[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14686-14694]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2620, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
  AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 210 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 210

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2620) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with'', 
     except that'' on page 64, line 12, through ``drinking water 
     contaminants'' on line 17. Where points of order are waived 
     against part of a paragraph, points of order against a 
     provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only 
     against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. 
     The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on rules 
     accompanying this resolution may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
     the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall 
     not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the report are waived. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. During consideration of the bill, points of order 
     against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of 
     rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter); pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 210 is an open rule which provides for 
1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), on H.R. 2620, the fiscal 
year 2002 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill. After general debate, any Member wishing to offer an amendment 
may do so as long as it complies with the regular rules of the House. 
The rule makes in order one amendment printed in the report 
accompanying the rule and waives all points of order against that 
amendment.
  The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI for legislating on an 
appropriations bill and prohibiting nonemergency designated amendments 
to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency 
designation.
  Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides yet another example of a carefully 
crafted bill from the Committee on Appropriations that strikes a 
balance between fiscal discipline and social responsibility. I would 
like to commend the chairman and the ranking member, and all the 
members of the Committee on Appropriations, for making the tough 
decisions required to produce a thoughtful bill that meets our most 
important priorities.
  While we can never agree on everything, this is a good bill which we 
can all agree addresses some of our Nation's most pressing needs. It 
takes care of our veterans, it addresses the Nation's critical housing 
needs, it helps to preserve and protect our environment, it invests in 
scientific research, and continues our exploration into space.
  This legislation maintains our commitment to our Nation's veterans, 
who selflessly place themselves in harm's way so that we may enjoy the 
very freedoms which we so cherish. Our veterans deserve our thanks, but 
more importantly they deserve and have earned the benefits in this 
bill.
  This year, the fiscal year 2002 Veterans-HUD appropriations bill 
provides an additional $1 billion over last year's increase for 
Veterans Medical Health Care, bringing the total to $21.3 billion.

                              {time}  1400

  I am proud to inform my colleagues and, more importantly, our 
veterans that we have increased Veterans Medical Health Care by $4 
billion over the course of the last 3 fiscal years.
  This bill increases Veterans Medical and Prosthetic Research yet 
again, by $20 million, and provides an extra $128 million over last 
year's funding levels for the Veterans Benefit Administration to 
expedite claims processing.
  Finally, H.R. 2620 provides $100 million for Veterans Extended Care 
Facilities, an increase of $50 million over the President's request.
  Mr. Speaker, along with providing for the needs of our veterans, this 
legislation makes available important resources to help the most 
vulnerable in our society with a very basic need: placing a roof over 
their heads.
  Low-income families will benefit through this bill's investment in 
the Housing Certificates Program, which provides funding for Section 8 
renewals and tenant protection.
  A $1.8 billion increase over last year's funding level will allow for 
the renewal of all expiring Section 8 contracts and provide needed 
relocation assistance at the level requested by our President. A total 
of $15.7 billion is provided for this important program in fiscal year 
2002. This includes $197 million to fund some 34,000 new Section 8 
vouchers.
  In my district in Columbus, Ohio, we know all too well how crucial 
this housing assistance is for families who are trying to lift 
themselves up and improve their lives.
  Other needed housing programs that help our elderly, that help people 
with AIDS and that help the disabled are also receiving increases over 
last year's funding levels in this report.
  H.R. 2620 also looks toward the future by preserving and protecting 
our environment for the next generations to enjoy.
  The bill targets funding and places an emphasis on State grants to 
protect the water that we drink and the air that we breath.
  The State Revolving Fund for Safe Drinking Water is increased by more 
than $25 million from last year's level, the Clean Water State 
Revolving Fund is funded at $1.2 billion, equal to last year's level, 
and, finally, State Air Grants are increased $8 million over last year.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides important funding which 
maintains

[[Page 14687]]

