens of programs in this bill.
  Under FEMA there are many programs not authorized. The whole NASA, 
apparently, is not authorized. The Neighborhood Reinvestment 
Corporation is not authorized. Major projects of construction in the 
veterans' affairs budget are not authorized. And I can go on and on.
  The point here is that this House can pick and choose which items to 
protect in a point of order in an appropriations bill. I think that is 
not only illogical, but it does not show the reality. In this case, we 
have had to face really the obstruction of only one person that would 
prevent this from even coming to the floor and being authorized.
  So I would ask at some point in the future that the chairman and the 
ranking member look kindly on this amendment, this legislation. We only 
have a few years left before these brave veterans are no longer with 
us. And so, I understand his insistence on the point of order, but I 
wish he would grant the same latitude that he had to dozens of other 
programs in this bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the words of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). This is not a partisan issue. 
The 40 years following the war, the Congress was controlled by the 
other side. We have gone through 5 years of Republican control of this 
House; and it is time, especially with the cosponsors, that we bring 
this to fruition.
  I would like to repeat to the ranking member and the ranking minority 
member of the committee on authorization, there is a determination here 
by both sides of the aisle to see this through to fruition. Whether we 
do it this time or we do it the next time, this will pass. I would ask 
the chairman to consider it in the conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing 
law. The amendment also proposes to designate an appropriation as an 
emergency for purposes of budget enforcement procedures in law. As 
such, it constitutes legislation, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule 
XXI. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to ask unanimous consent that 
it may be in order to consider at this time the Ney amendment No. 40, 
the

[[Page 11518]]

Gutierrez amendment No. 28, the Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that 
they be considered en bloc.
  I ask further that after disposition of these amendments that the 
House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want 
to clarify that amendments under the Medical Research paragraph are 
still eligible with the unanimous consent request of the gentleman. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, our intention is not to preclude anyone's 
ability to comment on these amendments or offer amendments.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see, before I pursue the 
objection, whether amendment No. 19 would be in order, given this 
unanimous consent agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot prejudge an amendment that has not yet 
been offered.
  Mr. FILNER. Then I will have to object. I want to know if it is 
eligible for offering at the point of line 8, as the amendment 
requests. I have to ask this, otherwise I will have to object to the 
unanimous consent request.
  I think the intent is to keep my amendment eligible. I just want to 
make sure that it is.
  The CHAIRMAN. First of all, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
should understand that reading is to commence at page 9, line 4, not 
line 8. His request is a bit premature.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would, then, amend that we return to 
reading of the bill on page 9, line 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:

                    medical and prosthetic research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 
     2002, $321,000,000, plus reimbursements.

  The CHAIRMAN. There has been no unanimous consent agreement in the 
Committee, nor is there an amendment pending.
  Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) wish to offer an 
amendment or a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, may I restate my unanimous consent request?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I may offer Ney amendment 
No. 40, Gutierrez amendment No. 28, and Tancredo amendment No. 26, and 
that they be considered en bloc; and I further ask that after 
disposition of the amendments the Committee return to the reading of 
the bill on page 9, line 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendments Offered by Mr. Walsh

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

       Amendments offered by Mr. Walsh:


                               H.R. 4635

                  Amendment No. 40 Offered By: Mr. Ney

       Under the heading ``Medical and Prosthetic Research'' of 
     title I, page 9, line 8, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' 
     after ``$321,000,000''.
       Under the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' 
     of title III, page 59, line 6, insert ``(reduced by 
     $5,000,000)'' after ``$1,900,000,000''.
                                  ____


               Amendment No. 28 Offered By: Mr. Gutierrez

       Page 9, after line 8, insert after the dollar amount the 
     follwoing: ``(increase by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 73, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
                                  ____


               Amendment No. 26 Offered By: Mr. Tancredo

       Page 14, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 73, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard job that the distinguished 
chairman and the members of the committee faced as they drafted this 
bill. It is a good bill, and I intend to support it.
  The amendment has been agreed to by the parties involved. It is about 
giving our veterans the facilities they need as they grow older and the 
care that they were promised as they chose to defend the country.
  Our bipartisan amendment will restore the State Extended Care 
Facilities Construction Grant Program funding to the FY 2000 level of 
$90 million. Currently the bill cuts the funding in this program to $30 
million.
  In 2010, one in every 16 American men will be a veteran of the 
military over the age of 62. That is an amazing statistic. The 
increasing age of most veterans means additional demand for medical 
services for eligible veterans as the aging process brings on chronic 
conditions needing more frequent care and lengthier convalescence.
  This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our 
Nation's veterans' health services. At the current pace of 
construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet 
veterans' extended care needs.
  The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by this House and 
signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on State care 
facilities that must be funded immediately. 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.
  Finally, State care facilities are cost effective. In Fiscal Year 
1998, the VA spent an average of $255 per day on long-term care nursing 
home care for residents, while State veterans homes spent an average of 
$40 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It is about 
nursing home care for our veterans.
  Unfortunately, when the administration came forward with its budget 
this year, they proposed a significant cut in State grants, grants to 
our States to provide veterans nursing homes.
  As we have seen growing need, as particularly our veterans of Korea 
and Vietnam and World War II-era veterans need nursing home care, there 
is tremendous demand. And State care facilities operated through the 
State of Illinois and others have proven cost effective.
  The VA spends on average $225 a day for care for long-term nursing 
care residents, whereas State nursing homes provide about $30 a day. 
They are effective and they provide quality care.
  I am proud to say that in Illinois we have four veterans homes. Two 
are in the district that I represent. One of them, the LaSalle Veterans 
Home, has a waiting list 220 veterans, veterans having to wait as long 
as 18 months in order to obtain nursing home care. Imagine that, if 
they need nursing home care and they have to wait 18 months. That is an 
eternity for veterans.
  Other veterans homes in Illinois, Manteno is owed a million dollars 
for its compliance with ADA. The State of Illinois is owed $5 million 
for other home updates. The bottom line is this money is needed.
  I want to salute the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for 
accepting this amendment. I also want to salute my friend, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), for his leadership in fighting 
for veterans.
  The bottom line is this legislation deserves bipartisan support. Let 
us support our veterans. Let us ensure the dollars are there to ensure 
nursing home care for our veterans and their needs.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly discuss the amendments that the 
chairman proposes to merge here. I want to

[[Page 11519]]

begin by expressing my agreement with the premise of these amendments 
that the Veterans Medical Research account and the State Grants Account 
for extended care facilities are both underfunded.
  Two of the amendments in this unanimous consent request, those of the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ney), would together increase the VA Medical Research Account by 
$30 million.
  As I said before, VA research has been widely praised for its quality 
and medical advances. Indeed, this Congress has clearly demonstrated 
its interest in medical research, specifically in the National 
Institutes of Health, which received a $2.2 billion increase last year, 
an increase of over 14 percent.
  We should be doing the same for VA medical research. And although 
these amendments do not get us to that point, they are a good start.
  In addition, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) would increase the State Grant Account for the construction 
of extended care facilities by $30 million, for a total of $90 million, 
the same level as was enacted for Fiscal Year 2000. The need for 
extended care facilities is great, and this increase will help meet 
that need.
  All that being said, I do have concerns regarding the offsets of 
these amendments. One offset would take $25 million from NASA's Human 
Space Flight Account. It is a small cut relatively, but I am a bit 
apprehensive about making any cuts to this account, particularly at a 
time when we are literally months away from establishing a permanent 
human presence in the Space Station.
  This account also funds the Space Shuttle Program, and reductions 
could either force delays or cuts in the mission manifest or, even 
worse, force cuts to important shuttle safety upgrades planned by NASA.
  The other NASA offset is also somewhat distressing. It would take $30 
million from NASA's Science Aeronautics and Technology Account.

                              {time}  1730

  This account funds almost all of NASA's activities other than the 
Space Shuttle and the Space Station, such activities as space science, 
aeronautics, earth science and NASA's academic programs.
  This account was also the only NASA account in this bill to receive 
less than the President's request. Mr. Chairman, NASA's budget has been 
cut for years and this amendment cuts an already anemic account.
  Finally, the last of these amendments would take $5 million from 
EPA's operating programs account, which includes just about all the 
agency's activities other than science research and Superfund. Although 
this is a very small cut, the relevant account is already 10 percent 
below the President's request.
  All that being said, I supported the gentleman's unanimous-consent 
request and the acceptance of the underlying amendments. I do look 
forward to working with the chairman and the other body in conference 
to restore the NASA and EPA funding as we move forward.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today for an amendment that I believe is 
critically important to the health and well-being of our veterans and 
to the future of the VA health care system. I urge all of my colleagues 
to support this amendment and make a strong statement of support for an 
effective, cost-efficient, and important program, the VA medical 
research program.
  Unfortunately, the appropriation bill before us calls for no 
increased funding, zero, in the VA medical research program. Given 
inflation and increased program needs, this amounts to a significant 
reduction in the amount of work and research the VA will be able to 
perform. This is a shortsighted and extremely damaging budget decision.
  Few government programs have given our Nation a better return on the 
dollar than VA medical research. The VA has become a world leader in 
such research areas as aging, AIDS-HIV, women's veterans health, and 
post-traumatic stress disorder. Specifically, VA researchers have 
played key roles in developing cardiac pacemakers, magnetic source 
imaging, and in improving artificial limbs.
  The first successful kidney transplant in the U.S. was performed at a 
VA hospital and the first successful drug treatments for high blood 
pressure and schizophrenia were pioneered by VA researchers. Quite 
simply, VA medical research has not only been vital for our veterans, 
it has led to breakthroughs and refinement of technology that have 
improved health care for all of us. Given this record of accomplishment 
with a very modest appropriation, the reduced commitment to the VA 
medical research budget is unjustified and unwise.
  At the proposed level of funding, the VA would be unable to maintain 
its current level of research effort in such vital areas as diabetes, 
substance abuse, mental health, Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, 
spinal cord injury, heart disease, and hepatitis. In fact, research 
projects currently in progress would be put in jeopardy.
  I am asking for a very reasonable increase, enough to save the 
current level of research and to allow for a modest improvement. My 
amendment calls for a $25 million increase in funding. Approximately 
$10 million is needed to maintain the current research level and 
approximately $15 million will help to fund new research projects in 
such vital areas as mental health and spinal cord injury. This is money 
well spent on proven, effective research projects that benefit not only 
our Nation's most deserving population, our veterans, but that 
eventually benefits us all.
  Again I believe in this Congress, we must reexamine our priorities 
and in our current economic climate, $25 million is hardly a budget-
breaking commitment. We cannot in any honest fashion say the money is 
not there. The money exists. It is simply a question of what we want to 
invest it in, what priorities are most important to us. What better 
choice, what better investment than the health care of our veterans? 
The average research grant is $130,000. My amendment will help pave the 
way for as many as 250 new ones. Which of those grants will help to 
find a cure for Parkinson's disease? Or ease the pain of post-traumatic 
stress? Or discover new ways to prevent prostate cancer or protect 
against heart disease? Or which of these grants will never be funded 
because we were not willing to make this reasonable and effective 
appropriation? Which grant will we lose because once again we made 
speeches praising our courageous members of the Armed Forces when they 
fought and sacrificed to keep our country safe only to make them 
sacrifice again when we turn our backs on their health care needs?
  This amendment shows us that we do not have to sacrifice any of these 
research projects. The amendment has the strong support of the American 
Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America. 
I urge my colleagues to join these veterans advocacy groups and please 
support the funding. It is effective, it is necessary, it is 
reasonable, and our veterans deserve it. I hope Members will stand with 
me in support of VA medical research.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for including this amendment in the en bloc package that he has 
offered to the House and to wish him a belated happy birthday.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) for including my amendment in the en bloc.
  My amendment reduces the EPA's program and management budget which is 
$1.9 billion by $5 million and transfers the dollars to medical 
research in the VA. The EPA's account in this section encompasses a 
broad range of things, including travel and expenses for most of the 
agency. I believe the EPA can tighten their belts on some

[[Page 11520]]

travel to the tune of $5 million so that our veterans can continue to 
receive the medical care that they need and deserve.
  With passage of Public Law 85-857 in 1958, Congress gave official 
recognition to a research program with a proven record of contributing 
to the improvement of medical care and rehabilitation services for the 
U.S. veteran. The law formally authorized medical and prosthetic 
research in the VA and led to the establishment of four organizational 
units, medical research, rehabilitation research and development, 
health services research and development, and the cooperative studies 
program.
  There are over 75 some groups which I have listed here that, in fact, 
support the increase for VA medical research. I want to again thank the 
gentleman from New York for his indulgence to support the veterans.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe with the allocations made by the leadership, 
and I appreciate the $30 million additional in terms of nursing homes 
for veterans, but still we need $80 million to take care of existing 
costs. I feel compelled to speak out on this amendment which would 
inadequately fund the State Veterans Home Program. It is imperative 
that the veterans and their families be able to be taken care of in the 
twilight of their years.
  Getting the funding increase is only the first step. While I am 
primarily concerned about the dire need of these homes in Texas, 
veterans all across the country need these services. The key to strong 
recruitment into our military is a strong evidence of helping veterans 
throughout their life. On behalf of the nearly 1.7 million veterans in 
Texas, I want to boost this appropriation for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs' grants for construction of State extended care 
facilities to $140 million for fiscal year 2001. The $30 million would 
only give us $90 million. We need $80 million additional to bring us up 
to $140 million to be able to take care of existing costs.
  This increase of $80 million, if you add $50 million to your request 
from the VA, was recommended by both the chairman and the ranking 
member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in their letter to 
the House Committee on the Budget expressing our views and estimates of 
the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York in 
securing necessary resources to fund this crucial program which is very 
important. Providing for the long-term health care needs of veterans 
remains one of our most important commitments to those who have served 
our Nation. I feel that providing this stepped up level of funding for 
2001 sends a strong signal to our veterans and their families across 
this country that Congress is committed to serving veterans in the 
twilight of their years.
  Texas has only received 3 percent of the funding from these types of 
programs in the past since its inception even though we have over 7 
percent of the Nation's veterans. As they get older and are in more 
need of nursing home care, we must be there for them and be able to 
provide that service. Texas has been a newcomer to this program, and we 
have not taken advantage of it in the past which provides funding for 
State nursing homes for veterans.
  We have begun construction of four sites in Texas. Those sites are in 
Floresville, Texas; Temple, Texas; Bonham; and in Big Spring. The 
reality is that the way it is structured now, Texas will not be 
entitled to a red cent, to not a single penny of the resources that are 
there unless we go beyond the existing resources because of the wording 
that you have for renovation and not for new construction.
  I am hopeful that we can continue to work on this to provide the 
additional resources that are needed. Once again, it was unfortunate 
the administration had only recommended $60 million. Your $30 million 
will bring it up to $90 million. We really need to look in terms of 
bringing it up to $140 million to meet the needs. That is one of the 
recommendations that was made from our committee.
  I want to ask the committee to please consider the possibility of 
increasing these resources beyond the $30 million that is there before 
us.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that our 
veterans population is aging. In fact, in 2010--over half of the 
veterans population will be over the age of 62. Currently, 36 percent 
of all veterans are over the age of 65 and that number is expected to 
increase exponentially over the next eight years.
  The increasing age of most veterans means additional demands for 
medical services for eligible veterans. This surge of older veterans 
will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services.
  The House and Senate approved $90 million in funding for the State 
Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program for FY99 and FY00. 
This year, however, the Committee has funded the program at $60 
million--$30 million below last year's funding.
  This amendment would increase funding for these States Care 
Facilities by $30 million to the fiscal year 2000 level of $90 million.
  Last year, 354 Members of Congress voted to support our aging veteran 
population by voting for a similar amendment to restore funding the 
State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program in the VA-HUD 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Once again, this amendment 
must be offered to prevent a massive, 33 percent cut in funding to this 
vital, cost-effect program for our veterans.
  The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by the House and 
signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on state care 
facilities that must be funded immediately. 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.
  In fiscal year 1998, the VA spent on average $255.25 per day to care 
for long term nursing care residents, while, state veterans homes on 
average spent $40.00 per resident. This economic trend continued in 
1999--proving that state care facilities are in fact cost-effective.
  Mr. Chairman, taking care of our nation's veterans is clearly one of 
the government's prime responsibilities Congress has a track record of 
supporting veterans program as we have increased the President's 
request for VA funding for several consecutive years now.
  At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary 
facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The State Nursing 
Homes Construction Grant Program is an important program that meets our 
veterans health care meets. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Tancredo amendment and to the Gutierrez amendment. I would like to say 
straight out, though, that I certainly am very sympathetic to the idea 
of plussing up these veterans accounts. I believe I have the fourth 
largest number of veterans in my congressional district and the 
veterans in my congressional district have been historically very 
underserved. I believe the gentleman from Texas just related a very 
similar story to what has gone on in Texas and many other Sunbelt 
States that have not been receiving the appropriate amount of veterans 
care for their communities.
  My objection is based on the issue of cutting funding out of NASA. 
NASA, unlike most Federal agencies here in Washington, has actually 
seen its budget decline in real dollars over the past 8 years. NASA 
from the time period of about 1982 to 1992 saw its budget double and 
then over the past 8 years of the Clinton administration, it has 
actually gone down by several hundred millions of dollars.
  When we factor in inflation on this, it is actually about a 30 
percent reduction in the purchasing power of the agency. I would like 
to point out to my colleagues because there have been many eloquent 
comments about the need to plus up veterans research, the funding that 
has gone to NASA has played a critical role in enhancing our 
breakthroughs in medical technology and medical research. I would just

[[Page 11521]]

point out to my colleagues that much of the technology that goes into 
current pacemakers currently employed by hundreds of thousands of 
veterans, the technology used in scanning, MRI scanning, CAT scanning, 
the technology used in cardiac catheterization, many of the material 
science that goes into the prosthetic devices which some people have 
been talking about today, it is all actually a spin-off from our space 
program.
  So what we are really talking about doing here is the proverbial 
borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. We have an agency that has been cut 
year after year after year and now for the first time we are actually 
talking about plussing it up. I think it would be very, very 
inappropriate for us to go into this agency. There are many other 
places in this bill where we could find the appropriate reductions to 
be made.
  I would certainly hope that if this amendment considered en bloc 
passes that the subcommittee chairman and the full committee chairman 
work in the conference process to get these NASA reductions plussed 
back up. I would like to also point out that some of this money that is 
being cut is going for flight safety for our shuttle program which is 
very, very critical to making sure that the Space Station program 
succeeds.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This amendment 
will basically require, or almost make it assured that the 30 Members 
from Texas will have to vote no despite the fact that we feel very 
strongly about the need for nursing homes because they are taking it 
from NASA and not only that they are taking it from NASA, but in 
addition to that $30 million that is going to nursing homes, none of 
that with the exception of $10 million would be qualified to where we 
could even begin to participate because we cannot even get that first 
$80 million for Texas for nursing homes. So not only are they taking 
the money from there but we are not going to be able to benefit from 
that, either.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just 
like to point out to my colleagues here that my congressional district 
has no veterans nursing home, even though it has needed one for years; 
and I certainly would support increasing funding for veterans nursing 
care, veterans medical research. I just object to the place where these 
reductions are being made.
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, the 
Tancredo-Weller-John-Ryan-Hilleary and others amendment to the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill. I want to personally thank the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for his work on this issue that is so critical 
to our Nation's veterans across America.
  Mr. Chairman, veteran State homes are the most cost-effective 
programs in the Veterans Administration. These homes receive Federal 
funding of 65 percent for construction costs and the remainder is 
provided by the different States. Once the home is constructed and 
ready to go, the Veterans Administration pays on an average only $40 a 
day for its patients. However, the other long-term facilities drain the 
Veterans Administration of some $250 per day.
  This amendment would save the Veterans Administration lots of money, 
over $200 a day to provide long-term health care for our veterans. This 
amendment will prevent a massive 33 percent reduction in the State 
Nursing Home Construction Grant Program at a time when the number of 
elderly veterans are dramatically rising.
  Mr. Chairman, in just a very, very few short years, half of the 
veteran population of this Nation will be over the age of 65, and we 
must have the facilities to provide them this quality care. There is 
already a long list of States on a waiting list for these homes. In 
fact, many of the States have already appropriated dollars and 
allocated funds for these homes. Yet Washington has failed to uphold 
its end of the bargain.
  This is a win-win situation for the Federal Government and for our 
Nation's veterans. By agreeing to this amendment, we will renew our 
commitment to America's veterans.
  Our amendment maintains, does not increase, but maintains the past 2 
years' level of funding of $90 million in order to ensure our continued 
investments in our veterans health care facilities. If you remember, 
Mr. Chairman, last year, a similar effort to increase funding for this 
account was supported by over 350 Members of this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the increase of $30 million as provided in 
the Tancredo amendment, and I urge my fellow Members to support this 
much needed amendment to help out the people that have helped us out so 
many times, the veterans of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tancredo, Weller, John, Ryan, 
Hilleary amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations Bill.
  I would personally like to thank the cosponsors for their work on our 
amendment, especially Mr. Tancredo. This is a critical issue to our 
nation's veterans.
  As you know Mr. Chairman, Veteran State Homes are one of the most 
cost-effective programs within the Veterans Administration, and there 
is an ever-growing list of grant requests from states working to 
fulfill the health care needs of our veterans. While I appreciate all 
the difficulties associated with constructing this bill, it is not the 
time to ignore the needs of our senior and disabled veterans.
  State Homes receive federal funding for 65 percent of the 
construction costs, and the remainder is provided by the state. Once 
the home is providing care, the Veterans Administration pays an average 
of $40 per day for patients. However, other long term nursing 
facilities drain the Veterans Administration of over $250 per day. By 
comparison, the State Extended Care Facilities Program saves the 
federal government approximately $200 per day per veteran.
  This amendment will prevent a massive 33 percent reduction in the 
State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program at a time when the 
number of elderly veterans is dramatically increasing. In a few years, 
half of the veteran population will be over the age of 65, and we must 
have facilities available to provide quality care. There is already a 
long waiting list for state veterans homes, and we cannot prolong this 
necessary action.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a win-win situation for the federal government 
and for our nation's veterans. Many states have already approved and 
allocated funding for their homes; yet Washington is failing to uphold 
its end of the bargain. By agreeing to this amendment, we are renewing 
our commitment to this successful federal-state partnership.
  I need not remind this body that this Congress and our President 
acted decisively in improving the quality of health care when we passed 
the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act last fall. Just as that bill 
improved the quality of care that our nation's veterans receive, so 
then this amendment would ensure that those veterans have adequate 
facilities through which such care can be rendered. More simply, we 
must not fall short on our commitment to our nation's veterans by not 
building the facilities that provide for their care. Our amendment will 
maintain the past two years' funding level of $90 million in order to 
ensure continued investment in our veterans' health care facilities.
  Last year, a similar effort to increase funding for this account was 
supported by 354 Members of this House. Once again, we have an 
opportunity to address an inadequacy in VA funding by leveraging much 
needed, scarce federal resources in a very successful program.
  I support the increase of $30 million as provided in the Tancredo, 
Weller, John, Ryan, and Hilleary amendment, and I urge that my fellow 
Members join me in adopting this amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unusual that I follow my colleague, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. John), because the gentleman and I normally are of 
the same mind. Maybe the river that separates Texas and Louisiana might 
have more than that.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. While 
I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to increase funding for a number 
of important satisfactory veterans programs, I

[[Page 11522]]

cannot support the way in which they are going about obtaining the 
funding.
  To pay for these worthwhile programs, the amendment seeks to transfer 
funds from the Human Space Flight account of NASA and also NASA 
Science, Aeronautics and Technology.
  While the contribution of our veterans to the greatness of our Nation 
should never be forgotten, and while we fulfill our special obligations 
to care for those who fought for these freedoms that we enjoy and 
sometimes we take for granted, this amendment is not right the way it 
goes. In fact, my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), 
who has fought many years not only in the State legislature, but now 
here in Congress for veterans nursing homes, tells me that Texas will 
not benefit from this plus-up yet with the cuts from NASA. The men and 
women at NASA run an exceptional government agency that has always done 
innovative work with limited funds that Congress appropriates.
  They have been leaders in cutting expenses and making their agency 
more financially streamlined and we should recognize that. If anything, 
I fear that perhaps they carried their zeal for faster, cheaper, 
better, a step too far.
  With the recent high-profile setbacks, particularly in the Mars 
missions, I think we need to prod NASA in the other direction, to 
ensure that in their efforts to do more with less that they have not 
sacrificed safety to save money. Again, this amendment has benefit but 
not in this area.
  NASA is a fine example of an effective agency. If we wish to have the 
world's preeminent space program, we must work to fund it, not to cut 
their budget.
  Our space program is the envy of the world. Despite recent stumbles, 
NASA continues to expand the frontiers of knowledge and probe the vast 
unknown reaches of outerspace.
  Space exploration will play a critical role in our Nation's future 
both for technology development and for health care, and we need to 
push for the development of these new technologies.
  It will push our children, our students, to learn more math and 
science; and we need to make sure that responsible agencies like NASA 
have the necessary funds to carry out their mission and to continue to 
provide us with the invaluable source of innovation and information.
  I support veterans nationwide, but I also want to make sure our Texas 
veterans can benefit. Again, this amendment does not go that far, and 
so I would hope in their effort to support veterans nationwide that we 
would come up with an amendment that not only would not cut NASA, but 
would help veterans in all 50 states instead of 49 of them and not just 
punish the ones in Texas.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this discussion and the amendments show a couple of 
things about the processes which we are undergoing in discussing this 
bill. Number one, it shows that everybody agrees that there are 
accounts in the veterans budget that are underfunded, and the chairman 
of the committee seems to agree that we should plus-up the research 
account in this case by $30 million, plus-up the construction of the 
State veteran homes by $30 million, and I support that and would go 
even further.
  It also makes the point that many Members are caught up in a 
conundrum here. The absurdity of our rules where we have to do 
something good in order to do something good in the veterans budget, we 
have to do something bad in the space budget. This at a time when we 
have surpluses.
  I do not think the public understands why we should go through such 
an exercise that we have to cut $60 million out of the space program in 
order to fund $60 million in the veterans account when we have the 
money to do both, and this is what we should be doing.
  We should be plussing-up the account in research, as an amendment I 
had on the floor to do. We should be plussing-up the account for the 
State veterans homes, which I have an amendment to do, without having 
to take from NASA.
  My colleagues, we all know, we all know we have the money to do this. 
This is an absurdity. This is a game we are playing here that puts us 
in very low esteem with our constituents who say, when the gentleman 
from Florida said he represents the place where they have the fourth 
highest veterans and he also is strongly in support of the space 
station, his constituents have to say well, why not do both, and they 
are right.
  We should be doing both, and though I support the plus-up of $30 
million in the State veterans home account, I would have to underline 
what my colleagues from Texas said, this does not allow us to make up 
for previously approved projects and projects that have already been 
approved by their States which, with appropriated funds, we cannot make 
up that backlog with this plus-up.
  We need an additional $50 million more. The amendments are absolutely 
right in that we need these plus-ups, and I am glad the chairman of the 
subcommittee understands that we were falling behind in those accounts 
and this House has catched up, but I need to point out the absurdity of 
the rules we are under, which force us to take money from another 
account which is absolutely vital also to our future as a civilization.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge somehow that the Committee on the Budget 
and the Committee on Appropriations would put us into realistic 
situations without forcing us to make these kinds of choices which are 
not mandated by the reality of our funds today.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ney-Gutierrez-
Tancredo en bloc amendment that adds funding for VA medical research 
and for grants to states for extended care facilities for our aging 
veterans.
  This bill before us tonight demonstrates the effect of poorly-placed 
priorities created when the majority voted for a budget agreement that 
spent too much on military largesse and tax breaks for the wealthy. We 
did not place a sufficiently high priority on our nation's veterans 
programs in this year's budget allocations. As my colleague Barney 
Frank observed, we are suffering from a self-inflicted wound.
  In fact, this VA-HUD bill provides $2.5 billion less than the 
Administration's FY 2001 budget request. We have a responsibility to 
keep our promises to our veterans.
  As a nation, we have special obligation to our veterans. They have 
earned benefits that they receive from a grateful nation. The service 
and sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears of men and women who have served 
in our Armed Forces has allowed for the historic prosperity we now 
enjoy. Caring for our veterans is a legitimate cost of national 
security, yet we do not seem willing to spend an adequate amount on 
that care.
  This year, we are spending 52% of our discretionary budget on the 
military but not enough on those who have already served: our nation's 
veterans whose funding is dependent on this much smaller appropriations 
bill that is before us tonight.
  We are spending $46.8 billion for veterans' health care, research, 
and medical facilities. Funding for military activities, including our 
nuclear weapons stockpile, will total some $311 billion this year. We 
owe our veterans more than they are receiving.
  We are spending $22 billion more in this year's defense 
appropriations bill than we did in last year's; by comparison, funding 
for Department of Veterans Affairs medical and prosthetic research is 
the same in this bill before us last year's funding: a mere $321 
million.
  The $62 million for major construction and improvement of VA 
facilities is 5% less than we spent last year. ``Minor'' construction 
projects--those costing less than $4 million per project--and extended 
care facilities are each given a third less funding than they received 
last year.
  This budget falls half a billion dollars short of the level called 
for in The Independent Budget, proposed by Disabled American Veterans, 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and other veterans' groups. Over the 
past decade, federal spending for veterans' health care has fallen 
dramatically short of keeping pace with medical inflation. These 
shortfalls have forced VA medical facilities nationwide to cut 
services, delay and even deny care to veterans in need.
  Without adequate funding, the VA, created to meet our nation's 
obligation to its former defenders, will be unable to meet its 
obligations to veterans. It is time to acknowledge the sacrifices our 
veterans made and to honor our commitment to them. They answered their 
call to service long ago; now we must answer

[[Page 11523]]

back by ensuring them a secure and stable future.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend Chairman 
Walsh for the hard work he and his staff put into crafting such an 
excellent bill. I would also like to thank him for including this, as 
well as the other important amendments in his en bloc request. For the 
second year in a row, he has made astounding and much needed increases 
in many veteran's programs.
  Today I rise in support of this amendment to increase the funding for 
the veterans state-extended care facilities. These facilities in my 
opinion are imperative to the mission of providing quality health care 
to those who dutifully served our country.
  These veterans homes are the largest provider of long-term nursing 
care to our veterans. They enable the Veterans Administration to ensure 
quality nursing care to veterans that cannot receive proper treatment 
through any other means. Many of the men and women who served our 
country are bedridden due to service-related injuries. It is these 
veterans that the state-extended care facilities will serve.
  Not only are these homes, nursing care units and hospitals necessary 
for proper care, they are also cost effective. If a veteran is forced 
to go to a private nursing home, the VA will reimburse that home on 
average $150 dollar per diem. Contrast that with the approximately $51 
dollar per diem reimbursement to the State veterans homes for the same 
care. The same care for approximately one-third of the cost. I think 
you will agree that for this reason alone we should vigorously support 
these facilities.
  Even with the Tancredo, Weller, Johns, Ryan, and Hilleary amendment 
enacted, we will fall far short of the funding commitment we have made 
to the States. The Federal Government has agreed to fund 65 percent of 
the construction costs for the state-extended care facilities. At this 
time, many States have already appropriated their share of the 
construction costs.
  Aside from the current $126 million backlog of work due to years of 
underfunding, the Federal Government could be responsible for over $200 
million in additional construction money, if all pending applications, 
as well as those that were grandfathered in under the Veteran's 
Millennium Health Care Act, are approved. Even with this amendment, we 
may still owe various States across the Nation up to $236 million.
  There are approximately 10 million veterans over the age of 65. Our 
almost 67 million World War II veterans continue to require extensive 
health care that we are proud and obligated to provide. This country 
and the VA must be adequately prepared through proper funding to handle 
the challenge of ensuring the best possible care for the men and women 
who bravely served this Nation.
  I ask that we strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Being fiscally responsible sometimes means making tough decisions. 
The gentleman from Colorado's amendment presents one such choice. It 
requires us to choose between spending more money to help states 
construct extended care facilities for veterans versus funding NASA 
research programs at the appropriated level.
  Certainly, we own our veterans a great debt, and nursing home 
facilities for men and women who served this country are important. But 
I urge my colleagues to remember that H.R. 4635 already provides 
funding for this grant program. So even if this amendment fails, these 
grants will still be available for veterans' care.
  I oppose this amendment because I believe it sacrifices one of our 
Nation's most important investments in order to achieve the amendment's 
goals. This investment, in science and engineering research, is 
critical to developing the technologies and know how that save lives, 
strengthen the economy, and help keep our defenses strong and our 
troops protected. Veterans are alive today because of past investments 
in science and technology. Don't we owe the veterans of tomorrow the 
same advantages? I think we do, which is why I oppose the amendment.
  Investments in research and technology rarely pay off right away--
certainly they cannot compete with the construction of a new building 
in terms of clearly recognizable short-term accomplishments--but they 
do pay off. The evidence for long-term payoffs from research and 
technology investments is impressive.
  The research programs this amendment would take away from represent 
part of this long-term investment in research and technology. I urge my 
colleagues to protect them, and to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  NASA's science programs are a critical component to enabling many of 
the technological breakthroughs that all of us enjoy. The importance of 
research and development and scientific discovery on our every day 
lives cannot be overstated. NASA in partnership with industry, 
academia, and other federal agencies perform research and develop 
technology which is fundamentally important to keeping America capable 
and competitive. Our nation's economic growth and prosperity are tied 
more closely than ever to technological advancement. We must ensure 
that NASA gets the funding necessary to continue to maintain America's 
leadership in technology.
  The White House's recently released report on Federal R&D investment 
challenges the Congress to ``demonstrate strong bipartisan support for 
R&D'' and ``instead of slashing science and technology, we should 
accelerate the march of human knowledge by greatly increasing our 
investments in R&D.'' It took Congress five years to convince the 
Administration that past cuts to the space program were 
counterproductive. Now that the Administration has seen the light, I 
hope Congress will maintain its past commitment to science and 
technology by rejecting this amendment.
  The amendment proposes to cut $23 million from NASA's Human Space 
Flight program. Although the amendment appears to save money by 
reducing a program's budget, in reality it only increases costs in the 
future by stretching out the program and delaying the scientific 
results and advances that the research promises.
  We must continue to make investments in research and development, so 
that everyone will benefit from the discoveries and innovations which 
will improve our quality of life. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Gutierrez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendments offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
will be postponed.
  Pursuant to a previous order of the House, the Clerk will resume 
reading at page 9, line 4.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    medical and prosthetic research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 
     2002, $321,000,000, 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, $62,000,000 plus reimbursements: Provided, That 
     technical and consulting services offered by the Facilities 
     Management Field 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, 2001.

