[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14695-14715]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 210 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2620.

                              {time}  1538


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 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, with Mr. 
Shimkus in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege today to present for House 
consideration H.R. 2620, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2002. In the interest of time, I will try to be brief.
  I would, however, like to begin by telling my colleagues that I 
believe this is a good bill and that the Administration has indicated 
that they support its passage. Just as presented in each of the past 
few years, this bill represents a joint effort of both myself and my 
distinguished colleague and ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  While we clearly have not agreed on every single aspect of the bill 
as reported, it nevertheless represents a true collaboration of effort 
for which I am very grateful.
  With the House's indulgence, I would like to outline the highlights 
of the proposal.
  First and foremost, this proposed bill is within the 302(b) 
allocation, budget authority and outlays, that approved by the 
committee. The bill's discretionary spending totals $85.4 billion in 
new budget authority, which is an increase of just over $2 billion 
above the budget submission and some $4.8 billion over last year's 
bill.
  I note for the House that this level of discretionary spending 
includes emergency spending of $1.3 billion for FEMA disaster relief, 
which was amended during the full committee markup by the majority 
whip. The committee has tried, as best we can, to spread the proposed 
increases throughout the bill.
  Discretionary veterans program will increae by $1.6 billion compared 
to last year, with $1 billion going to veterans' medical care and the 
remainder spread to research, processing veterans' compensation, 
pension and education claims, operating our national cemeteries and, 
most significantly, increasing the necessary construction at VA 
facilities by some $434 million. That is a direct response to Member 
requests, and we think it is a high priority. The proposal is well 
within the scope of the amount allocated in the budget resolution.
  Housing programs will increase by $1.4 billion compared to 2001, with 
increases in the housing certificate fund, section 8, public housing, 
operating subsidies, the HOPWA program, the HOME investment 
partnerships, the housing for the elderly and disabled programs, and 
the lead hazard reduction program.
  It is important to note that this proposal also includes some very 
difficult, but I believe extremely important and highly defensible 
choices and changes in policy direction. They are represented by 
reductions in the Public Housing Capital Fund and the drug elimination 
grant programs. Neither of these programs is serving the best interests 
of the people they were intended to benefit. It is our job, albeit a 
difficult one, to take whatever steps necessary to remedy the 
situation.
  In the case of capital funds, it means getting tougher on public 
housing authorities to spend the dollars intended for the residents in 
the public housing authority properties. There are literally hundreds 
of millions of dollars worth of code violations and hazards in these 
buildings that are not getting fixed.
  In the case of the drug elimination grant program, it means taking an 
honest look at whether HUD is the best entity to run a law enforcement 
program. Based on HUD's track record, I do not believe that it is.
  Mr. Chairman, I know these two items in particular will be discussed 
at length throughout the development of this bill in the House and in 
conference with the Senate.
  EPA funding increases some $229 million over the budget request, 
although a decrease below last year's funding level. This proposal 
continues to provide strong research programs as well as increased 
resources for the many State categorical grants and significant 
resources for clean water and drinking water state revolving fund and 
congressional priorities for water projects and infrastructure grants.
  FEMA operating expenses will increase by nearly $135 million over 
last

[[Page 14696]]

year. We have provided the budget request of $1.37 billion in on-budget 
nonemergency dollars for disaster relief.
  In addition, by virtue of the amendment in full committee markup, 
which I mentioned before, we have also included an additional $1.3 
billion in contingent emergency spending for disaster relief. Those 
funds would not be drawn on unless the White House specifically asked 
for them and declared an emergency. I would just add that such 
emergency provisions have been used for several years to provide FEMA 
the ability to meet the needs of natural disaster victims.
  In addition, our total appropriation of $2.6 billion for disaster 
relief is actually below the current 5-year average of $3.2 billion.
  NASA programs would receive an increase of $641 million over last 
year, and we have proposed several structural changes in the Agency's 
account structure to provide them greater programmatic flexibility and 
the Committee better oversight capability. We have also included 
funding to reverse some of the changes to the International Space 
Station proposed by the President. I believe this is the right decision 
if the research mission of the station is to be fulfilled.
  Finally, I am proud to say we have raised the overall funding for the 
National Science Foundation by just over $414 million to a total 
program budget of $4.84 billion. This is a 9 percent increase compared 
to last year. The bulk of these funds, some $292 million, would go to 
improve available resources for NSF's core research programs, while the 
remainder would be spread to major research, construction and 
equipment, education and human resources programs, and salaries and 
expenses for NSF's capable staff.

                              {time}  1545

  I would like to add that I personally would have liked to do more for 
NSF. However, to do so could only have been at the expense of other 
very important programs in other agencies. Having said that, given the 
increase proposed by the Administration of just 1 percent, I think we 
have done a remarkable job, and this is perhaps the aspect of the bill 
for which we can be most proud.
  All Members are, of course, aware of the difficulty in putting these 
bills together, especially with so many diverse and competing 
interests. Developing the perfect bill is probably impossible. 
Nevertheless, I believe we have done a good job developing a bill that 
is both supportable and passable. Once again, I would like to thank my 
colleagues on the Committee from both sides of the aisle for their 
dedication, time, hard work, and thoughtful consideration of the 
provisions we have put into this bill. I would also like to thank our 
staff who has done a terrific job in helping us to sort out the 
priorities, to fund those priorities, and to make the hard decisions 
that are required. This job would be impossible without this highly 
professional staff.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the budget tables representing 
the mandatory and discretionary spending provided in H.R. 2620.

[[Page 14697]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY01.001



[[Page 14698]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY01.002



[[Page 14699]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY01.003



[[Page 14700]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY01.004



[[Page 14701]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY01.005



[[Page 14702]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking our excellent chairman, the 
gentleman from New York, for the work that he has done in crafting this 
legislation, the many hours that he has spent involved in it. 
Throughout the development of the bill, he and his staff have been 
accessible; and they have made every effort to accommodate the concerns 
that the minority have presented to them.
  As I know he will tell you, we have not seen eye to eye on nearly all 
the issues in this bill. But the communication necessary for a 
cooperative effort has occurred and that is certainly very much 
appreciated.
  The departments and agencies that are funded in this bill all deserve 
adequate funding, but the allocation that we have been given simply 
does not make that possible. Congress has been operating under 
unrealistic budget constraints fashioned for the purpose of justifying 
a huge tax cut. Many concerns were raised during the consideration of 
that tax cut, most importantly the concern of ensuring the solvency of 
Social Security and Medicare. While Members from both parties professed 
that these funds were sacred, as we await the Congressional Budget 
Office's mid-term reestimates of the government finances, including 
projections for fiscal year 2002, which are due out in mid-August, it 
is becoming clear that the tax cut might well invade the Medicare 
surplus. This is exactly what Democrats were concerned about. This is 
not fair to our seniors, and it is not good fiscal policy.
  It is that same tax cut that is forcing the Committee on 
Appropriations to make do with fewer resources than are needed. This 
has resulted in an inadequate allocation to this subcommittee. This has 
forced the gentleman from New York to engage in a balancing act. While 
he has been able to do many good things, he has by necessity had to 
underfund some important accounts.
  First, let me mention two specific accounts where the gentleman from 
New York has markedly improved upon the administration's request. The 
National Science Foundation is provided $4.84 billion, an increase of 
$414 million over last year. This represents a 9 percent increase 
rather than the 1.2 percent increase that the President proposed.
  NASA, an account that has been flat funded for the past several 
years, is in need of funding increases. NASA would receive an increase 
of $641 million over last year's funding for a total budget of $14.9 
billion. Importantly, the bill and report also begin the process of 
addressing the cost issues associated with the International Space 
Station. It provides $275 million toward the Crew Return Vehicle, a 
vital station component that President Bush would eliminate. This 
funding is conditioned on NASA reporting back to this committee its 
plan to address the Space Station cost overrun issue. In addition, NASA 
is charged with ensuring that research is not compromised in the 
solution.
  To underscore the point that research continues to be a principal 
justification for the Space Station, the chairman's mark includes an 
additional $35 million for Space Station research. Further, the 
chairman's amendment includes an amendment that I proposed to the 
chairman that will add an additional $25 million. Once again, this bill 
reflects the strong support that science enjoys among the members of 
this subcommittee. But ensuring adequate resources for science is only 
one of the many important responsibilities that needs to be fulfilled 
by this legislation.
  The funding levels for several of the accounts are clearly 
inadequate. For example, to his credit, the chairman has increased 
discretionary funding to the Veterans' Administration by $1.6 billion 
over last year's level. While this is a large increase, it falls 
significantly short of the medical care need as outlined most recently 
by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, the authorizing committee.
  Programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development are 
cut and several receive no funding at all. These include public housing 
capital funds, drug elimination grants, rural housing and economic 
development, empowerment zones, and shelter-plus-care homeless 
renewals.
  The Corporation for National and Community Service is zero-funded and 
the Community Development Financial Institutions fund is sharply 
reduced from last year. I know that the gentleman from New York shares 
my concern about most of these accounts and that he would provide more 
resources to them if he could.
  Today, amendments will be offered addressing some of the problems in 
the bill. However, even if adopted they will not remedy all the funding 
shortfalls in this legislation. Resources are simply not available to 
address the larger issues. We need more money.
  From veterans, to housing, to water and sewer needs and even science, 
more needs to be done, Mr. Chairman. I hope that as this process moves 
forward, additional resources will be made available allowing us to 
properly fund the many needy, deserving programs in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a hardworking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman first of 
all for yielding me time and I in particular want to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for the very, very difficult and hard work that 
they have done on this bill. We have to obviously recognize Frank 
Cushing, who heads the staff, and all of the staff, who have done, I 
think, yeoman's work in bringing about the expertise that produces a 
product that is one that, I think, we should all be happy to support. 
The quality of the committee members should be highlighted along with 
the quality of their work product as well.
  This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of 
diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA. 
That is quite a broad stretch. It is not easy. It is not an easy task 
to bring this wide range of interests together into a single bill. But 
the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from West Virginia have a 
working relationship that I think makes all this possible.
  The fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD bill is a fair piece of legislation 
produced under difficult circumstances, and it is within the budget 
resolution. It responsibly provides a $1 billion increase for veterans' 
medical health care, and increases funding for the Veterans Benefits 
Administration to reduce the backlog of claims. The bill increases 
funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by $1.4 
billion and fully funds section 8 housing. H.R. 2620 also provides 
sound investments in research with a 9 percent increase for NSF.
  The gentleman from New York, I believe, should be saluted for 
crafting this piece of legislation under these difficult circumstances. 
He has worked in good faith with the ranking member and the other side 
in a bipartisan way to forge the bill that is now before the House. As 
this process moves forward, we will have plenty of opportunities from 
Members to offer their suggestions and amendments before the President 
finally puts his signature on it.
  This is a good, responsible bill. I encourage strongly my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who is a very effective, 
hardworking member of our subcommittee.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I want to thank the gentleman from West 
Virginia for yielding me this time, and I want to thank the gentleman 
from New York.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege and the pleasure of serving on 
this subcommittee. It is a very good subcommittee. It is very 
hardworking. I also want to give my thanks to the