our commitment to the exploration of space and the improvements of 
science.
  I am pleased to say that the National Science Foundation is increased 
by some 9 percent or $414 million above the last fiscal year. This will 
go a long way to try to help foster scientific discovery, promote basic 
research, as well as increase science education.
  NASA also receives an increase that will bring total funding to more 
than $15 billion. It fully funds the space shuttle operations and 
increases funding for the International Space Station programs. This 
will enable the United States of America to maintain our superiority in 
space exploration and aeronautical research.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses an unexpected shortfall 
within the Federal Emergency Management Agency by providing $1.3 
billion in emergency designated funding.
  While, as a fiscal conservative, I am generally opposed to the use of 
emergency designations on appropriations bills, this bill and the 
amendment made in order under this rule provides that the funds will 
only be made available if it is determined that they are necessary for 
FEMA to meet the needs of the communities adversely affected by 
disaster. These funds simply represent an insurance policy for some of 
our Nation's hardest hit communities.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and it deserves our support. It 
takes a responsible path towards addressing our Nation's most pressing 
needs and priorities. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
straightforward and noncontroversial rule, as well as this must-do 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for 
yielding me the customary half hour and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have strong concerns about the rule and the process it 
represents. As I stated earlier, the Committee on Rules and the current 
leadership are developing a compulsive aversion to regular order. In 
what has become standard operating procedure, the Committee on Rules 
emerged only moments ago to consider what should be a noncontroversial 
open rule on an appropriations bill making its initial pass through 
this Chamber.
  The underlying bill is too important for this country to be treated 
so cavalierly. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) deserve rich praise for 
their work, particularly in adding funds to the President's anemic 
budget for science. The President's budget requested a meager 1.2 
percent increase for the National Science Foundation, barely half the 
amount necessary to cover inflation. The Committee wisely added $368 
million to the President's request, an amount which will allow on-going 
research in basic physics, chemistry, mathematics and engineering.
  I was particularly pleased and gratified to see the inclusion of $8 
million for a proposed Infotonics Center of Excellence in my district 
of Rochester, New York. This project will utilize my region's 
established expertise in optics, the science of light, that is critical 
to the future economic success of New York State. This will be a 
cooperative research and development facility where academic 
researchers, industry leaders such as Kodak, Xerox and Corning, and 
small companies can pool their resources and expertise. With this 
funding, we can begin to bridge the gap between basic research and 
product manufacturing focusing in optics, fiberoptics and the emerging 
field of photonics, transmitting data by light.
  I also want to thank the chairman for the increase in funding for 
HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control funding. I was pleased that 50 of 
my colleagues signed my letter requesting this increase, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with the Committee as this funding works 
its way through the appropriations process. Many older houses and 
apartments still contain lead-based paint.
  Research shows that children with elevated blood lead levels are 
seven times more likely to drop out of school and twice as likely to 
fall behind their peers in language acquisition. In my district of 
Rochester, New York, 37 percent of the children tested have more lead 
in their blood than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say 
is safe. This increased funding will be a critical step in addressing 
this problem.
  Many Members on this side of the aisle have expressed concern over 
veterans medical care and public housing programs that serve the 
country's most vulnerable citizens and families. Unfortunately, an 
inadequate overall allocation has forced the majority to rely on 
budgetary gimmicks to stay within the subcommittee's budget ceiling. 
These gimmicks include almost $1 billion of delayed obligations and 
``pretend'' budget allocations such as the recommendation to eliminate 
funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, a 
recommendation which the chairman announced prior to reporting the bill 
that he intends to reverse in conference.
  These problems will cause the VA-HUD bill to be the first of the 
seven appropriations bills reported by the Committee that may not share 
broad bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, this country has the resources to care for its veterans 
and to provide adequate housing for the poor, the elderly and the 
disabled.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the VA-HUD 
Appropriations bill.
  I share the concerns of some Members that the designated emergency 
spending within the bill is at odds with our broader imperative to 
uphold the principles of fiscal discipline, and I applaud my colleagues 
for their conviction. Yet, at the same time, it is imperative that we 
ensure FEMA has the necessary funds to be prepared for disasters and 
emergencies.
  Every year emergencies and catastrophes arise that draw down the 
account FEMA maintains to fund expenses stemming from emergency 
response efforts. In Houston, we just got hit with several feet of 
water in one day. Houston, if you have not been there, is built on a 
plain. There is only so much water that our system can accommodate. We 
got hit with a lot more than that. Now we are facing billions of 
dollars in damages. That is catastrophic damage. It is the exact reason 
that we classify some events as legitimate emergencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I have opposed and will continue opposing attempts to 
manipulate the process by lumping wasteful spending in with the 
legitimate expenses that we incur by responding to actual emergencies, 
but that is not the case here. The FEMA account generally has emergency 
funds in contingency reserve to deal with true emergencies, and the 
flooding from Tropical Storm Allison caused a real emergency in Houston 
and all through the South. We know that cleaning up the damage has 
nearly wiped out FEMA's funding, so several weeks ago on this floor I 
opposed the partisan fear tactics that were used by some of my 
colleagues on other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that FEMA has the funds necessary to 
carry out their duties for the remainder of this fiscal year. FEMA has 
the funds to make it through the year. The responsible thing to do is 
to restore the funds to the account. It will enable FEMA to assist 
Houston's recovery, and as we move into hurricane season it will enable 
FEMA to stand ready to meet any short-term contingency as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) as we move through this process, and I ask my colleagues to 
vote for the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, so far, with the six appropriations bills 
which have passed the House, we have seen bipartisan support for every 
single one of them. This is the first bill that will generate 
considerable opposition, and I want to explain why.