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     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, 
     $1,006,000,000: Provided, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading, not to exceed $50,050,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2002: Provided further, That 
     funds under this heading shall be available to administer the 
     Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:
       Under ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Departmental 
     Administration'', on page 10, line 10 after the number 
     $1,006,000,000, insert: (increased by $4,000,000 for 
     transfers authorized by law; decreased by $4,000,000 from 
     general administrative expenses)


[[Page 11524]]

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, last night we spent several hours debating 
the tobacco rider in this bill. As I explained last night, this rider 
defunds the VA lawsuit against the tobacco industry. I offered an 
amendment last night that would have allowed the VA to use funds from 
the VA medical care account to pay for the lawsuit. In opposing my 
amendment, I heard Member after Member say that they were not opposed 
to VA's tobacco litigation, rather they were just opposed to the source 
of funding.
  My amendment today addresses this point. It lets VA fund the 
litigation from its general operating expenses, such as salaries and 
travel, not the medical care account.
  Let me just quickly review the situation. In 1998, Congress voted to 
stop cash payments to veterans suffering from tobacco-related 
illnesses. As part of the Transportation Equity Account, Congress 
decided these payments could be better used paying for highway projects 
than to support our veterans. This was a bitter blow to our veterans. 
To lessen the impact on veterans, Congress told the VA and the 
Department of Justice to sue the tobacco industry. We promised that we 
would support this litigation and that if any funds were recovered, we 
would devote them to paying for medical care for veterans.
  Now, we were very clear when Congress voted to take away the cash 
payments to veterans for tobacco-related illness. We promised veterans 
we would help them recover from the cigarette manufacturers the costs 
of treating tobacco-related illnesses.
  The administration did what we asked them to do in 1998. The VA and 
the Justice Department filed a suit to recover the medical expenses 
incurred by the Veterans Administration in treating tobacco-related 
illnesses. And under the legal provisions they are using, the Medical 
Care Recovery Act, all the money recovered will go back to the Veterans 
Administration, just as Congress urged.
  This amendment that I am now offering, I think, meets the objections 
that were raised last night. The funds will not be transferred out of 
the VA medical account, even as we tried to limit it last night from 
that VA medical account for legal and administrative expenses. Instead, 
it will come from the operational funds from the Veterans 
Administration as well.
  I know that the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee thought 
this was unnecessary, because he thought the Veterans Administration 
had the authority to do this, but we want to make it very clear that 
those funds will be available for this lawsuit; and I think we are 
addressing the main argument that I heard last night that our amendment 
was objectionable, because it took funding from medical care for 
veterans.
  I hope that this amendment will be acceptable to the majority, and I 
would hope that they would agree with us and allow us to pass this 
amendment and to permit the lawsuits to be funded that I think will 
have enormous benefits for the veterans and for the taxpayers of this 
country. On that basis, I ask your support for the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we had some discussion on this yesterday, about 3\1/2\ 
hours' or 4 hours' worth; and we tried to make the point over and over 
that veterans' medical care funds were sacrosanct.

                              {time}  1800

  We were not going to those precious funds to be used for anything 
other than what they were intended.
  So when the gentleman came back with an amendment that talked about 
using administrative funds, I have no objection to that amendment. We 
believe the amendment is superfluous. It really accomplishes nothing. 
The amendment really is not necessary. We made that point again and 
again, that it is the medical care funds that we were protecting in the 
bill.
  Our language specifically denotes medical funds shall not be used. 
All other funds within the bill are open and available. There was no 
prohibition, no restrictive language on any of those other 17 areas of 
funding.
  So the gentleman's amendment makes administrative funds available for 
the Justice Department lawsuit. We believe in effect they already are. 
The practical upshot of this is the Veterans Administration will have 
to come back to the Congress and ask for a reprogramming of these 
funds, and I would have no objection to that.
  So, for those reasons, this side is prepared to accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to be argumentative, and I am very 
grateful that the chairman has accepted the very wise amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and I do want to add my support 
to it.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also acknowledge that I wish to briefly comment 
on the previous amendment that was offered en bloc by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and I believe the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), to offer my opposition to the 
expenditures of funds on the amendment that would take monies out of 
the human space flight and other space programs, noting that those 
programs have been particularly efficient.
  I comment on that particular amendment because the debate has been in 
this bill on the cutting of funds across the board. I think that is 
what defeated the Waxman amendment yesterday, which was the thought we 
were taking money out of the veterans health care.
  I simply want to say this bill overall is bad because it cuts 
everyone, and we have enough money to be able to fund these important 
programs under the VA-HUD bill.
  So I am hoping that we will have a bill ultimately, though I applaud 
the work of the committee, that will fund the various programs as they 
should, veterans health care, human space flight, NASA science 
aeronautics and technology, EPA programs and other programs that my 
colleagues would desire to support.
  I support the Waxman amendment, and I oppose the previous amendment 
that was discussed.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's support and 
the willingness of the chairman of the subcommittee to work out this 
issue so that we have this amendment before us today. I just want to 
note for the record that it is not my understanding that this will 
require a reprogramming of funds. We believe that this amendment 
authorizes the use of those funds. That may have to be determined 
later. I do want to note we may have a disagreement on the 
consequences.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, there is some confusion about exactly how 
this would come back. If it was in the budget request, then it would be 
clearly not subject to reprogramming. I will be willing to work with 
the gentleman as we go down the road on this issue. But, as I said, I 
have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, tobacco use kills 430,000 people 
a year. That's more than the number who die from murder, suicide, AIDS, 
alcohol and all illegal drugs combined.
  The number of people suffering from tobacco-related illnesses today 
is in the millions. A great many of these deaths are attributable to 
deliberate congressional action over the years of subsidizing tobacco 
companies financially through farming, marketing and export.
  The Congress gave support and credibility to the public statements of 
tobacco companies that smoking tobacco wasn't harmful.
  And perhaps the most culpable congressional act was to include 
cigarettes in the package of sea rations and authorized supplies that 
we provided our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
  We encouraged our brave, strong, patriotic servicemen to smoke 
cigarettes. We instructed them to ``light 'em if you had 'em''--and of

[[Page 11525]]

course because we supplied them, most of them had 'em.
  And now those very same soldiers are now paying the price of that 
official policy. They're suffering from emphysema, cancer of the lungs, 
and the larynx, and the mouth and the throat.
  Well, the decades of deliberate deceit by the tobacco companies has 
finally been exposed.
  But they've already made their millions selling cigarettes to the 
military, they've made their billions selling to the American public 
and they're still making billions marketing an instrument of death and 
suffering to the rest of the world.
  But what of our veterans who sacrificed their lives to serve their 
country. Those strong, brave soldiers are lying in homes and hospitals, 
suffering ignominious suffering and death. They're paying the real 
price of corporate deceit and congressional consent.
  Why shouldn't those tobacco companies at least pay for some of the 
price of those trusting soldiers' health care?
  This amendment says they should. We protect tobacco companies from 
the legal means of making them responsible.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    national cemetery administration


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     the National Cemetery Administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, including uniforms or allowances therefor; cemeterial 
     expenses as authorized by law; purchase of two passenger 
     motor vehicles for use in cemeterial operations; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $106,889,000: Provided, That travel 
     expenses shall not exceed $1,125,000: Provided further, That 
     of the amount made available under this heading, not to 
     exceed $125,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.

                      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, $46,464,000: Provided, That of the amount made 
     available under this heading, not to exceed $28,000 may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

                      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, $62,140,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That except for advance 
     planning of projects (including market-based assessments of 
     health care needs which may or may not lead to capital 
     investments) funded through the advance planning fund and the 
     design of projects funded through the design fund, none of 
     these funds shall be used for any project which has not been 
     considered and approved by the Congress in the budgetary 
     process: Provided further, That funds provided in this 
     appropriation for fiscal year 2001, for each approved 
     project, shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a 
     construction documents contract by September 30, 2001; and 
     (2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September 
     30, 2002: Provided further, That the Secretary 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 1 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, 
     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, $100,000,000, 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: Provided, 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.

       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, $60,000,000, 
     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, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2001 for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``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 2001 for salaries and 
     expenses shall be available for services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109.
       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'' 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 2001 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'', ``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 2000.
       Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2001 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 and pensions''.
       Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2001, 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 
     2001, 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 2001, 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. (a) Notwithstanding sections 1710B(e)(2) and 
     1729B(b) of title 38 United States Code, and any other 
     provision of law,

[[Page 11526]]

     any amount received or collected by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs during fiscal year 2001 under any of the 
     following provisions of law shall be deposited in the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Fund, to be 
     available in accordance with section 1829A(c) of title 38 
     United States Code:
       (1) Section 1710B of title 38 United States Code.
       (2) Section 1722A(b) of title 38 United States Code.
       (3) Section 8165(a) of title 38 United States Code.
       (4) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health Care and 
     Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; of title 38 United States 
     Code.
       (b) Provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) shall 
     be treated as provisions of law referred to in subsection (b) 
     of section 1729A of of title 38 United States Code, for 
     purposes of subsections (d), (e), and (f) of that section 
     during fiscal year 2001.
       Sec. 109. In accordance with section 1557 of title 31, 
     United States Code, the following obligated balance shall be 
     exempt from subchapter IV of chapter 15 of such title and 
     shall remain available for expenditure until September 30, 
     2003: funds obligated by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     for a contract with the Institute for Clinical Research to 
     study the application of artificial neural networks to the 
     diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer through the 
     Cooperative DoD/VA Medical Research program from funds made 
     available to the Department of Veterans Affairs by the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 
     103-335) under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide''.
       Sec. 110. As HR LINK$ will not be part of the Franchise 
     Fund in fiscal year 2001, funds budgeted in customer accounts 
     to purchase HR LINK$ services from the Franchise Fund shall 
     be transferred to the General Administration portion of the 
     ``General operating expenses'' appropriation in the following 
     amounts: $78,000 from the ``Office of Inspector General'', 
     $358,000 from the ``National cemetery administration'', 
     $1,106,000 from ``Medical care'', $84,000 from ``Medical 
     administration and miscellaneous operating expenses'', and 
     $38,000 shall be reprogrammed within the ``General operating 
     expenses'' appropriation from the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration to General Administration for the same 
     purpose.
       Sec. 111. Not to exceed $1,600,000 from the ``Medical 
     care'' appropriation shall be transferred to the ``General 
     operating expenses'' appropriation to fund personnel services 
     costs of employees providing legal services and 
     administrative support for the Office of General Counsel.
       Sec. 112. Section 9305 of Public Law 105-33, The Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997, is repealed.
       Sec. 113. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     procure information technology systems, engage in new 
     initiatives, or implement a policy affecting total 
     procurement costs over $2,000,000 in non-medical resources 
     and $4,000,000 in medical resources without the approval of 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs Capital Investment Board.


 Vacating Request for Recorded Vote on Amendments Offered by Mr. Walsh

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the request for 
a recorded vote on the amendments offered by myself be vacated, to the 
end that the voice vote thereon be taken de novo.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Public and Indian Housing

                     housing certificate fund (hcf)


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities and assistance to prevent the involuntary 
     displacement of low-income families, the elderly and the 
     disabled because of the loss of affordable housing stock, 
     expiration of subsidy contracts (other than contracts for 
     which amounts are provided under another heading in this Act) 
     or expiration of use restrictions, or other changes in 
     housing assistance arrangements, and for other purposes, 
     $13,275,388,459 and amounts that are recaptured in this 
     account and recaptured under the appropriation for ``Annual 
     contributions for assisted housing'', to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That of the total amount provided 
     under this heading, $9,075,388,459 and the aforementioned 
     recaptures shall be available on October 1, 2000, and 
     $4,200,000,000 shall be available on October 1, 2001, shall 
     be for assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (``the Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 1437): Provided further, That 
     of the total amount available for use in connection with 
     expiring or terminating section 8 subsidy contracts, up to 
     $37,000,000 shall be available for assistance under subtitle 
     F of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Act for use in connection with the renewal of contracts, 
     which contracts may be renewed noncompetitively and for one-
     year terms, in addition to amounts otherwise available for 
     such renewals: Provided further, That the foregoing amounts 
     be for use in connection with expiring or terminating section 
     8 subsidy contracts, for amendments to section 8 subsidy 
     contracts, for enhanced vouchers (including amendments and 
     renewals) under any provision of law authorizing such 
     assistance under section 8(t) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 
     1437f(t)), and contracts entered into pursuant to section 441 
     and, for terms of one year, section 473 of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act: Provided further, That 
     amounts available under the first proviso under this heading 
     shall be available for section 8 rental assistance under the 
     Act: (1) pursuant to section 24 of the Act or to other 
     authority for the revitalization of severely distressed 
     public housing, as set forth in the Appropriations Acts for 
     the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies for fiscal years 1993, 
     1994, 1995, and 1997, and in the Omnibus Consolidated 
     Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996; (2) for the 
     conversion of section 23 projects to assistance under section 
     8; (3) for funds to carry out the family unification program; 
     (4) for the 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; (5) for tenant protection assistance, including 
     replacement and relocation assistance; (6) for renewal of 
     assistance under the shelter plus care program; and (7) for 
     the renewal of section 8 contracts for units in a project 
     that is subject to an approved plan of action under the 
     Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987 or the 
     Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership 
     Act of 1990: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, up to $25,000,000 shall be made 
     available to nonelderly disabled families affected by the 
     designation of a public housing development under section 7 
     of such Act, the establishment of preferences in accordance 
     with section 651 of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1361l), or the restriction of occupancy to 
     elderly families in accordance with section 658 of such Act, 
     and to the extent the Secretary determines that such amount 
     is not needed to fund applications for such affected 
     families, to other nonelderly disabled families: Provided 
     further: That up to $192,000,000 from amounts available under 
     this heading shall be made available for administrative fees 
     and other expenses to cover the cost of administering rental 
     assistance programs under section 8 of the Act: Provided 
     further, That the fee otherwise authorized under section 8(q) 
     of such Act shall be determined in accordance with section 
     8(q), as in effect immediately before the enactment of the 
     Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided under this heading 
     up to $66,000,000 shall be available for very low income 
     families living in properties constructed under the low-
     income housing tax credit program as authorized, as long as 
     the vouchers are awarded within four months after the rule 
     implementing this program is finalized: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount provided under this heading, up to 
     $60,000,000 shall be made available for incremental vouchers 
     under section 8 of the Act on a fair share basis to those 
     PHAs that have a 97 percent occupancy rate: Provided further, 
     That any funds appropriated in the immediately preceding 
     proviso that are not awarded by February 1, 2001, shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for the 
     ``Public housing capital fund'': Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall use up to $660,000 of the amount provided 
     under this heading for monitoring public housing agencies 
     that increase payment standards under the authority under 
     section 8(o)(1)(E)(i) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(1)(E)(i) and for conducting detailed 
     evaluations of the effects of using assistance as authorized 
     under section 8(o)(1)(E): Provided further, That $11,000,000 
     shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the 
     development and maintenance of information technology 
     systems: Provided further, That amounts provided under this 
     heading shall be available for use for particular activities 
     described in any proviso under this heading only to the 
     extent that amounts provided under this heading remain 
     available after amounts have been made available for the 
     activities under all other preceding provisos under this 
     heading in the full amounts provided in such provisos; except 
     that for purposes of this proviso, the first, second, and 
     third provisos under this heading shall be considered to be a 
     single proviso: Provided further, That of the balances 
     remaining in the HCF account, $275,388,459 shall be rescinded 
     on or about September 30, 2001: Provided further, That any 
     obligated balances of contract authority that have been 
     terminated shall be canceled.


                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Mollohan

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


[[Page 11527]]

       Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Mollohan:
       Page 23, strike the provisos that begin on lines 6, 12, and 
     16.
       Page 24, after line 19, insert the following:
       For incremental vouchers under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, $593,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That of the amount provided by this 
     paragraph, $66,000,000 shall be available for use in a 
     housing production program in connection with the low-income 
     housing tax credit program to assist very low-income and 
     extremely low-income families.
       Page 25, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 25, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $127,000,000)''.
       Page 27, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $43,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $395,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $215,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $80,000,000)''.
       Page 37, after line 5, insert the following new item:


         america's private investment companies program account

         For the cost of guaranteed loans under the America's 
     Private Investment Companies Program, $37,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003, of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 shall be for administrative expenses to carry out 
     such a loan program, to be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation under this title for ``Salaries and Expenses'': 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is guaranteed, not to exceed 
     $1,000,000,000.
       Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $114,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $90,000,000)''.
       Page 38, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $24,000,000)''.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill unfortunately represents a 
series of missed opportunities, and housing is one of the areas in 
which those missed opportunities are most severe. The amendment I am 
offering proposes to alleviate some of the most serious shortfalls by 
adding just over $1.8 billion to the HUD title of the bill.
  In saying the bill falls short of what is needed, I mean no criticism 
of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and others involved in 
putting this bill together. They did the very best they could with the 
resources available to them. Indeed, the chairman and his staff have 
included some useful and innovative provisions that will do real good, 
such as the language allowing increases in the payment standard for 
Section 8 housing vouchers in areas with tight rental markets and high 
rents.
  The basic problem for this bill is simply the majority party's budget 
plan provides insufficient resources for overall domestic 
appropriations, mainly in order to focus on an agenda of tax cuts 
targeted to the high end of the income scale.
  My amendment contains no offsets. There really are not places in this 
bill with excess funding that could be diverted to other purposes. I 
understand my amendment is subject to a point of order, and I will 
withdraw it at the appropriate time. My purpose in offering the 
amendment is simply to encourage a debate about the levels of funding 
that are necessary and appropriate for housing programs.
  Housing is an area where national needs seem to be more acute, 
despite the booming economy. Yes, more people have jobs than before and 
incomes are rising, but in many areas rents are rising faster than 
incomes. People working at modest wages are often finding it harder and 
harder to keep a roof over their family's heads.
  HUD's latest report on housing conditions tells us that there are 5.4 
million very low-income households with worst case housing needs; that 
is, households with incomes below 50 percent of the local median who 
are paying more than half of their income for rent and receiving no 
housing assistance whatsoever. The fastest growing segment of that 
group is people working full time.
  According to a recent survey of six cities by the Conference of 
Mayors, waiting times to get in public housing average 19 months in 
most cities. Waiting times for Section 8 vouchers averages 32 months. 
Officials in those cities estimate that their housing assistance 
programs serve just 27 percent of eligible households.
  Considering that we are in a period of strong economic growth and 
that the Federal budget is in the best shape it has been for decades, 
you might think we would be taking steps to deal with these housing 
problems. But, unfortunately, the bill before us takes a step backward 
in funding for housing and community development.
  Some of our colleagues may disagree and insist that the bill really 
improves several billions of dollars of spending increases for HUD. 
Those increases are largely illusionary, Mr. Chairman. They reflect the 
fact that the subcommittee found less unused budget authority to 
rescind this year than last, and that old, long-term Section 8 housing 
assistance contracts have been expiring and now require new 
appropriations just to continue the old levels of assistance. When you 
remove those accounting factors, you find that essentially all HUD 
programs in this bill are either flat or decreased a bit. Now, that 
makes no sense.
  For example, the bill provides funds for about 100,000 additional 
housing assistance vouchers as proposed by the administration to try to 
make at least a small reduction in the number of families with worst 
case housing needs. That is what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman. It 
provides funds for about 100,000 additional housing assistance 
vouchers.
  Vouchers alone, however, are not enough. There is also a need for 
programs to help stimulate production of low-income housing. 
Ultimately, we may need some new programs in that area. As an interim 
step, my amendment puts a bit more money into those housing production 
programs that are in place, the home block grant for local governments, 
the Section 202 and Section 811 programs that finance development of 
housing for low income elderly and disabled people, and the Native 
American Housing Block Grant, just for example.
  We should also remember the key role played by public housing. My 
amendment adds a bit for public housing capital grants to help chip 
away at the $22 billion backlog in public housing modernization needs, 
and gives operating grants a 4 percent increase to help cover rising 
utility and payroll costs. It provides a $100 million increase for 
Community Development Block Grants, instead of the $295 million 
decrease in the bill. The amendment also funds the administration's 
APIC initiative, as recently agreed to by President Clinton and Speaker 
Hastert.

                              {time}  1815

  Unfortunately, that agreement between the Speaker and President 
Clinton is not funded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Mollohan was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the increases in my amendment are fairly 
modest. Most programs would still be smaller than they were 6 years ago 
after adjustment for inflation. Indeed, several, such as housing for 
the elderly and the disabled, and homeless assistance, would remain 
below where they were 6 years ago in actual dollar

[[Page 11528]]

amounts with no adjustment for inflation or for anything else. There 
are very real needs for modest expansion of housing and community 
development programs. We can and should do better than the Subcommittee 
on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies had the resources to do in this 
bill. I very much hope we will be able to do better by the time this 
bill reaches the President's desk, and I know the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) shares that hope as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia 
for a most excellent statement. I would like to talk about housing and 
put it in the context of our national economy and try to talk about it 
in human terms.
  We have had an absolutely wonderful economic run for the past 7 or 8 
years. We have had unparalleled prosperity in almost all regions of the 
country. But unfortunately, there have been some people who have been 
left behind by that prosperity. Our economy is a dynamic capitalist 
economy, and we do not want to do things that get in the way of the 
entrepreneurial class being able to make the investments and take the 
risks that create progress in the economy and create jobs and create an 
even stronger economic tomorrow.
  However, there are those in this society who are either not as lucky 
or who are not as innovative, or as aggressive as others; there are lot 
of them who are not as healthy as some of the big winners in our 
society. So in any humane society, what we try to do is to take the 
rough edges off what would otherwise be a Darwin capitalism and try to 
make capitalism safe for human participation. The way we do that is not 
by stifling entrepreneurship; the way we do that is by trying to 
recognize that there are certain basics that humans need no matter how 
lucky they are. One of them is a decent education, another is 
protection from environmental abuse and corruption, a third is the 
right to decent health care when they need it, and fourth is the need 
for shelter.
  Now, we have seen one thing in this society which creates a lot of 
problems. We have seen the gap between the very wealthy and most others 
in this society grow at an astronomical rate. We see at this point that 
the wealthiest 1 percent of people in our society own about 90 percent 
of society's assets, economic assets. The number 1 asset which most 
families strive for is to own a home so that they can begin to build 
equity and get a piece of the American dream. But very often, in some 
of our own neighborhoods, the very prosperity that is experienced by 
some of our most fortunate citizens operates to reduce the ability of 
some segments of our society to even gain decent shelter.
  Example: in some neighborhoods, the ability of those who have done 
very well in our society, to be able to afford to pay for anything they 
want, means that they raise tremendously housing costs in certain 
neighborhoods, they drive whole groups of people out of neighborhoods, 
and they make the costs for those who stay much, much higher. It is the 
job of government to try to mitigate that. That is what this bill is 
inadequate in doing.
  The gentleman from West Virginia has laid out in specific 
programmatic terms what some of the problems are in this bill. I would 
simply say that the result of this bill failing to fully meet its 
responsibilities in order to provide additional very large tax cuts for 
those at the top of the economic heap, the result is that we do not 
create the kind of opportunity that we should for all Americans to have 
at least the basics in life.
  Pope John Paul said many years ago that there ought to be certain 
norms of decency in determining who has how much of economic goods in 
any society, and I think that is a good way to put it. We are not 
meeting those norms of decency when we fail in our obligation to assure 
decent housing for every American, and this bill most certainly falls 
short. I, for one, cannot support it until it does.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to cite a statistic that I 
actually did cite in my remarks to bolster the gentleman's argument, 
that in this robust economy, that the housing conditions in the HUD 
report recently completed tells us that there are 5.4 million very low 
income households with worst case scenarios, they are called worst case 
households, that is households with incomes below 50 percent of the 
local medium who are paying more than half of their incomes for housing 
needs and receiving no assistance whatsoever. A great shortfall in the 
Section 8 vouchers.
  There is a great need out there, as the gentleman is describing, and 
this amendment, if we get the money, eventually, hopefully we can, the 
budget resolution that was passed by the majority falls far short of 
that that would be adequate to meet these basic housing needs.
  So at the end of the day, we hope that that money is available. 
However, as of this point in time, the budget resolution supported by 
the majority which supports tax reductions for high-income individuals 
and no support for those who are the most neediest in our society for 
the most fundamental need, which is housing, that this Nation should be 
providing, rather than considering the tax cuts. The priorities of the 
budget resolution are simply upside down when they provide for tax cuts 
for wealthy Americans and do not provide resources for the most needy 
in our society.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I very much agree with 
the gentleman.
  I would close by saying just one thing. We talk a lot in this 
Congress and in this society about generational inequities. One of the 
worst things we do to the younger generation is to make it harder for 
them to buy that first house. I know that when I was first married, my 
wife and I were able to afford a house only because she cashed in her 
teacher retirement fund. We had the $900 that it took to get a down 
payment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there are not very many young couples today 
who can afford to buy a house for $900. I can see it in many of the 
young couples who I talk to back home during the weeks that I am back 
home, and I can see their frustration when they continually fall just 
short of being able to afford a first home or when rising interest 
rates put just out of reach that home that so many people desire.
  It is very clear when we look at some of the sociological studies 
that one of the key ingredients to having a stable society and a 
society with a low crime rate and a high work ethic is housing 
ownership. People who own a stake in this economic are quick to try to 
protect that economy and the society that has made it possible. That is 
why I would urge the majority to review their decisions in this area.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York continues to reserve his 
point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I do insist on my point of order. I would like to explain 
briefly on the merits of the point of order. First of all, the 
expenditures that are suggested are not offset, and that is, in the 
parlance around here, offset. The idea is that if we offer expenditure 
changes

[[Page 11529]]

within the bill, we have to provide funds to back them up, to transfer 
funds from one account to another. This amendment does not comply, and 
it does not provide those funds.
  There is also additional new authorization in the amendment. As the 
Chairman knows, this is the Committee on Appropriations. The 
authorizing committee, the Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services should pass that legislation on to us 
and then we appropriate the funds. This has not been accomplished.
  So for those reasons, I believe this amendment is out of order.
  On the issue of Section 8 housing vouchers, I would just like to make 
a couple of points. We have provided $13.275 billion for Section 8 
housing vouchers, $4 billion above last year. No matter how much money 
we provide, the administration wants more. No matter how much money our 
side is willing to spend on any item, the other side is always ready to 
spend more. But these expenditures need to be based on reality. Part of 
the reality here is that the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development has been provided billions of dollars for housing vouchers 
for poor people, and by the way, the Section 8 program initially was 
sponsored by people on this side of the aisle. We think it is a good 
program. As we reduce the amount of public housing, the incremental 
vouchers take up the slack, people go out and they find an apartment, 
and the government helps to subsidize the cost of that apartment for 
people with low incomes. It works pretty well if it is administered 
properly, but right now, Mr. Chairman, it is not being administered 
properly. Mr. Chairman, 247,000 vouchers that we appropriated and 
provided for, that Congress provided for have gone begging; 247,000 
American families that need those new commerce are not getting them. My 
good friend and colleague pointed out that HUD had a study that there 
are millions of Americans that need these vouchers, and yet, HUD is not 
complying with the law. They are not providing those individuals those 
vouchers.
  That is what we appropriate these funds for. When those funds do not 
get spent, what has happened in the past is that the administration 
then comes back and says, ``Aha, we have money laying around that did 
not get spent, we will use that for other expenditures.'' So they use 
HUD as a bank to come back and find money and then redistribute it 
somewhere else, so it looks like they have helped poor people, but, in 
fact, they have not. The administration has taken that money and used 
it for defense or for transportation or some other area of expenditure. 
We do not think that is the right way to proceed.
  So we funded the section 8 vouchers fully; and we have also said that 
those funds, if there are any funds laying around at the end that do 
not get spent, and as history would show, that is what will happen, we 
said, those funds must also be used for an additional 10,000 vouchers. 
We think that is what these funds were for.
  So I would reserve my point of order against the amendment and await 
the ruling of the Chair.