[[Page 14703]]

staff. They have just worked assiduously with all of us to make this 
bill come out as it is. We do owe them a great debt of gratitude.
  I want to say that the main problem I see with this bill is that it 
is underfunded. It is not because we do not have good leadership on 
this subcommittee or we do not have good supportive staff, but the fact 
that it is underfunded, the allocation was not adequate, probably due 
to the fact that we had to fund a great tax bill, now the results of 
that tax cut is coming back to haunt us in terms of being able to fund 
programs that come under our jurisdiction.
  We were not able to fund veterans as much as we would have liked to 
have done. Therefore, we are seeing that as being a gap in this bill. 
The HOME account, however, there were some very good things going on in 
terms of accountability in the bill. The HOME account was increased by 
$200 million. It is one of the most valuable housing programs because 
it is very versatile and it is very effective.
  That was very good of our subcommittee to be able to do this. Also, 
the subcommittee increased by 34,000 incremental vouchers which allow 
access to affordable housing on the private market. That is needed for 
additional low-income families. Section 202, one of my favorite 
programs for senior citizens, is increased by $4.2 million over fiscal 
year 2001. Also, this bill increases funding for HUD's Office of Lead 
Hazard Control. All these are strong points in the bill. Even though we 
were not able to fund adequately all of the programs, there are many 
bright spots in this bill, particularly what we were able to do for the 
National Science Foundation.
  However, despite these responsible funding levels, Mr. Chairman, and 
these lack of funding levels that I would like to see, this bill 
underfunds some areas which I must call the committee's attention to. 
It underfunds public housing. It is a part of our bill, a part of our 
assessment that it should be funded strongly. It underfunds community 
development. It also cuts money from the Public Housing Capital Fund 
which helps to rebuild the worn-down and torn-up housing projects 
throughout this Nation. That is very badly needed. Children are in 
these housing projects. That makes it even more so. There are about 3 
million low-income people that depend on public housing. One million of 
those are children.
  The drug elimination grants which we have heard so many people talk 
about is also eliminated. It is needed. We need to keep drug 
trafficking out of our housing projects. Just the day before yesterday 
we voted $676 million in foreign aid to eliminate drugs. We need to 
eliminate drugs, Mr. Chairman, right here in our own country.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), another very hardworking and dedicated 
member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the VA appropriations bill 
and to thank, as others have done, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for his leadership and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) for his leadership and cooperation.
  Our bill, Mr. Chairman, helps the Veterans Administration provide 
health care to over 3.8 million men and women, who required last year 
over 717,000 inpatient visits and over 39 million outpatient visits to 
our Nation's 172 VA hospitals, 135 nursing homes, and over 600 
outpatient clinics countrywide.
  This bill provides for those purposes this year an additional $1.1 
billion over last year's level for their medical care, for a total in 
the medical care account of $21.2 billion. With this latest increase, 
Congress will have provided an additional $4 billion for veterans' 
medical care over the past 3 years.
  On a specific issue, our bill continues to direct Secretary Principi 
to address the serious issue of hepatitis C among the veterans 
population, particularly those of the Vietnam era.
  On the housing front, the bill provides $30 billion for that agency, 
an increase of $2 billion over last year's level, and it continues our 
commitment to increasing housing opportunities for all people in need 
but especially for individuals with disabilities.

                              {time}  1600

  This bill that we consider today will provide funding for nearly 
8,000 vouchers specifically to provide decent, accessible housing for 
individuals with disabilities who often must compete with programs that 
provide housing for the elderly.
  On the environmental protection front, the committee has provided 
$1.2 billion for the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program. This 
vital program cleans up our Nation's most polluted sites and, in many 
cases, can restore formerly toxic sites to new productive uses. My own 
State has more of these sites than any other State in the Nation. 
Despite local successes in the Superfund cleanups, there are many more 
sites to be cleaned up and more sites and brownfields sites than ever.
  Like the chairman, I think we need to highlight the fact that this 
bill substantially increases funding for the National Science 
Foundation by $415 million, or 9 percent, over last year's level, for a 
total of $4.8 billion over last year's amount. Basic scientific 
research funding is critical, and I particularly commend the gentleman 
from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his leadership and responsiveness 
which led to this much-deserved increase.
  The committee has also provided $14.9 billion for NASA, an increase 
of $641 million over fiscal year 2001. While the committee rightly has 
concerns about cost overruns of the International Space Station, 
overall NASA is responsible for a number of research initiatives.
  For this and other reasons, I support the bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from West Virginia 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the NASA funding included in this 
legislation, particularly as it relates to NASA Glenn Research Center 
in Cleveland. Glenn Research Center provides over $1 billion a year to 
Ohio's economy. Over 12,000 jobs exist in Ohio thanks to Glenn Research 
Center. Glenn Research Center grants over $10 million a year to Ohio's 
universities, and NASA has an important impact on our everyday lives.
  Glenn Research Center has given us advances in biotechnology, to 
improve our health care, led in the development of quiet aircraft 
technology to minimize the noise in communities surrounding airports, 
and spearheaded research that benefits space travel.
  Glenn Research Center also developed a lightweight battery that 
enables energy storage in space, in our own laptops and cell phones. 
This Congress's investment in Glenn Research Center benefits every 
American. I am pleased the subcommittee has recognized the importance 
of Glenn Research Center.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) 
and I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguish 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished Chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting both the 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for the superb job they have done on this bill, 
especially in the area of investment in scientific research and our 
Nation's space program.
  I am joined by my very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Glendale, California (Mr. Schiff), who has also joined with me in 
representing the area of Pasadena, which includes the Jet Propulsion 
Lab, and I would like to make a couple of comments about this.
  Unfortunately, the vision that I just mentioned that the chairman and

[[Page 14704]]

ranking member and the work of the subcommittee and the full committee 
reported out is not shared by the piece that came out from our friends 
in the other body. It not only does not provide sufficient funding for 
the National Science Foundation and NASA, but it goes so far as to 
propose the systematic dismantling of one of our Nation's national 
treasures, the Solar System Exploration Program.
  While the proposed transfer of the Telecommunications and Mission 
Operations Directorate to the Consolidated Space Operations Contract is 
portrayed as an effort to save money and consolidate space operations, 
the cost savings are illusory and the transfer would be devastating to 
the space program.
  The proposal assumes that an industry contractor can absorb the 
telecommunications and missions operations activities, but, in fact, 
because the deep space environment is substantially more hostile than 
the near-Earth environment, the personnel who presently operate the 
Earth orbiting satellites do not now possess the experience or training 
required to operate a spacecraft in deep space. Therefore, the 
contractor would have to hire new people to do the work.
  Furthermore, in order to achieve the level of savings promised by the 
Senate, the contractor would be forced to conduct the missions with 
fewer than half the personnel presently on the missions. Unfortunately, 
we have already learned the short-staffing lesson the hard way. The 
Young Commission's findings on the loss of the two Mars missions 
concluded that the principal failure for both missions was the result 
of NASA headquarters' limitations on participation by the Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory's expert staff. Unfortunately, the bill from the 
other body ignores this finding and further weakens JPL's role.
  In addition, the Senate proposal would transfer the mission 
operations and communications for all of the solar system exploration 
missions, including Galileo, Mars Global Surveyor, Ulysses, Cassini, 
Voyager and Mars Odyssey to an outside contractor.
  Mr. Chairman, I am certain that this body did not authorize and 
appropriate the millions of dollars needed to fund these programs with 
the idea that they would then be outsourced to a new and inexperienced 
operations and communications team. We expect, and indeed should 
demand, that the operations of these high-risk, high-reward missions be 
conducted by the most capable, most qualified and the most experienced 
personnel available.
  Mr. Chairman, I know personally NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is 
the authority on deep space exploration, and the House cannot allow the 
Senate to place these vital missions in jeopardy simply to fulfill the 
parochial interests that exist in the other body.
  I am joined, as I said, by my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and others to ask that you refuse 
to accept any of these shortsighted proposals during conference; and, 
in a bipartisan fashion, we offer whatever assistance we may have in 
this effort.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and 
look forward to working with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleague and neighbor from 
California in his praise for your leadership as well as the leadership 
of the gentleman from West Virginia and to urge that we turn back the 
Senate's proposals which I believe will seriously undermine the Solar 
System Exploration Program.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is 
managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology, Caltech. 
The Senate makes three proposals that are damaging to Caltech, damaging 
to NASA and damaging to the space program. The first is the transfer of 
telecommunications and mission operations to an outside contractor, as 
discussed by my colleague; the second is the reduction of $50 million 
from the Mars Surveyor program; and the third is the transfer of the 
Europa mission and the entire Solar System Exploration Program from JPL 
to an ad hoc grants program.
  The combined impacts on JPL of these three proposals would be the 
elimination of 1,200 jobs at JPL and the resulting elimination of 
highly trained personnel and unnecessarily imperil our Nation's space 
exploration program.
  Essentially, the Senate proposes that the critical mass of talent, 
experience and know-how which resides at JPL should be dispersed and 
that the core of NASA's exploration program should be conducted 
piecemeal and ad hoc.
  At a time when the Nation is facing a critical shortage of 
experienced personnel in public service, the Senate proposals would 
terminate hundreds of engineers, technicians and scientists who possess 
the greatest level of knowledge regarding space exploration. The 
consequences would be tragic, and the Nation's space program would 
suffer a tremendous setback.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to represent the best and brightest in a 
field where the advancement of science inspires young children and 
captures the imagination of millions, but I believe the space 
exploration program at JPL also serves the Nation as a whole.
  NASA's solar exploration program carefully laid out and scrutinized 
resides at JPL because for the past 50 years this Congress has invested 
in the creation of the talent and infrastructure that exists at JPL. 
They are the experts, and this is rocket science.
  For this body to allow that investment in space exploration to be 
jeopardized in this manner would be a disservice to the Nation and 
contrary to the fiscal duty we owe taxpayers.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
complete the colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say I thank both gentlemen for their 
comments, and please be assured we will not allow investments made in 
the space exploration program to be wasted. Be assured that both the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I look forward to 
working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) to ensure that JPL 
remains one of the premier space research facilities in the country.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield very briefly, I 
would just say this is not rocket science. What they do out at JPL is 
rocket science.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking minority 
member on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office just finished 
the study which showed that over the last 20 years the wealthiest 1 
percent of people in this country had an after-tax income gain on an 
annual basis of $414,000 per year. The tax bill which this Congress 
passed just a couple of months ago gave those people on average a 
$53,000 tax cut, about an 8 percent increase in their after-tax income.
  That study also showed if you are exactly in the middle of the income 
stream, you have had an income increase over the past 20 years of about 
$3,400, and the tax bill that passed gave those folks not an 8 percent 
or 7 percent or 6 percent increase in their after-tax income, it gave 
those folks a 2 percent increase in their after-tax income.
  That study also showed if you were in the poorest 20 percent of 
people in this society, that you actually have lost $100 in your annual 
income over the last 20 years, and those folks got a 1 percent on 
average increase in their after-tax income by the tax bill that passed, 
except for the almost one-third of people in that bracket who got 
nothing whatsoever because they made too little money to qualify for 
the tax cut.
  That tax bill took so much money that it made it impossible for the 
Committee on Appropriations to give the gentleman from New York an 
adequate

