[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15006-15032]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             Point of Order

  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the language 
beginning with ``except that'' on page 64, line 12, through ``drinking 
water contaminants'' on line 17 violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the 
rules of the House prohibiting legislating on an appropriations bill.
  The language I have cited says that notwithstanding the provisions of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, none of the money in the fiscal year 2002 
VA-HUD appropriations bill or even previous appropriation acts may be 
reserved by the EPA administrator for health effect studies on drinking 
water contaminants.
  The language clearly constitutes legislating on an appropriations 
bill, and as such, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I therefore insist on my point of order.

                              {time}  2015

  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to speak on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this 
provision explicitly supersedes existing law. The provision therefore 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  The Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       administrative provisions

       For fiscal year 2002, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and 
     6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement 
     directly Federal environmental programs required or 
     authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal 
     program, may award cooperative agreements to federally-
     recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if 
     authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the 
     Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs 
     for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that 
     no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds 
     designated for State financial assistance agreements.


                 Amendment No. 37 Offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California at this point?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the original amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 37 Offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       Page 92, strike lines 3 through 9.


            Modification to Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified in the form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi: Page 67, 
     line 22, strike ``$17,000,000'' and insert ``$20,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Page 67, line 22, strike ``$17,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$20,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentlewoman from California Ms. Pelosi, and a Member opposed 
each will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman form California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would ensure that the Environmental 
Protection Agency's program for registering pesticides and reassessing 
pesticide tolerances are funded at the same level in fiscal year 2002 
as in the current year. These programs are important to ensure that 
pesticides used in our crops, on our pets, and in our homes and 
businesses are thoroughly reviewed, and tolerances are set at safe 
levels.
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with further 
discussion of the amendment, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for his extraordinary leadership 
in taking what might have been a controversial amendment and having us 
come to some peace on this issue among all the various equities that 
must weigh in this.
  I certainly wish to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership and cooperation, 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the 
original author of the Food Quality Protection Act for their 
leadership. Certainly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for his 
representing the balances between the environment and ag concerns, 
which are now in harmony, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
for his participation and leadership.
  And before I go on, I would like to say that the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) took the time to do this while playing a very 
active leadership role as a named sponsor of the legislation that is 
very important to all of us, the Patients' Bill of Rights. So I 
particularly wanted to acknowledge his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, it is especially important that we protect the health 
of infants and children by ensuring that pesticide exposure levels 
safeguard their health. The Food Quality Protection Act was designed 
with special protections for children in mind. We support this funding 
to ensure that EPA has adequate resources to review chemicals and 
ensure that they meet new safety standards set by the FQPA, the Food 
Quality Protection Act.
  This amendment would ensure that the EPA has an additional $3 million 
to ensure that pesticides are adequately assessed for safety. I have 
worked with Members on both sides of the aisle on this amendment and 
believe that any controversy has been resolved, as I mentioned earlier. 
It is my understanding that this amendment is acceptable to the 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. 
The gentlewoman's amendment will maintain current funding levels for 
EPA's pesticide reregistration and tolerance assessment programs and is 
acceptable to the committee.
  Collection of $20 million in maintenance fees will ensure that 
reregistrations and tolerance reassessments are completed in a timely 
manner with appropriate scientific analysis, ensuring that our farmers 
have the tools they need, and that human health is protected.