                              {time}  1830

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am standing to support the Mollohan amendment, and 
having come from an area such as the one I represent, many of the 
arguments that I hear regarding housing I have to refute many times 
because of my experience in working with low-income people.
  I think that our chairman and our ranking member have done a very 
credible job, Mr. Chairman, at the level of the subcommittee funding. 
But there are numerous funding problems in the bill which I have 
alluded to before.
  The one that I have specific interest in at this point is the lack of 
funding to help the poorest of the poor people obtain decent housing. I 
want Members to look at this picture and put a face on it, as I have to 
almost every day in my district. That is, we are living in the era of 
the greatest economic prosperity that this Nation has ever had, but 
even this economic boom has created a housing crisis for many 
Americans.
  Because of the population growth, many of the problems we have heard 
our very fair chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talk 
about must be viewed from the point of view of putting a face on this 
problem.
  Let us look at vouchers. In terms of these housing authorities having 
enough vouchers, I think that the chairman has a point there, but what 
the chairman has not realized is that many of the large urban areas 
like Miami and some of the other areas cannot get enough vouchers to 
meet the need because some other areas have the vouchers and are not 
using them. We cannot get them to the people in Liberty City as much as 
we should.
  Whenever there is any kind of crisis there, when the sewers run over 
and when there is a crisis regarding housing, we cannot get the number 
of vouchers that we need. We cannot get them because they have utilized 
all that they had.
  The other thing is that we must realize that there is a crisis in 
housing. We are not just dealing with pious platitudes here, we are 
dealing with real live people who do not have housing. There are over 5 
million families who pay more than half of their income in housing.
  We are told all the time, and we hear this all the time, that housing 
assistance is important to this affordability problem. We believe that. 
But these incremental vouchers are not what they are cooked up to be.
  First of all, when we hand a poor person a voucher and tell them, 
look, go and find someplace to live, that is not as easy as it sounds 
here on this floor. It is very, very difficult. There are many people 
who I am hearing from every day in my district. Some people over on 
this aisle do not want any more middle- and low-income people coming to 
those areas. We have to fight that. The other thing is, rental housing 
is hard to find in some of these areas.
  So I want Members to look at this picture I am talking about because 
it paints a new face on this problem of vouchers. Vouchers work, but 
the average waiting period for a Section 8 voucher is about 2 years. 
There is a backlog in the cities, the large urban areas I have spoken 
about.
  In virtually every urban area in this country people making the 
minimum wage cannot even afford a medium-priced apartment rental. 
Housing vouchers make that possible and they do it by putting in 
private sector housing.
  Yet, the bill fails to fund the President's request for 120,000 
additional incremental housing vouchers. Despite the claims, it is 
debatable whether or not this bill would provide HUD with any new 
vouchers to help our families find safe, decent, and affordable 
housing. The bill as written claims to allow HUD to provide up to 
20,000 additional vouchers, but we think this is just funny math, Mr. 
Speaker, or what we call creative accounting, because these additional 
vouchers are only funded in the bill through overly rosy and optimistic 
estimates of recaptures of unused Section 8 funds.
  HUD will only have these vouchers available if the Department 
recaptures more funds than the amount HUD itself says can be 
recaptured. According to what I have learned, Mr. Speaker, HUD does not 
even expect these recaptured funds to be available.
  We would never treat rich people this way. We can bet they get hard 
cash to meet their needs. Yet poor families are shunted aside with the 
promise that they may even get a voucher, and it may not pan out.
  Refusing to provide these additional incremental housing vouchers 
means that families will have to continue to live in substandard 
housing, housing that is overrun by roaches and rats and vermin. We can 
do better in this country. We are a very prosperous country. I appeal 
to the committee to accept the Mollohan amendment. It is a credible 
amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Much has been 
said

[[Page 11530]]

and made about the housing vouchers, and that our bill turns its back 
on those most in need. However, it is not this bill but the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development itself which has, through its own 
dinosaur-like behavior, contributed to the very housing crisis that 
some have ascribed and attributed to Congress.
  HUD has, by any admission through our public hearings, been seen to 
be incredibly slow in awarding Section 8 vouchers. This results in the 
recapture that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) alluded to 
of funds because HUD does not spend them fast enough on the programs 
for which they were intended by Congress. The recapture would be 
equivalent to about 237,000 vouchers, because they do not spend down 
the money quickly enough.
  With our tight budget allocation today, it makes no sense to fund a 
richer program that HUD has shown it simply cannot deliver. The 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated the spend-out rate at an 
extremely low 6 percent to begin with. Now the spend-out rate is 
projected by the CBO at an unbelievably low 1 percent.
  This inefficiency is unacceptable; even more unacceptable given the 
fact that Secretary Cuomo has the use of his community builders to 
expedite the process and overcome bureaucratic hurdles within this huge 
bureaucracy.
  HUD's policy should be, Mr. Chairman, to get the programs to the 
people as soon as possible. We have the same situation where fiscal 
year 1998 funds did not reach the street until October of 1999. 
Congress provided 50,000 vouchers in fiscal year 1999 and 60,000 
vouchers in fiscal year 2000. We should not double the amount of 
vouchers, as some have suggested, when HUD does not award the ones 
already in the pipeline.
  The bill before us includes language, thank goodness, to push HUD to 
do a better job, to move this huge bureaucratic dinosaur to do the job 
for the people who need public housing.
  This bill also provides sufficient money to renew all expiring 
Section 8 contracts at a 100 percent rate, and to provide relocation 
assistance at the requested funding level. HUD should administer the 
current programs with a higher degree of efficiency before Congress 
expands it.
  I oppose the amendment and support the bill, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence of the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and I want to speak strongly in support of the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this appropriations bill as it comes before us 
exemplifies a very dangerous trend in America, and we have been 
manifesting it in various ways in this House.
  We are at a time of great prosperity. The free market system as it 
works in this country with the cooperation of many branches of 
government, of the private sector, obviously, of labor unions, that 
private sector is generating wealth at a rate unheard of in human 
history.
  That is a very good thing. A large percentage of our population is 
living in material terms better than we ever thought such a large 
number of people could live. But that very fact, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin and others, the gentleman from Florida, have pointed out, 
exacerbates the problem for those among us, and they are in the 
millions, who through no fault of their own are not the beneficiaries 
of this prosperity.
  Alan Greenspan has acknowledged that trade, globalization, helps some 
Americans and hurts others, not because of their inherent worth or lack 
of worth but because of where they were placed in the economy.
  So we have a situation where, in many of the metropolitan areas in 
this country, it has become more and more expensive to live. That 
reflects the fact that a large number of people who want to live in 
those metropolitan areas have more and more money, but it also means 
that those who do not have money, and they number in the millions, the 
tens of millions, are disadvantaged.
  In this bill, in other appropriations bills, in immigration 
legislation, in tax legislation, in public policy area after public 
policy area we help the wealthy, which is a good thing. That is part of 
our job, to help people who are productive and are making wealth do 
better, and we do that well; but we at the same time turn our backs on 
people at the low end.
  People wondered, how come there was such a debate over China trade? 
Because there are so many economists and financial sector people, that 
was an easy one. Why is there resistance among America's historically 
generous people to globalization?
  Here is why, because when we have a situation in which the rich get 
richer and the poor and working class gets poorer, that is a problem. 
It is not simply that the rich are getting richer and the poor are not 
getting richer at the same pace. We are talking about real drops in 
people's incomes if they are in basic manufacturing. We are talking 
about people living in cities for whom housing prices have gone out of 
sight, who have to move out of areas where they already live, who 
cannot find decent housing, who find housing only if they have to pay 
far too much money.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not simply housing. We have had a big debate on 
Section 8s. I agree there are Section 8s that do not get used. I will 
tell the Members why in the area I represent, because we do not put 
enough money into the Section 8s. Housing rents have outpaced the fair 
market rents that we pay, so we make it worse when we cut the budget, 
when we begrudge relatively small amounts of the vast resources this 
country has for low-income people.
  They say it is because it is not administered well. What about 
community development block grants? The community development block 
grant program is a Nixon program whereby the Federal government simply 
passes through money to cities and to States and they are allowed to 
spend it within a broad range of flexibility.
  What have they done? They have cut it. This budget cuts community 
development block grants, a program on which HUD simply serves as a 
pass-through to local communities.
  A few years ago Congress changed under the Republican rule the way 
public housing is governed. We were told they have really fixed it up. 
Why, then, is the public housing capital fund underfunded? Why then are 
the people who live in public housing, who live in an area now where 
they say they have improved the administration, are they given less 
money than they need significantly, less money than they got last year 
for the physical repair of public housing?
  Part of what is going on is that we know, some of my friends on this 
side will privately acknowledge, this is not a real budget. They 
understand that this is too little. What they are saying is, let us get 
this budget through, this appropriations bill, and let it go over to 
the Senate, and let us get into negotiations with the President. Then 
the real budget will emerge.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In other words, to the Members of this 
House, do not expect to make the real decisions. Pass through a budget, 
an appropriations bill, that we know is inadequate, that we know denies 
to the very needy people important programmatic resources, many of 
which are well spent.
  We talk about the Section 8 problem being terrible, but the previous 
speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey, correctly pointed out that one 
of the things we have done is to spend money to preserve the existing 
Section 8 tenancies. Why are we preserving them? Overwhelmingly, we do 
that because the people who live in those units which were created by 
Federal funds are so fond of their housing that they put pressure on 
Members of Congress,

[[Page 11531]]

so Members of Congress who voted against the program, who voted against 
funding the programs, vote to keep the programs going so people can 
continue to live there.
  We have housing programs that are not perfect, but they do a very 
important job of trying to alleviate the severe economic distress of 
tens of millions of our citizens who are not participating in the 
general prosperity.
  When we bring forward a bill that say we will do less of that this 
year in real terms than last year in the face of this great prosperity, 
we are not serving the basic values of the country. So I hope the 
amendment is adopted.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will ask for a colloquy with the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chair of our subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, as the chairman knows, I have an ongoing concern 
regarding the adequacy of HUD's programs for providing housing for the 
mentally ill. This year the committee is recommending level funding at 
$201 million for the Section 8-11 disabled housing program, and this is 
$9 million below the administration's request. These funds provide 
housing for both mentally and physically disabled people.
  The administration's request estimated that 5,454 new housing units 
for the disabled would be available with this increase in funds. Would 
the chairman kindly tell me how many new units of housing for the 
disabled would be available under the committee bill?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman for offering 
this colloquy and for her service on the subcommittee. She does a great 
job. I am sorry I missed my cue there, but I think I am back in form.

                              {time}  1845

  According to HUD, the bill provides sufficient funds for 3,321 new 
units, which, according to HUD's estimates, is a reduction of 200,133 
units.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, as I know the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) is aware, appropriate housing and services for the 
disabled can vary widely. In the case of some mentally disabled 
individuals, their needs may simply be a home where they can feel safe 
without any special physical adaptations. But for those with severe 
physical disabilities, a home might require significant physical 
accommodations. The administration's justification for section 811 
funds is unfortunately silent on how this continuum of care for the 
disabled is and will be met.
  Will the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) agree to assist me 
in assessing how well HUD is progressing in achieving the goal of 
providing adequate and appropriate housing for all of America's 
disabled populations?
  Mr. WALSH. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. As the gentlewoman from Ohio 
knows, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) has been a 
very active advocate for the housing needs of the disabled population, 
and I have worked very well with him in the past on this issue, and I 
am pleased to have the participation and support as well of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. My impression, Mr. Chairman, is that the disabled are 
currently underserved by section 811, and I am sure that the gentleman 
from New York would agree with me that we are not currently meeting the 
housing needs of the disabled. I further ask the gentleman from New 
York (Chairman Walsh) to work with me as we go to conference to improve 
the overall level funding for section 811.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the concerns of the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) are quite valid, and they deserve our attention. I will 
certainly do my best as this bill goes through the appropriations 
process.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) very much for his leadership on this issue and so many 
others.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to certainly join my colleagues, 
and I do appreciate the work of this committee; and I think it has been 
stated earlier the frustration in which we are operating because, in 
contrast to what the appropriators have had to work with, we have an 
enormously booming economy.
  So this amendment of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
is one that really should garner all of our support. Unfortunately, it 
is subject to a point of order; and, frankly, it should not be because 
we are in one of the most prosperous times that we could ever be in in 
both the last century and in this century.
  I would venture to say, if we took some of the most prosperous cities 
in America, we would still find individuals who are unhoused, who are 
in housing that is unacceptable, who are homeless and are in need of 
the funds particularly utilized in programs of HUD.
  HUD is one of the larger agencies, and it has one of the largest cuts 
in this appropriations process. Although my colleagues have supported 
the FHA loans, which certainly are meritorious, and the renewal of 
existing section 8A subsidies, my colleagues, however, on this 
appropriation on this subcommittee has provided less money for the 
housing programs than we have seen over the years.
  I believe that it is time that we acknowledge the prosperity and to 
function with that. We do not have funding for empowerment zones. We do 
not have funding for new markets. We do not have funding for APIC. The 
section 8 that we do fund can afford to have more dollars. The good 
news is that section 8 vouchers can be utilized for buying housing.
  What greater opportunity for those who are working and have less 
opportunities for them to take the dollars that were used previously 
for rental subsidies to be able to buy a home.
  But if we continue to cut and undermine the housing subsidies that 
are given through the Federal Government, then we continue to emphasize 
that those who cannot meet the market cannot buy in the market because 
their income does not allow them to do so, a continuously increasing 
market, then we will not provide for them; they just do not get 
housing.
  I believe inadequate housing is indicative of many things: 
dysfunctional families, children moving from place to place, children 
not having a home school, if you will, a school that they go to on a 
regular basis because they are living with relatives because their 
family members cannot afford decent housing.
  I do not believe that, in this most prosperous time, that we commend 
ourselves well as a body that has a responsibility for funding programs 
that help the least of those if we do not provide the adequate funding.
  The billion-dollar amendment that the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) offers that spreads out through a variety of HUD 
programs answers the needs that we have and particularly the needs of 
those who are not housed.
  A recent study on housing needs found that more than 5.3 million low-
income families do not receive any Federal housing assistance at all. 
We must ensure that these families receive the help that they need, and 
mostly because they are low-income working families and they do not 
meet the status or the standards or there is not enough money to assist 
them.
  We can only do that if funding meets that need. By funding HUD by 
less than 8 percent than the President requested, we cannot possibly 
accomplish this goal. But more importantly, even if we underfund what 
the President has asked for, we are underfunding this

[[Page 11532]]

agency in great amounts, generally speaking, because there are large 
numbers of people who are still on waiting lists for public housing 
assistance and for section 8 certificates and for elderly housing.
  So I would commend the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
for realizing that, in prosperity, we must always do more; we must 
accept the question or answer the question, can we do more. Yes we can. 
We can do more with the housing that most of the people in America 
would support when they find that people cannot get the housing that 
they need.
  I am disappointed that we have not gone the extra mile. I would think 
that those who are in need would likewise challenge us to do more than 
we have done. Our elderly, our people who are unhoused, our people who 
do not have a sufficient amount of housing would ask us to object or 
eliminate the point of order and support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies Appropriations for FY 2001. Although this 
legislation retains our commitment to the American people in some areas 
like NASA, it falls far short of an appropriations measure that the 
American people expect from the 106th Congress. Accordingly, the 
President would veto the bill in its current form.
  The measure increases spending for VA programs (6 percent more than 
the current level), NASA (1 percent more) and NSF (4 percent more), but 
it cuts EPA, FEMA and other vital programs. This bill is lacking in 
basic funding needs that are critical to the American people.
  The President's FY 2001 Budget is based on a sound approach that 
maintains fiscal discipline, eliminates the national debt, extends the 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare, provides for an appropriately 
sized tax cut, establishes a new voluntary Medicare prescription drug 
benefit, and funds critical priorities for our future.
  H.R. 4635 severely reduces our ability to address basic issues like 
poverty and the shortage of affordable housing and undermines 
investments in our communities. The elimination of funding for the 
Americorps program would deny over million young and impressionable 
Americans the opportunity to provide community services and become 
better citizens as participants in the Corporations' Americorps (62,000 
participants) and Learn and Serve (1 million participants) programs. 
Nevertheless, we are living in unprecedented times of economic growth 
in America. Mr. Speaker, we cannot squander this historic opportunity 
to invest in America's future; the VA-HUD Appropriations measure risks 
doing just that.
  I am very disappointed that the legislation increases spending for 
merely two HUD programs--FHA loans and renewal of existing section 8 
rental subsidies--while providing less than even the current level for 
other HUD activities. Utilizing advance appropriations next year's 
budget and various gimmicks to give the impression that there isn't 
enough money to fund basic priorities is inconsistent with the needs of 
the American people. The reality is that we have a historic opportunity 
to continue paying down the debt while passing an appropriations 
measure that adequately meets the needs of those that have been left 
behind in the New Economy.
  A recent study on housing needs found that more than 5.3 million low-
income families do not receive any federal housing assistance at all. 
We must ensure that these families receive the help they need, and we 
can only do that if funding meets that need. By funding HUD by less 
than 8 percent than the President requested, we cannot possibly 
accomplish this goal.
  Economic growth has done little to solve the housing problem in 
America. During the early part of the 1980s, the United States faced a 
slowing economy and worsening housing affordability. Even in the 1990s, 
the economy grew at a healthy pace; yet housing affordability for the 
poor continued to deteriorate. Today, housing needs are so acute that 
they are painfully visible in the neighborhoods of every major city in 
the United States, as the homeless have become a persistent part of our 
daily lives.
  Although no requests for specific requests in congressional districts 
are permitted under the rule, we should recognize that the housing 
shortage in America continues unabated.
  I have requested $35 million for the Supportive Housing Project for 
rental assistance to low-income families in Houston; $2 million for the 
Single Room Occupancy program which provides homeless persons in 
Houston with a private room to reside in, as well supportive services 
for health care, mental health; and job training; and $300 million for 
the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program that provides 
states and localities with resources and incentives to devise long-
term, comprehensive strategies for meeting the home needs of persons 
with AIDS and their families.
  We cannot afford to forget those in our society who are not reaping 
the rewards of this economic boom. Housing is a critical component of 
keeping America's families first.
  Compared to current levels, the bill decreases funding for public 
housing modernization (3 percent), revitalizing severely distressed 
public housing (2 percent), drug elimination grants (3 percent), the 
CDBG program (6 percent), ``brownfields'' redevelopment (20 percent), 
and the HOME program (1 percent).
  Moreover, the measures provides no funding for urban and rural 
empowerment zones, welfare-to-work vouchers, the Moving to Work program 
or communities in schools. What are we saying here today as a 
collective body? Are we saying we don't care about those in poverty-
stricken areas? Should we ignore the hopes and fulfillment of dreams 
that the empowerment zones have shown in certain areas? We can and we 
should do better, Mr. Speaker.
  I am also disappointed that this measure would prohibit the Veterans 
Administration from transferring any medical care funding to the 
Justice Department for use in the government's lawsuit against tobacco 
companies. This is merely a partisan tactic to distract debate from how 
to spend the federal budget to ongoing litigation by the Department of 
Justice, which has nothing to do with the underlying measure. Such 
riders make little sense and frustrate the goal of funding critical 
programs for our future.
  Despite the shortcomings of this bill, there are some commitments 
that have been secured and need to be preserved. Our ability to reach 
the stars is an important priority, which will ensure that America 
remains the preeminent country for space exploration. Last year, NASA's 
budget was needlessly cut and I support every effort to increase 
funding during the FY 2001 appropriation process. Although this measure 
is destined to be vetoed in its current form, I believe the $13.7 
billion appropriation, $322 million (2%) less than requested by the 
administration, could have been even more generous.
  The measure provides $2.1 billion for continued development of the 
international space station, and $3.2 billion for space shuttle 
operations. We need to devote additional personnel at NASA's Human 
Flight Centers to ensure that the high skill and staffing levels are in 
place to operate the Space Shuttle safely and to launch, as well as 
assemble the International Space Station.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud the Johnson Space Center and its many 
accomplishments, and I promise to remain a vocal supporter of NASA and 
its creative programs. NASA has had a brilliant 40 years, and I see no 
reason why it could not have another 40 successful years. It has made a 
tremendous impact on the business and residential communities of the 
18th Congressional District of Texas, and the rest of the nation.
  In closing, I hope my colleagues will vote against this legislation 
so that we can get back to work on a bill that invests in America's 
future, especially to strengthen our resolve to make affordable housing 
a reality across America.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I favor very much the amendment of the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). I hope it passes. But, Mr. Chairman, the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill that we are considering is really seriously 
underfunded. It is underfunding so many housing programs which is so 
vital to so many people in our country and many in my own Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts.
  In this time of economic prosperity, it is important to remember 
where many people who are still struggling to get by every day, what is 
going to happen to those people and those who need the housing programs 
to put a roof over their heads.
  Mr. Chairman, not everyone in this Nation is so lucky to own dot-com 
stocks. Not every family has seen the tremendous financial windfall 
that the Nation's booming economy has created.

[[Page 11533]]

  This bill severely cuts housing programs by $2.5 billion less than 
President Clinton's requested amount. Nearly every program in HUD's 
budget is cut from the President's request.
  I just cannot figure out why my Republican colleagues would not 
choose to fully fund affordable housing, which is so crucial to so many 
people in our country. Contrary to the belief of some of my colleagues, 
the HUD budget is not increased. In fact, this year's VA-HUD 
appropriations bill turns its back on the need for affordable housing. 
While the administration has requested 120,000 new section 8 vouchers, 
this bill does not include a single new voucher.
  Community Development Block Grants, which are used to rebuild 
housing, improve infrastructure, and provide job training, among other 
things, are cut by almost $300 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill cuts the HOME program, which helps local 
governments expand low-income housing, resulting in nearly 2,500 fewer 
households receiving critical assistance.
  This bill provides no new funds for elderly housing, for homeless 
assistance grants, for Native American block grants. Mr. Chairman, it 
cuts housing opportunities for people with AIDS to the extent of 5,100 
fewer people with HIV/AIDS will not receive housing assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill also cuts $60 million in Hope 6 funds which 
are used to revitalize severely distressed public housing.
  This bill has a devastating effect on my own congressional district 
as well. In Boston, overall funding from HUD would be cut by $16.1 
million. In Boston, these cuts would mean we would not be able to 
provide English language to GED instruction, youth programming and 
after-school care to more than 1,300 children and adults.
  Under this bill, Boston would be forced to turn away 3,000 potential 
first-time homeowners from the home buying classes. My city would also 
have to scale back its main street programs which develop neighborhood 
business districts.
  Mr. Chairman, these are real programs. They help real people across 
this entire country as they strive to live with dignity. But today this 
Congress is going to cut those programs. Why? Because, Mr. Chairman, my 
Republican colleagues are so committed to providing tax relief for the 
wealthy Americans on the backs of those who literally need the programs 
to survive.
  I hope the amendment is adopted, but I hope the bill is defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am moved sitting here to think I am living in la la 
land somewhere. May I please ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), chairman of this subcommittee, where is he from?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am from the State of New York.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from a city 
in the State of New York?
  I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was city council president in the 
city of Syracuse, and I served on the city council for 8 years.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, that is what I thought. I ask 
the gentleman from New York, is there low housing stock in Syracuse?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we have a 
public housing authority, one of the best run housing authorities in 
America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman from New York also has a ghetto. We have ghettos all over 
this country. I am surprised that we would come down here and argue to 
the people that we want to cut out an opportunity for low-income people 
to have adequate housing.
  One of the problems in this country is the inseparable triumvirate of 
inadequate jobs, inadequate housing, and inadequate educational 
opportunities. One can go to Syracuse, and I have been there, and I 
will show one where the ghetto is. One can go to Fort Lauderdale or in 
Miami, the district of the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek), who spoke earlier, and I will show one a place where there is a 
necessity for added housing in this country.
  At one point in the 1960's, I considered, as a lawyer, changing my 
entire practice to trying to help the low-income people of this 
country. At that time, the then HUD-FHA programs were 221D(3), 221D(4), 
221H that did rehab of all properties. Along came Richard Nixon in 1968 
and doggone if we did not cut out all of those opportunities. Real 
estate investment trusts attracted those persons who had high income to 
come into low-income areas to help build the housing stock.
  Now, from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who I 
heard argue that the spend-down rate has been poor, one cannot spend 
where there is nowhere for a person to buy.
  We do not have adequate housing in this country. Therefore, if one 
had all of what everybody is arguing, one still would not have low-
income housing stock because it has been on the decrease.
  Please come go with me in Washington, D.C., and let me show my 
colleagues boarded-over places, just like in Syracuse, I say to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), just like in New York City, just 
like in Chicago and all over this country we find this.
  Our charge is to help the least of those among us. What we have done 
is turn it on its head in this House of Representatives. We have helped 
the least all right. The least which control most of everything in this 
country are now gaining the most. None of us are to begrudge them, but 
that does not mean that the least of us should not be helped.
  How dare we not accept the program like the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has offered and allow for us to be able to at 
least address minimally a problem that all of us know that is 
developing.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) spoke about how this 
creates dysfunctional families. It also helps to breed crime. It helps 
to breed all of those things about our society that all of us find 
repugnant. Yet, we come here and think that these people are supposed 
to be ignored.
  This is the same Federal Government that allowed for banks to build 
all of these things all over this Nation and redline other communities 
and not give them an opportunity to have their communities developed.
  In the area where I am from, from Fort Lauderdale, I have supported 
every Chamber project, I have supported every one of the tax situations 
that allowed for the development of the downtown area. All around me, 
everywhere around me, other than where I live, has developed in a 
mighty way.
  I am proud to be a part of that community. But I will be doggone if I 
can stand here and say that I am proud so much that I ignore those 
people in the areas that all of that prosperity is looming around, 
booming all over them, and busting them right in the mouth by saying to 
them that we cannot do a minimal housing program that will be 
advantageous to all of society.

                              {time}  1900

  Shame on this House. Shame on every one of us that does not support 
the Mollohan amendment, and shame on all of us that cannot believe that 
it is necessary to put a fair roof over the heads of every American no 
matter where he or she lives; those that are disabled, those that are 
sick, those that are elderly, those that are children, those that need 
the kind of assistance that we can adequately provide in the kind of 
prosperous times that we have. How dare we not do that.
  I find it absolutely abhorrent, and I call on every Member of this 
House of Representatives to support the Mollohan measure. Yes, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) will move a point of order, but I 
can order him to look in Syracuse, where the gentleman

[[Page 11534]]

needs help in housing, and I certainly do in Ft. Lauderdale, and there 
are 433 other Members of this House with impoverished and rural areas 
that need adequate housing.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, I have a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, therefore violating 
clause 2 of rule XXI. It also provides no offsets for the expenditures 
that are proposed, as called for under section 302 of the Budget Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that the gentleman has a 
valid point of order. We appreciate the opportunity to debate the issue 
here, and again we recognize the validity of the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI is 
conceded and sustained.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment and in 
opposition to the VA-HUD appropriations bill, because I have some 
serious concerns about the negative impact this legislation will have 
on the quality of life for veterans and for those citizens who need 
public housing assistance.
  This budget for VA-HUD proposes to cut $180 million for Section 202 
housing programs, notwithstanding the fact that this is the funding 
which allows distressed housing authorities to demolish and replace 
decrepit housing which was mandated in the Omnibus Budget Act of 1996. 
The Congress has mandated that housing authorities in New Orleans, 
Philadelphia, Chicago, and other cities comply with new rules and new 
directives while, at the same time, cutting the money to make it 
happen. We cannot get blood out of a turnip, and we cannot make wood 
cabinets without lumber.
  In Chicago, the Chicago Housing Authority has unveiled a bold plan 
for transformation. Components of this plan includes completely 
replacing the old out-dated, outmoded, socially irresponsible high-
rise, densely populated semi-prisons with 25,000 new or newly rehabbed 
units of housing for families and the creation of new housing 
opportunities for senior citizens and people with disabilities.
  Since half of the Chicago Housing Authority's existing stock falls 
under the Section 202 mandate, the CHA is counting on competing for 
Hope VI grants as the primary vehicle for change. The CHA will need to 
win Hope VI revitalization grants in fiscal year 2001 to begin 
rebuilding of its housing properties, with the one primary example 
being the infamous Robert Taylor Homes, which has produced 13 of the 
poorest 15 census tracks in the Nation, and is known as the center of 
poverty.
  Under plans being drawn up with residents, the CHA is proposing to 
create new low-rise mixed income neighborhoods. These neighborhoods 
will be filled with quality housing, 50 percent of which is scheduled 
to be built by minority firms who will hire public housing residents. 
There will be new parks, new schools, new roads and infrastructure. 
These relics of past public policy failures will rise and give hope to 
thousands of people.
  This fall, the CHA will take HUD's commitment to fund the CHA over 
the next 10 years and do something quite extraordinary. The CHA will 
sell bonds to the private market. And let me reiterate this last point. 
A public entity is taking Federal commitments from HUD for funding and 
taking them to the private market and asking them to underwrite the 
revitalization of the Nation's poorest neighborhoods. This type of 
public-private partnership to fund revitalization has never been done 
before.
  A social nightmare has the possibility of being eliminated as we get 
rid of some of the worst housing in the Nation and create thriving new 
neighborhoods. And how is Congress proposing to respond to this bold 
Chicago plan for renovation? This House is proposing to cut $180 
million needed to fund the first phase of this resurgence. We are 
stating to the private sector that this House does not have enough 
confidence in HUD or its funded agencies to pull off reform. We are 
saying that this Congress does not honor its commitments. We ask for 
the private sector to do its part, but we will not do ours. In short, 
we have dictated reform and retracted financial support. We want the 
rain without the thunder and the lightning. We will have summarily 
doomed reform before it has begun.
  And what are the consequences? Instead of creating 25,000 units of 
quality housing, Congress will mandate the Chicago Housing Authority to 
demolish 19,000 units and keep 19,000 substandard ones. Instead of 
creating new construction jobs and business opportunities for small- 
and medium-sized minority ventures, Congress will close the door of 
opportunity. Instead of new schools, parks, roads, and needed housing 
opportunities for people of all incomes, Congress will have refueled 
segregation and pockets of poverty. And instead of demonstrating that 
government can be an active productive partner with private industry in 
the recreation of new opportunities for business and future customers, 
Congress will keep demanding compliance and reinvestment without 
demonstrating the will to put its money where its mandates are.
  So I say to this Congress that without additional Hope VI funding, 
there is no hope. A promising future will be nothing more than broken 
promises. Those towers of misery will continue as barricades to 
advancement, locking future generations into poverty and preventing 
this country from wiping a terrible stain from its past.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Mollohan amendment and urge that 
we vote down the cuts and raise hope.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the hard work that my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), has done with the low funding allocations that he was 
given, however this spending bill makes cuts in Housing and Urban 
Development's efforts to address affordable housing, community 
development and economic development issues. I am pleased to take this 
opportunity to speak in support of the Mollohan amendment to increase 
the funding for the HUD housing programs by $1.8 billion.
  This amendment addresses the drastic underfunding in this bill of 
several important HUD programs in the country and in my district. Under 
the President's budget, the Rochester, New York area would have 
received an increase of $4 million over last year. But, instead, under 
this bill being considered this evening, my district will have its 
programs cut by $400,000. These cuts mean fewer people will be able to 
purchase a home, fewer people with HIV/AIDS will receive housing 
assistance, less money is available to enforce fair housing laws, less 
money to fight against the widespread predatory lending practices, less 
money that can be used to deliver services to the homeless, and less 
money for elderly housing.
  An elderly woman in Rochester contacted me frustrated about the 
critical shortage of affordable housing. The waiting list for this 
housing and the low maximum income limits on new and existing homes 
were a very great barrier to her, and she correctly pointed out that it 
will only get worse as seniors live longer.
  She and her husband are ``too rich'' for low-income housing by $500 
and too poor for assisted care senior housing. They also cannot find 
handicapped accessible housing, which is necessary for her husband, who 
has had a stroke. They are being forced to sell the home they live in 
and they do not know where they are going to move. She remarks, ``Our 
golden years have been very tarnished.''
  Unfortunately, she is not an isolated case. With a record of $5.4 
million unassisted low-income households in this

[[Page 11535]]

country having worst-case housing needs, and spending over 50 percent 
of their income on rent, the bill's low funding is inadequate. I urge 
my colleagues to do better in conference.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike this last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here in amazement over what we are about to do. 
We stand in this Nation on high moral ground as we criticize other 
nations across the world about human rights' violations and all other 
kinds of violations when we are about to do the worst violation we can 
do of one; the pride of one who is less fortunate than us to not have a 
decent roof over their heads.
  How can we, in this time of fiscal prosperity, deny those who do not 
have a roof over their heads? How can we not increase funding for 
Section 8 when we have hundreds of millions of people who are waiting 
for decent homes in this day and age of fiscal prosperity? What is 
wrong with us? What is wrong? We talk about, and many of the 
individuals particularly on the majority party always speak of, 
fostering family values. How can we foster family values if we do not 
value the family? These families need a decent place to live and we 
must increase the HUD-VA budget.
  When we had times of budget deficits, we were enacting in this 
Congress a sort of reverse Robin Hood, because everything that we did 
was take away from the poor so that we can balance a budget. Well, we 
have a balanced budget. We have a situation where we no longer are 
trying to figure out where dollars are coming from. In fact, we have 
surplus budgets, yet we will not restore budgets to where they once 
were.
  What is wrong with us when we do not care about the elderly, the 
disabled? How can we stand here, the greatest Nation in the world, and 
talk about how great we are. What kind of example do we set for other 
countries when we do not take care of the least of our own? It is 
ultimately our responsibility to make sure that we take care of the 
least among us.
  This Congress, in the manner that it is behaving, if we do not 
support the Mollohan amendment, will be convincing me more and more 
each and every day that Robin Hood was right.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan amendment because this 
bill does not meet our great need for affordable housing. I represent 
Chicago, where the waiting list for public housing is 35,000 families 
long. Thirty-five thousand people is as big as some cities. That is 
like having the entire city of Atlantic City waiting in line to get a 
decent place to live.
  It is even worse than that in Chicago. In Chicago, right next to that 
line is another line of 24,000 people waiting for Section 8 vouchers. 
In fact, that line is so long they had to close it. The need for 
affordable housing is so great in Chicago that not only can a person 
not get a rental voucher, they cannot even get in line to get a rental 
voucher. That is what we are facing in Chicago. And it is the same in 
communities across this country.
  This bar graph shows the latest available national figures; 5.4 
million households facing what is called worst case housing needs. That 
means that they either pay 50 percent or more of their income for rent 
or they live in substandard housing; 5.4 million men, women, and 
children, more than any other time in our history. But this bill does 
nothing, absolutely nothing, to help even one additional family, and 
does nothing to reduce the lines, and actually cuts money to improve 
housing.

                              {time}  1915

  The press asked for additional funds for public housing. That is 
money to do the repairs and upkeep that every home requires, including 
our public housing. And that is money for the HOPE 6 program, which 
would rebuild public housing that is uninhabitable like the kind we 
suffer in Chicago. And that is money for the Drug Elimination Grant 
program to fight the drugs and gangs and guns that are chewing up our 
children.
  But this bill does not make any of that a priority. It actually cuts 
money for public housing from last year's funding levels. And these 
cuts are on top of the cuts that we had last year and the year before 
and every year since 1994, totaling over $1 billion in cuts for public 
housing.
  In Chicago we have a line as long as Atlantic City waiting for public 
housing, and this bill does nothing to help them. And it does not help 
our cities and neighborhoods, either.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Republicans and Democrats, wrote us a 
letter detailing what they need to revitalize their cities and bring 
home jobs and homeowners back into their community. The mayors want $2 
billion for HOME, the major Federal homeownership program that gives 
mortgage counseling to would-be home buyers and helps build cities and 
repair homes. This bill, however, does not make homeownership a 
priority. This bill actually cuts the HOME program. And it does not do 
enough for the homeless. This is a housing budget.
  If we help anybody, we should at least help the people who have no 
house at all. Instead, we keep homeless funding at the same inadequate 
amount that we gave them last year. It is not that there are any less 
homeless people. In fact, there are more homeless people.
  The Urban Institute recently updated their study on homelessness. The 
new study showed that over 840,000 people live on the street any given 
night. We should be ashamed. Twenty-five percent of those people are 
children. That is more people than live in Detroit or Milwaukee or San 
Francisco. Imagine on any given night that everybody in San Francisco, 
even the children, have to line up in a homeless shelter. This bill 
leaves them out in the cold.
  There are lines of people waiting for affordable and decent housing 
in Chicago, in Washington, in San Francisco, in Boston, in rural 
America, in the South, in the North, everywhere. And this bill does not 
enough, almost nothing, and certainly nothing additional to help them.
  With a booming economy and budget surpluses, we can help the 
families, the seniors, the communities, and the homeless. The President 
asked for that money to provide more help. The majority leadership 
could have found the money. I am voting against this bill until they 
do. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      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. 1437), 
     $2,800,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     up to $50,000,000 shall be for carrying out activities under 
     section 9(h) of such Act, for lease adjustments to section 23 
     projects and $43,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of 
     information technology systems: Provided, 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: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount, up to $75,000,000 
     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 2001.

                     public housing operating fund

       For 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), $3,138,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, 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.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Kelly:
       Page 25, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 45, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  Mrs. KELLY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent for the amendment to be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.