[[Page 14705]]

allocation for this bill; and because of that fact, not because of the 
desires of the gentleman, but because of the realities imposed by that 
misguided tax bill, this bill today is at least half a billion dollars 
short in providing needed veterans medical care. It is desperately 
short of the levels we need to be at to provide assistance for low-
income people to obtain decent housing. It weakens our ability to 
provide environmental protection, and it does a number of other things 
that are not in the long-term interests of this country.
  I have voted for the last five appropriation bills this House 
produced because I thought they were decent, bipartisan products, even 
though they were not perfect. But this bill I will not be supporting 
because of the shortcomings that I have cited.
  I do want to say, however, that I think the gentleman from New York 
has done a very decent job with the limited amount of resources that he 
had available to him, and I especially commend him for the way he dealt 
with the science budget. We needed an increase over the White House 
budget for science.
  There is another strange twist to this bill, however. We tried on 
this side of the aisle on three occasions to get the majority to 
recognize that we were going to need more money for disaster assistance 
in FEMA's budget for the existing fiscal year. We were blocked on each 
of those three occasions.
  Now, however, this bill contains a $1.3 billion item which has been 
labeled an emergency by no one less than the distinguished majority 
whip. That is the same distinguished majority whip who last year took 
the floor to defend the idea that somehow funding the census was an 
emergency, as though we did not know that every 10 years we are 
required by the Constitution to conduct a census. So I find that flip-
flop strange indeed.
  It is because of that flip-flop that this bill has been delayed for 
the better part of a day, and yet the majority leadership now somehow 
expects us to be able to make up the time lost by the internal 
divisions within the majority party caucus on this issue, and yet they 
expect us to work a miracle and finish this bill by 10, 11, 12 o'clock 
tonight. There are some 44 amendments pending. I do not believe it is 
possible to come anywhere near closure, even though we will try to work 
with the majority.
  So I would simply say that if this bill cannot be finished tonight, 
it ought to be clearly understood why. It is not because of any delay 
on the part of anyone. It is simply because of the inconsistency which 
was noticed by the majority party caucus, the inconsistency represented 
by the DeLay amendment. While I support the DeLay amendment, I regret 
the ridiculous turmoil that it has caused.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I am the ranking minority member of the 
Subcommittee on Housing. There are enormous questions at issue here, 
and trying to rush them through would be inappropriate.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the distinguished subcommittee chair of the 
authorizing committee.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his distinguished leadership on this issue.
  Certainly, as the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Housing, I have 
just completed a series of hearings on the availability of affordable 
housing. These hearings focused on many of the programs within the 
jurisdiction of this appropriation bill, such as HOME, CDBG, section 8 
vouchers, section 202 elderly housing, homeless and the disabled.
  We have an intelligent understanding, even in this good economy, that 
there are a growing number of hardworking Americans who suddenly cannot 
afford rental housing that they are occupying because of the higher 
rents in their particular area. So at our housing affordability 
hearings, witness after witness reinforced the need for improved 
administration, utilization, and delivery of HUD programs. Furthermore, 
programs like HOME, CDBG, HOPE, section 8 vouchers, disability and 202 
for the elderly, all of these programs need community development 
groups that can help them and can more efficiently and effectively meet 
the needs of these vulnerable populations.
  Now that we have concluded the hearings, it is our intention to begin 
crafting legislation that will help to meet the needs of the growing 
housing affordability and availability problem.
  We must remember, and I say this as a strong fiscal conservative, we 
must remember that the American taxpayer deserves consideration in this 
budget debate as well. If directing resources from one program to 
another means, as is done in this bill, means resources are being more 
efficiently and effectively used, then we should be supportive. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has done that in this bill.
  I would like to point out that the bill is not absolutely perfect, 
but I must say that I wish it had included credit subsidies.
  I rise in support of this bill today. Chairman Walsh was given 
limited resources, and he has worked hard to craft a bill that is fair 
to all the competing interests and programs within his jurisdiction.
  As Chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing, I have 
just completed a series of hearings on the availability of affordable 
housing. These hearings focused on many of the programs within the 
jurisdiction of this appropriations bill, such as HOME, CDBG, section 8 
vouchers, section 202 elderly housing, homeless and the disabled.
  This country is facing a growing housing crisis. The growth in the 
economy has created a major dilemma for an increasing number of working 
class and low-income Americans--a better economy means higher rents in 
many areas. A growing number of hard working Americans suddenly can't 
afford the rental housing they are occupying, or can't even find any 
housing available that is geared to their income levels. In addition, 
our government is faced with the increasing budget needs of our 
existing public housing system as well as how to pay for future housing 
demands.
  At our housing affordability hearings, witness after witness 
reinforced the need for improved administration, utilization and 
delivery of HUD's programs. Furthermore, programs like HOME, CDBG, HOPE 
VI, section 8 vouchers, section 202, disability and homeless programs 
need more flexibility so that housing finance agencies, PHAs and 
community development groups can more effectively and efficiently meet 
the needs of these vulnerable populations.
  Now that we have concluded the hearings, it is our intention to begin 
crafting legislation that will help to better meet the needs of this 
growing housing affordability and availability problem. We will be 
looking at ways to improve the delivery and administration of HUD 
administered programs.
  I know that many members plan to offer amendments today concerning 
programs that fall within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on 
Housing. I invite members who may have problems or concerns with this 
bill to work with the authorizing committee to address those concerns. 
Clearly, changes are warranted to many of these programs so that they 
better meet the needs of the people that so desperately need our help.
  I consider myself a strong fiscal conservative, so for my part I do 
not automatically presume that each and every government program that 
currently exists deserves an increase in funding, merely by virtue of 
being there. Let us remember that the American taxpayer deserves 
consideration in this budget debate as well. If redirecting resources 
from one program to another means resources are being used more 
efficiently and effectively, then we should be supportive.



  Faced with sharp budget constraints, Chairman Walsh has worked hard 
to use the taxpayers money in the most effective and efficient way 
possible. Where funds have not been spent in a timely manner, he has 
recaptured those funds and redirected them to programs that can use 
them now. Funding for programs with proven track records--like HOME, 
public housing operating subsidies, and housing for disabled and 
elderly has been increased in this appropriations bill.
  This bill isn't perfect--for example, I wish it included credit 
subsidies to ensure the continued operation of the FHA multifamily loan 
program; and I will continue to work with both OMB and the 
Appropriation's Committee to determine how best to address continued

[[Page 14706]]

funding for that program. In fact, just last week, I asked GAO to 
conduct a review of the issues surrounding the credit subsidy, such as 
how it is assessed and whether it is consistent with current default 
rates. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue relating to 
whether we have an accurate risk assessment of the credit subsidy. I am 
hopeful that the GAO will provide some insight on how best to proceed 
in resolving this crisis and whether an actual insurance premium is 
necessary.
  Finally, I am glad that the Chairman has included provisions for the 
President's Downpayment Assistance Program. Home funds are distributed 
by formula to states and local participating jurisdictions which have 
the flexibility to use these funds for a variety of purposes, including 
downpayment assistance. The President's initiative would allow this to 
continue, but would require state and localities to use a designated 
amount of their funds for downpayment assistance.
  This downpayment assistance set aside will go a long way to 
addressing the needs of many of those who currently are unable to own 
their own home. For this reason, I will oppose any amendment that seeks 
to reduce or eliminate the money for this important initiative.
  On balance, this bill deserves your support, and we recognize that it 
outlines the foundation of review and legislative reform on our 
committee agenda for next year.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for the purpose of a colloquy with the 
chairman.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for yielding me this time.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy at this point with the Chairman 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). After 
testifying last spring, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee has been very 
helpful in finding creative solutions to the challenges faced by a 
multitude of veterans living in the Rio Grande Valley. I know the 
limitations on our spending this year, and I applaud the gentleman's 
work.
  I appreciate language in the VA-HUD report to this bill that directs 
the VA to work with the Defense Department to share resources to serve 
our veterans, our active duty military, military retirees, and their 
dependents. The language directs the VA and DOD to submit a plan to the 
Committee for three demonstration sites through which to integrate 
health care resources and reduce the burden on veterans.
  I would like to propose that a hospital in South Texas, which is at 
the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, be considered as a prospective 
site for just such a demonstration to help our veterans. I know that 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), my good friend, has actually 
traveled to South Texas and looked at the facility with this in mind. 
There is room in the hospital and open beds that could be used to tend 
to the specialty care and the needs of our veterans.
  I am grateful for a recent meeting with Veterans Secretary Anthony 
Principi in which we had a very good discussion about the needs of 
South Texas veterans. The Secretary was very engaged and helpful with 
suggestions. Secretary Principi agreed to have his experts at the VA 
study the prospect of having one of these demonstration sites at the 
Naval Air Station Hospital at Corpus Christi. I am very appreciative.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his diligence on 
this very important issue in bringing the problem of accessible health 
care for the veterans of the beautiful area of South Texas that he 
calls home.
  The VA and DOD have a great opportunity to do better in this area. I 
agree that the Naval Hospital in Corpus Christi would be an excellent 
candidate for this demonstration project, and I would encourage the VA 
to give this site every consideration when formulating a plan.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's help, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to join in thanking the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for bringing his testimony before the 
committee.
  I visited this hospital in Corpus Christi, along with a number of 
other members of my subcommittee, and I really believe that the 
available capacity at that hospital and certainly the need of the 
veterans in that area would lend itself to progress in this program 
that he wants to do in this area. I want to commend the Chairman for 
encouraging the VA to work with DOD at the possibility of establishing 
not only this project, but other similar programs, because I think it 
comes into the extension of quality, cost-effective care for our 
veterans around the country, and the gentleman's facility in Corpus 
Christi is a good place to demonstrate that program.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee again 
and the staff for their very diligent work.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2620. I want to 
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the 
ranking member, for putting together an appropriations bill that 
balances all of the competing interests and programs, given the fiscal 
restraints that we are under.
  As the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the housing 
programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development fall under our jurisdiction. To date, the committee has 
held at least nine housing program and oversight hearings to explore 
how to make these programs models of efficiency and expand housing 
opportunities for everyone.
  What the hearings reveal is that we are facing a housing crisis. In 
some areas, that crisis is one of availability of housing, while in 
others, it is affordability, with low-income families paying more than 
50 percent of their monthly income for housing. In other cases, it has 
been poor management of public and private resources and, indeed, our 
committee plans to look into that.
  I applaud the committee on their work. For example, the HOME program 
is increased by some $200 million to accommodate the President's 
request. This new initiative will expand the homeownership dream, 
particularly for low-income, first-time home buyers. While the overall 
homeownership rate is 68 percent, we have lots of work to do in our 
minority and disabled communities to foster this American dream. I will 
oppose any amendments that diminish the Downpayment Initiative 
incorporated in the HOME program.
  I do want to point out to my colleagues that there will be some 
amendments today related to the elimination of the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Grant Program. As I understand, this program is duplicative 
and that the Public Housing Authorities already have existing authority 
to provide crime-fighting initiatives through the operating fund. H.R. 
2620 increases the PHA operating subsidy to 8.1 percent to allow 
flexibility to do crime-fighting initiatives and other activities. 
Moreover, the Drug Elimination Program experienced many abuses, 
including HUD's approval to allow PHAs to use funds for ``creative 
wellness'' programs that teach residents to surround themselves with 
colored gemstones and incense; and I am not making this up, Mr. 
Chairman, to the tune of $800,000; for occasions and trips, and for 
controversial gun buy-back programs.
  I am also concerned that there is $397 million of unspent funds, some 
dating back to as far as fiscal year 1997. I support the 
Administration's proposal to eliminate duplicate programs.
  While I understand that there will always be more need than 
resources, it is important that Congress act in a fiscally prudent 
manner that balances the housing program investments made by the 
taxpayer with the legitimate needs of those citizens who are not 
finding adequate resources in the private sector. The