[[Page 15007]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the 
distinguished chairman for his statement and for agreeing to this 
amendment.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman regarding 
EPA's program to register new, reduced-risk pesticides. It is my 
understanding that there are negotiations underway to provide an 
additional $6 million in funding for assessing reduced-risk pesticides 
and strengthening EPA's scientific analysis on exposure of farm workers 
and exposure in drinking water.
  We would like to continue discussions on these issues with the 
intention of addressing them in conference on the fiscal year 2002 
bill. We would also ask that the chairman consider providing his 
support for funding of these programs for 5 years, but we are 
addressing the fiscal year 2002 bill now.
  Mr. WALSH. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I thank her for 
bringing this matter to our attention.
  Reduced-risk pesticides can displace pesticides that present higher 
risks, and they help ensure that our farmers have a complete toolbox to 
control the pests that attack our crops. I look forward to working with 
the gentlewoman to consider additional funds for reduced-risk 
pesticides in the conference report.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the chairman for his support of this amendment 
and for agreeing to work together to ensure that EPA can proceed with 
these programs that are so important to our farmers and to the safety 
of our food supply.
  I wonder if our distinguished ranking member wishes to weigh in on 
this subject. Does the gentleman have any objection to the colloquy?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have no objection and compliment the gentlewoman for 
her efforts in this area. She has been very effective, as is evidenced 
by the chairman's accepting her amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking 
member. And I want to once again acknowledge the leadership of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the author of the Food Quality 
Protection Act; the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for his 
leadership; the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); and others, who have worked to resolve some 
of the controversy in this.
  It is our anticipation that if we have this full funding, the $20 
million for this year, that the EPA will be able to meet its statutory 
requirement. We, of course, want the additional $6 million and look 
forward to working with the chairman and the ranking member to get that 
in conference with the support that I mentioned here in a bipartisan 
way, and hope that the EPA can, over the course of the next year, 
demonstrate that these were sufficient funds to meet their statutory 
requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to rise in support of this 
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Ms. Pelosi.
  As many of my colleagues know, I am a relatively new grandmother. My 
grandson, Teddy, is eighteen months old--old enough to sit at the table 
with his parents and eat many of the things they eat.
  But Teddy is, of course, much smaller than his parents and his vital 
systems are not fully developed. According to a report by the National 
Academy of Sciences, that means that Teddy, and all other children, are 
``more susceptible to permanent damage'' from exposure to pesticides 
and other chemicals in foods.
  That landmark National Science Report, ``pesticides in the diets of 
infants and children'' was the main reason that Congress passed the 
food quality protection act in 1996 with strong bipartisan support.
  This was the first law to require that the standards set by the 
Environmental Protection Agency for pesticide traces in our foods take 
into account the special vulnerabilities of growing children.
  Members from both sides of the aisle agreed that we wanted the food 
our children--and grandchildren--eat to be as safe as possible.
  That's why I was shocked to learn that H.R. 2620 will make it 
impossible for the Environmental Protection Agency to develop these 
standards.
  And it does this in a really sneaky way. Section 421 of this Bill 
prohibits the EPA from issuing the final rule to increase the user fee 
that the pesticide industry pays to help finance pesticide tolerance 
studies.
  OMB has estimated that increasing the user fee would give EPA an 
additional $50 million dollars that the EPA needs, in order to find out 
what levels of pesticides children can safely tolerate.
  Section 421 makes it impossible for EPA to collect that money.
  The Pelosi Amendment strikes Section 421, giving EPA the authority it 
needs to begin collecting increased user fees from the pesticide 
industry.
  I can't imagine that there is a parent or a grandparent, or anyone in 
this house who cares about the health of a young child, who doesn't 
want to make sure that the food that child eats is safe from dangerous 
levels of pesticides.
  That's what the Pelosi Amendment does, it protects the foods our 
children eat, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous order of the House, a Member opposed 
also may control 15 minutes. Is there such Member?
  If not, the question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Section 136a-1 of title 7, United States Code is amended--
       (1) in subsection (i)(5)(C)(i) by striking ``$14,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$17,000,000''; and, by striking ``each'' and 
     inserting ``2002'' after ``fiscal year'';
       (2) in subsection (i)(5)(H) by striking ``2001'' and 
     inserting ``2002'';
       (3) in subsection (i)(6) by striking ``2001'' and inserting 
     ``2002''; and
       (4) in subsection (k)(3)(A) by striking ``2001'' and 
     inserting ``2002''; and, by striking ``\1/7\'' and inserting 
     ``\1/10\''.

                   Executive Office of the President


                Office of Science and Technology Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $5,267,000.


  council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,974,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 202 of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the Council shall consist 
     of one member, appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, serving as chairman and 
     exercising all powers, functions, and duties of the Council.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $33,660,000, to be derived from the Bank 
     Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and 
     the FSLIC Resolution Fund.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            Disaster Relief

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $1,369,399,000, and, notwithstanding 42 
     U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended, of which not 
     to exceed $2,900,000 may be transferred to ``Emergency 
     management planning and assistance'' for the consolidated 
     emergency management performance grant program; up to 
     $15,000,000 may be obligated for flood map modernization 
     activities following disaster declarations; and $21,577,000 
     may be used by the Office of Inspector General for audits and 
     investigations.
       In addition, for the purposes under this heading, 
     $1,300,000,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such amount shall 
     be

[[Page 15008]]

     available only to the extent that an official budget request, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by 
     the President to the Congress.


            Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, $405,000, as authorized by 
     section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $25,000,000. In 
     addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the direct 
     loan program, $543,000.


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     including hire and purchase of motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the 
     per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for 
     senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; expenses of 
     attendance of cooperating officials and individuals at 
     meetings concerned with the work of emergency preparedness; 
     transportation in connection with the continuity of 
     Government programs to the same extent and in the same manner 
     as permitted the Secretary of a Military Department under 10 
     U.S.C. 2632; and not to exceed $2,500 for official reception 
     and representation expenses, $227,900,000.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $10,303,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Inspector General of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall also serve as the Inspector 
     General of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
     Board.


              Emergency Management Planning and Assistance

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
     405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $404,623,000.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Capps

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mrs. Capps:
       In title III, in the item relating to ``Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency--Emergency Management Planning and 
     Assistance'', strike the period at the end and insert the 
     following:

     : Provided, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $25,000,000 shall be available for purposes of 
     predisaster hazard mitigation pursuant to section 203 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5133).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will earmark $25 million of FEMA's 
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance Account for the successful 
Project Impact.
  Project Impact is a commonsense public-private partnership designed 
to help communities prepare for natural disasters by funding 
predisaster hazard mitigation. The goal is to help communities become 
disaster resistant. This funding allows communities to build 
partnerships with businesses, industry, public works, utilities, 
volunteer groups, and the local State and Federal Government. These 
partnerships assess their community's risks and vulnerabilities to 
natural disasters, identify priorities for mitigation, and begin 
implementing them. And the Federal funding works to leverage support 
from private sources, magnifying its effectiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last decade, the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency has spent $20 billion to assist communities to recover from 
disasters. This does not include the billions spent by other agencies, 
like HUD, the Small Business Administration, as well as State and local 
governments. And not all damage can be repaired. People lose their 
jobs; businesses close. In fact, 40 percent of small businesses are 
never able to recover or reopen. And, of course, most tragically, lives 
are lost. Project Impact recognizes that we can spend a fraction of the 
money we spend now to avoid some of those costs and save many of those 
lives. It seems imprudent not to take this step.
  Project Impact is a classic example of the adage that an ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure. For example, earlier this year we 
saw the effectiveness of Project Impact. In January, Washington State 
and the City of Seattle were struck by the worst earthquake to hit the 
Pacific Northwest in 52 years. But according to press accounts, 
injuries were only about 15 percent of what FEMA expected from a 6.8 
magnitude, and costs were only about half of what the agency projected. 
This was in no small part because of Project Impact.
  In 1977, Seattle was able to turn a $1 million grant from Project 
Impact into $7 million with private support, and they set about to make 
Seattle disaster resistant. They enforced building codes, strengthened 
existing buildings, and educated their citizens about prevention 
measures they could take. FEMA and Seattle took the initiative and 
their work ahead of time and made a terrible tragedy significantly less 
tragic.
  No less an expert on the matter of disaster relief and mitigation 
than former FEMA Director James Lee Witt pointed this out. In a letter 
he sent to me in support of this amendment to fund Project Impact, Mr. 
Witt says, and I quote, ``Despite FEMA's quick response, the reality is 
that without prevention efforts, thousands of families will continue to 
lose their homes and precious possessions, and hundreds of small 
businesses will be destroyed, resulting in the loss of thousands of 
jobs. Seattle has shown the United States that prevention works. Other 
communities deserve the opportunity to replicate Seattle's success.''
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply appreciative that the committee has 
increased the funding for Emergency Management Planning and Assistance 
by nearly $35 million. It is clear that this funding is needed. But it 
is also clear that we should be spending some of that money on Project 
Impact and its preventive measures. My home county of Santa Barbara 
received a Project Impact grant to model potential wildfires and to 
look at ways to mitigate their impact. These efforts have allowed the 
county to better develop emergency plans which will save lives if, or 
more likely when, that catastrophe strikes. Besides Seattle and Santa 
Barbara, nearly 250 communities have received Project Impact grants 
since the program was established in 1997.