[[Page 11536]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that the 
CBO has certified is budget and outlay neutral. This amendment 
increases funding for the Public Housing Operating Fund by $1 million. 
To offset the cost of the amendment, it reduces funding for the HUD 
Management and Administration Salaries and Expenses by the same amount.
  As a member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 
Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Development, I have worked in an 
oversight role for HUD for a number of years. In that time, I have 
witnessed a great deal of change at HUD. I can unequivocally state that 
HUD does an excellent job at public relations.
  Listen, if HUD dedicated the same energy toward ensuring a decent, 
safe, and sanitary home and suitable living environment for every 
American, I believe we would have the smallest of tasks before us 
today. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we have a long way to 
go to recognize those laudable goals.
  It is unfortunate, but today's HUD is plagued with problems that 
simply cannot be blamed on passive administrations. Countless reports 
of the GAO and the HUD Office of the Inspector General cite deep-rooted 
government waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and a general lack of 
oversight.
  For instance, the General Accounting Office recently reported that in 
1998 HUD made nearly $1 billion in section 8 overpayments because the 
agency cannot validate the income eligibility of housing assistance 
applicants. This wasted money could have provided housing for some 
150,000 more families.
  Another example is the HUD Office of the Inspector General, which has 
reported for years that HUD operations suffer from systematic 
management weaknesses. HUD's response has been the HUD 2020 Management 
Reform Plan, but the IG reports that the agency remains far from 
addressing the systematic management weaknesses.
  These problems demand action. Yet, instead of acting on 
recommendations of independent investigations, HUD has thrown good 
money after bad, writing their own reports and hiring consultants to 
write glowing reports about what a great job HUD is doing. 
Unfortunately, these reports do not magically fix HUD's deep-rooted 
problems.
  I have received from the HUD Inspector General's office a list of 
these reports by outside consultants on which HUD has spent well over a 
million dollars. Mr. Chairman, I include the following list for the 
Record:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Task Order                                         Amount of
         Contract No.               No.       Contractor Name   Date of Award      Contract          Purpose
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPC-21273....................            5   Price Waterhouse         Unknown       Indefinite  Responding to
                                              Coopers.                                Quantity   audits and
                                                                                                 findings (the
                                                                                                 GTR is from
                                                                                                 Housing)
OPC-21217....................            4   Price Waterhouse         9/30/99       $1,000,000  FILA Audit
                                              Coopers.                                           Response
OPC-18542....................           14   Price Waterhouse        10/30/98          126,984  Evaluate the
                                              Coopers.                                           accomplishments
                                                                                                 of 7 critical
                                                                                                 projects of HUD
                                                                                                 2020
OPC-21387....................        Basic   Squire, Sanders          3/31/99          200,000  Legal Services
                                              & Dempsey.                                         to assist in
                                                                                                 defense of
                                                                                                 claims asserted
Purchase Order...............  ............  Day, Berry &             5/26/98           48,000  Investigation of
                                              Howard.                                            EEO complaint
Purchase Order...............  ............  Williams &               5/26/98           49,875  Investigation of
                                              Connolly.                                          EEO complaint
OPC-18531....................            4   Ernst & Young...         9/21/99          146,962  Independent
                                                                                                 analysis of CB
                                                                                                 effectiveness
OPC-18532....................            8   Booz-Allen......         9/26/97           37,576  2020 Technical
                                                                                                 Assistance
OPC-18532....................            9   Booz-Allen......        12/18/97          412,724  2020 Assessment,
                                                                                                 includes
                                                                                                 subcontracts
                                                                                                 with Champey
                                                                                                 and Osborne
OPC-18533....................            4   Andersen                 7/15/99          155,713  HUD Customer
                                              Consulting.                                        Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Above is a listing of HUD initiated contracts that were 
     intended to dispute OIG audit or investigative matters. A 
     comprehensive listing would be difficult to compile. The 
     procurement data system (1) has hundreds of vendors, (2) does 
     not identify subcontractors, (3) is not linked to the HUDCAPS 
     disbursement system, and (4) the tasks descriptions provide 
     minimal detail. Also, the amount column is the obligation 
     amount, actual payments would need to be verified with the 
     payment system (HUDCAPS). We suspect that costs were greater 
     for some contract items, but we are uncertain as to if and 
     when these payments were made.
       The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) has 
     conducted several reviews of HUD activities at the specific 
     direction of Congress. NAPA's contract activity with HUD has 
     been a little over $1 million. NAPA's reviews of procurement 
     and staff resources are two recent examples where HUD used 
     favorable portions of these reports to dispute issues 
     developed during OIG audits.

  Mr. Chairman, these reports were compiled by Price Waterhouse, 
Coopers, Booz Allen, Anderson Consulting, Ernst & Young, and others. 
While outside evaluations are helpful, my concern is that HUD directed 
their focus away from their problem areas or limited the scope of the 
consultants' report to such a point that they could not properly 
evaluate the program.
  For instance, Ernst & Young was paid nearly $150,000 last September 
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Community Builders program. 
Unfortunately, they were limited to a select 40 community builders, 
each chosen by HUD of the more than 800 in place.
  I ask, how can we see any value in such an investigation? We cannot 
allow such problems at HUD to continue. We have to send a strong 
message that the HUD mission is safe, clean, strong, and affordable 
housing and not a good public relations effort.
  My amendment is reasonable. We move $1 million from the Management 
and Administration Salaries and Expenses account to the Public Housing 
Operating Fund, where I am confident it will be spent on providing a 
suitable living environment for people dependent on public housing. It 
was my hope that the Public Housing and Operating Fund could have been 
funded at a higher level.
  With the budgetary constraints placed on my good friend from New 
York, the chairman of the VA-HUD subcommittee, the levels in this bill 
are admirable. I look forward to continuing our work to raise to fund 
further.
  Passage of this amendment certainly is a step in the right direction. 
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in favor of 
an amendment to send a clear message to HUD on the proper use of HUD 
funds.
  The waste, fraud, abuse, poor oversight, and mismanagement indicative 
of HUD must be properly addressed and denied no longer.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the Kelly amendment. This 
amendment would help ensure that funds will be spent on helping 
individuals purchase housing and not on the wasteful self-promotional 
activities of HUD. It would direct funds to a program which promotes 
self-worth and strong neighborhoods by replacing the worst public 
housing, turning around troubled neighborhoods, and implementing rent 
policies that reward and encourage work. This program requires greater 
responsibility on the part of the tenant as a condition for assistance.
  Many HUD programs have continually been criticized for their waste, 
fraud, and abuse. The Federal Housing Administration is a perfect 
example of one such program. HUD has used taxpayers funds to finance 
all kinds of studies and reports, including one self-congratulating 
report that had a price tag of $400,000. The waste, fraud, and abuse 
within HUD has cost taxpayers and potential home buyers millions and 
maybe even billions of dollars.
  I appreciate this opportunity to highlight the waste within HUD, some 
of which was recently revealed in reports by the HUD Inspector General 
and the General Accounting Office.
  One of the most horrific examples of waste, fraud, and abuse within 
these

[[Page 11537]]

reports has been discovered in the management of the FHA. HUD's 
inventory of unsold homes last year was the highest that it has been in 
10 years, which is amazing in such a tight housing market.
  Due to the increased number of these unsold properties, HUD hired 
contractors at the cost of $927 million to maintain and restore the 
properties. HUD's lack of oversight led to rampant fraud.
  One of these contractors was a company called InTown, who had seven 
of these 16 contracts. Due to InTown's inability to maintain existing 
HUD property or refurbish the run-down properties, the Government had 
to terminate their contract, but not before paying them. Then InTown 
filed for bankruptcy and the subcontractor hired by InTown put liens 
against these HUD properties. This resulted in a loss to the Federal 
Government of $7 million.
  HUD's lack of efficiency, management, and oversight continues to deny 
homeownership assistance to the most needy individuals. HUD is denying 
the opportunity for more people to participate in their programs by 
allowing their taxpayer dollars to be wasted in this manner.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for her 
amendment and for her continued diligence on stopping this waste, 
fraud, and abuse that goes on in so many of our government agencies and 
programs. HUD is a perfect example of an institution in need of fiscal 
reform.
  I urge support of the Kelly amendment.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. The Kelly 
amendment stops HUD from spending money on self-promotion and puts 
money where it will be spent on families who need public assistance 
housing. It is simply wrong for HUD to spend one penny on self-
promotion while people in need remain on waiting lists.
  In her semiannual report to the Congress for the period ending March 
31, HUD Inspector General Susan Gaffney found ``massive fraud 
schemes.'' Gaffney also reported ``a very significant breakdown'' in 
program controls designed to prevent such fraud. Gaffney also said, 
``Our work in the areas identified serious control weaknesses that 
expose the Department to fraud, waste, and abuse.''
  We do not have to look very far to see evidence of the Department's 
inefficiency and poor oversight. Just look at HUD's payment of 
excessive section 8 rental subsidies to the tune of $935 million in 
1998 and $8.5 million for store-front operations that never benefited 
the public. Or we may look to HUD's staffing shell game. For years HUD 
had complained about having inadequate funds for a required staff of 
9,300 full-time employees and has threatened a reduction in force.
  However, even though Congress provided funds for 9,300 FTEs in 
current year, HUD only had 9,040 full-time on staff. We must believe 
that this inflated personnel requirement represents an attempt by HUD 
to secure a larger than necessary appropriation.
  Examples like this leave us no reason to question Inspector General 
Gaffney's claim that HUD will remain on GAO's high-risk list for the 
foreseeable future.
  The Kelly amendment is another step in the Republican majority's goal 
of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. This amendment strikes $1 
million from the Operating and Expense budget and puts it into the 
Public Housing Operating Fund, where every penny will be spent on 
housing.
  This amendment will not cut any staff, as my colleagues on the other 
side may claim. This amendment will merely reduce the expense fund, 
which HUD uses as a slush fund to operate its current Secretary's 
political PR machine.
  Under the current Secretary, we have witnessed the absolute 
politicization of HUD. We saw HUD sweep in and seize control of public 
housing programs from the City of New York. We have watched the current 
Secretary bend and contort HUD's mission to now include industry 
lawsuits and gun control programs.
  In my home State of Nebraska, soon after a member of our 
congressional delegation endorsed the wrong presidential candidate, 
programs that HUD had funded for years mysteriously had their funding 
cut off. For me, it is all too clear, what is intended to be a public 
housing agency has, sadly, become a public relations agency for the 
current administration. The Secretary should not use taxpayer funds to 
promote his own ambitions.
  This amendment stops HUD from spending money on public relations and 
puts the money back into public housing. HUD should not spend money on 
what amounts to political advertising while we still have families in 
need on waiting lists.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of the Kelly amendment. 
But I want to be clear on this. I rise in support of the amendment not 
because of any insensitivity to affordable housing, as the other side 
seems to suggest, but, instead, because I care passionately about 
affordable housing.
  I come from a State where breaking the bonds of poverty has been one 
of our highest priorities.

                              {time}  1930

  I believe that the dollars we spend on affordable housing are about 
the most important dollars we as an institution spend. Now, I want to 
believe that the leadership of HUD shares that philosophy, the 
importance of these precious dollars. But, Mr. Chairman, to be honest 
at times that is awfully hard to believe. We have heard reference to 
the Office of Inspector General's report. That report is damning. It 
shows that there is a lack of accountability at HUD. HUD could not 
produce reliable financial records for 1999. Yet these dollars are 
precious. HUD's newly installed financial system, something called 
HUDCAPS, could not even meet basic financial system requirements. Yet 
they say these dollars are precious. The Inspector General's report 
listed example after example of fraud, waste, and abuse.
  As my colleagues have mentioned over and over again this evening, HUD 
spends an awful lot of money on self-promotion while people, while 
families stand in line waiting for help with affordable housing. The 
Community Builders Program quite frankly has been little more than a 
public relations effort. The Inspector General's report says that it is 
full of, quote, inappropriate hiring. That is putting it mildly. The 
Inspector General, not me, not the House Republican Conference, not the 
RNC, says that this program does very little if anything, very little 
if anything, to address the core mission of affordable housing. This 
directs valuable dollars away from where we need it most. We need to 
get back on track.
  The Kelly amendment is simple. It is common sense. It helps HUD to 
refocus on its core mission of providing affordable housing. It does 
not cut staff. It does not cut core programs. It cuts self-promotion. 
It sends the money back to where it belongs. A number of my colleagues 
have and will tonight speak about the lack of funding for affordable 
housing, and I share some of their values and some of their concerns. 
This amendment is a simple, common sense way to meet the needs that my 
colleagues have enunciated. If we want to put more money in affordable 
housing programs, this amendment is the way to do it.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in strong support of the Kelly amendment. I would 
anticipate after all the rhetoric we heard on the preceding amendment 
that this would receive strong bipartisan support given the concern 
that the minority has expressed for doing more in the key operating 
accounts of this bill. This is a case where the Representative merely 
wants to take $1 million from nonessential expenses, from report 
writing, from promotion within the Housing Department and put it into 
an account that will help people receive affordable housing, $1 
million, from nonessential administrative overhead into a program that 
will enable more people to get the housing that they deserve.

[[Page 11538]]

  We have heard about waiting lists for some of these important 
programs, and I think that there is a tremendous amount of merit in 
this common sense amendment. But it is a very modest amendment, let us 
face it. We can do even more. We should be doing even more. I have been 
fortunate to be the chairman of the task force on the Committee on the 
Budget that has looked at other ways to find the resources to put into 
these key accounts that help people with a certificate and a voucher 
program, for example. One of the problems that we uncovered within HUD 
was an inability to truly verify the income of those that receive 
housing benefits.
  Now, that is important because if HUD is underestimating the income 
of beneficiaries, it is overpaying subsidies. And if it is overpaying 
the subsidy to someone who is in public housing, then there is someone 
else that is not in the housing that cannot benefit because someone is 
taking their place, perhaps inappropriately, because they have 
misreported their income.
  Well, it stands to reason that we should be able to verify the income 
of those that are relying on the Federal Government for such a 
significant and important subsidy. Unfortunately, HUD cannot. How big 
is this problem? Is it $1 million? No. Is it $10 million? No. Is this a 
$100 million problem in HUD? No. Is this a $500 million problem? It is 
even bigger than that. HUD and the GAO estimates there are $935 million 
in subsidy overpayments every year. This is not a historical problem. 
This is a yearly problem. Last year they estimated it at over $800 
million. This year $900 million. What does that mean? That means over 
100,000 families on the waiting lists cannot get access to existing 
affordable housing.
  Now, the members of the administration that testified said, ``Well, 
we don't know for sure that it's $935 million.'' I am the first to 
admit it is very difficult to estimate the exact amount of the 
overpayments. But even if we are off by a factor of two, that is still 
nearly $500 million that taxpayers are sending to Washington that we 
are appropriating to HUD that everyone in this body and across the 
country thinks is going to affordable housing and it is not. We need to 
do better. This is a very modest step in the right direction, taking $1 
million from administrative overhead and helping people get the housing 
that they need. I very much hope that this will be supported on a 
bipartisan basis because it is not just a good amendment, it is common 
sense.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine this amendment being supported on a 
bipartisan basis. The fixes that we need to HUD were contained in the 
Mollohan amendment, to increase funding for incremental Section 8 
vouchers, for public housing capital fund, for the public housing 
operating assistance, for Native American housing block grants, for 
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, for community development 
block grants, all programs that were cut significantly in this bill, as 
was the very account that the gentlewoman proposes to cut another $1 
million out of, the S&E account.
  Obviously it takes money, it takes people to administer these 
programs. The request from the President for the FTEs, that is, the 
number of people to work at HUD to help people with housing problems, 
to administer all of these programs that are short-sheeted in this 
bill, the President's request was for 9,300 FTEs. This bill funds 
9,100, already a significant cut. The President requested $1.095 
billion for the S&E account, the account that the gentlewoman takes $1 
million out of. This bill appropriated $90 million less than the 
President's request already, or an 8 percent cut the S&E account took 
from the President's request in this bill.
  We can ill afford to take more money out of the S&E account. If we 
have administrative challenges at HUD, the way to address them is not 
by further cutting the account from what this bill already cuts but to 
appropriate not only the programmatic requests at the requested level 
but also the S&E account, the people who administer, who are out there 
delivering the services to people. We cannot continue to cut the 
programmatic side and the S&E side and deliver adequately the housing 
needs of the most needy in our society. We cannot continue to do that.
  This is really, let us face it, a symbolic cut, a symbolic amendment, 
just taking a jab at HUD by taking another jab at the civil servants 
who work hard every day in every way to deliver these needed services 
to people who are the most needy in our society. No, I cannot imagine 
this amendment being supported on a bipartisan basis because I think we 
understand the motives behind it.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know quite where to begin. I do rise in 
support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York. I 
want to emphasize it is long overdue. The gentleman from West Virginia 
has very eloquently stated the difficulty in cutting the salaries and 
expenses account. But for the benefit of the Members in the Chamber, I 
would just like to go through a few of the issues that we are 
struggling with in the overall picture rather than in a very narrow 
focus.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information 
and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform, I have come to 
understand that the auditor over at HUD cannot even issue an 
unqualified opinion regarding the financial affairs at HUD. Yet the 
argument is being made on the other side to increase the resources 
available to HUD.
  I would urge all Members as a first step to familiarizing themselves 
with the affairs there that they read the Inspector General's report 
for 1999. In that, the Inspector General cannot even close their books 
on HUD. Are Members also aware of the fact that HUD cannot establish 
the condition of the units under its control? Literally they cannot. I 
would commend to all Members that they read the recent article in The 
Washington Post by Judith Havemann regarding HUD's efforts to see what 
kind of shape the 4.6 million units it controls are in. HUD has hired 
contractors to inspect its portfolio and report back on the conditions 
that exist therein. Perhaps we should applaud this effort.
  After all, each day that this inspection continues provides us with 
information about the condition of another 120 to 150 living units. Let 
us see. 4.6 million, 120 to 150 a day. That means in the year 2084, the 
complete report will be available. I can hardly wait to see it. We 
should applaud this effort.
  Are Members aware of the new program under the auspices of Secretary 
Cuomo called Community Builders? Before I share this with my 
colleagues, I want to read something from the 105th Congress regarding 
what is allowed under Public Law 105-277 and what is not:
  No parts of any funds appropriated in this or any other act shall be 
used by an agency of the executive branch other than for normal and 
recognized executive-legislative relationships, nor for publicity or 
propaganda purposes, and for preparation, distribution or use of any 
kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television or film 
presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before 
Congress except in presentation to the Congress itself.
  Now, that is put in there so that the agencies do not go to Congress 
and lobby for their own interests. However, I want to share with the 
Members here what the reality is. On September 9, 1999, the public 
affairs officer for HUD sent out the following instructions to the 
field public affairs staff. Again this relates to the community 
builders area of HUD's operations.
  It says:
  Attached is an op-ed penned by the Secretary, that would be Secretary 
Cuomo, regarding the proposed cuts to the HUD budget. Here is what I 
need you all to do ASAP. Again this is a memorandum sent to the 800-odd 
community builders.
  Number one, localize the opinion editorial, in other words, 
suggesting to them that they send to their local media an opinion or an 
editorial piece

[[Page 11539]]

to be published in the paper. Do whatever will get your specific media 
interest. Here is the local information in case you deleted the earlier 
copy. Find out who to send it to. Call your local daily newspapers. Fax 
the localized op-ed to the editorial editor. After all, the House is 
voting on the budget today or tomorrow. We expect the Senate to take up 
our appropriations bill very soon. Please send me an e-mail of all of 
your local op-eds and your plan of attack for getting the piece placed 
in as many newspapers as possible in your area.
  Now, on the one hand in the 105th Congress we have a law that says 
you are not to do this and in virtually that same year we have the 
employees of HUD actually doing that under the auspices of Community 
Builders.
  Let me share with Members the financial details of the Community 
Builders Department. This program has 440 temporary slots and 372 
permanent slots. One might ask, what does a community builder do? That 
would be very appropriate. Because the Inspector General found that HUD 
could not document what the community builders were even doing.

                              {time}  1945

  Further, in one sample by the Inspector General, of 59 Community 
Builder individuals interviewed, 39 reported that they spent over 50 
percent of their time on public relations activities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ose was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, just think, they spent 50 percent of their 
time on public relations activities. Just think, we have a whole new 
cadre of people out in our community doing public relations work on 
behalf of HUD, in this case, 812 people whose task it is to highlight 
the accomplishments of HUD. According to the Subcommittee on VA, HUD 
and Independent Agencies who exercises oversight, these individuals are 
paid an average of $91,000 per year, $91,000 per year on average. Just 
think, 812 of them, what a great job. That is $73 million a year for 
public relations, not for housing; for public relations.
  I could go on. Believe me, I could go on; but we do not have enough 
time today. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) 
is long overdue. There is not a clearer or a more compelling case that 
highlights the failures of HUD as respects their financial conditions 
or their public relations efforts.
  Just think, almost $73 million that Secretary Cuomo decided to spend 
on public relations instead of housing, and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is telling me we do not have a million dollars 
to cut out of S&E.
  I hope that Secretary Cuomo can soon report to us that his public 
relations are in order so he can then concentrate on the task that HUD 
was created for. What a great thing, HUD focusing on housing.
  Support the symbolic effort presented by the amendment from the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). Vote yes on the Kelly 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      drug elimination grants for

                           low-income housing


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For grants to public housing agencies and Indian tribes and 
     their tribally designated housing entities for use in 
     eliminating crime in public housing projects authorized by 42 
     U.S.C. 11901-11908, for grants for federally assisted low-
     income housing authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11909, and for drug 
     information clearinghouse services authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     11921-11925, $300,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $5,000,000 shall be solely for technical 
     assistance, technical assistance grants, and program 
     assessment for or on behalf of public housing agencies, 
     resident organizations, and Indian tribes and their tribally 
     designated housing entities (including up to $150,000 for the 
     cost of necessary travel for participants in such training) 
     for oversight training and improved management of this 
     program, and $10,000,000 shall be used in connection with 
     efforts to combat violent crime in public and assisted 
     housing under the Operation Safe Home Program administered by 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development: Provided, That of the amount under this heading, 
     $10,000,000 shall be provided to the Office of Inspector 
     General for Operation Safe Home.

     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, $565,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which the Secretary may 
     use up to $10,000,000 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.

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the Chairman of 
the VA/HUD subcommittee regarding the current level of funding for 
veterans medical care and H.R. 4635. I am very thankful for the good 
work of the Members on the House Committee on Appropriations for 
bringing to the floor a bill with a $1.35 billion increase in spending 
for veterans medical care.
  An increase of this size would not have been possible without the 
hard work of the subcommittee chairman, my good friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh). Unfortunately, according to James Farsetta, 
the Director for Veterans Integrated Service Network 3, which includes 
lower New York and northern New Jersey, we will again face funding 
shortfalls in our region, despite the overall increase in funding.
  This is due to the VERA program, inflationary costs, and the 
exploding epidemic of hepatitis C. Despite the help of the Chairman, 
the VA's diligence in responding to this program has been sorely 
lacking.
  Mr. Chairman, last October, our VISN director requested $102 million 
in reserve funding, and while the VA announced in January that they 
would provide $66 million of the amount, that money did not reach the 
VISN until 3 weeks ago. Additionally, VISN 3 has requested $22 million 
to test and treat veterans infected with hepatitis C.
  The VA budget request states, and I quote: ``Hepatitis C virus is a 
serious national problem that has reached epidemic proportions.'' To 
date VISN 3 has the highest number of veterans infected with hepatitis 
C nationwide, and in a one-day, random screening for hepatitis C in 
March 1999 found the hepatitis C infection rate in VISN 3 was nearly 
double the national average.
  To date, the VA has not provided any additional funding for hepatitis 
C and has not provided any reason as to why VISN 3 is being denied this 
funding. It costs $15,000 a year for 1 year of treatment for a veteran 
who has tested positive for hepatitis C virus.
  Mr. Chairman, this situation has gone on long enough. I am asking for 
your assurance to ensure that the VA ends their delay tactics and 
provides critical supplemental funding to VISN 3 that is so desperately 
needed. I understand that it is possible that VISN 3 will need reserve 
funding again next year.
  I hope that the gentleman will continue to work with me and with 
other concerned Members to make sure that the VA is responsive to the 
needs of VISN 3 and does so in a timely manner.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman (Mrs. Kelly) for 
bringing these important concerns to

[[Page 11540]]

my attention, and I would like to assure her and other Members that I 
am well aware of the problems faced by VISN 3, particularly in regards 
to funding levels. I will continue to work with the gentlewoman and our 
colleagues, the Senate and the Administration to ensure that VISN 3 is 
not just disproportionately disadvantaged under the funding levels 
contained in this bill and ensure that the VA ends their delays on the 
hepatitis C funding issue.
  I also want to assure the gentlewoman that I, too, find the delays 
and unresponsiveness of the VA intolerable. I will continue to make my 
displeasure clear with the VA officials to ensure that the proper 
reserve funding is sent both this year and next.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her hard 
work.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for his continued efforts on behalf of our veterans, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with the gentleman to assure proper 
medical care for our veterans.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  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) 
     (Public Law 104-330), $620,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $2,000,000 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, and $6,000,000 
     shall be to support the inspection of Indian housing units, 
     contract expertise, 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 
     $2,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund 
     for the development and maintenance of information technology 
     systems: Provided, That of the amount provided under this 
     heading, $6,000,000 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 
     $54,600,000: Provided further, That for administrative 
     expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program, up to 
     $200,000 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 (106 
     Stat. 3739), $6,000,000, 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 $71,956,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, up to $150,000 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), $232,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Secretary may use up to 1 
     percent of the funds under this heading for training, 
     oversight, and technical assistance activities.


                 Amendment No. 2 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. 2 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       In the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 
     DEVELOPMENT--Community Planning and Development--housing 
     opportunities for persons with aids'', after the first dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $18,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--National 
     Science Foundation--research and related activities'', after 
     the first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $18,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--National 
     Science Foundation--research and related activities'', after 
     the second dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $18,000,000)''.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to increase 
the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, 
or HOPWA, program by $18 million. This was $10 million less than the 
President requested and far less than is truly needed to adequately 
fund this program, but represents the amount necessary to ensure that 
those already in the program do not receive a cut in service.
  I am delighted by the bipartisan nature of this amendment, and I 
would like to specifically thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for joining me in offering this 
amendment and demonstrating the bipartisan support that this program 
enjoys.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is tremendously important for 
thousands of people. It funds the Housing Opportunities for People with 
AIDS. We are requesting an increase. Consider these facts: HIV 
prevalence within the homeless population alone is estimated to be 10 
times higher than the infection rates in the general population. 
Primary care providers and people living with HIV/AIDS repeatedly cite 
the lack of affordable housing as the single most detrimental barrier 
to accessing real health care.
  When the number of individuals living with AIDS increases, the number 
of eligible housing sites also needs to increase. HOPWA-funded beds in 
residential facilities are 80 to 90 percent less expensive than an 
acute-care hospital bed. The HOPWA program reduces the use of emergency 
care services by $47,000 per person per year.
  Last year, this vital Federal program provided over $27 million for 
California alone. Across our Nation this year, there are four new 
eligible metropolitan statistical areas that will be added to the 
program. Those are the new areas, Albany, New York; Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana; Columbia, South Carolina; and Oklahoma City.
  Other States will also qualify for HOPWA funds. In this appropriation 
bill, the HOPWA level is level funded at last year's level. Without the 
adoption of our amendment, every HOPWA recipient will experience a 
funding cut. That is why this modest increase of $18 million dollars is 
so desperately needed. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the 
bipartisan Shays-Nadler-Horn-Crowley-Cummings-Foley amendment. That 
amendment provides needed services and justice, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, the housing provided by HOPWA allows 
people to improve the quality of their lives and access to life 
extending care. With the longer life span comes the need for more 
assistance both in medical care and in housing. No person should have 
to choose between extending their life or keeping a roof over their 
head, and the fact is without adequate housing and nutrition, it is 
extremely difficult for individuals to benefit from the new treatments.
  Let us give the HOPWA program the necessary money it needs to provide 
those services. I ask all of my 
colleagues to join me in supporting 
the Nadler-Shays-Crowley-Horn-Cummings-Foley amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York for 
yielding, and I rise in support of this

[[Page 11541]]

amendment, as well, and on behalf of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who are also 
cosponsors of this amendment. I know the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) as well has expressed support of this. We are prepared 
to vote.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to support this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will not 
take all of the time provided. I appreciate the brevity of the 
statements of the speakers who are advocating for this. We have no 
objection to this amendment on this side. The committee recommended 
funding for HOPWA's budget at last year's level; however, like many 
other accounts in this bill, I had hoped to increase funding for this 
account but could not, because such a decision would have adversely 
impacted other accounts.
  On those grounds, I am prepared to accept the amendment. These funds 
would normally go to National Science Foundation, those funds are not 
wasted there either, but this is a priority program; and the additional 
funds are necessary.
  I would register for the record, a concern, however, that the formula 
that HOPWA uses is outdated by many estimates and other programs, 
including the Ryan White program, which have updated their formula for 
dispersal of funds; and we would urge HOPWA to consider seriously 
looking at that.
  Other than that reservation, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler amendment to 
increase by $18 million the appropriations for the Housing 
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program.
  As we all know, AIDS is the number one public health problem in this 
nation and in many places throughout the world. And in my District back 
in Chicago, AIDS has reached epidemic proportions. In fact, there are 
at least a thousand reported cases of AIDS in my district and since 
1980, more than 10,000 people have died of AIDS in Chicago.
  Although the mortality rate among individuals living with AIDS is 
declining as a result of better medical treatments, combination 
therapies, and earlier diagnosis, the housing opportunities for those 
living with the disease have not improved accordingly. It is important 
that this Congress respond with compassion and support.
  This bill in its current form does not meet this objective, for there 
are still far too many victims of AIDS who are living, but have no 
place to live.
  Fortunately, this amendment seeks to correct this gap and help to 
meet this need, $18 million is no panacea, but will help many persons 
living with AIDS to have a place in which to live.
  Therefore, I urge passage of the Nadler, Shays, Crowley, and Horn 
amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I likewise, rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler/Shays/Crowley/
Horn amendment to increase HOPWA funding by $18 million to $250 
million.
  HOPWA allows communities to design local-based, cost-effective 
housing programs for people living with AIDS.
  It supports patients with rent and mortgage assistance and provides 
information on low-income housing opportunities.
  While basic housing is a necessity for everyone, it is even more 
critical for people living with AIDS. Many AIDS patients rely on 
complex medical regimens and have special dietary needs. Lack of a 
stable housing situation can greatly complicate their treatment 
regiment.
  We must not forget that while medical science has made important 
advances in treating AIDS, a cure remains elusive. In the meantime we 
must do what we can to help people living with this disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I implore my friends on the other side of the aisle who 
often speak about ``Compassionate Conservatism'' to support this 
amendment.
  This vote presents an opportunity for my colleagues to match their 
rhetoric with a small federal funding request.
  The people who benefit from the HOPWA program are some of our nations 
most needy. They are living in a very difficult circumstance.
  Mr. Chairman, I eagerly look forward to the day when medical 
breakthroughs render the HOPWA program unnecessary. However, today in 
the present I call on my colleagues to people living with AIDS this 
modest increase in support.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support to an increase 
in funding for Housing for People with AIDS--HOPWA.
  HOPWA is the only federal program that provides community based HIV-
specific housing. It is vital to the lives of persons who are living 
with HIV/AIDS because it allows people to benefit from their treatments 
and helps to keep them from being exposed to other life-threatening 
diseases, poor nutrition and lack of medical care.
  Up to 60 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS will need housing 
assistance at some point in the course of their illness. According to 
the National AIDS Housing Coalition, one-third to one-half of all 
people living with HIV/AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger 
of losing their homes.
  In my district, Alameda County, the Ryan White Planning Council Needs 
Assessment Surveys in 1998 and 1999, ranked housing as the highest area 
for ``unmet need'' and ``served but unsatisfied'' of eight service 
categories. This study also indicates that anti-retroviral therapies 
are helping people living with HIV/AIDS live longer healthier lives, 
thus our responsiveness to their housing needs is more urgent than 
ever.
  In the Bay Area community I represent, housing costs are reaching 
astronomical heights and are becoming increasingly impossible for even 
moderate wage earners to meet. The working poor and the disabled, 
including persons with HIV/AIDS, are in great jeopardy.
  Since 1992, HOPWA funding has provided essential development awards 
for projects ranging from a rehabilitated five bedroom house in north 
Berkeley to a newly constructed 21 unit complex in East Oakland. HOPWA 
has also provided the resources and support for 20 emergency housing 
beds, 40 transitional housing shared units, and 174 permanent units 
throughout my district. Yet, these programs have only addressed a small 
portion of the housing needs for persons and families affected by HIV/
AIDS.
  The rental market vacancy rate in my district is less than 1% and 
market rents throughout Alameda County far exceed Fair Market Rents 
(FMRs). With the limited rental assistance available from the HOPWA 
program, people living with HIV/AIDS are unable to find and rent 
affordable housing. Additionally, HIV/AIDS Housing Programs operate at 
capacity and routinely maintain lengthy waiting lists.
  While, HOPWA has provided the much needed gateway for people with 
HIV/AIDS to access housing, treatment and care services, we need to do 
better. Many persons living with HIV/AIDS are forced to make difficult 
decisions between life sustaining medications and other necessities, 
such as housing. These decisions become even more dire when the cost of 
housing is taken into consideration. For many people with HIV/AIDS, 
HOPWA has been life saving.
  In August 1999, the County Board of Supervisors declared a State of 
Emergency with respect to AIDS in the African-American Community of 
Alameda County. The Congressional Black Caucus' Minority Health 
Initiative, partnered with HOPWA to push forward a community wide 
response to the State of Emergency including closing the housing gap 
for people with HIV/AIDS.
  In my district we are finally seeing positive results from our 
efforts. For example, the Department of Housing & Community Development 
(HCD) has been able to successfully partner with county agencies like 
the Office of AIDS & Communicable Diseases, and Cal-PEP, a community-
based AIDS service organization, to provide access to short-term 
transitional housing for people living with HIV-AIDS, who have recently 
been released from incarceration. Often times, the incarcerated 
population is over looked or under served regarding AIDS services. 
HOPWA has helped to close that gap by providing housing and treatment 
services, but also to render prevention education services on post-
exposure and secondary exposure risks for HIV/AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, like all of us, people living with HIV/AIDS dream of 
living in suitable and quality homes. We must ensure that all people 
have a place they can call home. We have to do everything we can to 
close the housing gap.
  I urge you and my colleagues to support this amendment because HOPWA 
will help close the housing gap, but also will help to reach our goal 
of eradicating HIV/AIDS. It is the right thing to do.