[[Page 14707]]

Committee on Financial Services, including the Housing Subcommittee 
chaired by Representative Marge Roukema, looks forward to working 
through the policy details that will ensure an improved housing 
delivery service.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a distinguished and 
hardworking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me also thank the ranking member and 
the chairman of the subcommittee for their hard work.
  I have a number of concerns about the bill, even though I am 
generally supportive. One of course is the elimination of the 
AmeriCorps program, and the elimination of the drug elimination fund. 
There is nothing controversial about gun buy-back programs in 
neighborhoods where people have been victimized by the illegal use of 
these guns. But I think that even though there are some unfortunate 
directions, there is a lot to be very pleased with in this bill, and I 
commend both the gentlemen who have had the leadership roles.
  I wanted to yield a moment to the chairman, the gentleman from New 
York, to have a brief colloquy on the question of the reserve funds for 
public housing authorities.
  I, along with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), have 
talked before about our concerns about the move from 2 months to 1 
month. We realize that the vast majority of housing authorities have 
not needed a 2-month reserve, but there have been instances where, for 
a small percentage of housing authorities where they have had to go 
beyond the 1 month. I just want assurances from the chairman that he 
will be mindful of this and monitor and seek to ensure that HUD would 
have the flexibility to be responsive so that no family presently being 
served would in any way be jeopardized by the decision, and I think the 
correct decision that has been made, which is to roll the reserve back 
to a 1-month status.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, certainly, it is not the committee's intent, 
nor do I believe this action will have any negative impact, on the 
ability of Public Housing Authorities to fully utilize their vouchers. 
It is my understanding that less than $46 million of the $1.3 billion 
in reserve funding was drawn down last year.
  I assure the gentleman that it is the committee's intention that any 
PHA which exhausts its funds will be given additional funds to ensure 
that its legitimate needs are met. In fact, I have a letter from the 
Deputy Secretary which indicates that HUD will continue its long-
standing policy to provide any Public Housing Authority that has 
exhausted its funds for legitimate needs with whatever funding is 
necessary to ensure that all families currently served retain their 
assistance.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the 
committee staff for this worthy bill which promotes environmental 
cleanup and scientific study for areas impacted by toxic pollutants.
  One such area of impact is Escambia County, Florida, which is my home 
county. In 1998, it ranked 22nd out of 3,300 counties in America in the 
amount of toxic releases reported to the EPA. Now there is mounting 
evidence that these toxic pollutants contributed to increased illnesses 
in Northwest Florida. Friends, neighbors, family members, and other 
constituents continue to ask me questions at town hall meetings and 
elsewhere about whether there is a connection between buried toxins and 
increased levels of cancer and other diseases.
  Fortunately, the University of West Florida and Escambia County 
Health Department have formed a partnership to find scientific answers 
to these troubling questions. These questions as to whether toxins 
buried underground decades ago are now causing sharp increases in 
cancer and other deadly diseases need to be answered.
  Also, too often, the affected areas are occupied by some of our 
poorest constituents, not only in Northwest Florida, but across 
America.

                              {time}  1630

  That is why I am grateful that this committee has urged the EPA to 
study Escambia County's increased levels of illness, and it will impact 
not only Northwest Florida, but also affected areas across America.
  That is why I encourage passage of this worthy bill, and thank the 
chairman and the staff for recognizing the importance of the measure.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), distinguished member on the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a stunning example of the 
social harm that is resulting from the excessive tax reduction of 
earlier this year.
  We have widely acknowledged that there are housing crises in many 
parts of this country. The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), 
who chairs the subcommittee, has presided over hearing after hearing in 
which witnesses brought forth by both sides of the aisle have testified 
to that.
  The very prosperity which benefits so many and is so welcome 
exacerbates the problem in many areas of those people in middle-income 
and lower-income categories who are not participating, and this bill 
systematically makes it worse. It is not a matter of what the 
subcommittee chose to do, it is a matter of the substantial reduction 
in resources mandated by that tax bill, which left them with no real 
options.
  As a result of the inaction of this committee pursuant to that tax 
cut, the Federal Housing Administration, the FHA multifamily program, 
is shut down, has been shut down, and will remain shut down. When we 
get in the full House I will put in a letter from the homebuilders and 
realtors and many others lamenting this. We are not building 
multifamily units for middle-income people.
  Public housing residents are savaged by the President's budget, and 
unfortunately, this bill repeats that. The public housing drug 
elimination program, I do not think it is duplicative to have more cops 
in public housing. This cuts virtually every aspect of public housing.
  The President says he will leave no child behind. Who does he think 
lives in public housing, stuffed animals? Children live in public 
housing, the poorest children in this country. They are victimized by 
the poor resource allocation that this bill manifests.
  This bill is, unfortunately, far below the minimum we should expect, 
and that is mandated by that irresponsible tax cut.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is kind of a strange institution we are operating 
in here, because both the chairman of the Committee and the ranking 
member I think have done a good job of operating within the context of 
what they are operating in. Unfortunately, they are playing with a 
budget the size of a baseball when the size of the need is, at best, 
the size of a softball or a soccer ball, or perhaps even a basketball 
or bigger.
  The dramatic example of that is in the area of housing. The chairman, 
the Republican chairman, the Democratic ranking member, and those of us 
who sit on that committee have gone through hearing after hearing after 
hearing, and every single witness has come and said, ``We need more 
affordable housing in this country.'' Yet, there is nothing that will 
address that need in this bill.
  It is not because of the ranking member or the chairman of the 
Committee, it is because of the big tax cut that has taken all of the 
money that we should

[[Page 14708]]

have been spending on low-income housing and affordable housing and 
sent it back to rich people, leaving poor people in destitute housing. 
That is a shame for our country.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  As co-chair of the Congressional Aerospace Caucus, I strongly support 
maintaining America's leadership in space exploration, research, and 
technology. That is why I rise in support of increased funding for the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
  Let me speak of two challenges being met by NASA in aircraft noise 
and engine emissions. The ultraefficient engine technology program at 
the NASA Glenn research center is improving local air quality around 
airports and reducing aviation's impact on global warming.
  The program is developing revolutionary propulsion technologies for 
increased performance and efficiency of aircraft engines. The goal of 
NASA's quiet aircraft technology program is to develop technologies 
which will contain aircraft noise within airport boundaries.
  The Federal Government is investing millions of dollars every year to 
insulate homes. Such sound insulation is the only feasible approach 
today. However, breakthrough technologies developed by NASA through the 
UEET program and the quiet aircraft technology program will properly 
address the problem by achieving significant reductions in aircraft 
noise and emissions.
  I urge increased support for NASA. Not only will this funding enable 
the U.S. to remain at the forefront of space technology, but it will 
serve to give much-needed relief to our constituents who live near 
airports.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of the speakers who have 
commented on HUD funding. I would just like to respond briefly on a 
couple of points.
  First of all, we, unlike the Senate, increased Section 8 housing 
vouchers. We put, I believe, 34,000 new housing vouchers in. Eight 
thousand of those are specifically for people with disabilities. I 
think that it is the subcommittee stepping up to the plate and dealing 
with an issue that we have not fully dealt with in the past. The Senate 
provided no new Section 8 housing vouchers, so I think the House did an 
excellent job there.
  We also increased operating expenses for the public housing 
authorities across the land by 8 percent. That is a very, very 
substantial increase.
  Although we have a reduced amount of funding in the capital budget, I 
would remind my colleagues, there is $8 billion in the capital expenses 
pipeline for public housing authorities across the nation. That is $8 
billion that is appropriated but unallocated to a specific project, and 
unspent.
  We would urge those public housing authorities to move forward and 
allocate those funds toward a project. Otherwise, they will lose those 
funds, and we will assign them to public housing authorities that are 
spending their funds in a timely way.
  The problem is, we are appropriating these monies and they are not 
taking care of their housing code violations, they are not taking care 
of the hazards that people living in public housing have to deal with 
every day. So it is our responsibility as a Congress to make sure those 
public housing authorities spend that money.
  Lastly, the level of funding that we have provided is exactly what 
the Clinton administration asked for for the past 3 years. So to say 
that we did not do our job for HUD, Members can say that, but it is 
tougher to make the case because the facts I think would argue 
otherwise.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I add my voice to those of my colleagues on this side 
of the aisle who have said there are stunning examples in this bill of 
how the tax cut has forced us into insufficient funding for important 
programs. I join everybody who has spoken in thanking the Chair and the 
ranking member for doing what they can with the insufficient budget 
they had.
  Let me just add another stunning example, as my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts said, of the social harm that has been 
done by insufficient funding.
  We all have said we have added $1 billion to the health care for our 
veterans in this budget. That is true. But $1 billion, given the 
inflationary cost of health care in this Nation, barely keeps up with 
that inflation; $1 billion barely keeps up with the inflation. How do 
we make up for all the years that we have not granted sufficient 
funding to our Nation's veterans?
  Of all people, these are the folks who we should take care of before 
we declare a surplus, before we give a tax cut to the wealthiest 1 
percent of our Nation. It is our veterans who have made this Nation the 
prosperous one it is. Yet, they have come last, again.
  The so-called Independent budget that is put out by the veterans 
service organizations of this Nation, virtually every single veterans' 
organization has contributed to this independent budget, they think 
another $1.7 billion is necessary for the health care for our Nation's 
veterans to keep up with inflation and to deal with problems such as 
Hepatitis C, with problems of our aging veteran population, with 
bringing down the incredible 5 months and 8 months and year-long 
waiting times for specialty doctors.
  So I will be proposing an amendment, when we get to that stage in the 
bill, to give $1.7 billion extra. We have emergency funding in this 
bill now. I would hope that this House would agree with me that the 
funding for our veterans is an emergency, that we ought to declare our 
support for our Nation's veterans and provide this level of funding.
  There will be amendments to do that. There will be amendments to 
increase the medical research budget, to increase the budget to fight 
and treat Hepatitis C victims, and there will be amendments to give 
health care to the 75,000 Filipino veterans of World War II, one-third 
of them citizens of this Nation, and the others living in the 
Philippines who have contributed to our Nation's victory in World War 
II. It is time that we supported them.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time to me.
  I want to praise both the chairman and the ranking member of this 
subcommittee for their outstanding work in a very difficult budget 
environment. I know the tough decisions they had to make were not easy, 
and I support the effort they have put forth.
  I want to speak about one very small part of this bill we are going 
to be voting on today that impacts one very large group of people in 
America.
  We talked about the FEMA budget and how we need to help resolve those 
problems created by disasters and reimburse towns and cities for the 
expenses they have lost, the debts they have in incurred. But we have 
not heard anything about FEMA's commitment to the 1.2 million men and 
women in this country who are the fire and EMS personnel.
  Under the chairman's leadership, with the strong support of the full 
committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), this past 
year the Congress for the first time established a grant program to 
support the Nation's domestic defenders. The $100 million that was 
allocated was requested by 30,000 fire and EMS departments across this 
country to the tune of $2.9 billion. We will only be able to fund a 
very small portion of that request.
  I am pleased that this bill has an additional $100 million, and I am 
going to ask at a later point in time, when I