[[Page 14688]]

  The fault does not lie with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
or the subcommittee. He has done the very best job he could possibly 
do, given the allocation that he was given. The problem is that the 
allocation is too low, and that forces the bill to be at least a half 
billion dollars lower than it should be for veterans health care, and 
it cripples the enforcement of clean air and water laws across the 
country.
  It forces the bill to provide inadequate funding for housing for poor 
kids. It forces the bill to eliminate the National Service Corps, which 
even the subcommittee itself admits is not a serious initiative, but 
they had to do it to, quote, ``fit into the so-called budget rules''. 
It forces a number of other reductions which everyone understands in 
the end are essentially irresponsible.
  Why does it do that? It does it because the tax bill passed earlier 
in the year by this Congress sucked up every single dollar on the 
table, which meant that we had nothing left to deal with the long-term 
problems of Social Security, of Medicare, of education, of veterans 
medical care, of environmental protection or any other national 
priority.
  Essentially, the House majority prevented the House from facing the 
real world trade-offs between tax cuts of the most well-off people in 
our society and other crucial funding for middle income and lower 
income people.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I asked the Committee on Rules to make in 
order an amendment. Since they are providing numerous other waivers, I 
asked them to make in order an amendment that would allow us to add 
$300 million to veterans health care, add $382 million to housing, add 
$311 million to the National Service Corps, add enough to restore the 
65 EPA environmental enforcement positions that they have cut.
  And we paid for it without cutting into the Medicare surplus, without 
adding to the deficit, by simply scaling back the size of the tax cut 
for people with incomes of over $330,000, by dropping it from 39.6 to 
39.1 percent instead of the 38.6 percent that the House passed earlier 
this year.
  Mr. Speaker, the folks we are talking about have seen their after-tax 
income grow by $414,000 per family over the last 20 years. I do not 
think that it is asking of them too much to say, instead of getting an 
average tax cut of $53,000, to only get a tax cut of about $25,000. I 
hardly think that is going to put them in the poorhouse.
  If we had that amendment before us, we would be able to try to use 
that money, which would be $1.3 billion, use a billion of it in this 
bill for veterans health care, for housing, for environmental 
enforcement and the like, still leaving $300 million available for 
additional education and defense priorities.
  That to me is what we ought to do, but the rule did not allow it. So 
I will be asking each and every one of my colleagues to vote against 
the previous question on the rule so that we can offer this amendment 
to allow the House to choose whether giving a $53,000 tax cut to people 
who make $1 million or more a year is more important than enforcing our 
environmental laws, more important than giving veterans the medical 
care they need, more important than providing decent housing for poor 
kids.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the moral choice is obvious. I would hope that 
the House would allow us to face these trade-offs. The problem with the 
budget that has been passed is that, very skillfully, these trade-offs 
have been avoided. We have not been allowed to exercise real-world 
choices. It is time that we grow up and make these choices.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and for her leadership on this rule and for guiding this bill 
through the House for the third year in a row. I hope we are as lucky 
this year as we have been the last two.
  I think we have a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a work product that 
incorporates bipartisanship in its truest form. The gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I have worked hand in hand. Our staffs have 
worked hand in hand and worked together on priorities. We had a 
manager's amendment in the full committee that the gentleman from West 
Virginia helped to write. We incorporated that, and the bill was passed 
out of committee on a voice vote. So both parties, all Members, 
supported the bill.
  I think it is obviously a very complex bill. There are a lot of 
different issues in the bill. Perhaps the most important, as always has 
been the case, is Veterans. The authorizing committee asked for 
additional funds in medical care discretionary funds, and we provided a 
billion dollars over and above what was provided last year. So in the 
past 3 years, we will have increased veterans' medical care by just 
over $4 billion. That is a very substantial increase. It is a 
tremendous commitment on the part of the Congress to provide funds to 
the veterans. In each case, we have met or exceeded the President's 
request dating back from the previous administration.
  We also provided over $400 million for construction. This is a direct 
response to Members who felt that medical care centers around the 
country were in need of repair, major construction. This is a huge 
commitment that has not been duplicated in many, many years. So I think 
we have made a real effort here to put the funds where they need to be 
in Veterans.
  We have also provided an additional $175 million above last year to 
provide for veterans' claims processing. This is Secretary Principi's 
highest goal, to provide those resources. We are going to help him to 
meet that commitment to get those waiting times down for veterans' 
claims processing.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate what the gentleman has said in 
response to what we have already done by increasing the President's 
budget request for these extremely important issues. I know that we 
would like to do more. But we are doing the best we can to keep all of 
our bills within our budget number. We cannot go over that budget 
number.
  What I wanted to say to our colleagues is that the Obey amendment 
might have been more acceptable except for one little problem, which I 
will refer to in a minute. All of our committees in the House, 
jealously guard their areas of responsibility and their areas of 
jurisdiction. The gentleman from Wisconsin is one of the outstanding 
leaders in doing that for the Committee on Appropriations, to preserve 
our prerogatives, and our responsibilities. The problem with the 
amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin wanted to have made in 
order and he offered in the full committee, relates to two sentences:
  ``Paragraph 2 of section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
relating to reduction in rates after June 30, 2001 . . .'', This is the 
tax bill, ``. . . is amended by adding after the table the following: 
in the case of taxable years beginning during calendar year 2002, the 
preceding table shall be applied by substituting 39.1 percent for 38.6 
percent.''
  That would change the tax law. The Committee on Ways and Means 
rightfully is protecting their responsibility and their prerogatives, 
in being opposed to this. I think it is incumbent upon us if we intend 
to maintain the integrity of all of our committee structures, that this 
is the reason we were not able to accept this amendment.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I also appreciate the good work 
that he and the gentleman from West Virginia have done to produce a 
really good bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me simply say that 
I am