[[Page 11542]]


  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle, Mr. Nadler and Mr. Cummings, and Mr. Shays, Mr. 
Horn, and Mr. Foley to offer an amendment to increase funding for the 
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS by $18 million dollars. I 
know many of my colleagues will ask why this one program, out or many 
others that were cut or also ``level'' funded deserves an increase, and 
I hope we can effectively explain why. You have supported us in the 
past--by ensuring that HOPWA maintained its funding last year.
  And this past winter, you overwhelmingly voted for our amendment to 
increase the authorization amount for the HOPWA program. We need your 
support again now.
  We have made great strides in the treatment of AIDS. New medications 
have increased life expectancy by years, even after the onset of full-
blown AIDS. Currently, there are about one million American living with 
HIV and AIDS. More than 200,000 of these currently need housing 
assistance. Additionally, 60% of people with HIV/AIDS and their 
families will need housing assistance at some point during their 
illness.
  The HOPWA program provides rental assistance, mortgage assistance, 
utility payment assistance, information on low-income housing 
opportunities and technical support and assistance with planning and 
operating community residences. These important services assist 
individuals and families financially--not forcing them to choose 
between housing and medicine. Currently, HOPWA benefits 52,000 people 
in 415,000 housing units. HOPWA is the only federal housing program 
addressing the housing crisis facing people living with AIDS.
  The housing provided by HOPWA allows people to improve the quality of 
their lives and access life-extending care.
  With a longer life span comes the need for more assistance, both in 
medical care and housing. Life-saving drugs are costly, forcing many 
people to decide between essential medicines and other necessities--
such as food and housing. No person should have to choose between 
extending their life or keeping a roof over their head. And the fact 
is, without adequate housing and nutrition; it is extremely difficult 
for individuals to benefit from the new treatments.
  Longer life spans mean less space in HOPWA programs. Additionally, 
since 1995, the number of Metropolitan areas and states qualifying for 
HOPWA formula grants has increased significantly.
  In fact, 4 new regions are to be added this next year. The result of 
these two factors means that level-funding HOPWA at $260 million will 
mean cutting the program. The current funds will need to stretch 
further. Let me give you an example from my home state. In Fiscal Year 
2000, New York State received 3.25 million in HOPWA funding. In Fiscal 
Year 2001, with level funding, New York State will only receive $3.1 
million. This will result in a loss of services. In fact, HUD informs 
me that 5,170 fewer people with HIV/AIDS will be receiving assistance. 
Let's make this real--this means the over 5,000 people and their 
families will be living on the streets. Housing is essential to help 
individuals with treatments for this disease.
  This year's appropriations limits make it very difficult to find an 
offset for any increase. My colleagues and I do not want to take money 
away from any program. But when confronted with the reality that over 
5000 individuals and their families in New York State will be living on 
the street, we need to make a way. My colleagues and I have proposed an 
$18 million offset from the National Science Foundation's Polar and 
Antarctic Research Program. I want to make it clear that I am not 
opposed to science research and understand the value it can have on our 
lives and the future of the human race. However, the Polar and 
Antarctic research program is coordinated by NSF but has 12 other 
federal agencies also contributing funds over $150 million.
  We ought to be farsighted in looking at problems in our global 
atmosphere and scientific research, but we must not be so shortsighted 
that we harm the citizens of this country in our efforts. I am not 
saying that NSF's programs are not worthwhile, but we need to have 
compassion for those people who struggle to live each day with AIDS. 
They need our assistance and we cannot leave them out in the cold.
  Let's show compassion. Vote for the Nadler-Shays-Crowley-Horn-
Cummings-Foley.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York, which would reduce 
funding for polar research at the National Science Foundation by $18 
million and increase funding at Housing and Urban Development by a like 
amount.
  I would suggest to the gentleman from New York that if he seeks to 
increase funding for housing people with AIDS, he could find the 
resources within HUD's nearly $30 billion appropriation. This agency is 
far better able to accommodate the amendment's purpose through 
efficiencies than by cutting NSF, an agency having a budget that is a 
small fraction of HUD's appropriation.
  Cutting the appropriation for the Nation's premier science agency, as 
the gentleman from New York proposes, is ill-advised. The Congress has 
affirmed the importance of an active U.S. presence in Antarctica. 
Stable funding for polar programs is necessary because of the long lead 
time required for these operations. If this amendment passes, funding 
probably will have to be shifted from basic research programs to 
support polar operations already in the pipeline.
  As the White House recently pointed out in its June 15, 2000 press 
release, any cuts to the NSF budget would put the ``new economy'' at 
risk. The basic research NSF funds in the biological and other sciences 
is a vitally important part of the overall Federal research portfolio, 
adding to our store of knowledge in valuable, and often unpredictable 
ways.
  Mr. Chairman, we can all sympathize with the plight for those who 
have contracted AIDS, but I do not think that it is in their best 
interests to cut funding for our premier basic research agency that may 
one day help provide the underlying research needed to find a cure for 
this and other debilitating diseases.
  The House should reject Mr. Nadler's amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. The gentleman from New York proposes to reduce funding for 
the National Science Foundation by $18 million in order to increase 
funding at the Department of Housing and Urban Development by the same 
amount. This is a remarkably short-sighted idea.
  This appropriations bill adds $4 billion to HUD's already $25.8 
billion budget for FY2000--that's an increase that represents more than 
NSF's total budget. To this increase, the gentleman wishes to add $18 
million raided from NSF's significantly smaller appropriation.
  This House has continually recognized the important role NSF and 
basic research have played in our Nation's economic and technological 
development. Research funded by NSF, including research at the poles, 
has led to the development of new pharmaceuticals and new diagnostic 
and therapeutic tools that have preserved and protected the health of 
people worldwide. Our understanding of viruses, of pathogens, of 
carcinogens, has been aided immeasurably by the type of basic research 
NSF enables. This is a fact not lost on the current Administration, 
which pointed out in a press release last week that cuts to NSF will 
put at risk ``longer, healthier lives for all Americans.''
  While I commend my colleague for the intent of his amendment, I must 
take issue with its effect. Moving this funding from a well-run agency 
like NSF to one with a history of mismanagement like HUD sends the 
wrong message to all federal agencies. It's worth noting a GAO report 
issued last summer taking HUD to task for its management deficiencies. 
The report noted significant weaknesses in internal control, unreliable 
information and financial management systems, organizational 
deficiencies, and staff without proper skills. GAO concluded that 
``HUD's programs are a high-risk area'' based on ``the status of 
[these] four serious, long-standing Department-wide management 
deficiencies that, taken together, have placed the integrity and 
accountability of HUD's programs at high risk since 1994.''
  In that light perhaps the gentleman should look within HUD's $30 
billion appropriation to find the offsets his amendment requires, 
rather than force cuts in the Nation's premier science agency. I urge 
the House to reject this amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to work with my colleagues 
to bring forth such an important amendment to increase funding for 
Housing Opportunities for People with Aids (HOPWA).
  For individuals with AIDS and other HIV-related illnesses, adequate 
and safe housing can be the difference between a person's opportunity 
to live life with self-respect and dignity and being relegated to a 
life of poor, unhealthy and safe conditions often leading to 
homelessness and possibly death.
  At any given time, \1/3\ to one-half of those living with HIV-related 
illnesses are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing housing. 
And 60% of these persons will face a housing crisis at some time during 
their illness due to discrimination and increased medical expenses. 
Moreover, as their health declines, persons with HIV-related illnesses 
may lack the ability to work or at least to earn up to their full 
potential, leaving them vulnerable

[[Page 11543]]

to either not being able to find appropriate housing or losing their 
housing.
  Sadly, this problem disproportionately impacts low-income communities 
where homelessness is often a paycheck away. And the CDC has estimated, 
in past studies, that HIV infection rates are 24% among the homeless, 
and in some urban areas as high as 50%.
  HOPWA is the only, federal housing program designed to address his 
crisis. 90% of HOPWA funds are distributed by HUD to cities and states 
that are hardest hit with the AIDS pandemic. These jurisdictions then 
determine how best to utilize the funding to meet locally-determined 
housing needs and services for persons living with HIV-related 
illnesses, such as short-term housing, rental assistance, home care 
services, and community residences.
  In 1998, HUD estimated that for each additional $1 million in HOPWA 
funding, an additional 269 individuals and families living with HIV and 
AIDS would have access to vital housing and housing-related services. 
Moreover, HOPWA funding has been demonstrated to reduce emergency 
health care expenses by $47,000 per person.
  Consequently, increased HOPWA funding is critical. As the number of 
AIDS cases continues to rise, the ability for localities to address 
increased housing needs must keep pace. Without significant increases, 
we will continue to fight a losing battle that no other federal program 
can combat. While Section 8 housing waiting lists swell, other programs 
prove more politically popular than those addressing AIDS, and persons 
with HIV/AIDS are discriminated against, housing opportunities created 
specifically for these individuals are crucial.
  As such, I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler-Shays-Crowley-
Horn-Cummings-Foley HOPWA amendment to increase FY 2001 funding by $18 
million to level of $250 million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Clerk will read.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Forbes

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Forbes:
       Page 29, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $16,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $78,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $69,000,000)''.
       Page 38, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
       Page 52, after line 6, insert the following new sections:


 reduced downpayment requirements for loans for teachers and uniformed 
                          municipal employees.

       Sec. 207. (a) In General.--Section 203(b) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Reduced downpayment requirements for teachers and 
     uniformed municipal employees.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in the 
     case of a mortgage described in subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) the mortgage shall involve a principal obligation in 
     an amount that does not exceed the sum of 99 percent of the 
     appraised value of the property and the total amount of 
     initial service charges, appraisal, inspection, and other 
     fees (as the Secretary shall approve) paid in connection with 
     the mortgage;
       ``(ii) no other provision of this subsection limiting the 
     principal obligation of the mortgage based upon a percentage 
     of the appraised value of the property subject to the 
     mortgage shall apply; and
       ``(iii) the matter in paragraph (9) that precedes the first 
     proviso shall not apply and the mortgage shall be executed by 
     a mortgagor who shall have paid on account of the property at 
     least 1 percent of the cost of acquisition (as determined by 
     the Secretary) in cash or its equivalent.
       ``(B) Mortgages covered.--A mortgage described in this 
     subparagraph is a mortgage--
       ``(i) under which the mortgagor is an individual who--

       ``(I) is employed on a full-time basis as: (aa) a teacher 
     or administrator in a public or private school that provides 
     elementary or secondary education, as determined under State 
     law, except that elementary education shall include pre-
     Kindergarten education, and except that secondary education 
     shall not include any education beyond grade 12; or (bb) a 
     public safety officer (as such term is defined in section 
     1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b), except that such term shall not 
     include any officer serving a public agency of the Federal 
     Government); and
       ``(II) has not, during the 12-month period ending upon the 
     insurance of the mortgage, had any present ownership interest 
     in a principal residence located in the jurisdiction 
     described in clause (ii); and

       ``(ii) made for a property that is located within the 
     jurisdiction of--

       ``(I) in the case of a mortgage of a mortgagor described in 
     clause (i)(I)(aa), the local educational agency (as such term 
     is defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)) for the school in 
     which the mortgagor is employed (or, in the case of a 
     mortgagor employed in a private school, the local educational 
     agency having jurisdiction for the area in which the private 
     school is located); or
       ``(II) in the case of a mortgage of a mortgagor described 
     in clause (i)(I)(bb), the jurisdiction served by the public 
     law enforcement agency, firefighting agency, or rescue or 
     ambulance agency that employs the mortgagor.''.

       (b) Deferral and Reduction of Up-Front Premium.--Section 
     203(c) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Except 
     as provided in paragraph (3) and notwithstanding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Deferral and reduction of up-front premium.--In the 
     case of any mortgage described in subsection (b)(11)(B):
       ``(A) Paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection (relating to 
     collection of up-front premium payments) shall not apply.
       ``(B) If, at any time during the 5-year period beginning on 
     the date of the insurance of the mortgage, the mortgagor 
     ceases to be employed as described in subsection 
     (b)(11)(B)(i)(I) or pays the principal obligation of the 
     mortgage in full, the Secretary shall at such time collect a 
     single premium payment in an amount equal to the amount of 
     the single premium payment that, but for this paragraph, 
     would have been required under paragraph (2)(A) of this 
     subsection with respect to the mortgage, as reduced by 20 
     percent of such amount for each successive 12-month period 
     completed during such 5-year period before such cessation or 
     prepayment occurs.''.


                              hybrid arms

       Sec. 208. (a) In General.--Section 251 of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-16) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``In General.--'' after 
     ``(a)'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(b) Disclosure.--In the case of any loan application for 
     a mortgage to be insured under any provision of this section, 
     the Secretary shall require that the prospective mortgagee 
     for the mortgage shall, at the time of loan application, make 
     available to the prospective mortgagor a written explanation 
     of the features of an adjustable rate mortgage consistent 
     with the disclosure requirements applicable to variable rate 
     mortgages secured by a principal dwelling under the Truth in 
     Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Limitation on 
     Insurance Authority.--'' after ``(c)''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Hybrid ARMs.--The Secretary may insure under this 
     subsection a mortgage that--
       ``(1) has an effective rate of interest that shall be--
       ``(A) fixed for a period of not less than the first 3 years 
     of the mortgage term;
       ``(B) initially adjusted by the mortgagee upon the 
     expiration of such period and annually thereafter; and
       ``(C) in the case of the initial interest rate adjustment, 
     shall be subject to the limitation under clause (2) of the 
     last sentence of subsection (a) (relating to prohibiting 
     annual increases of more than 1 percent) only if the interest 
     rate remains fixed for 5 or fewer years; and
       ``(2) otherwise meets the requirements for insurance under 
     subsection (a) that are not inconsistent with the 
     requirements under paragraph (1) of this subsection.''.
       (b) Implementation.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development may implement section 251(d) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-16(d)), as added by subsection 
     (a) of this section, in advance of rulemaking.

  Mr. FORBES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 11544]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina reserves a point of 
order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening offering an amendment 
to deal with the housing crisis in the United States. The costs of 
housing is rising far faster than the average working family can 
afford. I propose an amendment, first of all, that would make it easier 
for police, fire fighters and our public school teachers to get an FHA 
loan. It would create a new FHA adjustable-rate mortgage for all people 
to use; and the revenues that would be generated would help to fund 
additional housing for people who are disabled, the elderly, people 
with AIDS, and the homeless.
  This is a critically important issue, not just to the people that I 
represent, in suburban Long Island New York, but across the country, 
where we have seen the price of housing skyrocket.
  Like other areas around the country, they are plagued with high 
property taxes and very expensive, ever-increasing real estate prices. 
Despite the booming economy, no place is it more evident that the haves 
are doing better and the have-nots are doing worse than in the housing 
market.
  Despite the booming economy, the rents and real estate prices are 
simply rising far faster than wages. The costs of housing is clearly 
becoming more elusive and further out of reach for the middle class.
  According to a study by the National Low-income Housing Coalition, 
housing costs on Long Island, for example, are the fourth highest in 
the country. Just to be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment on Long 
Island, a family needs to have an average household income of $45,000; 
and buying a home is an even greater challenge, even for middle-income 
families in Long Island, and I believe most of the Nation. Suburban 
America particularly is mired in perhaps the worst affordable-housing 
crisis ever.
  Median home sales on Long Island, New York, run about $200,000; 
median home sales prices have shot up from $134,000 to $160,000 in my 
county alone over the last 5 years.

                              {time}  2000

  I would reference a firefighter living in Suffolk County, New York, 
Dennis Curry, who is with the North Patchogue Fire Department, and his 
fiance, Michelle, who have been looking for a house for months. They 
want a modest three bedroom home so that they can have room for 
Michelle's son and the child that they one day hope to have, but the 
only houses they were able to find were selling at best at $170,000.
  The down payment requirements were staggering to them, and it would 
have meant every bit of their savings would have been taken up on the 
down payment alone, with little money left over to fix up this house 
that was sorely in need of repair. So what are they forced to do? They 
have to postpone their dream. This fire fighter who dedicates himself 
to protecting our community cannot afford to buy housing in that same 
community.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is an issue that in previous 
times has gotten overwhelming support from this House. We have been 
honored, frankly, to see that almost 400 Members of this House have 
approved legislation that would allow public servants like our school 
teachers, our fire fighters, and our police officers to get into 
affordable housing with a minimum of 1 percent down. The fees 
generated, which would amount to about $114 million, would help pay for 
the extra housing needs that have been addressed at various times 
during this debate.
  The elderly, the disabled, the people with AIDS, and the homeless 
would benefit from these increased fees. We would allow those who 
certainly work for the betterment of our community, who educate our 
children, who provide for the safe and secure communities we enjoy, we 
would allow these folks to get into affordable housing.
  I think this is a good initiative, and I would ask that we have an 
opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to vote on this measure.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this amendment is the same 
amendment that we dealt with in committee which attempts to add housing 
for the elderly, add housing for the disabled, add housing for homeless 
assistance grants and add housing opportunities for people with AIDS.
  The gentleman from New York in this amendment is attempting to pay 
for this amendment by taking three actions which the House has already 
endorsed and which would in fact raise money for the Treasury, which 
could then be used to finance these amendments.
  Now, we have had objections raised on this floor for 2 weeks that we 
did not, in the amendments we were offering to these bills, provide 
proper offsets to those amendments. We suggested that those offsets 
ought to come from the majority party's over generous tax package, over 
generous certainly in what it provides for the very wealthiest of 
Americans.
  This House has given away already, just on the minimum wage bill 
alone, this House has voted to provide $90 billion in tax relief to 
people who make $300,000 a year or more. If this House can do that, it 
ought to be willing to get around a bookkeeping transaction in order to 
provide assistance to some of the folks who need it the most. Certainly 
these folks mentioned by the gentleman from New York do.
  Mr. Chairman, it is suggested that this offset is out of order only 
because it is not authorized. I would say that that is the narrowest of 
technicalities, Mr. Chairman, because this House has already approved 
the legislation that contains the same transactions, and, if my memory 
is correct, or I should say more accurately if my notes are correct, it 
was approved with 8 dissenting votes and 417 in favor.
  It seems to me Dick Bolling when he was here, who is probably the 
greatest legislator I ever served with, Dick Bolling, always attacked 
the idea that legislators were more focused on what he called 
``legislative dung hills'' than they were policy issues. By that he 
meant that Members often spent more time defending committee 
jurisdiction than they did defending the interests of their 
constituents. It seems to me that allowing this minor technicality to 
stand in the way is doing just what Dick Bolling derided so eloquently 
in the years that he served in this House.
  There is no public purpose to be served by admitting that this 
authorization is not going to become law, and, if that authorization 
becomes law, the offsets which the gentleman is talking about would be 
in perfect order.
  I would simply ask, can we not bend even a little to help the people 
who are most in need of shelter in this country? If the answer is no, 
that is indeed regrettable. But this amendment is something that we 
should do.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman from Wisconsin's lack of interest 
in jurisdictional fights, but for those who are inclined to disagree 
with us, I should note that the committee of legislative jurisdiction 
on this particular set of offsets passed it unanimously, so there is 
certainly no quarrel there, and the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
correct, this is a technicality.
  I do recognize the right of people fairly to insist on 
technicalities, if they are, in fact, people who have been consistently 
technical. But the notion of legislating in an appropriations bill, my 
word, what will they think of next? We have seen appropriations bills 
in this Congress that had more legislation than appropriation. Indeed, 
as you people drop the appropriation, you increase the legislation. It 
is kind of a zero sum game.
  Being accused by my Republican colleagues of legislating in an 
appropriations bill is like being accused by Wilt Chamberlain of being 
too tall. I mean, it just boggles the mind that a party

[[Page 11545]]

which regularly legislates whenever it wants to in an appropriations 
bill would do this, and that is why the gentleman from Wisconsin's 
parliamentary argument had such force.
  We have a bill which has been supported by the authorizing committee 
unanimously, which was overwhelmingly supported on this floor, in fact, 
it was amended somewhat on the floor. There were some concerns raised 
by the gentleman from Florida, who has been a very diligent watchdog in 
the interests of lower income people. So the form in which it survived, 
it was not some accident or some oversight, it received a lot of work, 
a lot of compromise. In fact, we worked this one out. And now to be 
told, well, we are going to knock it out because it has not yet 
completed the authorization process is very hard to live with.
  But I will make this proposition, because obviously a single Member 
has the ability to pursue this, it could have been protected by the 
Committee on Rules, but the Committee on Rules apparently had a rare 
fit of opposition to legislating in an appropriations bill, so they did 
not do this one. But by the time this bill goes to House-Senate 
conference, we will, I believe, have finished the authorization 
process.
  So I guess I would say to the gentleman from New York who has offered 
an excellent amendment, and let us be clear, the gentleman seeks to add 
funds to programs of uncontested popularity and moral worth, for 
helping the homeless, for housing for the elderly. These are programs 
which are overwhelmingly supported by local governments, by 
constituents, by the people who benefit from them.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the point that I think 
that the charge that the gentleman is laying is an incorrect one, 
because we are really not talking about the Republican Conference as a 
whole. What we are talking about was that I was one of the eight that 
happened to vote against this when it came to the floor. In the same 
way that you so skillfully have used every arrow in essence in the 
legislative quiver, this is simply a way of blocking legislation that I 
disagree with.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
accept that. I thank the gentleman, and I would say, yes, the gentleman 
has been consistent in this regard, so my charge of inconsistency does 
not lie against him. It is true, the gentleman is the one individual 
Member who raised that, and I appreciate that.
  All the more reason though to say when we get into the conference 
committee and when this comes back to the floor, unless the gentleman's 
numbers multiply more than I expect, and unless 8 becomes twice 80, 3 
times 80, then this will be law. So we can ask, I hope, if the only 
reason we are not going to accept this now is the admirable consistency 
of the gentleman from South Carolina, he has been admirable in his 
consistency and I appreciate that, but if that is the only problem we 
have to adopting it now, I would hope when this bill finally comes 
before us as a real bill, and not the Halloween fake skeleton that it 
is now is, this amendment of the gentleman from New York will be in it, 
and the gentleman from New York's proposals will be accepted.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out also that the pay-
fors which the gentleman is trying to use in this amendment in fact 
help additional families, because the hybrid ARMs provision that the 
gentleman seeks to use tonight would help about 55,000 more families 
purchase houses in fiscal year 2001, and reducing FHA down payments for 
teachers and uniformed municipal employees would again increase the 
volume of FHA single-family lending.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly think in a period where Mr. 
Greenspan and company have begun an upward ratcheting of interest 
rates, that we would be especially anxious to do these things.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman for making the point. For those who may not be fully 
familiar with our jargon, let me make the point that ``hybrid ARMs'' 
referred to a particular form of mortgage, and it is not a hotel for 
people of uncertain genealogy.
  With the renewed hope that in conference, once the point of order 
does not lie, the very sensible prioritization of the gentleman from 
New York will survive, I yield back.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) 
continue to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had not planned on speaking, but listening to the 
last speaker, I think it was a good dialogue, but the ranking minority 
member, my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) continually 
talks about tax breaks for the rich.
  The left, in any fashion, cannot even stand or comprehend giving 
people their money back. It is not your money. To do that cuts power in 
this place, the ability to rain money down to different interest 
groups. It is just wrong.
  The tax break for the rich, when we said the marriage penalty, people 
that get married, I do not think there should be a penalty for that. We 
do things backwards in this country with the IRS. I do not think we 
ought to tax work. I do not think we ought to tax savings. I think we 
ought to reward those. I think we ought to tax consumption. A different 
system.
  The death tax, you know, I do not mind someone owning the Ponderosa. 
This country is so great, because you can work hard and you can do 
anything. Look at the people that have achieved, primarily those that 
have an advantage of education, but even the immigrants that come to 
this country. What a great country it is. I do not mind someone having 
the Ponderosa. As a matter of fact, I am excited about it, because that 
is part of the American dream. But my colleagues on the other side 
would have Little Joe and Hoss have to sell the Ponderosa because they 
cannot afford to pay the taxes on it.
  The $500 deduction per child, that is not for the rich, that is for 
families. We pay too much taxes, and families are struggling to support 
their children. The Social Security tax, my colleagues on the other 
side, they just could not help themselves in 1993. They increased the 
tax on Social Security, and we did away with that. But yet that is a 
tax for the rich and our senior citizens.

                              {time}  2015

  After rhetoric and rhetoric and rhetoric, they said, in 1993, we want 
to give tax relief to the middle class, tax relief to the middle class, 
but yet the Democrats gave us one of the highest tax increases in the 
history of this country; and again, they could not help themselves, 
they had to tax the middle class as well. That was extra revenue for 
their spending here. They increased the tax on Social Security. Every 
dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund, they put up here and they 
used that with the tax increase to increase spending, and then they cut 
defense $127 billion. We think that is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on the other side, the 
rhetoric of tax breaks for the rich, they may get some of their people 
to believe it, but it is not so. They know it and I know it. They 
fought against the lock box for Social Security because it is a 
political issue, and we fought for a balanced budget. Alan Greenspan 
said it would cause lower interest rates, and in 1993, the Democrats' 
budget had deficits of $200 billion and beyond, forever; and they still 
increased spending and increased taxes and took Social Security

[[Page 11546]]

money to even increase that and then drove us further in debt.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a vision. With the balanced budget, locking up 
Social Security and paying down the debt, we pay nearly $1 billion a 
day on the national debt. Can we imagine, $1 billion a day. Can we 
imagine what we can do in this body without having a tax burden on the 
American people and our children and our grandchildren? I mean, that is 
a vision worth going after.
  My colleagues fought against welfare reform, the left did, because 
they want to just keep dumping more money; and on every single bill, my 
Democratic colleagues would say, well, we could fund this if it was not 
for the tax break for the rich. They just cannot bring themselves to 
give people their money back. They have to spend it. Of course, there 
is one area in which the left will cut and that, of course, is defense 
in many cases. We tried to protect Medicare and they used it as a 
political pawn in the last election, but the President overrode them 
and signed the Medicare bill. The same thing with Social Security and 
tax relief.
  This exercise up here of the left for the November elections is 
almost laughable. One of the most difficult things that we have to do, 
when we sit up here and we try and get more dollars to the classroom in 
education and the left says oh, you are cutting education; well, we 
actually increased education. A good example is the Democrats, the 
maximum they ever contributed to special education was 6 percent. In 5 
years, we got that, including Medicaid, up to 18 percent. We increased 
the budget $500 million this year for special education, which none of 
the Democrats, or very few of them voted for, supported it; but yet 
they say, the Republicans are cutting education. That is rhetoric, the 
same as tax breaks for the rich.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that there is a lot of that rhetoric that ought 
to be corrected, and I think we have an opportunity to do so.
  I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We have heard a very interesting rewrite of history, and I would like 
to give the facts rather than fiction.
  Before Ronald Reagan came to office, we never had a deficit larger 
than $70 billion. Then he ran through this Congress a proposal which 
doubled military spending at the same time that it provided very large 
tax cuts. The result, we wound up with deficits approaching $300 
billion, and we have been trying to dig out from those deficits for the 
last 18 years. Those deficits have added almost $4 trillion to the 
Nation's indebtedness.
  President Clinton proposed that we change course, and he passed his 
budget in 1993 with not a single Republican vote in either House, and 
that budget put us on the road to deficit reduction. It was predicted 
at the time by the majority leader of the House and by the Speaker of 
the House that it would lead to record unemployment and a doubling of 
deficits. Instead, it did just the opposite, and anyone except fiction 
readers and writers recognize that.
  When George Bush walked out of the White House, his prediction for 
the deficits for that year was $323 billion. A little different picture 
today. We now have surpluses in very large amounts, despite the fact 
that the Republican-controlled Congress in each of the last 2 years 
actually appropriated more money than President Clinton asked for, and 
so now we have surpluses, and the question is, what should we do with 
them.
  The Republican Party's answer has been that we should provide a 
minimum wage bill of $11 billion worth of benefits to minimum wage 
workers, tied to a tax cut of $90 billion for people that make over 
$300,000 a year. They have proposed eliminating the inheritance tax. 
They claim that they are defending farmers and small business. Only one 
out of every 6,000 beneficiaries in that bill is a farmer or small 
businessman. So in contrast to our inheritance package, which would 
have exempted inheritances of up to $4 million per family, they said 
no, take off the whole lid. So they gave Bill Gates a $6 billion break; 
they gave the 400 richest people in this country $200 billion in tax 
cuts over 10 years.
  Now they begrudge us our effort to provide this tiny little bit of 
housing for the poorest people in this country, paid for by an 
amendment that will raise money by providing additional housing for yet 
other people.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the record is clear. It seems to me our 
obligation is clear. We ought to pass this amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. This is critically important. I mean, the gentleman from 
California just a moment ago referenced the rich and the poor. Well, 
let us look at these public servants. Let us look at these public 
school teachers who cannot afford to buy a home in the community where 
they teach. Let us look at the firefighters who are protecting our 
communities who cannot afford to buy a home where they are protecting 
our communities and our property and our lives. Look at the police 
officers who keep us safe and secure in our communities, and yet they 
cannot afford to buy a home in that same community.
  I think this is a critically important need. As the gentleman from 
Wisconsin referenced, we come to the floor with the opportunity to do 
good for these public sector employees and, at the same time, raising 
the necessary revenue from fees that are a part of the FHA program that 
would further allow the disabled, people with AIDS, the elderly, to get 
into homes. I applaud my friend from New York, the chair of the 
subcommittee and the members of the subcommittee who, frankly, were 
working against great odds and very limited allocations.
  But we have given them a way to solve this particular problem. They 
can allow school teachers, police officers and firefighters to get into 
housing; and at the same time, they can fill the need that so many in 
this Congress who have provided bipartisan support for the need to 
provide additional housing for the elderly, for people with AIDS, and 
the disabled.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, nice spin from the left. I would tell 
my colleague that in every case when the Speaker was Newt Gingrich, he 
voted every single time with the then majority until the gentleman went 
to the Democrat side.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will not. The Contract with America the gentleman 
supported; the gentleman supported impeachment.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will not yield.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) is going to characterize my record, I should be allowed to 
respond.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, those are the gentleman's actual votes.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is using a broad 
generalization.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) 
controls the time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, in every case, in most of the cases, 
the gentleman voted with the majority; but now it has changed.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the spin on Ronald Reagan. 
Ronald Reagan only had the Senate for one term, and if we take a look 
at who controls the spending in this place, it is the Congress, not the 
President.