[[Page 14709]]

offer an amendment, that my colleagues and the leadership of this 
subcommittee support the Senate position, which is $150 million.
  We talk about the needs that we have in this bill, but Mr. Chairman, 
each year 100, on average, fire and EMS personnel die in the line of 
duty protecting our communities, and 85 percent of them are volunteers. 
The right thing for us to do is to support a program that will help 
prevent and protect these individuals from the loss of life and 
injuries that they assume on a regular and annual basis.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me. I know the chairman works very hard to try and craft some 
legislation that would address the issues of our community.
  But I am concerned about the cut in housing that has occurred in this 
bill, particularly the drug elimination program that was provided for 
public housing. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, that will mean the cut is 
equal to the entire budget for the law enforcement department at the 
Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority. For me and for my community 
and district, that is significant.
  So I ask Members to rethink that. I ask them to realize that even 
though people think it is a stupid program, in fact the people who live 
in public housing that have had an opportunity to have drugs eliminated 
think it is a great program.
  However, I do want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member 
on the work they have done for the NASA program. The NASA program in 
Cuyahoga County is very, very important. I want to thank the chairman, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and my ranking member for seeing 
that NASA had an opportunity to get additional dollars.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill for 
its functions that it annually funds, including funding for NASA and 
other issues. But in particular I want to talk about the funding for 
FEMA.
  I strongly support the committee's decision to accept the amendment 
offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
to provide an additional $1.3 billion for FEMA as emergency funding. As 
Members know, Tropical Storm Allison dropped 40 inches of rain 
throughout the Houston area over a week-long period, causing damages up 
to about $5 billion affecting 90,000 people in Texas.
  It is estimated that the damages in the Texas Medical Center in my 
district alone will exceed $2 billion, and it is expected with other 
disasters that we will far exceed what was originally budgeted and what 
the President originally called for. So I think this is a step in the 
right direction.
  In fact, the other body, in their bill, has a figure up to $2 
billion; and I hope that ultimately we can get there, because we know 
we will have other disasters in the remaining part of this year and in 
next year. And we will certainly need this funding so people in my 
district and other parts of Texas can get back on their feet.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair advise us as to how much time 
is remaining in general debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr.  Walsh) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this fine bill 
that the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), have 
brought to the floor.
  I do not get excited about many Federal programs, but this bill 
contains money for two of the very best science agencies in the world, 
NASA and the National Science Foundation. These are programs that 
ultimately will result in an increased understanding of the world 
around us and will deliver practical benefits to the American 
taxpayers. It is a good bill.
  Again, let me congratulate the Chair and the ranking member for their 
fine work, and I urge my colleagues to support the NASA funding in this 
bill.
  It seems obvious to me that if we invest in these advanced science 
and engineering efforts now, when our economy is still relatively 
robust, we can help lay the groundwork for another generation of 
economic growth, which is good for all Americans.
  NSF is our premier agency for support of basic research at academic 
institutions in the physical and biological sciences, in mathematics, 
and in engineering. Basic research discoveries launch new industries 
that bring returns to the economy far exceeding the original public 
investment.
  The Internet, which emerged from research projects funded by the DOD 
and NSF, strikingly illustrates the pay-off potential of such research 
expenditures. In fact, over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic 
productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the 
science that has supported it.
  Unfortunately, the simple truth is that during the 1990s we have been 
underinvesting in the fields of science that NSF supports.
  A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences provides 
specific examples that make this case. The report shows that between 
1993 and 1999 federal research support at academic institutions fell by 
14 percent in mathematics, by 7 percent in physics, by 2 percent in 
chemistry, and by 12 percent in electrical engineering.
  Inadequate funding for basic research in such important fields 
imposes a price on society, because new ideas are lost that would 
otherwise underpin future technological advances. Of even more 
importance, anemic funding of academic science and engineering research 
reduces the numbers of new young scientists and engineers, who 
constitute the essential element necessary to ensure the nation's 
future economic strength and security.
  The bill before us provides funding growth for NSF in excess of nine 
percent. The increase will enable the Foundation to expand its 
investments in exciting, cutting-edge research initiatives, such as 
information technology and nanoscale science and engineering. Of 
course, I would like to see the budget-doubling rate of increase that 
was appropriated for NSF last year. But I understand the constraints 
the Committee faced and I believe they did a wonderful job under the 
circumstances.


                                  NASA

  I'd now like to turn to the bill's treatment of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. I am a strong and unabashed 
supporter of our Nation's space program. It has delivered countless 
practical benefits to our citizens over the four decades since NASA was 
established. You only need to think about some of the things that have 
come from past investments in space research--including such things as 
worldwide satellite communications, space-based weather imagery, 
advanced medical diagnostic and telemetry devices, advanced materials--
the list just goes on and on--to know that this has been money well 
spent.
  I would be the first to say that we haven't been able to fund NASA as 
well as I would have liked over the past decade. We were trying to get 
the deficit under control, and NASA had to take cuts, just as other 
agencies had to take cuts. And I supported holding the line on NASA's 
spending, even though I supported its programs. However, we are in a 
different era and I believe it is time to increase our Federal 
investment in research and development. It's an investment in our 
future, and no agency symbolizes the future more than NASA.
  This bill, I am pleased to say, takes a step in that direction. It 
provides an increase of more than four percent for NASA. Given the 
constraints facing the Committee, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman 
Walsh and Ranking Member Mollohan to provide the additional funding.
  Of particular interest to me is the fact that the bill provides $275 
million for the Space Station Crew Return Vehicle, as well as 
additional funding for Space Station research.
  I know that Members are concerned about the reported cost growth in 
the Space Station program. And those who know me know that I do not 
want to spend a single dollar more than is necessary to carry out the 
Federal

[[Page 14710]]