[[Page 14689]]

concerned with the integrity of this Congress. And I think we can start 
demonstrating that integrity by being willing to make the specific 
trade-offs that we have to make in the real world. The problem that we 
have is that the tax bill was passed before we ever had a budget. That 
was a clever device by which the House was shielded from having to 
choose whether it was more important to cut taxes by a specific amount 
for high-income folks or whether it was more important to use some of 
that money for veterans, for education, or for other high priorities. 
We have been denied every other way to make those trade-offs evident, 
so this is the only avenue left open to us. It may not be perfect, but 
it is a whole lot better than not joining the issue at all.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the ranking member for his comments. I would 
remind him that the Congress, both House and Senate, voted for that tax 
cut; and it is the law of the land.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is an open rule that allows all 
amendments provided for under the House rules to be offered. It also 
waives all points of order against provisions included in the 
committee-passed bill.
  Of particular importance and interest, it waives points of order 
against a provision offered in full committee by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay). This provision would provide $1.3 billion for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency designated as emergency funding. We 
all know about the disaster that Tropical Storm Allison brought to 
Texas and the Gulf Coast.
  Other States, Mr. Speaker, have also recently experienced federally 
declared disasters. My own State of West Virginia is struggling to 
recover from recent flooding. Twenty-two counties have been included in 
the Federal disaster declaration and a recent estimate for West 
Virginia has placed the damage cost in excess of $175 million.
  We know that the storm season is just beginning, and FEMA has told us 
that they will need additional funding. We need to provide it to ensure 
that communities that suffer disasters are able to receive Federal 
assistance in a timely manner.
  While we in the minority would have preferred providing this funding 
in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental bill that was recently considered, 
the administration blocked that effort. However, in the statement of 
administration policy with regard to this bill, on the topic of 
emergency funding, they have indicated that they do not object now to 
the House including the emergency funding in this bill for fiscal year 
2002. I am pleased that the Committee on Rules protected this 
provision.
  I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not grant a waiver 
making in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the full Committee on 
Appropriations. His amendment would have provided $1 billion in 
additional resources to adequately fund many of the accounts in this 
bill that are admittedly underfunded. As an offset, the amendment would 
have decreased the recently enacted reduction in the highest marginal 
tax rate by just .5 percent. While I might consider this a minor 
change, for those who supported the tax cut, it has the implication of 
shifting millions of dollars from the highest-income citizens in our 
land to benefit some of the neediest citizens and neediest communities 
in our land.
  Because this amendment was not made in order, I support efforts to 
defeat the previous question so that the rule can be amended to permit 
the Obey amendment to be considered by the House.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio for yielding me this time, especially in light of the fact that I 
am rising in opposition to this rule. I would point out that it is a 
very reluctant opposition. This is the first time that I have opposed a 
rule since I have been in Congress.
  The fact is in recent years we have been spending too much money. The 
result of that is that we are in grave danger, as a result of the 
spending increases we have had in recent years and the economic 
downturn, that within a few short years we could be back to raiding 
Medicare and raiding Social Security. We made a promise we would not do 
that. This rule makes that problem worse. It makes that danger worse. 
Let me explain why.
  This bill, as we know, adds $1.3 billion in funding for FEMA. Above 
and beyond the $1.4 billion ordinary funding for FEMA, there is 1.3 
billion additional FEMA dollars that have an emergency designation. The 
significance of the emergency designation is that that money does not 
have to be offset. So that means it is in addition to the entire 
budget. It is above and beyond all that we are going to spend in 2002. 
House rules forbid putting an emergency designation into a nonemergency 
bill. This rule breaks that rule. It waives that provision.
  Why was that done, again I ask? It was to make sure that this did not 
have to be offset. That is what is wrong with this. Those of us who are 
going to oppose this rule do not do so because we necessarily oppose 
the FEMA funding. What we oppose is the fact that we are not going to 
be able to strike the emergency designation and require this to be 
offset; and as a result, we are going to increase the risk that we may, 
in fact, end up raiding Medicare or Social Security at some time in the 
near future.
  I would also point out the President did not request this. Normally 
when the President requests an emergency, he sends a letter requesting 
emergency funding and designates a specific event. The President did 
not do that. In fact, he issued a statement of administration policy. I 
will quote briefly. It says:
  ``The administration appreciates Congress' attentiveness to the needs 
of FEMA. The administration is not, however, prepared to commit to a 
specific level of contingent emergency appropriations at this time.''
  That is exactly what this does. It puts in an extra $1.3 billion. I 
urge my Democratic colleagues who object to not being able to offer an 
amendment, do not vote against the previous question only to vote for 
the rule. You ought to vote against the rule if you do not agree with 
this rule. I urge my Republican colleagues likewise.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to also oppose the rule. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and I must read different 
things, but let me tell you why. This place passed out a tax cut way 
out there and now everybody stands up and says, ``We don't have enough 
money to do what's necessary.''
  We are in such a fix that the leadership from Texas has to bring us 
out here and put us under martial law. Why? Because they want to have 
$1.3 billion in relief to Texas. Now, yesterday on the Foreign Ops 
bill, we could pass all this money, 300 and some odd million dollars to 
wipe out drugs in Colombia. But in this bill, because we need $1.3 
billion, we take $310 million in drug money, fighting drugs, out of the 
public housing in this country. We worry about it in Colombia but not 
in our own cities. We wipe out AmeriCorps for $445 million. We are 
getting closer to that $1.3.
  The issue here is what is an emergency. The White House says that 
what goes on in India, where they knocked down 100,000 houses and 
30,000 people died, we can give them $5 million. That is how much the 
great and generous and rich United States can do. In El Salvador, where 
they have had the worst earthquake in history, we give them nothing.
  So now the message here is to those Ecuadorians and San Salvadorans 
is get in a bus and get to Texas, because if there is any problem, it 
will get taken care of in Texas. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan)