[[Page 11547]]


  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New 
Jersey yield for corrections? It is the gentleman from New Jersey's 
time. Will the gentleman from New Jersey yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am yielding to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield in a minute.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Is it not the person who controls the 
time who has the right to yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, in the case of Ronald Reagan, it is the 
Congress that controlled spending, not the President.
  The President talks about the economy and how good it is. He has not 
passed a single budget since we took over the majority, except in 1993 
when the Democrats controlled the House, the White House, and the 
Senate. The only mistake that I think that Ronald Reagan made was that 
he did not veto enough bills, but at that time the Democrats had such a 
large majority, it would have been difficult to override a veto.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the Congress that spends, not the President. The 
President worked with the Congress, a Democrat majority, to reduce 
taxes, just like President Kennedy did, because both President Kennedy 
and Ronald Reagan knew that if we reduce taxes, we are going to 
increase revenue into the Treasury, and that is a fact. You can try to 
dispute it, but it is a fact.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New 
Jersey yield for disputing?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield, only to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues will continually bash 
Ronald Reagan; they will continually say tax breaks for the rich, but 
it just is not so. They can spend, they can try and rewrite history, 
but it just will not work. The fact is that the left cannot stand tax 
relief, even if it is for the middle class. They increased the middle-
class tax in 1993, they increased the tax on Social Security, they 
increased the gas tax, they cut the military, they even gave us a 
retroactive tax, if my colleagues remember that. Not many people 
remember that one.
  We have tried to go back, and we have reduced the Social Security 
tax; we have given working families and their children a $500 
deduction. Capital gains paid for itself; ask Alan Greenspan. It gives 
us lower interest rates, putting Social Security into a lock box; it 
helps us pay down the debt, the national debt, which will take away 
from our children the burden that is on our backs. Yet my colleagues on 
the other side, in every single one of these bills, you watch, line 
item by line item, they want to spend more money, spend more money for 
this; and we could spend this if it was not for the tax break for the 
rich.
  I can see my colleagues do not like that, but it is the truth. Over 
and over and over again, they cannot stand tax relief. That is why they 
fought us on the balanced budget; that is why they fought us on welfare 
reform, because it takes their ability to spend away. When they spend 
and spend and spend more than we have coming in, that builds up the 
debt, and over a long period of time, it has taken its toll.
  Mr. Chairman, our vision is different. We pay down the national debt, 
keep the balanced budget going, and then we will be able to really help 
the people of this country by having a smaller, more efficient 
government, and again, which the left cannot stand.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding. I was disappointed that the gentleman from New Jersey, when 
we thought we were having some back and forth, would not give us time.

                              {time}  2030

  I did want to point out to the gentleman from California that Ronald 
Reagan had a Republican Senate for 6 of his 8 years. That is a fact 
that even I believe the gentleman from California would probably have a 
hard time disputing. At no point was there ever in the House a majority 
approaching an override, so the notion that Ronald Reagan was facing 
this overwhelmingly Democratic Congress is one more figment of the 
imagination of the gentleman from California.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Forbes 
amendment. Unlike the bill before us and many of the amendments we have 
considered, this amendment takes us in the right direction. I know that 
the chairman and the ranking member indeed were working with 
constraints, but nonetheless, this bill takes us in the wrong 
direction.
  I listened to the debate in the Mollohan amendment. The Mollohan 
amendment was timely and urgent. I regret a point of order was raised 
against it, and I regret my colleagues raise a point of order against 
this amendment.
  It is for that reason that I intend to oppose the bill. The bill does 
not go far enough, deep enough. It is not about spending but it is 
about the priorities of the American people. It is not deep enough in 
addressing the serious and growing housing problem confronting this 
Nation.
  For some, Mr. Chairman, this is the best of times. The United States 
is enjoying the longest sustained period of economic growth in the 
history of the Nation. Despite these rosy economic pictures, many are 
being left out. For those, these are the worst of times.
  For at least 20 years now, there has been a troubling trend, a trend 
that affects the very quality of life for most Americans. It is an 
alarming and disturbing trend because fewer Americans can afford 
healthy meals, fewer can afford health care, fewer can afford 
education, fewer can afford decent housing and other means to a better 
life.
  Housing is basic. Housing affects every person alive on the Earth, 
regardless of gender, race, class, religion, nationality, educational 
attainment, or marital status. The lack of adequate housing is a 
problem, but the lack of affordable housing is even a greater problem. 
A growing number of poor households have been left to compete for a 
shrinking supply of affordable housing.
  Some may find this surprising in light of the economy. However, there 
are many, many, almost 1.5 million, who are said to be homeless in 
America today.
  A recent article in the Washington Post described the high-tech 
homeless. In its profile several individuals were cited who were 
employed, in fact were earning good salaries, and they found themselves 
homeless because of the high cost of housing where they live. It is 
shocking. An executive in Silicon Valley who was earning $125,000 
annually, when he lost his job suddenly, he was evicted from his 
apartment within one month. Another woman who earns $36,000 could not 
find affordable rental housing for her and her family.
  It seems that while 250,000 new jobs have been created in Silicon 
Valley for the past 10 years, only a little better than 40,000 new 
housing units have been constructed, leaving a fierce demand and 
limited supply.
  Recently there have been records in mortgage interest rates, leaving 
many people to believe that housing in the United States is more 
affordable than ever. That is not true. Despite the low mortgage rate, 
fewer people are able to afford to purchase homes. That is principally 
because income growth for the poor and the working poor has been weak.

[[Page 11548]]

  This group of Americans are called cost-burdened, according to HUD. 
That means they are spending more than 30 percent of their income for 
housing. The poor and the working poor find themselves on a treadmill 
going nowhere. While all the attention has been placed on low interest 
rates and affordable mortgages, the spiralling costs of rental housing 
has been completely ignored.
  There are actions we can seek to begin to take, and we should do it 
indeed by accepting these amendments. I want to put on record that the 
Congressional Black Caucus has made a pledge, and it is working in 
partnership with the private sector, to help and indeed to promote 1 
million new homeowners in the next 5 years.
  Our pledge was recently also reinforced by the Secretary of HUD, 
Secretary Cuomo, who said he wanted to build 750,000 new homeowners.
  I know a point of order indeed will be considered. I think we must 
oppose this bill. It is wrong for America. It is moving in the wrong 
direction.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) 
continue to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of my dear 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) which 
will help firefighters, public school teachers, and police obtain 
better housing, affordable housing.
  Every year the majority party underfunds affordable housing. Every 
year the President and Secretary Cuomo are forced to negotiate for 
every last family. Unfortunately, it looks like we are headed down the 
same road again. The VA-HUD bill is cut $6.5 billion below the 
President's request, and the President would be right to veto this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), pointed out the record of this administration in balancing the 
budget deficits that haunted our country throughout the 1980s, deficits 
created during the Reagan years which he pointed out reached $4 
billion. But this administration understands that the way to balance 
the budget is not to prevent low- and moderate-income people from 
having access to homes.
  One critical area that the bill is very bad in is public housing. The 
bill cuts public housing funds $120 million compared to last year's 
level. Nationally, the average waiting list for Section 8 housing is 
more than 2 years. While the administration proposed 120,000 new 
Section 8 housing vouchers, this bill merely holds out the possibility 
that 20,000 may be funded if some overly optimistic Section 8 recapture 
levels are achieved.
  This bill is especially hard on New York City and New York State. In 
New York City, the housing authority reports that there are over 
131,000 families waiting for public housing. There are over 216,000 
waiting for Section 8. These two lists combined is over 303,000 people 
who are waiting for low-income affordable housing in New York City 
alone, and this bill does them a great disservice.
  The turnover rate in housing in New York is minuscule, 3.8 percent 
for public housing and less than 5 percent for Section 8. The only way 
to help needy people and needy people across the country find homes is 
to provide new vouchers and fair funding for public housing, and I 
would say the passage of this amendment.
  We also have a huge problem in New York with expiring Section 8 
contracts. In my district this is affecting thousands of people. In 
recent years I have been successful in working with HUD to preserve 
some of this housing through the mark to market programs. Thanks to HUD 
funding, thousands of people living in Renwick Gardens and 209 East 
36th Street complexes in my district retained their Section 8 housing.
  Today my biggest concern is the Marine Terrace complex in Queens, 
where again Section 8 contracts have run out for thousands of families 
and thousands of families may lose their homes.
  Mr. Chairman, we keep hearing about compassionate conservativism in 
the press, but there is no compassion in this bill. Programs under VA-
HUD benefit some of our Nation's most needy citizens, and this bill 
does them wrong. This bill provides no new increased funds for elderly 
housing, for homeless assistance grants, for housing opportunity for 
people with AIDS, or for Native American block grants.
  The record of this Congress on housing matters is exceptionally poor 
for New York State, New York City, and I would say the entire country 
over the past 6 years. In fact, this bill funds homeless prevention 
programs at a level 21 percent lower in real terms than 6 years ago, 
when the Democrats were in the majority. Elderly housing is funded 53 
percent lower than 6 years ago, public housing is 27 percent less than 
6 years ago, and home ownership counseling is funded 70 percent less 
than 6 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, the people who benefit from these programs do not have 
high-paying lobbyists representing them with these secret 527 groups 
pushing their special interests. They are simply needy Americans who 
need housing assistance.
  So I call on my colleagues to support my colleague's bill, which is 
doing something to help affordable housing across the country, but 
overall, this bill hurts housing. It is a bad record. It has been a bad 
record for housing for the past 6 years. I urge my colleagues to 
support my colleague's amendment, but the overlying bill is just plain 
bad policy, especially in a time when we have surpluses.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) 
continue to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of serving as ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies under the 
service of our very distinguished and able chairman, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) for a year, and this is my second year.
  It has been a distinct pleasure to serve with the chairman and serve 
under the chairman as he has processed these bills, and as I said in my 
opening remarks, he has been extremely fair and responsive to the 
minority as we have worked through them.
  One of the areas of the bill that I have been very impressed about 
his support for is the area of the bill that we now are debating, which 
we are debating, the HUD section. He has been a real advocate on the 
committee, and exercised his leadership role to the advantage of public 
housing and all the programs that this amendment really speaks to.
  I have to conclude from that that the chairman overall, and not 
speaking specifically about any particular provision, supports this 
idea of funding these programs that we were not able to fund at the 
President's request.
  The other gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), I am extremely 
impressed with the amendment he has come up with here. He has not only 
expressed his concern for our level of funding, an inadequate level of 
funding for housing for the elderly, for housing for the disabled, for 
homeless assistance grants.
  He has not only expressed his concern with it and come up with dollar 
increases for it, but he has done what many amendments, including my 
amendment, did not do tonight: He has come up with the funding for it. 
It is an excellent source of funding. I think the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Forbes) is to be commended for his ingenuity here. He has 
taken a piece of legislation that we have passed on the House floor, 
H.R. 1776, the American Home Ownership and Economic Opportunity Act, 
and taken provisions out of that to fund this bill, to find $114 
million in the first year.
  What is significant about that? What is significant about it is that 
the House has already expressed its attitude about the provisions of 
this legislation. We passed this act in the House on April 6 of this 
year by a vote of 417 to 8, so the House has already expressed

[[Page 11549]]

its will on the authorizing provisions that the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Forbes) is offering to fund the increases in these worthy housing 
programs that I support and I have to imagine the majority supports.
  I want to commend the gentleman for that and speak in particular 
favor of it, because all that has to happen for us to have the increase 
in housing for the elderly up to the President's request of $779 
million, all that has to happen to increase funding for Section 8-11 
housing for the disabled up to the President's request to $210 million, 
and to increase homeless assistance grants, which is desperately 
needed, by $20 million, would be for the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford) to release his point of order on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest if that were to occur and we had no 
other objection raised we would be affirming, if you will, a vote that 
has already occurred in the House, as I say, on April 6. With an 
overwhelming majority 417 to 8, the Members of this body approved the 
funding mechanisms that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) is 
suggesting to fund this, if the gentleman from South Carolina would 
release his point of order.
  If he did that, we would be funding these accounts, authorizing the 
provisions in the appropriation bill, doing what the House wanted to do 
with the American Home Ownership and Economic Development Act, do what 
the National Association of Realtors is asking us to do, to authorize 
these provisions, and at the same time increasing funding to the 
President's request in some cases, and in some cases, like the 
homeless, providing $20 million more to programs that are extremely 
worthy.
  I would ask the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) if he 
would release his point of order and we could move forward and, perhaps 
on a real bipartisan basis, approve the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) to fund these projects.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) 
continue to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. SANFORD. Unfortunately, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves his point of order.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, just to respond to my colleague, I would simply say 
that my colleague from New York and, frankly, a lot of other colleagues 
both on the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle have been very 
consistent in their advocacy, whether it is for helping fire fighters 
or policemen or teachers; and I admire that. I really do.
  My contention and the reason I raise this point of order tonight is 
simply tied to a belief, again, I was outvoted on this, but a belief 
that our Founding Fathers set up a rule of law based on equality under 
the law.
  Any time that I see a fire fighter and a policeman and a teacher, all 
of whom do great benefit to our society, I also have to ask, well, does 
a welder do great benefit to our society, or does a private school 
teacher do great benefit to our society, or does a nurse working for a 
private hospital do great benefit to our society. I believe that they, 
too, help out. They are not in the public sector, but they do make a 
contribution to the society.
  So my objection is solely based on the idea of equality under the 
law, and that is the reason I would insist on my point of order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANFORD. Certainly I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I 
raise the question about the legitimacy of the point of order. I want 
to make it very clear the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), 
given his intellectual honesty, has every right to raise a point of 
order. I would just say this, any Member who, unlike other Members, 
sticks by his term limits pledge is entitled to raise this point of 
order.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. Reluctantly, I 
raise it, not against the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), but 
against the underlying amendment in that it directly amends existing 
law in several respects in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI 
specifically.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends existing law. The 
amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation. The point of order is 
sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 rural housing and economic development

       For the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development, $20,000,000 
     to remain available until expended, which amount shall be 
     awarded by June 1, 2001, 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: Provided, That all 
     grants shall be awarded on a competitive basis as specified 
     in section 102 of the HUD Reform Act.


            Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida

  Mrs. MEEK 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. 36 offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida:
       Page 30, after line 14, insert the following new items:


                        Urban Empowerment Zones

       For grants in connection with a second round of the 
     empowerment zones program in urban areas, designated by the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in fiscal year 
     1999 pursuant to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, 
     $150,000,000 to the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development for ``Urban Empowerment Zones'', including 
     $10,000,000 for each empowerment zone for use in conjunction 
     with economic development activities consistent with the 
     strategic plan of each empowerment zone, to remain available 
     until expended.


                        Rural Empowerment Zones

       For grants for the rural empowerment zone and enterprise 
     communities programs, as designated by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, $15,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture for 
     grants for designated empowerment zones in rural areas and 
     for grants for designated rural enterprise communities, to 
     remain available until expended.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment that 
would include $150 million to Round II Urban Empowerment Zones and $415 
million to Rural Empowerment Zones, the full amount proposed in the 
President's budget for fiscal year 2001. It would serve as a down 
payment on the funds which were promised and have been due to Round II 
funds.
  I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment does not include an 
offset. We hear a lot on this floor about offsets. I think we hear too 
much of that. We are hearing it because it is an intellectual cop-out 
that we use when we do not want to fund something.
  But I am pleading with this body to understand the importance of the 
Empowerment Zone. It is a major economic development initiative 
designed to revitalize deteriorating urban and rural communities. Its 
purpose is to create jobs and business opportunities in the most 
economically distressed areas of the inner city and rural heartland.
  The growth of the economy has bypassed these communities. Take my 
home county of Miami-Dade. We were given a designated Empowerment Zone, 
and the unemployment rate is 15 percent, and the poverty rate is 48 
percent. Clearly, trickle-down economics is not working for these 
communities.
  The Empowerment Zone discussion in this Congress is a well-kept 
secret. No one talks about it. No one wants to discuss it. Yet, there 
are Empowerment Zones in Round II that have been designated for many 
communities of people who are on this floor, who have

[[Page 11550]]

promised and told their constituents that they would get Empowerment 
Zones: Southwest Georgia; Riverside, California; Boston, Massachusetts; 
Cincinnati, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; Knoxville, Tennessee; New Haven, 
Connecticut; Columbus, Ohio, are just a few of them. The one in Miami 
is in my district. The growth of the economy has bypassed these 
districts.
  These distressed communities will benefit enormously by a strong and 
committed Federal investment that leverages private sector dollars. 
This is not government money alone. They leveraged private sector 
dollars. In fact, the comparatively modest Federal investment of $1.5 
billion over 8 years for the 15 urban Round II Empowerment Zones alone 
will generate an additional $17 billion in local investment, 35 percent 
of which will be contributed by the private sector, Mr. Chairman.
  These are important zones. I want my colleagues to know that 
Empowerment Zone designation is not an easy process. Distressed 
communities had to work long and hard before being designated as 
Empowerment Zones. It is a very competitive process. The prospect of 
having an Empowerment Zone brings together all segments of the 
community, public and private.
  Every year that we do not fully fund Round II Empowerment Zones, the 
harder it becomes to get these coalitions together. Imagine, Mr. 
Chairman, bringing the private sector to the table, working with public 
entities, and planning for an Empowerment Zone; yet when it is time to 
have them funded, it is a very solid issue.
  I know firsthand about the process. I cochair, along with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), the Empowerment Zone 
Committee for Miami. We spent many months and countless hours working 
with the local government, businesses, community development 
corporations, and community leaders preparing the Empowerment Zone 
application. When we were finally chosen, there was no funding. That 
was a cruel joke for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and 
myself for Round II Empowerment Zones.
  A key element of the program for Round I participants was Federal 
funding, the Federal Government came through with that, made available 
through the Title XX Social Service Block Grant Program. Mandatory 
Social Service Block Grant funds provide a consistent and reliable 
source.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Meek of Florida was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, getting the funding for the Round 
II Empowerment Zones has been impossible. Last year, the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000 included $3.6 million for each 
Round II Empowerment Zone instead of the expected $10 million for the 
first year.
  Recently, in the agreement announced by the White House and the 
Speaker, funding was again promised as a part of the deal, not to 
mention a third round of Empowerment Zones.
  I am just asking this committee and this House to keep faith with the 
promise they have made to the American people for Empowerment Zones, 
and working very hard toward trying, through this process, to do what 
is right, to fund these zones.
  Mr. Chairman, we must finish the work which we have begun and fund 
these Empowerment Zones. I ask the Members to vote positive for my 
amendment because it is a people's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek) that many of us on this side of the aisle, reaching way back in 
history to Jack Kemp, when Jack Kemp talked about Enterprise Zones and 
reducing the burden, what we found in the inner cities is that a lot of 
the businesses left, crime erupted because the businesses left because 
of crime; and then it became a vicious cycle of welfare and drugs and 
the rest of the things. People had no place to work.
  In Los Angeles, during the riots, the Enterprise Zone worked very 
good because many of those small businesses, already depressed, 
produced no revenue. It put people out of work. They were then drawing 
welfare or unemployment. Instead, then Governor Pete Wilson set up 
Enterprise Zones to reduce the taxes on those particular areas so that 
they would have a chance to start. Guess what, those small businesses 
came back with reduced tax rates. They hired people. So instead of 
drawing welfare or unemployment, it put working people to work.
  The Enterprise Zone, or I am not sure of the Empowerment Zone, but I 
would imagine it is very simple, and it worked very, very well. I do 
not know, but I would think that that would be under the Committee on 
Ways and Means. I am not sure if it is under the jurisdiction of this 
committee or not since it deals with taxes, but maybe the gentlewoman 
from Florida is talking about something different. But the concept of 
going in and helping people to help themselves is a good one.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. The Empowerment Zone concept is a well-kept secret. In 
terms of what committee of reference it should preside, it is hard to 
say in that, since we have been relegated, been given an Empowerment 
Zone, I do not think any committee has dealt with it, particularly with 
the Round II shortchanges we have had.
  I thank the gentleman for really letting the Congress understand what 
Empowerment Zones do, because if they are funded, they can bring the 
community together. It is one of the strongest economic development 
initiatives, and I wish we could fund it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words to speak briefly in support of the amendment to increase the 
funding committed for Empowerment Zones.
  But I also want to say the value of the gentlewoman's amendment is 
far understood. I ask the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) to enter 
into a colloquy with me.
  My understanding is there was an appropriation both for urban and 
rural. Since I come from rural America, I can tell the gentlewoman that 
we need to have the tax incentives to stimulate the economic 
development.
  I was in New York over the weekend like the gentlewoman from Florida 
was and saw the impact of an Empowerment Zone which had become an 
economic engine using high-tech and Bell Atlantic to generate jobs. To 
have that kind of partnership between the public and the private 
sector, the city, the State, and the Federal Government working 
together, I think it was an excellent example, some of the best 
practices how we can have economic development.
  Now, coming from rural America, I want to see that, whatever increase 
comes, it would also have an opportunity for those of us who live in 
rural America because we have been shortchanged by this economy, 
shortchanged by sometimes the appropriation; and we do not want to be 
left out of the formula.
  I support the concept and support the gentlewoman's amendment, but I 
want to make sure that I heard that rural America had the same 
opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Yes, Mr Chairman. I think the gentlewoman from 
South Carolina is right. There is just as much opportunity in rural 
areas as in urban areas. They have the same needs for economic 
development. The gentlewoman has been a strong proponent of rural 
housing since she has been here. What any better way than to have an 
appointment as an Empowerment Zone.
  I also want the gentlewoman to know that the Round II Empowerment 
Zones

[[Page 11551]]

have many rural communities involved in them. Many of them were 
enterprise communities, but there were some who had Empowerment Zones 
as well.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, did it include 
Empowerment Zone and enterprise community, both rural and urban areas?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, 
that is correct, both of them.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, Round II would have meant that they would 
have continued those that were in existence?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. At the funding level they were promised, Mr 
Chairman.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, we had one in our district, and I will 
tell the gentlewoman they are suffering. We had water and sewage 
provided, but we have not had the second provision for the enterprise 
community. We did not get an Empowerment Zone.
  But even the enterprise community allowed us to bring water and sewer 
and to entice economic development. Now that they are almost ready, we 
do not have that additional resource to make sure we have the kind of 
infrastructure that would attract the businesses to those communities. 
We do not have the money for the staff capacity. As the gentlewoman 
well knows, the collaboration to make this hatch requires a lot of 
people working together, and you need to have staff in order to do 
that, and that is what we are suffering from.

                              {time}  2100

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I 
thank her for her contribution, because she has really applied the 
cause for enterprise zones in rural communities.
  I am just hoping as we go along that the chairman, in all of his work 
with the committee and in conference and with the ranking member, will 
work forward to getting monies into empowerment zones and the 
enterprise communities. They are both very worthy causes.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if I entertain the 
chairman in a colloquy, and I know the chairman is committed, because I 
know he is one of the most committed persons to economic development 
and housing. I know it pains him that he cannot provide all these 
resources, but does the gentleman still persist that he must have a 
point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to the gentlewoman that 
the reason for this is because it is clearly the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and we cannot usurp that jurisdiction. It 
would be a problem.
  I have listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) 
speak and listened to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) speak. I 
am a supporter of empowerment zones and enterprise zones. I am a former 
city council president. I am a city person. I know the need and I know 
they are needed in rural areas too. But we just cannot encompass that 
in this bill. It would also put us over our allocation in violation of 
the Budget Act. So, reluctantly, I have to insist on the point of 
order.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) state his 
point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 20, 2000. 
This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. No, I do not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee 
on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, 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 gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek) would, on its face, 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, therefore, sustained. 
The amendment is not in order.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say first of all that I am reminded tonight 
of the fact that really the right to decent and affordable housing 
should really be a basic human right and this bill goes in the opposite 
direction.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity 
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I am acutely aware 
of the enormous housing needs of our Nation, and especially in the 
State of California. Housing costs in northern California, which I 
represent, are particularly alarming. Housing costs are reaching 
astronomical heights and are becoming increasingly impossible for 
moderate wage earners to meet. The working poor, the disabled, and our 
senior citizens are in greater jeopardy than ever.
  Today, I talked to a constituent who is a senior citizen in my 
district, and who is in desperate need of housing. She has been told 
that there are from 3 to 5 years in terms of a waiting list. Now, that 
can be a lifetime for an elderly individual. If anyone needs 
confirmation of this crisis, I direct their attention to the State of 
the Cities report released by HUD this past Monday in Seattle.
  This report outlines the paradox between economic growth that is 
increasing employment and homeownership and the dramatic increases in 
rents and housing prices. The report also notes that over the 1997 to 
1999 period, house prices rose more than twice the rate of inflation 
and rent increases exceeded inflation for all 3 years. Furthermore, 
among the top 10 markets that HUD identifies as the hottest high-tech 
markets, house prices rose more than 18 percent in the last 2 years, 
and in 1999 rose by 27 percent. That is outrageous.
  In this best of all economic times, deservedly celebrated as unusual 
in its longevity, why are we now talking about cutting out the bare 
necessities for those who absolutely cannot survive without help? Why 
are we cutting the bare bones of housing and the economic opportunities 
to really reach some level of self-sufficiency?
  We kick people off welfare and tell them to be independent and we 
keep a few scaffolds to hold them up until the foundations and the 
pillars can be reinforced. With the cuts in this bill, we are kicking 
out these few scaffolds and supports that remain. So what do we suppose 
will be the outcome?
  Congress must do more than maintain the status quo with the 
underfunded Section 8 program. Congress should do better than ignore 
the moving to work program and dismissing welfare to work vouchers. We 
can also do better than underfunding elderly and disabled assistance 
programs by $78 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the American Dream is one of living in suitable and 
quality homes. It rightfully gives us a serious stake in this society. 
Having safe, clean affordable housing really allows us to have a solid 
place from which we can accumulate some wealth, for those who can 
afford to buy a home, to care for our families, to send our kids to 
decent schools and to invest in dreams for the future. This bill really 
does turn those dreams into nightmares.
  This Congress is elected to serve everyone in this Nation, as well as 
to be particularly attentive to our own constituents. This bill is 
neither attentive nor cognizant of the fact that millions are homeless 
or live in substandard housing. It also ignores the fact that millions 
are living from paycheck to

[[Page 11552]]

paycheck or are neglecting other basic needs, such as nutrition or 
health needs, because of the high cost of housing. This bill really 
does not serve everyone. And I cannot in good conscience, and I hope 
many of us here tonight, will not vote for this and neglect our 
constituents and other Americans. Housing really should be a basic 
human right.
  So let us go back to the drawing board and put forth a budget that 
values the housing requirements of the poor, of our senior citizens, of 
the disabled, of the homeless, of our working men and women, who 
deserve a decent and affordable place to live. That is the right thing 
to do.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD 
Independent Agencies appropriations bill. I stand opposed to this bill 
because the American people cannot stand here today and demand to be 
heard. I stand opposed to the bill's funding levels because, in the 
midst of economic prosperity for many, others have been left out of the 
process. We must provide hope with support for children, families and 
communities suffering all across this Nation.
  I cannot support this bill that turns its back on the affordable 
housing crisis in America. I cannot support a bill that overlooks 5.3 
million households, or 12.5 million Americans, with serious housing 
needs. Moreover, with the average waiting period for Section 8 vouchers 
or public housing units being over 2 years, we cannot afford to wait. 
We must provide relief to this ever growing problem. We must provide 
increased funding not only for affordable housing and public housing 
but for elderly housing as well.
  CDBG, the Community Development Block Grants, were developed for 
those with low to moderate incomes. Since 1974, CDBG has been the 
backbone of communities. It has provided a flexible source of grant 
funds for local governments to devote particular development projects 
and priorities.
  I am tired of hearing about Wall Street's prosperity. Let us see a 
little prosperity running down East 105th Street in Cleveland, which is 
in my district. This bill cuts progress that would come to communities 
via Community Development Block Grant funds.
  Within CDBG, this bill cuts $44 million from Section 108 loan 
authority, cuts every community development program, and also cuts $275 
million from last year's CDBG funding level.
  Let us talk about homeownership and affordable housing. Housing and 
expanding homeownership is of great concern to the 11th Congressional 
District. We must find solutions to provide affordable housing for all. 
H.R. 4635 does not get us there.
  This bill cuts the President's housing request by more than $2 
billion. This reduction denies the request for 120,000 new rental 
assistance vouchers, has a $78 million cut in elderly and disabled 
housing, and a $28 million cut in providing housing assistance for 
people with HIV/AIDS. Shame on this Congress if we do not provide the 
necessary aid for those who need it most.
  In addition to neglecting housing, economic development is forgotten 
as well, for this bill provides zero funding for empowerment zones, 
zero funding for APIC loan guarantees, cuts in the New Markets 
Initiative, and a 20 percent cut in funding for Brownfields 
redevelopment.
  This appropriations bill is a reverse Robin Hood. Yes, it robs 
neighborhoods all over this Nation. It robs communities that use CDBG 
funds for child care, Meals on Wheels, and other community programs.
  If we want to expand homeownership opportunities, let us do it the 
right way. Include funding for HOME funding, which funds low-
downpayment homeownership programs and affordable housing construction. 
This bill cuts HOME funding by $65 million. Let us fund housing 
counseling, which helps in the fight against the growing problem of 
predatory lending. This is counseling which is needed across this 
country as the predators continue to prey on low-income persons who 
really need counseling advice.
  What is the reality here? The reality is that this appropriation bill 
does an injustice to Americans all over this Nation who need help. We 
cannot continue on this road of denial and neglect. We cannot in clear 
conscience support H.R. 4635 and then move to the upcoming celebration 
of independence on July 4, for there are people who are still not free: 
Homeless persons, those without decent housing and living conditions, 
and those living in deteriorating communities.
  We must never forget the words inscribed at the Statute of Liberty: 
``Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to 
breathe free.'' Let us breathe free by being a just Congress, a just 
House of Representatives, a House of the people, by the people and for 
the people.
  Support housing, support community development, support the elderly. 
Oppose H.R. 4635.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       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, $4,505,000,000: Provided, 
     That of the amount provided, $4,214,050,000 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), to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That 
     $67,000,000 shall be for flexible grants to Indian tribes 
     notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of such Act, $3,000,000 
     shall be available as a grant to the Housing Assistance 
     Council, $3,000,000 shall be available as a grant to the 
     National American Indian Housing Council, and $39,500,000 
     shall be for grants pursuant to section 107 of the Act: 
     Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance 
     of information technology systems: Provided further, That 
     $20,000,000 shall be for grants pursuant to the Self Help 
     Housing Opportunity Program: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 20 percent of any grant made with funds appropriated 
     herein (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 Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1974, as amended) shall be expended for ``Planning and 
     Management Development'' and ``Administration'' as defined in 
     regulations promulgated by the department.


            Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida

  Mrs. MEEK 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. 37 offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida:
       Page 30, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $395,000,000)''.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a 
point of order against the amendment.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is really heart wrenching and 
heartbreaking when a point of order is usually coming from the floor 
regarding some of the things that people back home do not even 
understand.
  Someone who does not have housing, someone who is living in a run-
down dilapidated community knows nothing about the nomenclature of this 
Congress. That nomenclature includes offsets, it includes point of 
order, it includes authorize. All of those types of terminology is 
based on a stalling technique to hold back growth in the cities. Now, 
our cities are rundown, they are dilapidated, and we need to do 
something about it. That is what Community Development Block Grant 
money is supposed to do.
  Now, I have fought very hard on this floor for CDBG funds. They are 
being dissipated with everything but what they were designed to do. 
Many times that is by design. But, anyway, I want to increase the 
funding in the bill for Community Development Block Grant programs, and 
I want to increase it by $395 million to raise the funding level in the 
bill to $4.9 billion. That is the President's request.