government's programs--whether they are NASA programs or some other 
agency's programs. At the same time, we have to provide the resources 
needed to finish what we start, or we will just wind up wasting the 
taxpayer's money.
  The International Space Station is going to be a world-class orbiting 
research facility if we are wiling to keep the faith and ensure that it 
has the capabilities successive Congresses have supported. Thus, we are 
going to need to invest in Space Station research facilities--and make 
sure that the Station can support the seven-person crew needed to carry 
out that research. This bill supports that vision.
  I also support the additional funding provided to the Space Shuttle 
program. The Shuttle program is critical to our nation's exploration 
and use of space, and we need to ensure that it has adequate funding so 
that it keeps flying safely and reliably. In addition, the bill 
provides funding for a range of important programs in science, 
aeronautics, and technology.
  These are programs that ultimately will result in increased 
understanding of the world around us and will deliver practical 
benefits to the American taxpayer. Again, let me congratulate the Chair 
and Ranking Member for their fine work, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the NASA funding in this bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests for time, and 
I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have one remaining speaker.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 2 minutes, to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, what this debate is about, really, is the priorities of 
this country. Several months ago it was the wisdom of the President of 
the United States and a majority of the Members of the Congress that we 
were a rich enough Nation that we could afford to provide hundreds of 
billions of dollars to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population, 
people who have a minimum income of $375,000 a year. That is how rich 
we were. But today, when we are talking about the needs of our 
veterans, the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend 
this country, the men and women who were wounded in action, well, guess 
what, today we do not have enough money to address their needs.
  All over this country, including the State of Vermont, there are 
waiting lines for veterans to get the quality treatment that they need. 
There is speculation that the prescription drug program for veterans 
will cost veterans more money because we do not have, as a Nation, the 
funding available to take care of those people who made such sacrifices 
for this country. Hundreds of billions of dollars for tax breaks for 
those who do not need it but inadequate funding for our veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, in my State, and again all over this country, millions 
of Americans are paying 50 or 60 percent or more of their limited 
incomes for housing. In one region after another in this country 
affordable housing is unattainable. Yet, once again, we apparently do 
not have enough money to adequately fund affordable housing in this 
country, so that families and children sleep out on the street and 
working people pay 50, 60 percent of their incomes for housing. Tax 
breaks for millionaires, yes; adequate funding for affordable housing, 
no.
  And, once again, all over this country communities are struggling to 
make sure that the air that they breathe, the water they drink, is not 
polluted. Money for tax breaks, yes; money for the environment, no.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan), for joining me in this debate and a general discussion 
of the bill. As I said before, I think we have a good bill. I suspect 
that if we had $150 billion to spend, someone would stand up and say we 
just need more money. Last year, we provided a record increase in 
veterans medical care, the most ever in the history of this country in 
one year and we still had amendments asking for more money.
  I think we have done a pretty good job of providing the resources 
that we need. I would remind my colleagues that back in the years of 
the Reagan tax cut, there was a very substantial tax cut but there was 
an agreement that they would cut taxes and that they would also 
commensurately cut spending. The tax cuts occurred, the spending cuts 
did not. Therefore, we wound up with very substantial budget deficits. 
I think that what we have done thus far this year is the right thing to 
do. We have had growing surpluses, we were collecting more money than 
the government needed to operate, and if the money was left there, it 
would have been spent. So the President proposed a tax cut that was 
supported by both the House, and the Senate, in very large numbers, and 
signed by the President. It is now law and the money is being mailed 
out to the taxpayers who were overpaying.
  So we have to now take care of the spending part, which is really 
what this bill is about. It is spending priorities. We have close to 
$110 billion in this bill. Some of it is at our discretion, about $85 
billion. I think we have done the best we could. I think we have met 
the priorities of the country.
  We have increased veterans medical care by $4 billion in the last 3 
years, if this bill passes. We have provided for the protection of the 
environment. We have provided for emergency relief, disaster relief for 
emergency victims, and we have provided for the housing of our Nation. 
I think we have made some difficult choices, but we have made wise 
choices. And I think that the people who pay the taxes would accept the 
fact that we have done our level best.
  So I submit to my colleagues in closing the debate with my feeling 
that we have done the very best that we could.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on 
H.R. 2620, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations for FY 2002. I 
intend to offer several amendments to this legislation to address my 
concerns regarding affordable housing and support of our only national 
community service program.
  This bill appropriates $112.7 billion for programs and activities of 
the Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
departments, and for independent agencies. The independent agencies 
included under this appropriations measure include the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the 
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).
  The total appropriation in the bill is $7.2 billion (7%) more than FY 
2001 funding and $2.1 billion (2%) more than the administration's 
request. On an adjusted basis (i.e., after certain official CBO budget 
scorekeeping adjustments have been made), the bill provides $112.6 
billion--$7.5 billion more than the FY 2001 level but $2.3 billion less 
than requested.
  As the founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, 
and congressional representative from the 18th Congressional District 
of Texas I have a strong interest in the well being of our nation's 
children and their families. I would like to offer the following 
amendments for the committee's consideration as it prepares the rule 
for consideration of this important legislation.
  This year has been very difficult for the residents of Harris County 
and the City of Houston with the devastation caused by flooding as a 
result of Tropical Storm Allison. Although words cannot even begin to 
describe adequately the destruction that Houston and its surrounding 
areas, I will attempt to describe for you some of havoc that the storm 
has wreaked. The more than three feet of rain that fell on the Houston 
area beginning June 6 has caused at least 23 deaths in the Houston area 
and as many as fifty deaths in six states. Over 10,000 people have been 
left at least temporarily homeless during the flooding, many with no 
immediate hope of returning to their homes. More than 56,000 residents 
in 30 counties have registered for federal disaster assistance. Over 
3000 homes have been destroyed, over 43,000 damaged. The damage 
estimates in Harris County, Texas alone are $4.88 billion and may yet 
increase. As to housing needs because of the flood, I will offer 
amendments to increase the housing funds to assist in rebuilding 
disaster-stricken homes.
  Some of the most hard hit areas include the University of Houston, 
Texas Southern University, and the Kashmere Gardens neighborhood, a 
Houston enclave that is predominantly low income and possesses the 
fewest resources needed to bounce back from this once in a lifetime 
event.
  However, I want to take particular note to some of the greatest 
damage to our city,

[[Page 14711]]

which occurred at Texas Medical Center, because what has occurred 
affects us not just locally, or even just in Texas, but nationally. The 
Texas Medical Center, home to some forty medical institutions, is the 
largest medical center in the world. Globally renowned medical care and 
research takes place there. The flood has decimated these preeminent 
health institutions.
  The flood has also damaged educational institutions. The University 
of Houston estimates that the damage to that institution is $250 
million, in addition several schools in the North Forest Independent 
School District were also damaged.
  Houston will recover, but to what extent and over what period of time 
remains to be answered, by the federal government's commitment to 
residents of that area. Therefore I support the effort to add $1.3 
billion to FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. I ask my colleagues to support 
this needed funding to assist in all the existing disaster 
declarations.
  Assistance for residents in and around Houston has come from many 
quarters. I am particularly grateful for the assistance provided by 
AmeriCorps Volunteers, who were directed to the Houston area by the 
Corporation of National and Community Service. The Corporation's three 
major service initiatives are AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and 
the National Senior Service Corps.
  Over 200 AmeriCorps members from four regional campuses responded to 
a call-up from the American Red Cross to assist victims of Tropical 
Storm Allison in Texas and Louisiana. The members are serving as first-
line family assistance representatives, helping families to receive 
immediate aid and to identify each family's long term needs. The corps 
members are also operating emergency assistance shelters, working in 
soup kitchens, and delivering meals to people affected by the flooding. 
Additionally, Spanish speaking members are helping translate emergency 
assistance forms for people who don't speak English. The members are 
working in ten emergency assistance shelters in the Houston, TX, 
vicinity and three shelters around Baton Rouge, LA.
  Overall, the storm caused upwards of $4.88 billion in damage to 
Houston and surrounding Harris County. Over 20,000 homes were damaged 
by the flooding as the storm dumped over 36 inches of rain in some 
areas with some houses reporting over seven feet of water in them.
  It is unfortunate that the Appropriations Committee zeroed out the 
account for the Community Development Fund, when the administration 
requested $411 million in funding for FY 2002. My amendment would 
restore the program and allow them to continue their work on the behalf 
of communities throughout the United States.
  AmeriCorps, the domestic Peace Corps, engages more than 40,000 
Americans in intensive, results-driven service each year. We're 
teaching children to read, making neighborhoods safer, building 
affordable homes, and responding to natural disasters through more than 
1000 projects. Most AmeriCorps members are selected by and serve with 
projects like Habitat for Humanity, the American Red Cross, and Boys 
and Girls Clubs, and many more local and national organizations. Others 
serve in AmeriCorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) and 
AmeriCorps*NCCC (the National Civilian Community Corps). After their 
term of service, AmeriCorps members receive education awards to help 
finance college or pay back student loans.
  AmeriCorps is a win-win program that I hope the rule for this 
legislation will allow it to continue in its work to help make America 
a better place to live. Homelessness in America continues to be a 
problem that seems to lack a broad commitment to see and end to this 
blight on the American Dream. Attempting to attribute homelessness to 
any one cause is difficult and misleading. More often than not, it is a 
combination of factors that culminates in homelessness. Sometimes these 
factors are not observable or identifiable even to those who experience 
them first hand (Wright, Rubin and Devine, 1998). For example, lack of 
affordable housing is a factor repeatedly cited as contributing to 
homelessness (Hertzberg, 1992; Johnson, 1994; Metraux and Culhane, 
1999; National Coalition for the Homeless, 1999-F). However, lack of 
affordable housing is often representative of a collectivity of other 
problems. Other key factors include the inability to earn a living 
wage, poverty, welfare reform, unemployment and/or domestic violence 
that can combine to form a situation in which even the most basic 
housing is not affordable.
  The support that AmeriCorps volunteers provided to Houston area 
residences must be supported by funds from the federal government in 
allowing families have homes to live in after the damaged caused by 
Tropical Storm Allison. I have an amendment that increases funds for 
HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program to be used as matching 
funds for home repair and buyout for Harris County and the City of 
Houston citizens who have been displaced by Tropical Storm Allison.
  Rather than speak in terms of cause, we must focus on the factors 
that contribute to the alarming numbers of persons who are homeless. 
Among the leading risk factors associated with homelessness, the 
following factors are paramount: Lack of affordable/low-income housing; 
poverty; welfare reform; Lack of a living wage; mental illness; 
substance abuse; domestic violence; and lack of affordable health care. 
I for one do not want to add to this list; natural disasters as a cause 
of homelessness should this Congress fail to act.
  Another key area of this legislation's appropriations provides 
funding to our nation's aerospace effort. The residents of the Houston 
Congressional District, which I serve, are located near the Johnson 
Space Center, which manages human space flight missions as part of 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created by the 
National Space Act of 1958, after the success launch of the world's 
first man made satellite by the Soviet Union. NASA is charged with the 
responsibility of conducting space and aeronautics research, 
development, flight activity designed to ensure and maintain U.S. 
preeminence in space and aeronautical endeavors.
  The only real threat to date present to our nation's leadership in 
space is right here on Earth in the determination of some Members to 
see an end to this leadership.
  The principal mission of the space station is to establish a 
permanent human presence in space to perform research in a near-zero 
gravity environment. The space station is the largest, most 
technologically complex space program ever undertaken. Requiring more 
than 40 space shuttle flights to complete, the space station will be 
approximately the size of a football field, weight nearly 1 million 
pounds, and have an interior volume comparable to two 747 aircraft. The 
space station will serve as a platform for a range of research 
activities in biology, physics, and materials science, as well as for 
Earth and astronomical observations. The experience gained using the 
space station will provide information to support decisions about 
future human exploration missions. In addition, it is hoped that the 
space station will attract a substantial number of commercial ventures, 
and that an increasing fraction of the space station operational costs 
will be covered by the private sector.
  Our ability to reach for the stars is another priority, which will 
ensure that America remains the preeminent country for space 
exploration. Last year it was difficult to see NASA's budget cut and I 
support every effort to increase funding during the FY 2001 
appropriations process. After garnering support for increased funding 
for General Science, Space and Technology, this year's budget is $1 
billion above last year's appropriation. I am thankful for the hard 
work done in restoring and increasing NASA's funding.
  I will vigorously oppose any attempt to cut funds from NASA's 
International Space Station budget or related accounts. NASA has become 
an easy target over the last few years only because our dominance of 
space exploration has not been challenged. However, I would like to 
remind my colleagues that this circumstance could change. For this 
reason, and the important medical and scientific breakthroughs that 
could be achieve by the science conducted aboard the space station I 
urge my colleagues to reject all attempts to decrease funding to NASA.
  I would like for my colleagues as we amend this appropriations 
measure, that we keep our eyes on the long view and not the short term.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2620, 
the FY 2002 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill because 
the funding level in the bill is woefully disappointing in the areas of 
veterans medical care and public housing programs that serve our 
country's most vulnerable citizens and families.
  Mr. Chairman, the funding shortfalls in this bill, in my opinion, is 
totally unnecessary. We have the resources in this country to take care 
of our veterans as well as to provide adequate housing for the poor, 
the elderly and the disabled. But because my colleagues on the other 
side of the isle thought it more important to pass a $1.3 trillion tax 
cut.
  I made a request to the subcommittee, which was unfortunately not 
funded, to assist the Virgin Islands in replacing and upgrading our 
wastewater and sewage treatment facilities. The government of the 
Virgin Islands is under EPA mandate to replace or upgrade

[[Page 14712]]

significant components of our wastewater infrastructure to eliminate 
constant bypass discharges of wastes in violation of the Clean Water 
Act. In addition to the Clean Water Act concerns, the constant 
discharge of raw sewage on our streets and in our beaches are 
threatening the quality of life of Virgin Islanders as well as, our 
fragile Tourism economy.
  Because my community continues to be plagued by this crisis, I will 
continue to seek the assistance of the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Subcommittee to explore the possibility that some assistance could 
be provided to my district to deal with this problem.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H.R. 2620, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act for FY2002. First, this Member would like to thank 
the distinguished gentleman from New York, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies from 
New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, 
the ranking member of the subcommittee (Mr. Mollohan), and all members 
of the subcommittee for the work they did under the tight 302(b) 
allocation.
  This Member would like to focus his remarks on the following four 
areas: Section 8 housing, Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee 
Fund Program, and the Community Development Fund-Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) program.