[[Page 14690]]

says that West Virginia has a few problems. Folks, get in the car and 
get to Texas, because that is what we are going to take care of. We are 
not going to take care of anything else. We are not going to take care 
of CDBG. We are cutting money out of there. Of course we passed this 
community money into the churches so we all better write a letter to 
our churches, send more money, because you are not going to get it from 
the Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of 
the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work on the bill. I 
offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules which was not granted a 
waiver and that is very, very disappointing, because my amendment would 
appropriate no additional funds and it would only authorize the use of 
existing funds for an important program. It would have authorized the 
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to establish a 
minority emergency preparedness demonstration program to research and 
promote the capacity of minority communities throughout the country to 
get data, information, and awareness education through grants, 
contracts, or cooperative agreements with eligible nonprofit 
corporations. These nonprofits would do research on the status of 
emergency preparedness and disaster response awareness in African 
American and Hispanic communities across the country, in rural areas, 
suburban areas and determine how they are impacted by natural and man-
made disasters and emergencies.

                              {time}  1430

  Also, they would be authorized to develop and promote awareness of 
emergency preparedness programs in minority communities and to develop 
competent educational materials that could be disseminated in these 
communities and to organizations and institutions.
  This was a good bill. It would be very helpful, particularly since in 
the past year there were 51 disasters in 33 different states, and this 
year there have been 23 disasters in 22 different states. The impact on 
minorities has been established by FEMA at 2\1/2\ times greater on 
minorities than any other group.
  This is a very, very much-needed operation, given the disasters we 
have had; and I am very, very disappointed that the rule does not allow 
a waiver to allow consideration of my amendment, which has been printed 
and is in the Record.
  I urge ultimate passage of the bill, but if we can defeat the rule 
and perhaps allow consideration of this amendment, I certainly would be 
appreciative. It would be good for America, good for African American 
and Hispanic communities that are impacted so greatly by our floods, 
tornadoes and natural disasters where there have been tremendous 
fatalities and loss of life over the past few years.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the gentleman that just spoke to offer 
that amendment when the time comes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now in the eighth of 13 appropriations bills, 
and, as we drive this process to conclusion, I think it would be smart 
to stop and look at the fuel gauge.
  That is what we have here, a gas gauge. We started out with a full 
tank, flush with surpluses, $95 billion this year. We did our 
resolution, 302(a), and gave $4 billion more than the baseline, so you 
take that out. We did a budget resolution with a placeholder number for 
defense. Now we are having to come back and put in a real number for 
defense, and, in outlay terms, it is $12 billion.
  Because we did not adequately provide for defense and because we did 
not provide at all for emergencies, even though the chairman of our 
committee wanted to institutionalize that, it appeared that a bigger 
tax cut was feasible. So the tax cut for this year takes out $75 
billion, but for a gimmick I will mention in just a minute. So when you 
factor in those changes you get down to $3 billion. That is how close 
we are to being empty.
  Now, one thing saves us, and that is we did an artificial one-time 
transfer of funds from September 15 to October 1. The problem is, when 
we go home in August, that money may disappear when CBO does its update 
of the budget and economy. If that is true, we will really be running 
right on empty. That is all we have got left to provide for 
emergencies, to provide for other priorities that come along in this 
process before it is completed. That is what is wrong with the tax cut.
  What happened? I do not blame the subcommittee at all. I did not get 
up to criticize the subcommittee. I think they have done as well as 
they could do with what was allocated.
  But we pointed out if you went with this budget with these tax cuts 
and this allocation, this was going to happen to veterans. We could not 
fund fully the basic needs of the Veterans Health Care Program. It has 
happened. It has come to pass. We have less than they need. They have 
done a good job in trying to plus it up as well they could, but there 
is not enough there.
  In the Housing Program, how could one pick a program that helps the 
vulnerable more than housing? We have a $20 billion backlog in capital 
requirements and maintenance needs. What are we doing? Taking a half 
billion dollars out of it. The housing projects are a haven for drugs. 
We are eliminating the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program.
  This is a consequence of having a budget where we did not adequately 
provide for emergencies, we did not adequately provide for defense, we 
fooled ourselves about the size of the tax cut, and now we are 
inheriting the consequences. You see the fruits of this in the bill 
before us today.
  I commend the committee for doing the best they could with what they 
have got, but these are the consequences of the tax bill that we 
adopted just a couple of months ago.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this appropriations 
bill and the rule attendant to it presents somewhat of a serious 
dilemma to all of us who are approaching this issue very carefully. On 
the one hand, it elicits only a sense of praise for the subcommittee 
chairman, the chairman of the full committee, the ranking members, for 
the way in which they have squeezed as much as they have into this 
bill, given the limited resources that they had to work with.
  But that is essentially the problem. We have choked ourselves off in 
this country by this enormous tax cut that we passed earlier this year 
preceding the budget, in the craziest way of approaching fiscal policy 
I think we have seen in this government in a long, long time. What does 
that leave us with? It leaves us with some very serious problems we are 
not addressing.
  The gentleman from South Carolina just made the point about housing. 
We have a $20 billion backlog in housing. We have a housing crisis in 
this country. Many people, in urban and rural areas across America, 
find it impossible to get a house. Municipal workers, for example, are 
not making enough money to afford a house in the present market. This 
is a housing crisis. There is no place for them to live and raise their 
families.
  Similar things can be said about environmental protection. This bill 
does the best it can, but it does not provide nearly enough money to 
protect the quality of the natural environment from toxic discharges 
and other releases into the ambient air and the general environment.
  That is a serious mistake. And why? Because we choked ourselves off 
with that huge tax cut, and we do not have the resources that we need 
to attend to vital concerns addressing our people. The same thing can 
be said about