[[Page 11553]]



                              {time}  2115

  Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand my amendment raises community 
development funding only to the level of $4.9 billion. So we can see 
that my amendment is a very reasonable compromise that I am certain the 
subcommittee chairman and my colleagues can enthusiastically support.
  I also understand that there is no offset for this particular 
amendment. But I want to raise the consciousness of this Congress as 
well as to have them realize that something has to be done to improve 
Community Development Block Grant funds.
  I have a letter here, Mr. Chairman, from the Conference of Mayors, in 
which I am sure, just reading this, there are more than 200 signatures 
on this letter; and they are calling for a community development 
funding level of $5 billion.
  We keep saying we want to return the money back to the people. What 
is any better way to return this money we keep hearing about back to 
the people? The $5 billion that we are asking for will help these 
crumbling cities, and it will keep us going in our cities and in our 
rural communities, as well.
  It is important to note that the bill's total for CDBG, $4.505 
billion, is $95 million less than the $4.6 billion provided 6 years 
ago. Six years ago there was more money provided for CDBG than there is 
now. Think about it. Someone is mathematically challenged here. With 6 
years of inflation, the cut in CDBG purchasing power since fiscal year 
1995 is actually about 15 percent, which is a huge cut in a program 
that works so well and does so much good.
  All of my colleagues realize and understand the CDBG program. It is 
one of the most popular government programs. We keep saying we want to 
adequately fund proven programs. CDBG is a proven program. It provides 
communities with flexible funding to develop and build housing and 
economic development projects that primarily benefit low and moderate 
income people.
  Probably most of my colleagues have CDBG projects in their district 
that have either been completed or are under way. CDBG funding has been 
provided locally. We are going back again to sending the money back 
home. It is not administered from here but back home. Very often they 
are able to leverage it.
  This is the right time, Mr. Chairman, to increase Community 
Development Block Grant appropriations to take advantage of this real 
strong economy. What better time can we have that we can leverage it 
than now?
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, presents a tremendous opportunity to help 
this Nation's poor. It is one of the first tools that cities can turn 
to. When we drive through Washington, Virginia, wherever we go in this 
country, we will see these low, run-down communities.
  Why can we not build our communities? We have more money being sent 
to foreign nations than we have trying to build our distressed 
communities. There is something wrong with that, Mr. Chairman. It is 
wrong-headed. There is something wrong in poking ourselves in the 
nomenclature of denial. That is what we are doing. We are denying these 
people who can help their communities, who can leverage this. There are 
so many people in this country who want to invest, Mr. Chairman, in 
some of these communities.
  So I am asking my colleagues to support this amendment. It does not 
involve an offset. The VA bill is terribly underfunded as it is.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Meek) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Meek of Florida was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not include an 
offset. This VA-HUD bill is already terribly underfunded as it is. The 
chairman and the ranking member have worked very hard to try to get us 
better funding than we have, but we are still in that position. We are 
tied down by the constraints, our own constraints. We put an albatross 
around our own necks.
  When we go back to our communities, our people will not know anything 
about offsets. They do not know anything about that. But they do know 
when their communities are crumbling under their feet.
  So I am hoping that no one will make that point of order, that this 
House will adopt my amendment today and adequately fund the CDBG 
program, the lives of those who have been left behind by the booming 
national economy.
  I spent some time on Wall Street the other day, Mr. Chairman. I was 
shocked. I am a senior citizen. I have never been on Wall Street where 
I was at the Stock Exchange. And it was marvelous to see where the 
money is turned over. But do my colleagues know what? It is not getting 
back to those communities, to those poor people whose government can 
help these people.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I continue to reserve my point of 
order.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate can go on and on and on and it probably 
will sort of ad nauseam. I support the gentlewoman from the great State 
of Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  For the life of me, it is difficult to understand where some of my 
colleagues are coming from when they talk about cutting efforts and 
reducing resources toward an issue that seeks to expand homeownership.
  The one sort of valuable asset that most people ever own in their 
lives, we all hope to invest in stocks that will generate huge yields 
and make a lot of money for us, but the truth be told, the one major 
asset, the most valuable asset that most Americans will control or own 
in their lives is a home.
  We are close to 5\1/2\ million people. In this Congress, we often use 
the term ``low income'' to describe some of the folks that will benefit 
from this initiative. But whether they are low income or middle income 
or even high income, they are still Americans. There are 5.4 million 
who have worse-case housing scenarios.
  Empowerment Zones and Community Development Block Grants really 
empower cities and local players working with the market and those in 
the private sector to come up with solutions to help expand 
homeownership and expand economic opportunity of all Americans.
  I was on that trip with my colleague from Florida (Mrs. Meek) to New 
York and did not have the opportunity to visit the New York Stock 
Exchange as some of my other colleagues did, but have had opportunity 
in the past.
  I hear so many of my colleagues often talk about how government is 
around people's necks and it is squishing innovation and creativity and 
wealth in America. Let us deal with a few facts for one moment.
  The Dow has grown three times over the last 8 years. Some people 
suggest that this President has not been a good one, but I think he 
deserves just a small bit of credit for not standing in the way of 
those entrepreneurs and business people from growing this economy.
  Wealthy Americans have seen their wealth. Some of them have doubled, 
tripled. Some have even quadrupled. I love that. I support that. That 
is what distinguishes our Nation from so many other countries around 
the globe, why so many people seek to come to this great Nation.
  We in government in a lot of ways have a responsibility to ensure 
that we bring the market to those communities and those neighborhoods 
that ordinarily might not benefit and might not, I should say, see the 
benefits of a strong economy.
  When we bring the market to communities that ordinarily do not see 
it, and I applaud the President's new market initiative and even some 
on that side that have come up with innovative ideas, my colleague from 
Oklahoma and other members in that caucus on the other side, finding 
ways to bring more people into this new economy, it would seem to me 
that Empowerment Zones and Community Development Block Grants would be 
something that

[[Page 11554]]

those on the other side would be eager, would jump to support.
  In many ways, it is the public and the private partnering, working 
together to empower people who ordinarily might not be empowered. We 
have an opportunity, unlike any generation of Congresspeople, searching 
for solutions at a time when we are not running a deficit. We still 
have an enormous debt that we have to service and ensure that we pay 
down, and there are plans on the table in which to do that, but we now 
have a chance to help empower new groups of people and not worry as 
much as perhaps a generation before.
  My dad served in this Congress for 22 years. He never had this 
chance, never had this opportunity. What do my friends on the other 
side choose to do with this chance and this opportunity? In my 
estimation and in many of my colleagues' on this side, and I would 
agree with the young gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) the 
nomenclature, the terminology we use here is confusing not only to 
those at home but even sometimes to those of us in this Congress, we 
choose, in my estimation, to squander this moment.
  Instead of taking the opportunity to invest in folks who want an 
opportunity, who want a chance, we have chosen not to. Shame on us as a 
Congress. We will have only ourselves to blame if we look back a few 
years from now and realize that this window is closed and we took no 
opportunity to expand HOPE, to expand opportunity to hundreds of 
thousands and perhaps millions of Americans crying out for this chance.
  From a parochial standpoint, I have thousands of people on the 
section 8 waiting list, Mr. Chairman; meaning they want to own their 
own home, they want to realize the American dream. All they are wanting 
is a hand up. We have an opportunity to do that this evening and in the 
coming days in this Congress. But based on what has been put before 
this Congress, H.R. 4635, it seems once again we are going to fail not 
only those in Florida, not only those in Texas, not only these in New 
York and Tennessee and even my dear friend from New York, but we are 
going to fail the 5\1/2\ million people scattered across this country 
who are doing nothing more than asking what every stockbroker in the 
stock exchange asks for, and I support that, what every high-tech 
executive in Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley and Austin and Boston and 
Northern Virginia are asking for, just a chance and just an 
opportunity.
  We have a chance in this Congress to do that this evening and in the 
coming days. I would hope my colleagues on the other side would take a 
second look at what they propose and make the effort to fix it. This is 
one way to fix it, to support the amendment of the gentlewoman from the 
great State of Florida.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) has 
presented us with an excellent opportunity. I wish I could waive the 
procedural wand. And I do respect the chairman retaining and reserving 
his point of order.
  I stood on this floor before, and I have acknowledged the hard work 
of the chairman and the ranking member. I did that as I supported the 
effort of the ranking member to add $1 billion to this legislation, 
this appropriations bill. And now I come to acknowledge the good work 
of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) on two elements that she 
has offered to explain to the American people and to our colleagues.
  I said that I wished I had a magic wand, because I think the message 
that we are trying to portray and to explain is that this is a return 
on America's tax dollars. We have come to the floor of this House and 
eloquently debated the importance of giving an estate tax relief; and, 
frankly, I believe that over the long haul we can collectively, in a 
bipartisan way, do something for those individuals who deserve some 
estate tax relief.
  The bill we passed the other day, of course, was just to fatten the 
pockets of about 1 percent of America's people.
  But when we begin to talk about an Empowerment Zone and Community 
Development Block Grants, we are talking to the working men and women 
of America; and we are saying to them, we are not grabbing hold of 
their tax dollars, holding them close to our chest, never to return 
them back to the highways and byways of the local community.
  What the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is arguing for is to 
give back to the people of America who live in rural areas and urban 
areas who are sometimes keeling over from decay, give them back the 
tools that they can work themselves.
  Our President and the leadership gathered together to understand the 
concept and promote the concept of empowerment and they named it 
Empowerment Zones. I understand that my colleague from Florida has an 
Empowerment Zone. The good citizens of Houston and other parts of Texas 
are seeking to secure an Empowerment Zone.
  It is not a handout, Mr. Chairman. It is putting the mind and the 
intellect and the engine of ingenuity together in our local communities 
coming up with a plan that will take Federal dollars and invest them 
wisely. That is an Empowerment Zone.
  So I support the $150 million that we should be putting into this 
legislation to be able to support the many applicants around this 
Nation, rural and urban alike, who have sought the opportunity to 
invest in their own neighborhoods. It is a tragedy that we would deny 
them that. It is a tragedy that we do not explain to the people of 
America what the Empowerment Zone means and what these Community 
Development Block Grants means.
  Let me tell my colleagues what they mean in Houston, Texas. They mean 
a new police station. They mean a new library. They mean a new inner 
city park where there were no parks. They mean a new health clinic. 
Because the City of Houston can take these block grants and embrace 
them and utilize them for the needs of the community. They need help in 
historic zones and help in the areas that they are claiming to be a 
historic zone.
  They can also be used to help people suffering from AIDS in a variety 
of support services. They can be a multiservice center where my elderly 
come every day in a safe and secure and air-conditioned location. And I 
tell my colleagues that if they live in Houston, Texas, in August, if 
they live there in July, if they live there in September, they need 
air-conditioning. This is what Empowerment Zone monies mean, and this 
is what CDBG monies mean.
  As I said on this floor before, in the most prosperous of times, when 
we have the most prosperous time in our history, the question will be 
asked of us, what have we done for those who are voiceless, who cannot 
speak for themselves. I would imagine that the working men and women 
and that the children that are part of these working families look to 
our local governments and to our county governments to provide these 
kind of resources for them.
  I joined a group of youngsters at a library the other day. I could 
not have been more excited about their excitement about being in a 
library funded by CDBG monies.

                              {time}  2130

  I want to applaud the gentlewoman from Florida for adding the $150 
million for an empowerment zone. There is a whole long line, Mr. 
Chairman, of applications for the empowerment zone, and for CDBG moneys 
because there is more than a long line. As was quoted by a staff 
member, I think the good staff member of the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Mrs. Meek), there is not a rural county or hamlet or village or city 
in America that has not received community development block grant 
dollars. What a tragedy to be able to tell them in this most prosperous 
of times that we will deny them the right kind of proper investment of 
their tax

[[Page 11555]]

dollars and that is returning it back to them to do what is best for 
their community.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of full funding for the 15 Round II 
Urban Empowerment Zones. My community of El Paso is one of those 15 
designated empowerment zones. El Paso was designated based on its low 
per capita income, high unemployment rate, and maintaining the poorest 
ZIP code in the Nation. Within this context, El Paso worked hard to 
achieve a Round II Empowerment Zone designation. My community has 
sought to utilize the full benefits of the designation to quickly raise 
the standard of living and quality of life for all El Pasoans since 
receiving this designation in 1999.
  Unfortunately, my community has continued to suffer because Congress 
has failed over the past 2 years to provide the full $10 million in 
annual appropriations for each of the urban empowerment zones in Round 
II. This year's bill continues that dismal track. The goal of the 
Empowerment Zone initiative is to leverage private sector resources 
with Federal funds to create economic and job development in areas 
which have lagged behind the national economy.
  The first round of empowerment zones showed that with adequate 
funding and tax incentives, distressed communities like ours could 
create valuable new jobs, adequately train workers, develop affordable 
housing and child care, and generate business opportunities to raise 
the overall quality of life. Each of the first round empowerment zones 
received $100 million in Federal grant funding over the 10-year span of 
the Empowerment Zone designation along with various other tax 
incentives to attract and spur economic growth. This combination of 
resources and tax incentives was critical to addressing the needs of 
those historically underserved communities such as El Paso.
  In contrast, the Round II empowerment zones have received only a 
small portion of the grant funds that they were promised and that they 
had anticipated. They have received annual funding below $4 million for 
the past 2 years, more than $14 million less than they expected. This 
underfunding has stymied long-term plans for development and growth. It 
has further undermined the tremendous leveraging capability of using 
public funds to draw private investment through a multiplier effect.
  As our Nation enjoys one of the strongest economies in generations, 
it is incumbent that we provide opportunities for our distressed 
communities. The empowerment zone residents deserve to reach their full 
potential, but this can only take place if they receive full funding. 
Both President Clinton and Speaker Hastert committed to $200 million in 
funds for the Round II empowerment zones and enterprise communities in 
fiscal year 2001. This bill has failed to include those dollars for 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities. The citizens of my 
community and other empowerment zones are awaiting the opportunity to 
share in our strong economy. With the full funding as promised for 
Round II, we can truly improve the quality of life of empowerment zone 
residents and no longer delay their opportunity to share in the 
American dream.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 20, 2000. 
This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not 
permitted under subsection 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of 
the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, 
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 gentlewoman from Florida would, on its 
face, increase the level of new discretionary budget authority. As 
such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $23,450,000 shall be made available for capacity building, of 
     which $20,000,000 shall be made available 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 
     (Public Law 103-120), as in effect immediately before June 
     12, 1997, with not less than $4,000,000 of the funding to be 
     used in rural areas, including tribal areas, and of which 
     $3,450,000 shall be for capacity building activities 
     administered by Habitat for Humanity International.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may use up to 
     $55,000,000 for supportive services for public housing 
     residents, as authorized by section 34 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and for grants for service 
     coordinators and congregate services for the elderly and 
     disabled residents of public and assisted housing: Provided, 
     That amounts made available for congregate services and 
     service coordinators for the elderly and disabled under this 
     heading and in prior fiscal years may be used by grantees to 
     reimburse themselves for costs incurred in connection with 
     providing service coordinators previously advanced by 
     grantees out of other funds due to delays in the granting by 
     or receipt of funds from the Secretary, and the funds so made 
     available to grantees for congregate services or service 
     coordinators under this heading or in prior years shall be 
     considered as expended by the grantees upon such 
     reimbursement. The Secretary shall not condition the 
     availability of funding made available under this heading or 
     in prior years for congregate services or service 
     coordinators upon any grantee's obligation or expenditure of 
     any prior funding.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $10,000,000 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 any unobligated balances 
     of amounts set aside for neighborhood initiatives in fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, and 2000 may be utilized for any of the 
     foregoing purposes.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $45,000,000 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 of the amount provided under 
     this paragraph, $3,750,000 shall be set aside and 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, 
     $10,000,000 shall be available for grants for the Economic 
     Development Initiative (EDI), to finance a variety of 
     economic development efforts.
       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $28,000,000, as 
     authorized by section 108 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974: 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 total loan principal, any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed, not to exceed $1,217,000,000, notwithstanding any 
     aggregate limitation on outstanding obligations guaranteed in 
     section 108(k) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That in addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, $1,000,000, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''.

[[Page 11556]]



                       brownfields redevelopment

       For Economic Development Grants, as authorized by section 
     108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 
     as amended, for Brownfields redevelopment projects, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     make these grants available on a competitive basis as 
     specified in section 102 of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.

                  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, $1,585,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That up to $15,000,000 of these 
     funds shall be available for Housing Counseling under section 
     106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968: 
     Provided further, That $17,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenace 
     of information technology systems.

                       homeless assistance grants


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the emergency shelter grants program (as authorized 
     under subtitle B of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     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 Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and the shelter plus care 
     program (as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of such 
     Act), $1,020,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not less than 30 percent of these funds shall 
     be used for permanent housing, and all funding for services 
     must be matched by 25 percent in funding by each grantee: 
     Provided further, That all awards of assistance under this 
     heading shall be required to coordinate and integrate 
     homeless programs with other mainstream health, social 
     services, and employment progams 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 up to 1.5 percent of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading is transferred to the Working 
     Capital Fund to be used for technical assistance and 
     management information systems.

                            Housing Programs

                    housing for special populations


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For assistance for the purchase, construction, acquisition, 
     or development of additional public and subsidized housing 
     units for low income families not otherwise provided for, 
     $911,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That $710,000,000 shall be for capital advances, including 
     amendments to capital advance contracts, for housing for the 
     elderly, as authorized by section 202 of the Housing Act of 
     1959, as amended, and for project rental assistance, and 
     amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, for 
     the elderly under such section 202(c)(2), and for supportive 
     services associated with the housing, 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 
     $50,000,000 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 further, That of the amount under this 
     heading, $201,000,000 shall be for capital advances, 
     including amendments to capital advance contracts, for 
     supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as 
     authorized by section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act, for project rental assistance, for 
     amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, and 
     supportive services associated with the housing for persons 
     with disabilities as authorized by section 811 of such Act: 
     Provided further, That $1,000,000, to be divided evenly 
     between the appropriations for the section 202 and section 
     811 programs, shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund for the development and maintenance of information 
     technology systems: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall designate at least 25 percent but no more than 50 
     percent of the amounts earmarked under this paragraph for 
     section 811 of such Act for tenant-based assistance, as 
     authorized under that section, including such authority as 
     may be waived under the next proviso, which assistance is 5 
     years in duration: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     waive any provision of such section 202 and such section 811 
     (including the provisions governing the terms and conditions 
     of project rental assistance and tenant-based assistance) 
     that the Secretary determines is not necessary to achieve the 
     objectives of these programs, or that otherwise impedes the 
     ability to develop, operate, or administer projects assisted 
     under these programs, and may make provision for alternative 
     conditions or terms where appropriate.

                         flexible subsidy fund


                          (transfer of funds)

       From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted 
     balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2000, 
     and any collections made during fiscal year 2001, shall be 
     transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by 
     section 236(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended.

                     Federal Housing Administration

             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       During fiscal year 2001, commitments to guarantee loans to 
     carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of 
     $160,000,000,000.
       During fiscal year 2001, obligations to make direct loans 
     to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $100,000,000: 
     Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to 
     nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales 
     of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and 
     formerly insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed and direct loan program, $330,888,000, of which 
     not to exceed $324,866,000 shall be transferred to the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''; and not to 
     exceed $4,022,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for ``Office of Inspector General''. In addition, for 
     administrative contract expenses, $160,000,000, of which 
     $96,500,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund 
     for the development and maintenance of information technology 
     systems: Provided, That to the extent guaranteed loan 
     commitments exceed $65,500,000,000 on or before April 1, 2001 
     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 $16,000,000.

             fha--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), $101,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That these 
     funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, any 
     part of which is to be guaranteed, of up to $21,000,000,000: 
     Provided further, That any amounts made available in any 
     prior appropriations Act for the cost (as such term is 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974) of guaranteed loans that are obligations of the funds 
     established under section 238 or 519 of the National Housing 
     Act that have not been obligated or that are deobligated 
     shall be available to the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development in connection with the making of such guarantees 
     and shall remain available until expended, notwithstanding 
     the expiration of any period of availability otherwise 
     applicable to such amounts.
       Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans, 
     as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238, and 519(a) of 
     the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $50,000,000; of 
     which not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be for bridge financing 
     in connection with the sale of multifamily real properties 
     owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under such Act; 
     and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for loans to 
     nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with the 
     sale of single-family real properties owned by the Secretary 
     and formerly insured under such Act.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $211,455,000, of 
     which $193,134,000, shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for ``Salaries and expenses''; and of which $18,321,000 shall 
     be transferred to the appropriation for ``Office of Inspector 
     General''. In addition, for administrative contract expenses 
     necessary to carry out the guaranteed and direct loan 
     programs, $144,000,000, of which $33,500,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund for the development 
     and maintenance of information technology systems: Provided, 
     That to the extent guaranteed loan commitments exceed 
     $8,426,000,000 on or before April 1, 2001, an additional 
     $19,800,000 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.

[[Page 11557]]



                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, 
     2002.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $9,383,000 to 
     be derived from the GNMA guarantees of mortgage-backed 
     securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to 
     exceed $9,383,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for ``Salaries and expenses''.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        research and technology

       For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs 
     of research and studies relating to housing and urban 
     problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title 
     V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 
     amended (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out 
     the functions of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $40,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, of which $10,000,000 
     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, $44,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, of which $22,000,000 
     shall be to carry out activities pursuant to such section 
     561: Provided, That no funds made available under this 
     heading shall be used to lobby the executive or legislative 
     branches of the Federal Government in connection with a 
     specific contract, grant or loan.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control

                         lead hazard reduction

       For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, as authorized by 
     sections 1011 and 1053 of the Residential Lead-Based Hazard 
     Reduction Act of 1992, $80,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be for CLEARCorps and 
     $10,000,000 shall be for the Healthy Homes Initiative, 
     pursuant to sections 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban 
     Development Act of 1970 that shall include research, studies, 
     testing, and demonstration efforts, including education and 
     outreach concerning lead-based paint poisoning and other 
     housing-related environmental diseases and hazards.

                     Management and Administration

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary administrative and non-administrative 
     expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     not otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $7,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $1,004,380,000, of which $518,000,000 shall be provided from 
     the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration, 
     $9,383,000 shall be provided from funds of the Government 
     National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 shall be provided 
     from the ``Community development block grants program'' 
     account, $150,000 shall be provided by transfer from the 
     ``Title VI Indian federal guarantees program'' account, and 
     $200,000 shall be provided by transfer from the ``Indian 
     housing loan guarantee fund program'' account: Provided, That 
     the Secretary is prohibited from using any funds under this 
     heading or any other heading in this Act for employing more 
     than 77 schedule C and 20 noncareer Senior Executive Service 
     employees: Provided further, That the community builder 
     program shall be terminated in its entirety by October 1, 
     2000.
  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 46, line 2, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Walsh

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walsh:
       Page 45, line 25, strike ``Provided'' and all that follows 
     through page 46, line 2, and insert the following:
     Provided further, That the community builder fellow program 
     shall be terminated in its entirety by September 1, 2000: 
     Provided further, That, hereafter, no individual may be 
     employed in a position of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development that is designated as ``community builder'' 
     unless such individual is appointed to such position subject 
     to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service: Provided further, 
     That any individual employed in such a position shall be 
     considered to be an employee for purposes of the subchapter 
     III of chapter 73 of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the Hatch Act).

  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical and clarifying amendment 
regarding the termination of the Community Builder Fellow program. This 
amendment simply clarifies language that was included in the bill and 
in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation that terminates the Community 
Builder Fellow program. In addition to clarifying language, language is 
added requiring that any former community builder fellows at HUD be 
subject to the provisions of the Office of Personnel Management and the 
Hatch Act. I believe the other side has reviewed this amendment with 
us, and I believe they are in agreement and that they are prepared to 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I appreciate the hard 
work that he has put into considering our concerns for the language as 
it was drafted in the bill. I appreciate the fact that we have reached 
a satisfactory compromise on this issue. I again compliment the 
gentleman on his good work.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      office of inspector general


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $83,000,000, of which $22,343,000 shall be provided 
     from the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration 
     and $10,000,000 shall be provided from the amount earmarked 
     for Operation Safe Home in the appropriation for ``Drug 
     elimination grants for low-income housing'': Provided, That 
     the Inspector General shall have independent authority over 
     all personnel issues within the Office of Inspector General.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial 
     Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, including not to exceed 
     $500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $22,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be 
     derived from the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Fund: 
     Provided, That not to exceed such amount shall be available 
     from the General Fund of the Treasury to the extent necessary 
     to incur obligations and make expenditures pending the 
     receipt of collections to the Fund: Provided further, That 
     the General Fund amount shall be 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.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

  Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 46, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,770,000)''.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would add $4.77 
million to the budget of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 
Oversight.
  OFHEO, as it is known, is an independent regulatory agency within the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. It was created by Congress 
in 1992 to oversee the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac, the two largest government sponsored enterprises.
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private companies that were chartered 
by Congress to encourage homeownership by creating a secondary market 
for

[[Page 11558]]

mortgage debt. They have been very successful in this endeavor. They 
own or guarantee nearly half of all home mortgages and almost 80 
percent of middle-class mortgages. While they are not Federal agencies, 
the two housing GSEs enjoy some advantages that other private financial 
institutions do not. Nevertheless, as a result they are able to issue 
debt at rates that rival the Treasury because the market presumes that 
their securities are backed by the U.S. Government.
  Although the law specifically states that this is not the case, 
Fannie and Freddie are, in reality, too big to fail. They are exposed 
to more than $2 trillion in credit risk from the mortgages they 
guarantee. They are also subject to $850 million of interest rate risk 
from the whole loans and mortgage-backed securities they hold in their 
portfolios.
  Both GSEs are adequately capitalized, well managed and are in 
excellent financial condition. Times are good and homeownership rates 
are at all-time record levels as a result. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
should be commended for their role in this success. But we should not 
forget that we are entering a period of interest rate volatility.
  The Federal Reserve has raised the prime rate five times during the 
past few months and it seems poised to do so again. As a result, the 
GSEs which are exposed to considerable interest rate risk could be 
vulnerable to a slowdown in the economy. I do not mean to suggest that 
they are in any trouble or that they would not be able to weather a 
downturn, but there have been times in the past when both Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac have suffered financial difficulties.

                              {time}  2145

  Indeed, this is why Congress created this regulatory body in the 
first place, to ensure the safe and sound operation of the GSEs in 
troubled times. OFHEO will soon round out its regulatory program when 
it implements a risk-based capital standard that has been 6 years in 
the making.
  After completing a thorough analysis of its needs in light of the $2 
trillion housing finance market it oversees, OFHEO requested $26.77 
million from Congress this year. While this is a substantial increase 
over last year's budget, the extra funds will be used for some very 
necessary purposes.
  They include hiring additional examiners to ensure compliance with 
the new capital rules; train staff to understand the complicated 
financial transactions and risk management techniques used by the GSEs, 
to upgrade technology, including the purchase of faster computers and 
sophisticated risk management software, and also to implement a series 
of organizational reforms recommended by OFHEO's outside auditors.
  The Congressional Budget Office has scored this amendment as budget 
neutral. The funds for OFHEO's budget come from semiannual assessments 
on the GSEs, subject to Congressional approval. No offset is necessary 
to approve this increase.
  Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are not opposing this amendment. They 
believe that OFHEO should have the resources it needs to do its job. 
They know that the investment in safety and soundness pays dividends in 
market confidence. Investors need to know that the GSEs are adequately 
capitalized and soundly managed.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to cast a vote 
for safety and soundness and support this amendment
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. Chairman, OFHEO requested an increase this year and the Committee 
on Appropriations gave them one. OFHEO's budget has increased from 
$19.5 million to $22 million, a 15 percent increase over last year's 
funding level. That is as great an increase as any budget within this 
bill.
  The increase is consistent with past increases and based on OFHEO's 
budget justifications is fair and adequate; but OFHEO wants a 50 
percent, 5-0, 50 percent increase in their budget, and they claim the 
increase is necessary to finalize the risk-based capital standard and 
to adequately monitor the safety and soundness of the GSEs. But if past 
performance is any indicator of future action, I suspect OFHEO will not 
be able to do as they assert.
  My doubts are well founded, as OFHEO has never met their promises as 
they relate to risk-based capital standard despite a statutory 
requirement to do so by April of 1994. I remind you, we are in the year 
2000; that is 6 years ago. So they did not keep that commitment.
  Despite the GSE Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, OFHEO was 5 years 
late issuing the preliminary rule, 5 years late. We are asked to give 
them a 50 percent increase in their budget?
  Their tardiness cannot be blamed on the Committee on Appropriations. 
Every year since 1994, OFHEO promised this committee that they would 
get the rule out. Every year, the committee increased funding to the 
requested level, and every year for 5 years OFHEO has failed to keep 
their promise.
  This is just one of the reasons I am not persuaded that OFHEO 
requires a 50 percent increase in their budget request. We are aware 
that OFHEO has recommended that they be removed from the appropriations 
process. They feel their mission is compromised because they must 
justify their expenditures to this committee; however, until the law is 
changed, refueling OFHEO's budget is our concern.
  Let me describe the review this committee conducts on this account. 
First, the fact that discretionary funds are not needed to pay for the 
account is none of our concern. We dig much deeper and are far more 
comprehensive because we take the responsibility seriously. We look at 
how many staff are currently on board, whether staff will increase, 
what the staff duties are, the costs of travel and equipment.
  This review is then coupled with the performance of the agency, which 
has been abysmal, to see if the staff hours are having the intended 
results, because OFHEO's request was so out of line with past requests. 
Rather than dismissing it entirely, we requested OFHEO to provide us 
with additional documentation to justify the increases.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked that OFHEO make comparisons between their 
responsibility to regulate the safety and soundness of the GSEs and the 
responsibilities of other similarly situated regulators. Mr. Chairman, 
they never responded to the subcommittee's request. Instead, OFHEO 
resorted to press releases accusing my subcommittee and me of being 
``subject to the maneuverings of the entities'' that OFHEO regulates. 
Not only is this accusation insulting, but it borders on slander.
  I certainly have not been approached by Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac 
about OFHEO's budget, and I am fairly certain that no one on the 
subcommittee was approached. In fact, those entities make it a habit of 
never discussing OFHEO's budget with me, with other Members or with our 
staff.
  In my opinion, this highly inappropriate accusation was not merely 
foolish, but it was petulant and naive. Furthermore, this statement and 
the agency's inability to act in a timely way on risk-based capital 
rule has forced me to reconsider whether this agency has the 
credibility and the independence it takes to be an effective regulator.
  Certainly, we have no intention of rewarding this type of behavior 
and refusal to comply with the subcommittee requests by getting OFHEO 
an increase in funds.
  I urge everyone in this body to vote a resounding no on this 
amendment. OFHEO does not deserve the attention.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey amendment that 
would restore the $4.7 million in the budget for Office of Federal 
Housing Enterprise Oversight, otherwise known as OFHEO. And I want to 
say to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), while I understand his frustration with how this matter 
has been debated, I think that this cut in OFHEO could not come at a 
worst time.
  Let me say, as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from

[[Page 11559]]

New York (Mr. Walsh), mentioned, that OFHEO is the only Federal 
financial regulatory agency which is subject to the appropriations 
process, and there is no doubt that that ought to be changed; and I 
would hope that the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, which 
I am a member of, would take that up along with the Committee on 
Appropriations and treat OFHEO like the Comptroller of the Currency and 
the FDIC and the Office of Thrift Supervision. But obviously that is 
not going to happen before this bill is enacted.
  The problem with not providing OFHEO with the proper resources 
compounds an existing problem that the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services is already looking at. As the gentleman from New 
York might know, the Subcommittee on Capital Market, Securities and 
Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services is in the process of considering legislation as to 
whether or not the GSEs, Freddy Mac, Fannie Mae, as well as the Federal 
Home Loan Bank, which are not under OFHEO, are sufficiently 
capitalized. And we have been going through a number of hearings on 
this, and the linchpin in all of this is going to come down to the 
final regulations issued by OFHEO as it relates to the capital 
oversight of the GSEs.
  Mr. Chairman, this reduction in the amount of resources that they 
need to carry out their job, quite frankly, could not happen at a worse 
time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify, this is not a 
reduction. This is an increase of 15 percent in their budget.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments, but I would also add that their activities have 
increased as they are in the final stages. As the chairman knows, they 
are in the final stages of preparing the regulation that will set 
capital standard for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
  They are in the process of reviewing the comments on the initial 
regulations that were published in the Federal Register, so their 
workload clearly has gone up. And I think the chairman would concur 
that the responsibility as laid out in the 1992 act is quite important.
  To go back to my original point, we are in the midst of a debate in 
the authorizing committee as to whether or not the GSEs are properly 
capitalized, whether or not their structure ought to be changed. And we 
are relying greatly on what OFHEO is going to come up with, so I think 
it would be a mistake at this time not to provide them with the proper 
resources.
  I would hope that the gentleman would accept the Hinchey amendment. 
Let me say I know the gentleman quite well; we have traveled together. 
I have nothing but the greatest respect for him. I think that if OFHEO, 
and I have no reason to question what he said, if OFHEO did what he 
said, they were wrong to do that.
  I would hope that the chairman would not allow some bad judgment on 
the part of the agency in trying to get in the way of the resources 
that they need to carry out their duty that we on the authorizing 
committee have asked them to do and the Congress has asked them to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I consider the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) a good friend and someone I admire in this body, and I want to 
assure the gentleman that there is absolutely nothing personal. We are 
talking about performance.
  This is an agency that has failed its mission for 6 consecutive 
years, and for us to give them a 15 percent increase I think is pretty 
generous, but not a 50 percent increase.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that 
the gentleman would see to accepting the Hinchey amendment. We need 
this information if we are going to carry out our oversight functions 
with respect to the GSEs. The House is in a great deal of debate about 
this, and it would be, I think, counterproductive to undercut the one 
regulatory agency over the GSEs at this point in time, and so I would 
hope the House would adopt this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I rise to speak in favor of my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), for his 
thoughtful amendment. He is a former member of the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services, and he has worked with OFHEO for over 7 years 
here in this body.
  I want to offer my support for providing the Office of Federal 
Housing Enterprise Oversight, OFHEO, with the full resources it needs 
to comprehensively regulate Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and to regulate 
their safety and soundness. As my colleagues are aware, OFHEO funding 
comes from assessments on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, not from the 
taxpayers. However, approval for OFHEO assessments is tied to the 
appropriations bills.
  The GSEs play a critical role in our Nation's housing finance system, 
increasing the availability of home mortgage funds and increasing 
homeownership.
  In recent months, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Subcommittee on 
Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises has 
led a series of hearings and oversight on the housing GSEs.
  During the course of our hearings, the subcommittee has come to two 
conclusions that I think are overwhelmingly supported by both sides of 
the aisle. First, with an almost 70 percent homeownership rate, our 
Nation's housing finance system is the most successful in the world. 
Secondly, the housing GSE regulators should have the resources that 
they need to do the job to oversee safety and soundness.
  The Hinchey amendment makes an increase of $4.8 million to $26.8 in 
the amount of funding that OFHEO can assess the GSEs. Regulations of 
GSEs require highly technical analysis and this increase will give the 
agency the ability to hire and retain the high-level staff required to 
do its job.
  I know that no matter how my colleagues feel about GSEs, we all want 
to ensure that the enterprises are adequately supervised. So I really 
urge the support of the Hinchey amendment and appeal to my good 
colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from the great 
City and State of New York (Mr. Walsh), to accept this amendment.
  Again, it does not in any way come out of resources of the taxpayers. 
It is an assessment on the GSEs to pay for their own oversight for 
safety and soundness.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to increase funds 
for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. OFHEO has an 
important job, we admit, doing regulatory oversight to ensure the 
safety and soundness of the two largest government-sponsored 
enterprises: Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Just because the funds for 
OFHEO come from assessments on Fannie and Freddie does not mean that 
the Committee on Appropriations will roll over and give them anything 
they want.
  The subcommittee requested an adequate justification to support the 
whopping 50 percent increase in funds they requested and the 40 percent 
increase in personnel as requested by the President. OFHEO never 
responded to our requests for their budgets' justification.