                           section 8 housing

  First, this Member is supportive of the treatment of the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 housing contracts. The 
legislation provides $15.7 billion to fully fund the renewal of all 
Section 8 housing assistance contracts and it provides $197.2 million 
to fund 34,000 new Section 8 vouchers.


         section 184 indian housing loan guarantee fund program

  Second, this Member supports the $6 million appropriation for the 
(HUD) Section 184, American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, 
which is the same as the Administration's request. This Member created 
the Section 184 program in consultation with a range of Indian housing 
specialists. The Section 184 program appears to be an excellent new 
program which is providing privately financed homes through a 
Government guarantee program for Indian families who are otherwise 
unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of 
Indian reservation land. The above appropriations should support loan 
guarantees totaling approximately $72 million which should assist an 
estimated 20,000 families.


            office of rural housing and economic development

  Third, this Member would like to specifically commend the 
Subcommittee for eliminating duplicative efforts of the Federal 
Government in rural housing and economic development. Unlike FY2002 and 
FY2001, this bill does not fund the Office of Rural Housing and 
Economic Development within the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development for FY2002. In fact, this Member testified before the VA, 
HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee in opposition 
to HUD's duplicative efforts in rural housing.
  As a long-term advocate of rural housing during his tenure in the 
House, this Member believes that we need to be careful of duplication 
in the efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic 
development. In the past, the United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) through their Rural Development offices has successfully 
implemented numerous rural housing and economic development programs. 
As a result, this Member disagrees with HUD's efforts to duplicate USDA 
Rural Development staff.


                   community development fund (CDBG)

  Lastly, this Member would like to emphasize a concern about the VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill which in large part 
results from budgetary restraints. The Community Development Fund, 
which includes the CDBG program, is provided $4.8 billion, which is 
$255.6 million less than the fiscal year 2001 level. This reduction is 
of substantial concern to this Member. Indeed the CDBG program has been 
a model of local-Federal partnership.
  The CDBG program not only is valuable to the larger entitlement 
cities, but it also gives assistance to those communities under 50,000 
through state administering agencies. It is a Federal Government 
program with minimal overhead and bureaucracy. Moreover, CDBG has 
provided invaluable dollars to cities and rural communities for such 
things as affordable housing, public infrastructure, and economic 
development.
  In conclusion, because of the necessity to fund important housing and 
community development programs, this Member would encourage his 
colleagues to support H.R. 2620, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill.
  This bill funds NASA and keeps our nation's leadership in human space 
exploration on track.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill increases funding for the 
space station so that a crew return vehicle can be built. This critical 
component will enhance on-orbit research activities by allowing for a 
crew of six astronauts.
  Also, I support the funds provided for the space shuttle program. 
Despite a flat budget, the shuttle program is more efficient and safer 
than ever.
  The Shuttle program is critical to our nation's exploration and 
discovery of space. Since the shuttle will have to fly until at least 
2012 to meet our nation's human space flight goals, we must ensure that 
the program is properly funded to include necessary vehicle upgrades 
and ensure that we have the necessary infrastructure to support human 
space flight.
  Earlier this year, the shuttle program celebrated its 20th 
anniversary and its 100th flight. We must ensure that the shuttle 
remains a safe and reliable vehicle in space for the next decade and 
beyond.
  This bill takes us in that direction.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the VA/HUD, and Independent Agencies 
Subcommittee, Mr. Walsh, the gentleman from New York, and Mr. Mollohan, 
the gentleman from West Virginia, for producing a bill that will ensure 
that the National Science Foundation (NSF) stays at the forefront of 
innovation.
  For fiscal year 2002, H.R. 2620 provides $4.8 billion in funding for 
NSF, an increase of 9.3 percent over the fiscal year 2001 
appropriation. Specifically, the bill provides about $3.6 billion for 
research, $135 million for research equipment and construction, and 
$885 million for education and human resources.
  NSF is the government's premier science agency. It supports cutting-
edge research to answer fundamental questions within and across 
scientific disciplines. Often the potential for failure is as great as 
that for success. But by encouraging such risks, NSF has helped fuel 
new industries and jobs that have propelled economic prosperity and 
changed the way we live.
  Maintaining the Nation's leadership in science will require keeping 
open the pipeline of new ideas and innovations that flow from 
fundamental research. Although the private sector provides most of the 
research funding, which is expected to top $180 billion this year, its 
spending focuses largely on applied research with a near-term payoff. 
The Federal Government, therefore, has a significant role to play in 
supporting the long-term research the private sector needs but has 
little incentive to pursue.
  We also need to increase the pool of talented scientists in our 
universities and workforce. Today, over half the graduate students in 
science and math at American universities are foreign born, and we are 
becoming increasingly reliant on foreign workers to fill critical jobs. 
Further, it is estimated that by 2020, 60 percent of the jobs will 
require the skills only 22 percent of the workforce has today. We can 
and must do better.
  NSF is the Federal Government's only agency dedicated to the support 
of education and fundamental research in all scientific disciplines 
from physics and math to anthropology and zoology. Today's NSF-led 
research in nanotechnology, advanced materials, biotechnology, and 
information technology are laying the groundwork for the technologies 
of the future, and in the process training the scientists, engineers, 
and technology entrepreneurs of tomorrow.
  It is important that we continue to support NSF as part of a balanced 
federal research portfolio. Large science budgets at mission agencies 
like the National Institutes of Health, while welcome, are not enough.
  As former NIH director Harold Varmus noted last year, breakthroughs 
in the biomedical field are increasingly dependent on breakthrough in 
other fields--computer science, chemistry, physics, and engineering--
traditionally funded by NSF. Nowhere is this more evident than in the 
unraveling of the human genome, a remarkable achievement that could not 
have occurred without advances in computing and networking technologies 
funded by NSF and other agencies. This bill helps restore some balance.
  I do have some concerns, however, about NSF's management of large 
scientific construction projects, and I will be offering an amendment 
to the bill that I hope will help NSF get the expertise it needs to 
oversee

[[Page 14713]]

these large projects. I believe that the addition of some experienced 
federal project management professional would improve the institutional 
memory and accountability within NSF, and I look forward to working 
with Chairman Walsh to see that NSF gets the expertise it needs.
  Mr. Chairman, during its first 50 years, NSF-supported research has 
improved our lives in countless ways. By further investing in basic 
research today, we can ensure that over the next 50 years our kids and 
grandkids will profit from the innovations of tomorrow.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong 
support for the House version of the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and 
would especially like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. 
Dreier and Mr. Schiff relating to NASA. The importance of this 
legislation should not be underestimated. NASA and NSF are critical 
investments in the science and research that drive technology and our 
economy.
  I am concerned about the Senate's action on the Solar System 
Exploration program. As my colleagues have already stated, the cuts and 
managerial changes proposed by the Senate would be devastating to the 
exploration of our solar system, as well as to the men and women who 
have dedicated their professional lives to extending our reach into 
deep space.
  The Senate proposes to cut $50 million from the Mars Surveyor 
program. The exploration of Mars is an essential element of NASA's 
exploration program. Because of the nature of Mars' orbit around the 
Sun, we can only launch missions to Mars every two years. The reduction 
proposed by the Senate would force NASA to choose between taking 
unnecessary risks to meet the current launch schedule or delaying the 
mission another two years. Both of these results would increase the 
ultimate costs of going to Mars while limiting the ability of NASA to 
accomplish its mission.
  Similarly, the proposed transfer of the telecommunications and 
mission operations directorate to an industry vendor would impede 
rather than enhance our ability to explore the solar system. My 
colleague, Mr. Dreier, discussed the impact on mission operations, I 
would like to discuss the impact on the communications program.
  It takes great skill and sophisticated equipment to communicate with 
a tiny spacecraft billions of miles from Earth. Despite what Hollywood 
might lead you to believe, it is not as simple as just phoning home. To 
appreciate the complexity faced by NASA, the two Voyager spacecraft, 
launched in the 1970s are still flying and still sending back data, but 
they are literally billions of miles away and transmitting a signal 
that is so weak, that the signal is almost undetectable. In fact, your 
wristwatch operates on 20 billion times more energy. However, 
eliminating the highly-skilled staff which operates the Deep Space 
Network is tantamount to turning off the array.
  Finally, despite the rhetoric about efficiency, there is nothing 
efficient about failure. Cutting funding and eliminating expert 
personnel may look good on the books today, but it will end up costing 
the taxpayers their space program.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the provision 
on the VA HUD appropriations which grants access to veterans medical 
facilities for Filipino World War II veterans.
  General Douglas MacArthur, referring to the defenders of Bataan and 
Corregidor, claimed that ``no army has ever done so much with so 
little.'' Many of us take this as words of commendation meant for 
American forces defending the Philippines. However, we must not 
overlook the fact that a substantial portion of this defense force was 
composed of Filipino volunteers.
  Although they fought and died alongside American comrades, these 
veterans were never afforded equal status. Prior to 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 they were promised, and lacking proper 
recognition, General MacArthur's words, ``no army has ever done so much 
with so little,'' truly depict the plight of the remaining Filipino 
veterans today as they did half a century ago.
  Access to veterans facilities would be of great benefit to these men 
and it could not come at a more opportune time. The past few years have 
seen the numbers of these men drastically decline. Now, mostly in their 
80's and of declining health, the handful of these veterans now 
remaining more than ever need the benefits and recognition afforded the 
rest of their compatriots.
  This provision is not the long awaited act that would restore 
benefits denied by Congress to Filipino veterans who fought under the 
American flag during World War II. However, it would go a long way 
towards recognizing the service and sacrifices of these men for the 
benefit of the United States. In the past, this country has considered 
Filipinos as ``little brown brothers.'' Let us take an extra step and 
go a long way towards recognizing them as equals by acknowledging their 
service. Our ``little brown brothers'' were full partners in the 
struggle against Japan. Let us work towards having them become full 
partners in the distribution of benefits. I urge my colleagues to 
support this provision.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight the bill's science 
funding.
  Because this is the bill that funds six different agencies, funding 
requests for veterans and the homeless are pitted against science 
programs and space exploration. Unfortunately, this is an institutional 
reality the members of the Appropriations Committee face every year.
  Given that reality Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Mollohan have 
succeeded in providing additional funding for science and technology.
  The National Science Foundation and NASA have received a 9 percent 
increase in funding and 4.5 percent increase over current year funding 
respectively. While some Members and members of the scientific 
community wanted more--this bill is a good start to proper science 
funding. It is noteworthy that the committee has funded more than $200 
million to educate K-12 students and their teachers in math, science 
and technology education.
  The Congress is doing the heavy lifting that the President failed to 
do in his budget blueprint. I am very concerned about the President's 
priorities when it comes to science.
  It is interesting that the Bush administration has proposed to double 
funding (a 13.5 percent increase over current year funding) for the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and it proposed a 1.3 percent 
increase for the National Science Foundation, 1.3 percent increase for 
NASA and reduced funding for the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science by less than 1 percent.
  I do not often quote Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, but when it comes 
to science funding--he has it right. ``To double NIH without doubling 
the broad base of science means in the long run we will cripple the 
evolution of science, because NIH cannot, in the long run, progress 
beyond physics, chemistry, mathematics, etcetera.''
  Recently E. Floyd Kvamme, the President's co-chairman of the Council 
of Advisors on Science and Technology, wrote that NSF and NASA will 
receive ``increases.'' ``In the case of NSF, its budget will grow 15 
percent between 2000 and 2002,'' he said. That may be true. What he did 
not write was that that 13 percent of the increase occurred during the 
Clinton administration, according to the Congressional Research 
Service, with Bush requesting less than 2 percent under the rate of 
inflation.
  The administration seems to be practicing fuzzy math to prop up its 
lack of leadership when it comes to Science and Technology.
  We know that government support for science has a direct impact on 
innovation at universities and technology transfer in the private 
sector. As someone who represents Silicon Valley, my constituents and I 
know there is a direct link between competitiveness and innovation in 
science and technology.
  Without adequate research and development funding by the federal 
government, we put our high technology companies and students at a 
competitive disadvantage.
  The future is now. The U.S. has the opportunity to invest wisely in 
science and technology. Doing so keeps open the door to technological 
advancement. The door will slam shut without adequate research and 
development funding.
  Earlier this year, the Senate adopted the Bond/Mikulski amendment to 
the budget resolution. This amendment increased current year funding to 
NSF by $674 million, to NASA by $518 million and to DOE's Office of 
Science by $469 million.
  Though not included in the budget resolution conference report, I 
joined many of my colleagues in the House to support the science-
funding goal of the Bond/Mikulski amendment as the appropriation 
process moves forward this year.
  This bill already makes a start. Let's work with those who supported 
this effort in the other body earlier this year as this appropriations 
bill moves forward. With the support of my colleagues in the House, it 
is my hope that the final appropriations bill contains the science 
research and development increases that the Senate agreed to earlier 
this year.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and want to 
compliment my good friend and Chairman Jim Walsh for his hard work in 
crafting this very important appropriations bill. With this bill, the 
chairman and our committee worked hard to make sure that the medical 
needs of our veterans are met,