[[Page 14691]]

health care. The same thing can be said about our growing crisis in 
transportation. Look at any of the airports in this country and you can 
see it very, very clearly. Drive along the roads during rush hour. It 
becomes readily apparent. We are not doing anything to deal with the 
need for surface transportation, particularly rail transportation 
between our major cities.
  So, this is a dilemma for all of us. We are not allowing ourselves to 
deal with these important issues facing the American people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York just spoke of the inability 
of our budget to handle the needs of our people. I want to speak to the 
veterans' budget, the veteran parts of this budget, because the same is 
true there. We simply have let our veterans down in this budget. We 
have not honored the promise, we have not honored our commitment, we 
have not honored our contract with our Nation's veterans.
  Now, we are fond on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, at least on 
the Democratic side, of saying that you do not have a surplus until you 
have paid your bills, and we have not paid our bills to the Nation's 
veterans. We had a decade of flat-line budgeting, and, as a result, the 
quality of medical care declined, the waiting times for appointments 
expanded greatly, and the new diseases and the diseases of aging 
veterans could not be handled with the same professionalism as 
previously. So we have not paid our bills to our Nation's veterans.
  Now, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee said that we 
added $1 billion to last year's budget. Well, all independent analysts 
say that $1 billion for our veterans' health care system barely keeps 
up with inflation and does not allow us to make the gains that we had 
promised over the last decade.
  I am going to make several amendments to this bill when the time is 
appropriate to bring the level of the budget up to a more appropriate 
level, especially in health care.
  All the veterans' groups in this Nation got together to produce 
something called the Independent Budget. What they did here was a very 
professional analysis of what was needed to care for our veterans, not 
just give me more money here or give me more money there, but let us 
reduce the waiting times to this number of days by putting this much 
money in. Let us increase the number of positions in the Benefits 
Administration so we can decrease the waiting times for adjudication. 
Let us make sure we can have research that will deal with the new 
diseases, like hepatitis C and the Persian Gulf War illness. That is 
what this Independent Budget does, and that is what this Congress ought 
to do.
  So I will be making amendments to increase the health care budget by 
$1.7 billion, which is what the veterans groups' analysis says. We will 
try to make improvements in the health research budget. We will try to 
make amendments to treat such diseases as hepatitis C and also to treat 
the Filipino veterans of World War II who we have denied care to for 
the last 50 years.
  So we will make those amendments. I hope they will get the similar 
waiver that you have for emergency funding, that you have for other 
items. Let us really keep our commitment to our Nation's veterans.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the 
rule. I have not been here long, but this will be the first rule that I 
have opposed. I am not insensitive to disasters like the one we had in 
Texas, but I just feel that it would be disaster to ignore the spirit 
of our own rules and go right back to emergency spending.
  We are perilously close to dipping into the Social Security and 
Medicare surpluses. We promised our citizens that we would not do that. 
We are close to it. We need not do it.
  The problem is not the tax cut, the problem is spending. We have had 
an average of 6 percent a year growth in spending over the past 3 
years. That is the problem. We cannot simply cannot maintain that.
  I urge a vote against the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, there you have it. You have got one group in the House 
who says a $4 billion increase is too much spending. You have another 
group in the House that says it is not enough spending. You have a 
group in the House who gauges all reality on how many billions of 
dollars you can spend. And yet this House has passed a very balanced 
budget, a budget that funds the priorities. It puts in money for Social 
Security and Medicare and Medicaid. It pays down the debt. It takes 
care of our normal obligations of government, such as education, 
transportation and health care. Then it returns dollars to the hard-
working taxpayers, and then it spends money wisely.
  Yet this reckless scheme of the Democrats to blame everything on a 
tax reduction, you know, Georgia is going to get in the form of $300, 
$500 and $600 checks $1.2 billion in the next couple of weeks. Now, 
that is $1.2 billion that is going to be spent by normal people, like 
Joe and Shirley Harrington in Wilmington Island, Georgia, and what they 
are going to do with that money is do something real glamorous like buy 
a dryer, or maybe buy some clothes for the kids who are going to be 
going back to school.
  This is not going to be enough money for a nice vacation, the kind of 
money that the big Washington bureaucrats make up here. But, do you 
know what, they know how to spend their money more than I do.
  That is what the debate is about here today, who should spend that 
money: the geniuses in Washington, the big bureaucracy who can control 
people's lives through their spending, or should we empower the 
citizens of America who earned the money, the people that it belongs 
to?
  We are faced with a very important bill, a very balanced bill, a bill 
that puts our veterans' health care spending over $1 billion higher 
than what President Clinton did. I want to repeat that. Veterans' 
health care provides a $1 billion increase over the last year, and yet 
I hear my friends saying no to that.