                              {time}  2030

  Let us give the next 250 communities that same chance.
  It simply does not make sense for us to keep pouring money into 
communities after the fact and not try to help them before a disaster. 
This is especially true in light of FEMA's $2.25 billion budget. All 
this amendment does is dedicate 1 percent of that funding to 
predisaster assistance. It does not increase the budget and it will 
save many lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 10 
minutes.

[[Page 15009]]


  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment would designate $25 million 
of the funds for FEMA emergency management planning and assistance to 
be used for predisaster mitigation activities.
  For the past 4 years FEMA had had a program to raise the awareness 
within communities of the need to prepare for disasters. This program 
was called Project Impact and it made strides towards helping 
communities become better informed of how to prepare and respond to 
natural disasters.
  While this budget does not continue Project Impact, in our hearings 
earlier this year the Director of FEMA expressed his desire to develop 
a full-fledged predisaster mitigation program building on the success 
that Project Impact has had in raising the level of awareness within 
all communities.
  I know that if such a program were developed and implemented after 
careful thought and deliberation, it would save money and lives. The 
biggest concern I have with the amendment is that it offers no way to 
pay for the program. The amendment designates $25 million of the $404 
million in this account for the predisaster program. What programs 
currently funded in this account would the gentlewoman have us 
decrease?
  Would the gentlewoman suggest a reduction in the budget for the 
Firefighter Assistance Grants? They are funded in this bill at $100 
million. We have had debate on the floor today that Members believe 
there is substantially more need and there is great demand. We had $3 
billion in requests for those $100 million for fire fighters. Surely we 
cannot go there.
  Should we reduce the allowance for salaries or grants to State and 
local emergency management officials? We are already asking FEMA to 
take a reduction in their salaries for fiscal year 2002. A further cut 
of this magnitude would make this agency very difficult, if not 
impossible, to manage.
  Should we reduce the allowance for updating floodplain maps? There is 
currently a backlog in the number of maps which need to be updated, and 
it is estimated that it will cost over $700 million to address this 
backlog. This bill contains a modest start to addressing this backlog. 
I know the gentlewoman is aware that flooding causes more damage 
nationwide than any other type of natural disaster, so I do not think 
she would want us to stop this effort in order to fund a public 
awareness campaign.
  This bill is full of difficult choices, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes 
programs have to be canceled to make room for other more worthy 
programs. The budget request made such a decision with regard to 
predisaster mitigation, but with the ultimate goal of developing a more 
robust and focused program with well-defined and prioritized 
objectives. I think we ought to wait for such a program to be proposed 
and carefully considered in the context of all of FEMA's programs. For 
this reason I oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it 
also.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  The issues of FEMA and Project Impact come under the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on which I serve. 
Throughout the last administration I worked with FEMA and the White 
House to develop Project Impact. I think it has been a tremendous 
success.
  Mitigation is the cornerstone of emergency management. Mitigation 
simply means efforts to lessen the impact of disasters on people and 
property. It keeps homes out of floodplains, designs bridges to 
withstand earthquakes, creates and enforces building codes to protect 
property from hurricanes, and many such creative initiatives all across 
the land.
  It helps communities adapt their public facilities before disaster 
strikes in order to save lives, buildings and homes.
  The gentlewoman has so well cited the case of Seattle, Washington. It 
has been a Project Impact city since 1997. Everyone participated in 
retrofitting homes, developing mapping projects for landslides and 
seismic vulnerability. Schools received funds to remove structural 
hazards and we saw what a success all of that was in the aftermath of 
the earthquake.
  I understand that the issue of funding was not created by the 
chairman of the subcommittee. It is the Office of Management and Budget 
that chose to strike this funding from the budget in a move I just 
simply cannot understand.
  I welcome the suggestion that the chairman made that the Director of 
FEMA would work with the Congress to develop a plan. He has never 
approached me with such a proposal. He has not come to my committee to 
my knowledge to propose such an initiative. I look forward to him doing 
so, but I want to see something more concrete than just a wish. 
Meanwhile, vote for the Capps amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, Project Impact really provides communities 
with the resources they need to combat natural disasters and make them 
less susceptible to future damages.
  In my district, Stratford, Connecticut last year was hit by a 
devastating storm. It dumped 8 inches of rain in a 4-hour period. It 
resulted in over $5 million in damage.
  East Haven, another town in my district, has a long history of 
flooding, constantly ravaged by hurricanes and tropical storms. Every 
time there is a rain storm families fear they are going to be 
displaced.
  East Haven was awarded grant money to take a proactive approach to 
help keep flood insurance rates lower. The grant helps to pay for an 
early warning storm system. It helps to pay for storm shutters for 
residents' windows and other weather precautions.
  We have all stood in the rain witnessing these disasters. We have all 
met the crying homeowners, but it is not the loss of property that is 
important. It is the lost dreams. That is why we need to take steps to 
get people help in such unavoidable circumstances. Project Impact does 
just that. It is a common-sense program. It protects property and saves 
lives. It identifies ways to prevent future tragedies and reduce 
property damage.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this 
amendment. I respect the gentleman from New York in talking about the 
difficult trade-offs that are being made and the prospects of having 
$400 million of other programs of mitigation.
  The fact is we do not have to wait to develop a practical, effective 
program. For heaven's sakes, this is one of the show pieces of the last 
FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, who everyone acknowledges has done an 
outstanding job. In just 5 years, starting with seven pilot projects, 
this has grown around the country. I was stunned to address their 
national conference last fall. I interacted with 2,500 people from 
around the country, private partnerships, NASA, local government, 
private business, and we are going to throw this away to develop 
something new?
  Mr. Chairman, this is what frustrates people about the Federal 
Government. When we have a winning program that everybody likes, that 
reaches down to the grass roots, that is voluntary in nature, that we 
do not have to guess whether or not it is effective, we would throw 
that away? I beg the gentleman to reconsider. We can find $25 million 
to keep this experience alive.