[[Page 14714]]

and that their claims are processed in a timely fashion. It ensures 
that safe and affordable housing is provided for the low income, the 
elderly, and the disabled. It provides funding to make the water we 
drink cleaner and the air we breathe healthier. I am proud to serve on 
this committee which addresses these priority issues. In addition to 
the $1 billion increase for veterans medical care, I want to point out 
a few other highlights:
  This bill provides the highest budget ever for the National Science 
Foundation at $4.8 billion. This is a 9 percent increase over last 
years level. Funding from NSF produces the in-depth research performed 
at almost every university across the country. Every single district 
benefits from this increase.
  This bill also fully funds the renewal of all expiring section 8 
housing assistance contracts, and provides 34,000 new Section 8 
vouchers. These vouchers will be distributed to those most in need, and 
for the first time every, a portion will be designated for the 
disabled.
  After almost a decade of being flat-lined, NASA is provided nearly 
$15 billion, including almost $7.6 billion for research and 
development. As the space station is now in successful orbit, I am 
pleased that this bill dedicates approximately $343 million to generate 
the unprecedented microgravity research the scientific community has 
been waiting for.
  To address our environmental needs, this bill provides $1.2 billion 
for Clean Water State Revolving Funds, which provide grants to our 
communities to assist their efforts in building modern and adequate 
wastewater facilities.
  This bill provides $2.25 billion for the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency to coordinate responses to our national disasters. I am 
especially pleased that $404.6 million is designed for FEMA's core 
activities to make sure that we are prepared to properly mitigate the 
disasters which might strike. I would like to recognize not only the 
FEMA officials who are all to often called to respond, but also the 
state and local emergency management teams who will benefit from this 
funding.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you and the staff 
again this year for crafting a well-balanced bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 220, providing 
appropriations to the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development and various independent agencies. While I have some 
concern about several provisions in the bill, the bill is technically 
consistent with the Budget Resolution and complies with the Budget Act.
  H.R. 2620 provides $85.4 billion in budget authority and $88.1 
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2002. The bill does not exceed the 
VA-HUD subcommittee's adjusted 302(b) allocation. Accordingly, the bill 
complies with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
which prohibits measures that exceed the reporting subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation.
  This bill designates $1.3 billion in emergencies, which triggers an 
automatic increase in the corresponding levels in both the Budget 
Resolution and the statutory caps. The appropriation is for FEMA 
Disaster Relief Operations in response to the recent tropical storm in 
Houston, Texas.
  It is not entirely clear that the designation is necessary because 
the Budget Resolution provides ample resources for emergencies. With 
this said, the emergency designation is clearly permitted under 
existing law.
  H.R. 2620 also provides $4.2 billion in advanced appropriations for 
the Section 8 Housing Certificate Program, which will be counted 
against the levels established in next year's Budget Resolution. This 
advanced appropriation is on the list of permissible appropriations 
under section 201 of H. Con. Res. 84.
  I am somewhat concerned about several purported ``offsets'' in this 
bill. The bill claims $7 million from the repeal of a provision that 
was already signed into law. It claims another $121 million in savings 
from a veterans-related provision that already passed the House. 
Obviously, these savings can only be used once.
  As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am obligated to report to the 
Congress on how the appropriations bills compare to the Budget 
Resolution. Under existing law, this bill is consistent with the Budget 
Resolution and does not violate the Budget Act.
  Nevertheless, the existing process with respect to emergencies is 
broken and needs to be fixed. At the very least, both Congress and the 
President should set aside resources for emergencies and restrict the 
use of these resources for legitimate emergencies.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the House Science 
Committee I rise in strong support of the FY 2002 VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies appropriations bill. My good friends Chairman 
Walsh, and Ranking Minority Member Mollohan have put together a bill 
that is very good for science, good for the space program, good for 
education, and good for the environment. That's a winning combination, 
one that's good for America. I thank them for their leadership.
  Chairman Walsh shares my belief that basic research provides the 
foundation for economic growth and for the tremendous advances we have 
made in areas like biomedical research. The appropriation for the 
National Science Foundation contained within this bill reflects these 
beliefs. And the committee is to be commended for the 9 percent 
increase that he provided for the Foundation.
  The bill also contains funding for the National Mathematics and 
Science Partnerships Program that was proposed by President Bush and 
that is authorized by my bill--H.R. 1858--that was unanimously reported 
out of the Science Committee. This program will bring colleges and 
universities and school districts together to form partnerships to 
improve the quality of elementary and secondary math and science 
education. Funding is also included to enable elementary and secondary 
teachers to participate in research projects conducted at State, 
Federal, and university labs.
  I want to particularly thank the committee for including funding for 
the Noyce Scholarship Program. Named for the co-founder of Intel, this 
program provides scholarships to talented mathematics, science, and 
engineering students in exchange for a commitment to teach two years 
for each year of scholarship. I look forward to working closely with 
Chairman Walsh to retain this funding as the bill goes to conference.
  The chairman is also to be commended for a bill that protects and 
expands NASA's scientific programs in Science, Aeronautics, and 
Technology while striking the right balance for the space station.
  This bill sends a clear signal that Congress is not going to bail 
NASA out for its management failures. It also makes clear that we're 
willing to work with the Administration to identify additional 
resources to improve station capabilities, if we see the right 
management reforms and performance improvements at NASA. With that in 
mind, requiring the White House Office of Management and Budget to 
certify that NASA is containing its costs before obligating additional 
funds makes a lot of sense. Moreover, we should require the White House 
Office of Science and Technology Policy to certify that those 
additional funds will benefit the research effort.
  Through careful fiscal management, we can ensure that the space 
station benefits science in the long run. The bill sets us on that 
path.
  I particularly appreciate the committee's commitment to new space 
technology and its effort to bridge the gap between NASA and the Air 
Force. By directing additional funding into the Air Force Research Lab, 
the bill encourages NASA and the Air Force to pool their efforts on 
technologies that will benefit both agencies and the American people. 
Space based radar technology, for example, is vital to our national 
security, but also has immense applications in Earth science. A 
development program that reduces the cost of synthetic aperture radar 
technology will benefit both.
  Similarly, the bistatic radar technology developed at Rome Research 
site has immense potential for upgrading our national launch range 
tracking capabilities at a low cost. By demonstrating this technology, 
we may finally break the logjam that has undermined our space launch 
competitiveness.
  Let me turn for a moment to the budget for the Environmental 
Protection Agency. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Walsh and his 
colleagues to provide a responsible budget to help meet the nation's 
environmental needs. On the whole, the bill is good news for EPA.
  Clearly, many of us would prefer to see higher funding levels for 
some of the agency's programs, but the gentleman from New York has done 
an admirable job of balancing competing needs and working within 
difficult fiscal constraints.
  As chairman of the Science Committee, I am particularly pleased the 
bill increases funding for the Science and Technology account from $640 
million in the budget request to $680 million.
  As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and 
the Congressional Water Infrastructure Caucus, I am pleased the bill 
rejects the proposed cut to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund but am 
disappointed it doesn't provide at least $1.35 billion for the program. 
I appreciate the constraints facing the chairman but would encourage 
the committee to find a way to fund some of the important, water 
infrastructure and ecosystem restoration programs, such as the new 
sewer overflow control grants program and the reauthorized Clean Lakes 
program. I hope there are opportunities down the road to target 
assistance for such efforts.
  I would also continue to note my concern with the Superfund program. 
The bill provides $1.27 billion. The appropriators are doing their

[[Page 14715]]

best under the circumstances. Congress needs to change the 
circumstances; comprehensive reform and, at a minimum, a 
reauthorization of the corporate environmental income tax--twelve one 
hundreds of a per cent (which expired on December 31, 1995) should be 
the next course of action.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill for science, a good bill for the 
space program, and a good will for the environment. It aptly 
illustrates the tremendous leadership provided by my friend from New 
York, Chairman Walsh, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________