                              {time}  1445

  We are also going to put more money in Veterans Administration and 
medical and prosthetic research, in national cemeteries, in State 
extended health care facilities, and in veterans' hospitals.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very, very important money.
  In addition to that, we are going to put money into housing so that 
the poorest of our citizens can have fair and decent public housing 
and, there again, it is increased. We are going to put money in to 
protect the environment; and I, as a member of the Subcommittee on the 
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, think it is very important 
to fund Superfund and to put money in leaking underground storage 
tanks, and safe drinking water, in clean drinking water State revolving 
funds. These are all important projects. I want to support them, and 
that is why I am support the rule.
  I think it is important to say also that this committee has had to 
make some tough decisions. There are still many of us who remember when 
President Clinton stood in the well of the House and said, I am going 
to set up AmeriCorps; we are going to start paying volunteers for what 
they are doing for free. I guess this was some new concept in socialism 
in America, but people who are volunteers are doing it because they 
want to do it for free, but President Clinton wanted to pay them. We 
are saying there has been a lot of waste in that program. We do not 
think it is wise at this point to continue that risky scheme of paying 
volunteers.

[[Page 14692]]

  So I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It does comply with the 
budget. Our budget, again, takes care of Social Security, Medicare, the 
normal and needed obligations of government such as education and 
housing and, in this budget, veterans. Then, it returns a portion of 
the surplus to the citizens of America, after paying down the debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, this bill is in compliance with 
that budget that has passed both Houses, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will 
make in order the amendment offered at the Committee on Appropriations 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and also at the Committee on 
Rules.
  The amendment adds $1 billion for veterans medical care, for critical 
housing programs, and to partially restore funding for the Corporation 
for National and Community Service, some of the issues that have been 
spoken to here during the debate on the rule. The money would come from 
paring back the recently enacted tax cut in the top tax bracket from 
38.6 percent to 39.1 percent. That is one-half of 1 percent from the 
richest Americans to help some of the most vulnerable Americans and 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.

Previous Question for Rule on H.R. 2620, FY2002 Appropriations for the 
                                 VA/HUD

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider the following amendment if offered 
     by Representative Obey or his designee. The amendment shall 
     be considered as read and shall be debatable for 60 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. All points of order are waived against the 
     amendment. The amendment is not amendable and is not subject 
     to a demand for the division of the question.
                                  ____


                           General Provisions

       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
       ``Sec. 427. Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to reductions in rates after 
     June 30, 2001), is amended by adding after the table the 
     following:
       In the case of taxable years beginning during calendar year 
     2002, the preceding table shall be applied by substituting 
     `39.1%' for `38.65'.''

     Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration

       In the paragraph ``Medical Care'', strike 
     ``$21,281,587,000'' and insert ``$21,581,587,000'' in lieu 
     thereof

  Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public Housing Capital 
                                  Fund

       In the paragraph entitled ``Public Housing Capital Fund'', 
     strike ``$2,555,000,000'' and insert ``$2,837,000,000'' in 
     lieu thereof

              Department of Housing and Urban Development

       After the paragraph entitled ``homeless Assistance Grants: 
     insert the following new section:


                      ``SHELTER PLUS CARE RENEWALS

       For the renewal on an annual basis or amendment of 
     contracts funded under the Shelter Plus Care program, as 
     authorized under subtitle F of Title IV of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act, as amended, $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That each Shelter Plus 
     Care project with an expiring contract shall be eligible for 
     renewal only if the project is determined to be needed under 
     the applicable continuum of care and meets appropriate 
     program requirements and financial standards, as determined 
     by the Secretary.''

 Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and Management

       In the paragraph entitled ``Environmental Programs and 
     Management'', strike ``$2,014,799,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,021,799,000 in lieu thereof
       At the end of the paragraph entitled ``Environmental 
     Programs and Management'', insert:
       ``: Provided further, That the on-board staffing level of 
     the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance shall be 
     maintained at not less than the level authorized for this 
     Office as of December 31, 2000''

             Corporation for National and Community Service

       Strike the paragraph following the center head entitled 
     ``National and Community Service programs, Operating 
     Expenses'' and insert the following new section:


                    ``(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service (the ``Corporation'') in carrying out 
     programs, activities, and initiatives under the National and 
     Community service Act of 1990 (the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501 
     et seq.), $311,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2003: Provided, That not more than $50,000,000, to remain 
     available without fiscal year limitation, shall be 
     transferred to the National Service trust account for 
     educational awards authorized under subtitle D of title I of 
     the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.).