                              {time}  2200

  Yet the committee ended up providing the still generous 15 percent in 
increased funds contained in this bill. Fifteen percent is a 
respectable amount, given that so many of our accounts had to be level 
funded due to the tight budget allocation. Further, there is only so 
much of an increase an agency can absorb effectively in one year. The 
Committee on Appropriations reported dollar figure is based on

[[Page 11560]]

merit and not on any of the outside forces that some have alluded to.
  I urge rejection of the amendment and support of the bill.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee over the 
jurisdiction of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, or 
OFHEO, I rise to speak in favor of the Hinchey amendment. This 
amendment would increase the amount of funding provided in the bill 
from $22 million to approximately $26.8 million, the full amount 
requested by OFHEO for the year 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point, may I point out this has nothing to do 
with budget restrictions. All of this money will be paid by Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac, and they are in favor of the expenditure. OFHEO is the 
safety and soundness regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As such, 
Congress has charged the agency to reduce the risk of failure of the 
two companies in order to ensure that they are able to continue their 
important mission in our Nation's extremely successful housing and 
mortgage finance sectors. Although this organization receives its 
fundings from the companies it regulates and receives no taxpayer 
dollars, unlike other financial regulators, it is subject to the annual 
appropriations process.
  It is crucial that OFHEO have sufficient capacity to fulfill its 
safety and soundness oversight responsibilities. Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac continue to grow and their operations increasingly are complex. 
According to this regulatory agency, the two enterprises are currently 
exposed to more than $2 trillion in credit risk on mortgages. That 
figure has doubled since 1993. Moreover, this agency is in the process 
of finalizing its risk-based capital standings. When promulgated later 
this year, OFHEO will need the resources to enforce them properly.
  We need to have a strong independent regulator for the housing 
government sponsored enterprises. We must also ensure that the 
regulators have the resources they need to get the job done. As someone 
who participated in the Congressional debate to resolve the savings & 
loan crisis, I am acutely aware of the need to protect taxpayers from 
risk. It is in the public's interest that we maintain a strong 
regulatory regime over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This money will help 
this agency to achieve this objective.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a great respect for the chairman of this 
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member. 
I know that although, for whatever reason, they have only limited the 
increase to 15 percent, that when they analyze the $2 trillion 
potential risk to the United States taxpayers, when they realize that 
it costs the budget allocation nothing because it is budget neutral, 
and because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in support of their own 
regulator having more financial reserves to handle the safety and 
soundness of these two organizations, it would be unreasonable for this 
Congress not to grant them this requested fund.
  So I urge my colleagues on the committee, both the chairman and the 
ranking member, to realize that to deny a request for approximately $4 
million more by the regulators to regulate themselves, to save the 
exposure of the American taxpayers to $2 trillion of potential risk, 
and to provide for safety and soundness, would really be an 
unreasonable decision.
  I urge my colleagues, both the chairman and the ranking member, to 
agree with the Hinchey amendment, that it is reasonable, it is proper, 
it does not cost the taxpayers a cent, and that it provides for safety 
and soundness for the American people and for this government. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Hinchey 
amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, and I agree with much of what they are saying. I too 
am a member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and 
Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services. I too am very concerned about the taxpayer exposure 
that the GSEs provide. I am concerned about the over extension of 
capital risk. But I believe we are getting the cart in front of the 
horse on this amendment.
  What OFHEO has had is a plus-up of about 15 percent over the last 4 
years. OFHEO has met its budget requests over the last 4 years. The 
issue that we are dealing with in discussing our GSEs, the issue we are 
dealing with in evaluating contingency taxpayer risk, and the issue 
that we are dealing with on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, 
Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises is changing the 
structure of the regulator. So if we are to try to pump a 50 percent 
increase into this current regulator, into OFHEO, it is putting the 
cart in front of the horse.
  What we need to do is pass good authorizing legislation that provides 
for a strong regulator to catch up with the fact that the GSEs are 
growing extremely strongly. I believe the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) are really hitting the nail 
on the head. They are correct in saying that we have to have a strong 
regulator over the GSEs. All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that we 
ought to do so after we have proper authorizing legislation. We ought 
to do so after we have authorized through the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services a proper regulator to do its true job of ensuring 
taxpayer safety and soundness with respect to these GSEs.
  So to give a 50 percent increase to this overseer, to OFHEO, before 
enacting proper oversight legislation, authorizing legislation, would 
be a mistake. That is why I think a 15 percent increase is more than 
enough. Let us pass good authorizing legislation. I urge Members to 
reject this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
will be postponed.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, reverse Robin Hood; robbing from the poor and working 
people to give tax breaks to the rich. Mr. Chairman, once again the 
Republican leadership is attempting to cut housing programs that assist 
our Nation's poorest at the time our country is going through the 
greatest economic expansion in our national history. It seems to me 
that we should be doing everything we can to help our citizens move 
from homelessness to home ownership, and public housing is critical in 
that transition.
  The funding cuts proposed for our Nation's most needy community is 
simply a disgrace. Among the critical programs that will suffer budget 
cuts are public housing, drug elimination grants, and CDBG programs. In 
addition, Brownfields redevelopment, an area of particular concern to 
me since there is a Superfund site in my area, is being cut by 20 
percent of the current level.
  Additional cuts made to the Community Development Block Grant Program 
are an embarrassment. This program is extremely important, one that 
assists communities to create economic opportunity for residents of 
poor neighborhoods. It is one of the most flexible of all Federal grant 
programs and allows States to work with partnerships, with local 
housing authorities, to develop community and economic development 
projects. These block grants can be used to rehab housing, provide job 
training, finance community projects and assist local entrepreneurs to 
start a new business or shelter the homeless or abused spouses.

[[Page 11561]]

  Every time I hold a town hall meeting in my district, the issue of 
housing always comes up. Public housing, elderly housing, those 
participants cannot be ignored.
  I feel it is my responsibility as an elected official to stand up for 
my constituents and defend their needs. I believe it is the job of 
Congress to represent those who have little resources, and particularly 
no voice, not those who can afford the best attorneys and find 
loopholes in the Tax Code to circumvent their taxes.
  This budget is drawn up to benefit the wealthy. Just last week the 
majority party passed a bill giving estate tax breaks to the wealthiest 
families with large assets. While the majority party is giving tax cuts 
to wealthy Americans, even in good economic times the poor continue to 
suffer, mainly because of unjust funding priorities, such as the one 
proposed in this bill.
  While the President's budget, and I want to commend him, would 
increase vital infrastructure investments in families and communities, 
the Republican version of this bill, if passed, would have a 
devastating impact on these same communities nationwide. In my 
district, Florida's third, the effects of these cuts will prove 
disastrous and could reach the millions of dollars.
  These families will be devastated, those that rely on public housing. 
The number of families with worst case housing needs, defined as paying 
more than 50 percent of income on rental, remains at an all time high. 
Furthermore, families in the traditional welfare-to-work have special 
needs for assistance, as housing is typically the greatest financial 
burden. Yet this bill strips all funds from welfare to work. Let me 
repeat that: This bill strips all funds from welfare-to-work.
  The slight increase in the VA-HUD bill provided for Section 8 funding 
does not go far enough, since virtually all of the housing programs 
designed to help the neediest are being cut.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I like the scripture, ``To whom God has 
given much, much is expected.'' The people are expecting us to do our 
job and represent all of the people, not just the wealthy; the elderly, 
the old people, the people in need, and I am hoping that there will be 
some leadership from the other side on what is right for the people.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, as we know of no remaining amendments to 
title II, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title II 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 text of the bill from page 47, line 6, through page 52, line 6, 
is as follows:

                       Administrative Provisions

                      financing adjustment factors

       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 (Public Law 100-
     628; 102 Stat. 3224, 3268) shall be rescinded, or in the case 
     of cash, shall be remitted to the Treasury, and such amounts 
     of budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or 
     remitted to the Treasury shall be used by State housing 
     finance agencies or local governments or local housing 
     agencies with projects approved by the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development for which settlement occurred after 
     January 1, 1992, in accordance with such section. 
     Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the Secretary may 
     award up to 15 percent of the budget authority or cash 
     recaptured and not rescinded or remitted to the Treasury to 
     provide project owners with incentives to refinance their 
     project at a lower interest rate.

                      fair housing and free speech

       Sec. 202. None of the amounts made available under this Act 
     may be used during fiscal year 2001 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.


           housing opportunities for persons with aids grants

       Sec. 203. (a) Eligibility.--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 2001 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 2001 under such clause (ii) because the areas in the 
     State outside of the metropolitan statistical areas that 
     qualify under clause (i) in fiscal year 2001 do not have the 
     number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome 
     required under such clause.
       (b) Amount.--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 845(c)(1)(A) in 
     fiscal year 2001, 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).
       (c) Environmental Review.--Section 856 of the Act is 
     amended by adding the following new subsection at the end:
       ``(h) Environmental Review.--For purposes of environmental 
     review, a grant under this subtitle shall be treated as 
     assistance for a special project that is subject to section 
     305(c) of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform 
     Act of 1994, and shall be subject to the regulations issued 
     by the Secretary to implement such section.''.

                     enhanced disposition authority

       Sec. 204. Section 204 of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended by striking 
     ``and 2000'' and inserting ``2000, and thereafter''.


             Maximum Payment Standard for Enhanced Vouchers

       Sec. 205. Section 8(t)(1)(B) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 is amended by inserting ``and any other 
     reasonable limit prescribed by the Secretary'' immediately 
     before the semicolon.


                vouchers for difficult utilization areas

       Sec. 206. Section 8(o)(1) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraphs (D) and (E)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) Difficult utilization areas.--
       ``(i) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish criteria 
     setting forth requirements for treatment of areas as 
     difficult utilization areas with respect to the voucher 
     program under this subsection, which may include criteria 
     specifying a low vacancy rate for rental housing, a 
     particular rate of inflation in rental housing costs, failure 
     to lease units by more than 30 percent of families issued 
     vouchers having an applicable payment standard of 110 percent 
     of the fair market rental or higher, and any other criteria 
     the Secretary considers appropriate.
       ``(ii) Use of assistance.--Any public housing agency that 
     serves a difficult utilization area may--

       ``(I) increase the payment standard applicable to all or 
     part of such area for any size of dwelling unit to not more 
     than 150 percent of the fair market rental established under 
     subsection (c) for the same size of dwelling unit in the same 
     market area; and
       ``(II) use amounts provided for assistance under this 
     section to make payments or provide services to assist 
     families issued vouchers under this subsection to lease 
     suitable housing, except that the cost of any such payments 
     or services for a family may not exceed the agency's average 
     cost per family of 6 months of monthly assistance 
     payments.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, including the 
     acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; 
     purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national 
     cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its 
     territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space 
     in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official 
     motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of 
     such countries, $28,000,000, 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, including hire of 
     passenger vehicles, and for services authorized by 5

[[Page 11562]]

     U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the 
     per diem equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior 
     level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376, $8,000,000, $5,000,000 
     of which to remain available until September 30, 2001 and 
     $3,000,000 of which to remain available until September 30, 
     2002: Provided, That the Chemical Safety and Hazard 
     Investigation Board shall have not more than three career 
     Senior Executive Service positions.

                       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, 
     $105,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002, 
     of which $5,000,000 shall be for technical assistance and 
     training programs designed to benefit Native American 
     Communities, and up to $9,500,000 may be used for 
     administrative expenses, up to $23,000,000 may be used for 
     the cost of direct loans, and up to $1,000,000 may be used 
     for administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program: Provided, That the cost of direct loans, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to 
     exceed $53,000,000: Provided further, That administrative 
     costs of the Technical Assistance Program under section 108, 
     the Training Program under section 109, and the costs of the 
     Native American Lending Study under section 117 shall not be 
     considered to be administrative expenses of the Fund.

                   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, $51,000,000.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill to page 54, line 20 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 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:

             Corporation for National and Community Service

                national and community service programs

                           operating expenses

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     106-74, the Corporation for National and Community Service 
     shall use such amounts of such funds as may be necessary to 
     carry out the orderly termination of the programs, 
     activities, and initiatives under the National Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (Public Law 103-82) and the Corporation: 
     Provided, That such sums shall be utilized to resolve all 
     responsibilities and obligations in connection with said 
     Corporation.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr of California

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr of California:
       Restore funding for Corporation for National and Community 
     Service.
       Strike lines 23 on page 54 through line 6 on page 55 and 
     insert the following:
       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community service in carrying out programs, activities and 
     initiatives under the National and Community Service Act of 
     1990, $533,700,000.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day and 
night. I want to say how much I appreciate the good leadership of the 
chairman in conducting tonight's business.
  I rise on a very sad note. It was a note that was just read by the 
Clerk, that the majority of that party in this House wants to strike 
all of the funding for the Corporation for National Service.
  We have funded, fully funded, an all voluntary military. We have 
partially funded, and I applaud that, funding for the Peace Corps. But 
when it gets to supporting our own, ensuring our own domestic 
tranquility and taking a program that is one of America's most 
successful, the American Corporation for National Service, or 
AmeriCorps, we cut the funding to zero.
  The time I think has come for Congress to realize the lasting 
contribution that volunteerism has given to America by fully funding 
the national service programs. This includes AmeriCorps, the National 
Senior Service Corps, the Service Learning Programs.
  I know the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), cares about this because he served in the Peace Corps at 
the same time I did, and we know the value of service. That is, as the 
American Heritage Dictionary reads, to give or to offer to give on 
one's own initiative.
  What we are striking and hopefully refunding tonight is these public-
private partnerships that are transforming our communities and 
successfully challenging our young people to make something of 
themselves.
  As communities and as a Nation, we are stronger and healthier because 
of these volunteers. They tackle problems like illiteracy in America, 
crime in America, poverty in America, while instilling a commitment to 
public service for Americans of all ages in every community throughout 
this Nation.
  Our society works precisely because lots of folks out there are 
helping other folks in many different ways. In fact, we have a social 
contract to help each other. In this country, we have young people in 
need of basic reading and writing skills. We have teenagers in need of 
mentors and role models. We have homebound seniors in need of food and 
a little companionship. We have families in need of homes. We have 
communities in need of disaster assistance.
  Solutions to these problems can best be found when individuals, 
families, and communities come together in service to their neighbors 
and to their fellow citizens.
  We can make a difference, but volunteers are critical to finding 
these solutions and touching these lives. That is where the Corporation 
for National Service comes in. AmeriCorps members and service 
volunteers fill these needs by providing essential people power at the 
local level.
  In my own State of California, we have more than 145,000 people of 
all ages and backgrounds working in 289 national service projects. 
Nationwide, we have more than 62,000 Americans serving in AmeriCorps 
from 1998 to 1999, bringing the total number of current and former 
members to more than 100,000 Americans who have served in Americorps.
  They have taught, tutored, and mentored more than 2.6 million 
children, served 564,000 at-risk youth in after-school programs, 
operated 40,500 safety patrols, rehabilitated 25,180 homes, aided more 
than 2.4 million homeless individuals, and immunized about 500,000 
people. They have accomplished this all while generating $1.66 in 
benefits for each dollar that is spent.
  Most people do not know how AmeriCorps operates and assume that some 
top-down Washington bureaucracy runs the program and deploys members 
around the country. The opposite is exactly true. AmeriCorps is one of 
the most successful experiments in State and local control the 
government has ever supported.
  In fact, the bulk of AmeriCorps funding is in the hands of our 
Nation's Governors, who make grants to local nonprofits in our 
communities. The nonprofits then select the participants and run the 
programs.
  This is very important because studies have found that people are 
more likely to volunteer if they know someone who volunteers regularly 
or who was involved as a youth in organizations using volunteers. 
AmeriCorps members generate an average of 12 additional volunteers 
around the Nation.

[[Page 11563]]

Not only are they helping our communities, they are setting examples 
for others to follow.
  It is critical to recognize that under the leadership of former 
Senator Harris Wofford, AmeriCorps has embraced its critics and 
reinvented itself as a leaner, more decentralized, and nonpartisan 
operation. AmeriCorps has devolved more and more of its authority to 
States and local nonprofits in recent years, including a major 
commitment to faith-based institutions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Miller of California, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Farr of California was allowed to proceed for 3 additional 
minutes.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, about 15 percent of AmeriCorps 
members serve in faith-based institutions, and the number is growing.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that we reclaim the bipartisan tradition and 
support national service that has long been the hallmark of American 
politics. Members of Congress now have an opportunity to separate 
policy from politics, to reach a bipartisan consensus on the value of 
AmeriCorps.
  I might add in closing, Mr. Speaker, this is an election year, and we 
have 62,000 AmeriCorps volunteers in the field. Each of those has two 
parents, 120,000 voters, and each has four grandparents; 240,000 people 
out there who have sons and daughters and relatives that are in the 
Peace Corps, including staff that are in this room right now whose 
daughters are serving in AmeriCorps.
  We have to get this re-funded. It is absurd that the Republican party 
has decided to zero out this in our budget.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman very much for his comments on AmeriCorps and for the case 
that he has made.
  It is essentially unbelievable, for those of us who know the role 
AmeriCorps plays in so many of our communities, as the gentleman points 
out, whether it is mentoring our children or helping our communities 
with substance abuse problems or working with communities to organize 
themselves and to make positive contributions.
  Recently in Vallejo, California, I had a chance to work with our 
community organization that is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson 
Foundation called Fighting Back. AmeriCorps volunteers came in to help 
the community organize neighborhood cleanups and substance abuse 
programs.
  We have worked in a number of different programs around Vallejo. In 
each case, after we had finished spending the weekend in those 
communities cleaning up, getting rid of the junk, getting rid of the 
old cars, getting the shrubbery cut back and all the rest of it, the 
contacts and the calls to the police department plummeted in those 
communities.
  Where there used to be drug dealing on the street, where there used 
to be abuse in the families, contacts with criminal activity in the 
neighborhood, they went down by 30 and 40 percent in those 
neighborhoods because of the work of the AmeriCorps volunteers to go 
in, to organize community watch programs, neighborhood watch programs, 
programs for schoolchildren, programs on substance abuse. There were 
dramatic changes in these neighborhoods basically run by volunteers 
with the coordination AmeriCorps brings to those.
  Talk about cost-effective, in terms of just the savings to emergency 
responses, in that one city we are talking about hundreds of thousands 
of dollars that has been saved in that effort because of AmeriCorps 
volunteers.
  To zero out their funding is just to simply turn our backs on these 
communities, and to turn our backs on young Americans, for the most 
part, but older Americans, too, who are doing what we say is the best 
of what we want in our citizens, and that is to volunteer. These are 
people who come in and coordinate and get those kinds of community 
involvement that we all aspire to in our own communities.
  So I thank the gentleman very much for raising this issue and 
discussing this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Farr of 
California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman too for his 
statement here tonight. I want to say, I find much the same in the 
State of Washington in the Tacoma-Bremerton area, that the AmeriCorps 
volunteers are doing an outstanding job working with young people in 
after-school programs, working with people, juvenile offenders.
  It is a program that I think has tremendous credibility. I think 
Harris Wofford has done a great job of it. I am just shocked that 
again, for partisan reasons, I guess, because people do not like the 
President, we are cutting out a program that has tremendous merit.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, they have totally zeroed out 
this program. I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Walsh) as 
chairman of this committee, when he goes into conference to fight as 
hard to get this reestablished as he did to get the Peace Corps funded, 
as I did to get the Peace Corps funded.
  We cannot just have a foreign Peace Corps and not have a domestic 
Peace Corps. This is absolutely essential to America to give youth a 
chance. To give America a chance to invest in an ounce of prevention, 
which is all these Members of Congress have said, is certainly worth a 
pound of cure.
  Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, for 
many years I have supported the Youth Conservation Corps, which has 
been a tremendous organization. Our national parks, our national 
forests, the Fish and Wildlife Service, these young people are out 
there doing tremendously credible things in our public lands.
  Again, this is a program that we had to fight to save during the 
Reagan and Bush administrations. For some reason, these programs get 
targeted when we need to be doing these things. We need to be cleaning 
up these areas.
  The Campaign to Keep America Beautiful has kind of fallen on deaf 
ears here in this new generation. We need to explain to people again 
how important that is, and here are our young people out there doing 
this good work.
  I am stunned that we are again trying to take the funding out for 
this program. I think it is one of the President's finest 
accomplishments.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will continue to 
yield, earlier this evening some were fortunate enough to go over to 
the Library of Congress and listen to a young teacher, the California 
teacher of the year.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. George Miller of California, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Farr of California was allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, she was head of the 
New York corporation, the Americorps Corporation. I believe the 
gentleman was from Buffalo. They had been taking about what they had 
been able to do in terms of AmeriCorps volunteers in the classrooms to 
help with these difficult schools, to help with students and to reclaim 
these students' lives because of the attention these AmeriCorps 
volunteers were able to provide, two young students who were turning 
their lives around.
  She wrote a rather remarkable book about the Freedom Riders and what 
happened in Long Beach, and she is

[[Page 11564]]

now out replicating that in schools of education and with AmeriCorps 
volunteers all across the country.
  Yet, we are saddled this evening with seeing that is zeroed out, and 
obviously it is a national program zeroed out in this budget, zeroed 
out in California, in New York, in the State of Washington. It is a 
tragedy that we would not capitalize on the resources that these young 
people in the Americorps Corporation bring to civic life in America. I 
thank the gentleman again for raising this issue.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the constraints under which the gentleman 
from New York (Chairman Walsh) is working, and commend him for doing a 
very admirable job under difficult circumstances. However, I am deeply 
concerned about a number of programs reduced or eliminated in this 
bill.
  Of greatest concern to me, this legislation would terminate most 
programs under the Corporation for National Service, including 
AmeriCorps. As a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one 
of the wisest and least costly investments our government can make. 
Every $1 spent on AmeriCorps generates $1.66 in benefits to the 
community. Every full-time AmeriCorps members generates an average of 
12 additional volunteers.
  AmeriCorps is one of the most successful experiments in State and 
local controls the Federal government has embarked upon: Two-thirds of 
AmeriCorps' funding goes directly to the Governor-appointed State 
commissions, which then make grants to local nonprofits.
  Since 1994, more than 150,000 Americans have served as AmeriCorps 
members in all 50 States. They have taught, tutored, or mentored more 
than 2.5 million students, recruited, supervised, or trained more than 
1.6 million volunteers, built or rehabilitated more than 25,000 homes, 
provided living assistance to more than 208,000 senior citizens, and 
planted more than more than 52 million trees.
  AmeriCorps Members are not only helping meet the immediate needs in 
our communities, they are also teaching through their example the 
importance of serving and helping others.
  As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I know the significance of this 
long-lasting lesson. Our youth want so desperately to take hold of 
their destiny and work to ensure a brighter and more prosperous future. 
There is so much they can do. All they need is the opportunity.
  Secondly, I am troubled by proposed cuts in the community development 
block grant program, CDBG, which would be funded at $4.5 billion, a 
level $300 million below fiscal year 2000, despite a 417 to 8 vote by 
this House on H.R. 1776 to increase this program's authorization to 
$4.9 billion.

                              {time}  2230

  CDBG is the largest source of Federal community development 
assistance to State and local governments. It is one of the most 
flexible, most successful programs the Federal Government administers. 
The CDBG program puts development funds where they can most effectively 
be allocated: in local communities. Communities may use CDBG money for 
a variety of community development activities, including housing, 
community development, economic development and public service 
activities.
  The bottom line for me, Mr. Chairman, in closing, is I believe 
strongly in AmeriCorps. I regret it is not in the bill. I understand 
why it was not placed in the bill, because some Members on either side 
of the aisle will decide to fund veterans programs or some other 
program and offset it with the National Service Programs, and 
Republicans and Democrats alike will vote for a veterans program over 
this.
  But this program, like veterans programs, has its place. And I hope 
and I expect when we vote out this bill and the conference committee 
meets, that we will see the CDBG money restored and AmeriCorps and the 
National Service Program restored. If it is not, I would vote against 
the conference report. But I do intend to vote out this bill, hopefully 
this evening or tomorrow.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong support of the AmeriCorps program.
  I rise in strong support of the countless volunteers that are working 
on teaching projects, projects for the homeless, projects for the 
environment across the country, and I rise in strong support of a 
program that is working extremely well.
  Mr. Chairman, as we look for ways to solve some of the problems in 
America, many of us so-called new Democrats have looked for ways to 
delegate responsibility at the State or the local level, but to give 
them some of the resources at the local level, whether it be in 
education, whether it be working with existing infrastructure or with 
people at the local level to try to solve some of these vexing and 
difficult problems.
  We have come up with a very, very innovative and now successful 
program called AmeriCorps that gives money at the Federal level not to 
a 10-story building in Washington, D.C. but to local communities and 
volunteers in places like South Bend, Indiana, and Elkhart, Indiana, 
and Mishawaka, Indiana that are working with the homeless on a day-to-
day basis to try to teach the homeless every-day skills; balancing 
their checkbooks, taking care of their children, working to solve some 
of the personal and faith-based problems that they experience as 
individuals. This is taking place in South Bend, Indiana at the Center 
for the Homeless, and it is also in conjunction with AmeriCorps that is 
funded at the Federal level.
  This program should not be zeroed out by this budget because we are 
doing exactly what the American people want us to do: Solve problems 
with local people at the local level. Not with big bureaucracy, not 
with 10 story buildings in Washington, D.C., not with committees in 
Congress, but with local people with strong hands and big hearts.
  We also have a program, Mr. Chairman, at the University of Notre Dame 
called the Alliance for Catholic Education. And there we are working 
with both Catholic schools and the public school system in South Bend 
to recruit teachers, something every community in America is having 
problems with, and getting these teachers through the University of 
Notre Dame with advanced degrees in teaching; having them teach in the 
summer school in South Bend, Indiana to students that are having 
problems learning, that might fall behind; helping them with 
remediation and tutoring skills. And then these teachers go on to 12 
States across the south to teach in schools in very poor areas where 
they cannot recruit teachers to teach math and science and technology. 
Some of those are Catholic schools.
  What a fantastic partnership between the Federal Government, local 
public schools and parochial schools in poor inner-city areas. That is 
AmeriCorps. That is working in South Bend and branching out to 12 
States. We should not cut it. We should support it. And I would 
encourage my colleagues in Congress in a bipartisan way to fight hard 
to restore these funds in conference for a very successful program at 
the local level.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 20, 2000, 
House Report 106-683. This amendment would provide new budget authority 
in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) 
and is

[[Page 11565]]

not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the 
Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, 
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 California 
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, therefore, sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $5,000,000.

                  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, $12,500,000, of which $895,000, shall be 
     available for the purpose of providing financial assistance 
     as described, and in accordance with the process and 
     reporting procedures set forth, under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-229.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain to the House that we have reached an 
agreement, both sides, on the continued debate of this bill, and I 
would just like to make sure everyone is aware that there will be no 
further votes this evening. We will take up the VA-HUD bill tomorrow 
after the conclusion of the debate on the WTO.
  We have agreement on all amendments, all points of order are 
protected, we have time for all the amendments, and we will be coming 
in at 9 a.m. to work on WTO. Once that is concluded, we will work on 
the VA-HUD. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I have 
agreed to try to conclude debate on the VA-HUD bill by 9:00 p.m. 
tomorrow evening.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), has stated the agreement as we 
understand it. All amendments that are going to be in order tomorrow 
are contained in the unanimous consent agreement and associated with 
each amendment is a time certain for debate. We will have no objection 
to the unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for 
     maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National 
     Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, 
     including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $17,949,000, 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, 
     $60,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.

            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, $70,000,000, to be derived from the 
     Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund pursuant to section 
     517(a) of SARA (26 U.S.C. 9507), to remain available until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided, That not withstanding 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 
     the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to issue 
     in excess of 40 toxicological profiles pursuant to section 
     104(i) of CERCLA during the fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and 
     existing profiles may be updated as necessary.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

                         science and technology

       For science and technology, including research and 
     development activities, which shall include research and 
     development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
     amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs 
     and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances 
     therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate 
     payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $650,000,000, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2002.

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill and its inadequate funding levels for our 
nation's housing need.
  The bill currently provides $2.5 billion less than the President's 
request and would under-fund almost every program within the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
  This inadequate funding would severely impact our nation's 
communities and roll back much of the progress we have made towards 
making affordable housing and economic development opportunities 
available to all Americans.
  As the nation enjoys its longest sustained economic boom, now is the 
time to meet our critical housing needs and fully fund our housing 
services and programs--not neglect them.
  I have deep concerns about this bill because, among other things, it:
  Fails to fund the administration's request for 120,000 rental 
assistance vouchers. This includes 10,000 vouchers to construct the 
first affordable housing units for families since 1996.
  It cuts the President's proposed funding levels for the Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program by almost $400 million, and it 
fails to provide funding for America's Private Investment Companies 
(APIC) which stimulate private investment in distressed communities.
  These are just a few examples of how the VA-HUD bill in front of us 
today short changes the millions of lower income Americans who 
critically need the assistance provided by the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development.
  We can and must do better. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing 
this inadequate bill.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with regard to the 
establishment of an outpatient clinic in the Seventh Congressional 
District of Georgia. There are more than 670,000 veterans in Georgia, 
and a significant number live in the Seventh Congressional District 
55,000 veterans live in Cobb County alone. Some 4,000 of these veterans 
utilize the veterans health care system. The nearest clinic is on the 
east side of Atlanta, which means the veterans who reside in the 
western part of my congressional district must travel up to 70 miles 
each way, to get VA medical attention. This is an extremely long 
distance to travel for any type of medical care. It is even more of a 
hardship for the elderly, sick or those who cannot drive themselves.
  On September 9, 1999, the House of Representatives considered the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriation bill for Fiscal Year 2000, H.R. 
2684. During that debate, Chairman Walsh and I had a colloquy, in which 
he pledged his support to assist me in establishing an outpatient 
clinic in the congressional district. I want to take this opportunity 
to thank the Chairman for all his assistance with regard to the 
establishment of this outpatient clinic.

[[Page 11566]]

  On September 27, 1999, Chairman Walsh wrote me a letter stating that, 
``the establishment of an outpatient clinic is the decision of the 
local VISN Director based on resources and need. We will make inquiries 
to the VA and the Director of VISN regarding the situation in your 
district.'' In addition, to follow-up on that pledge the Subcommittee 
conference report to H.R. 2684 included the following provision: ``the 
conferees direct the VA to submit a report on access to medical care 
and community-based outpatient clinics in Georgia 7th Congressional 
District 30 days after the enactment of this bill.'' President Bill 
Clinton signed this legislation on October 20, 1999.
  On January 14, 2000, I met with R.A. Perreault, Director of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Georgia, who pledged 
his support to establish an Outpatient Clinic in the Seventh 
Congressional District in Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, on January 27, 
2000, the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittees sent to my 
congressional office a document entitled ``Access to Care in Georgia 
7th Congressional District'' from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
This evaluation stated:

       [W]ithin the past year, there has been significant amount 
     of interest from Congressman Barr on the implementation of a 
     Community Based Outpatient Clinic in the 7th Congressional 
     District of Georgia . . . the VISN 7 Primary Care Service 
     Line recently completed an evaluation of potential sites for 
     future CBOCs using specific criteria . . . a proposed CBOC in 
     Cobb County has been identified as a high priority and is 
     noted in the Strategic Plan.

  As you are aware, the VA has a goal of improving access to care and 
timeliness of service. The VISN 7 has set aside funds to be used to 
activate additional CBOCs in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. The proposed 
Cobb County CBOC is planned for a fiscal year 2000 activation. The VA 
notes in its report, future decisions regarding the implementation of 
new initiatives will continue to be based in part on the budget 
forecast. The report states, ``the opening of additional CBOCs remains 
subject to the availability of funds and other significant factors.''
  The Atlanta office of the Department of Veterans Affairs has already 
approved the facility and I am pleased to announce to Chairman Walsh, 
and the Members of the House of Representatives, that in the next 
several weeks an outpatient clinic will open in the Seventh 
Congressional District in Georgia.
  Given the large number of veterans in the western and northern parts 
of the 7th District, I pledge to continue working with the Chairman, 
and with the Department, to build additional outpatient clinics in the 
7th District; including near the I-20 corridor to the west of Atlanta, 
and northwest of Atlanta along the I-75 corridor.
  These clinics are a win-win; they save money, and they are a 
tremendous benefit to our veterans.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Fossella) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, 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. 4635) 
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, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________