[[Page 15010]]


  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support for the Capps amendment. The Peterson area became one of the 
first to participate in Project Impact, using a small amount of Federal 
funding provided by the program to leverage greater local funding, to 
retrofit schools, homes and small businesses. In the past 10 years FEMA 
has spent more than $20 billion to help communities repair and rebuild 
after natural disasters. Project Impact in contrast costs the Federal 
Government only $25 million. In this instance it likely saved several 
times that figure in the Seattle area by saving lives and preventing 
damage. We do not need the promise of a new program; we have a program. 
It is called Project Impact.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge this House to pass the Capps amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the distinguished ranking 
member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing her amendment 
because it highlights the importance of this very good program: Project 
Impact. Unfortunately, the amendment comes in a context which makes it 
very difficult for us to consider. There are a lot of excellent 
programs funded in this emergency management and planning assistance 
account. There are preparedness activities, for example, and early 
warning systems; flood mapping, which is an extremely important 
program; other mitigation efforts; and grants to States.
  This is simply a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul, of taking money 
from good projects to put them in another good project. I think the 
better time to consider this issue is in conference where the Senate 
has already funded this activity. I think then we will be in a much 
stronger position to consider the merits of Project Impact vis-a-vis 
the merits of these other programs.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point in the process, we simply do not have 
enough money to go around. Given that we are looking toward possible 
favorable consideration in conference, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment. Again, it is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking money 
from very good programs to fund a very good program. We are not against 
Project Impact; it is simply the wrong point in the process to consider 
the amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I come from a district which 
has had seven presidentially declared disasters. If there is anything 
that I have learned, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 
Everything we do in this country is to try to prevent injury and harm. 
One of the dumb things we do is keep going in after a disaster and 
allowing people to do the same old thing.
  Mr. Chairman, this program gets people out of doing the same old 
thing that makes them involved in a disaster. I hope my colleagues 
march into conference very strongly supporting this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would close by saying we had a budget that was $35 
million less last year, and instituted this Project Impact at that 
time. It has proven to be cost effective. It is already proven. We do 
not need to decide how to do it. I urge my colleagues to consider if we 
do not implement this program in this budget at this time, we will lose 
valuable ground and all of the networking that is going on in so many 
communities like my own with plans already in place.
  Mr. Chairman, these dollars have saved lives. We know that. They will 
continue to save lives. I urge support for this amendment and ask that 
Project Impact be continued.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Just in closing, I restate that there is support. The concept is a 
good one. What we would like to do is give the new Director of FEMA the 
opportunity to develop a program that can go through the authorizing 
committee and garner the full support of the membership, be well-
thought out and, as we said earlier, more robust. There is merit to 
this concept, but do not make us make this choice between fire fighters 
or mapping or salaries and expenses for FEMA, which is already very, 
very tight.
  Mr. Chairman, I would reluctantly urge all members to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleagues Lois Capps and Rick Larsen to earmark $25 
million of the $404 million in FEMA's Emergency Management and Planning 
Assistance account to fund Project Impact.
  As my colleagues are aware, Project Impact is a public-private 
partnership that funds emergency management preparation activities. It 
has been a relatively low cost way to save lives and prevent damage in 
the case of natural disasters and other emergencies. Created in 1997 by 
former FEMA Director James L. Witt, the program has helped 250 