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that we can have an opportunity to vote on this 
critical amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, this is a good bill; and the Committee on 
Appropriations has done yeoman's work in balancing a number of very, 
very important priorities. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the committee; along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), the subcommittee chairman; and the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, have done a great job.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2620 responds to the needs of our veterans. It 
protects our environment. It keeps the U.S. at the forefront of space 
exploration. It provides needed funding to ensure new scientific 
discovery. It addresses our Nation's critical housing needs and, 
finally, helps more Americans realize the dream of owning their own 
homes. This we do without reversing tax relief that we just gave to the 
American people, tax relief which has not even gone into effect yet.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
legislation. Support the previous question.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and the bill. For the past four years, my colleague, Mr. Tancredo, and 
I have offered and amendment to the VA/HUD Appropriations bill to 
restore or increase the funding of the State Extended Care Facilities 
Construction line item. I am extremely happy to report that the 
Committee has fully funded the program at $100 million for Fiscal Year 
2002.
  This program is used to renovate and build state nursing homes for 
veterans. State facilities have proven that they can provide above 
quality care at a more cost efficient price than the federal 
government. In Fiscal Year 1998, the VA spent on average $255.25 per 
resident per day to care for long term nursing care residents, while 
state veterans homes on average spent $40.00 per resident. This 
continued in 1999.
  Mr. Speaker, the State Extended Care Facilities Construction program 
addresses the issue of long-term care for our nation's veterans. 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 Illinois, the waiting list for admittance to the LaSalle 
and Manteno state extended care facilities are as long as two to three 
years, and many ill veterans go untreated or are under-treated due to 
the lack of beds.
  Additionally, this funding will help pay the millions of dollars in 
back payments to state care facilities. In Illinois alone, last year 
over $6 million was owed to the state for construction projects to 
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other facility 
updates. This funding helps with the payback of unfunded grant 
payments, and helps improve the supply of long term care for our 
veterans in the future.
  There are two other programs that were not funded under this bill and 
it is my hope that we can work with Chairman Walsh and appointed 
conferees to have these provisions included in the final bill. I am 
requesting $800,000 through a HUD Special Purpose Grant or Community 
Development Block Grant

[[Page 14693]]

to Cornerstone Services to relocate and expand its developmental 
training center. Cornerstone Services provides progressive, 
comprehensive services to persons with disabilities promoting choice, 
dignity, and the opportunity to live and work in the community. For 32 
years, Cornerstone has been a leader in providing state-of-the-art 
services to meet the individual needs of persons with developmental 
disabilities, mental illnesses, physical disabilities, sensory 
impairments and dual diagnoses. The Will County-based, not-for-profit 
delivers developmental, vocational, and behavioral health services in 
five large agency-owned or leased locations and residential services in 
numerous agency or consumer-owned leased residences.
  I am also requesting $600,000 to Joliet Junior College to assist 
funding efforts for the Bridging Community, Economic and Workforce 
Development through Local Partnerships Project. This project embodies 
many of the key components of Joliet Junior College's mission and 
philosophy, community development, economic development, and workforce 
development. The college's division responsible for this initiative is 
the Institute of Economic Technology. The institute operates a Small 
Business Development Center, Entrepreneurship Services Center, 
Dislocated Worker Assistance Center, Business Assistance and Training 
Center, and a Manufacturing Extension Center. The institute is a 
national model for business assistance services and economic 
development.
  Both of these programs are desperately needed in my District and I 
hope that they will be included in the final VA/HUD appropriations 
bill.
  Again, I would like to thank Chairman Walsh and the members of the 
House Appropriations Committee for committing to this funding, and for 
honoring our nation's veterans.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, when the people of Georgia's 8th district 
first elected me to be their representative, I felt that our number one 
priority as legislators should be to operate the Federal government 
within its means. My view on this important matter has not changed. I 
cannot, in good conscience, cast a vote in favor of a pay increase for 
Members while the Federal government is operating under such strict 
spending limitations.
  I have committed to the folks back in Georgia to getting our Federal 
government's fiscal house in order. With the economy slowing and our 
work in Congress to keep government spending in check, it is wrong for 
us to give ourselves a pay raise. We must keep big government in check 
and remain fiscally responsible. As I have for the past few years, 
today I voted to oppose a pay raise for Members of Congress.
  By voting against the previous question on the rule, I want to go on 
record as being opposed to a cost-of-living-adjustment for Members of 
Congress.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 204, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 278]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachus
     Barton
     Blumenauer
     Cubin
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Lipinski
     McKinney
     Spence

                              {time}  1512

  Mr. SCHIFF changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 14694]]




                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 195, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               AYES--228

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Clayton
     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Houghton
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lipinski
     Souder
     Spence

                              {time}  1531

  Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mr. LAMPSON changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________