communities in all fifty states and the Insular Areas to prepare for 
and prevent disasters.
  My home islands St. Croix has been a project impact site since 1998. 
As a direct result, the community has been extremely successful in both 
decreasing damages and injuries in the territory and reducing recovery 
costs to FEMA--in fact our efforts have been widely touted as a FEMA 
success story by the agency.
  Mr. Chairman, the Capps/Larsen amendment and the Project Impact 
program deserves our support because it is a common sense approach to 
help our country deal with disasters. The increasing number and 
severity of natural disasters over the past decade demands that action 
be taken to reduce the threat of hurricanes, tornadoes, severe storms, 
flood and fires, which is where Project Impact comes in. It is 
unconscionable and very shortsighted in my opinion that this program 
was not included in this year's VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Capps/Larsen amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Capps amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. This is a good 
amendment, and I applaud the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Capps, 
for offering it to a bill that clearly has missed the mark on its 
funding priorities.
  The Capps amendment earmarks $25 million to the Emergency Management 
Planning and Assistance account to continue funding the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's Project Impact. This amendment restores 
the amount of funding to Project Impact at the same level this body 
approved last year. For the more than 250 communities in all fifty 
states who participate in Project Impact, it is essential that the 
House approve this amendment. In the nearly four years that this 
program has been in existence, it has been a low cost way to save lives 
and prevent damage in the case of natural disasters and other 
emergencies.
  For the State of Florida, Project Impact is needed and utilized. In 
fact, in my district, the City of Deerfield Beach has been a 
beneficiary of Project Impact since the Project's creation in 1997. In 
addition, Miami-Dade County, just two months ago, was recognized by 
Project Impact for the county's ongoing efforts in dealing with local 
emergencies. Tampa, Jacksonville, and Pensacola, as well as Brevard and 
Volusia Counties, all participate in Project Impact. Any cut in funding 
will be felt state-wide.
  Fortunately, the hurricane season has been kind to Florida since 
Project Impact began to assist South Florida. Regardless, if we do not 
fund this program today, I fear what will occur next time a Hurricane 
Andrew sweeps across South Florida. While we may not see the effects of 
out budget cuts today, the effects of Hurricane Andrew, which destroyed 
South Florida nearly a decade ago, are still seen and felt by my 
constituents.
  When Project Impact was founded in 1997, former FEMA Director James 
Lee Witt recognized the importance of preparing for a natural disaster. 
While giving a speech in Miami, he noted, ``We've got to change the way 
we deal with disasters. We have to break the damage-repair, damage-
repair cycle. We need to have communities and businesses come together 
to reduce the cost and consequences of disasters.''

[[Page 15011]]

  Mr. Chairman, we have got to change the way we deal with disasters. 
Too many communities today are inadequately prepared to deal with 
natural disasters. Contrary to what some may believe, failing to 
adequately fund Project Impact is not an effective tool in changing the 
way we deal with disasters. By not funding this needed program, we risk 
the lives of thousands throughout this great country. This is 
unacceptable, and for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to recognize 
the importance of Project Impact and support the Capps amendment.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Capps 
amendment, which would earmark $25 million for Project Impact, a FEMA 
program which helps communities establish pre-disaster hazard 
mitigation programs. Project Impact communities initiate mentoring 
relationships, private and public partnerships, public outreach, and 
disaster mitigation projects to reduce the damage from potentially 
devastating disasters.
  South Florida is a wonderful place to live, but as you know, we are 
highly susceptible to hurricanes. The City of Deerfield Beach, Florida, 
has been diligently working to better prepare its residents for the 
next big hurricane by establishing a $42 million multi-purpose public 
service facility, or Mitigation of Operation Center (MOC). The MOC 
would serve as a shelter in the event of a natural disaster, and would 
house the City's Department of Public Works, Emergency Operations 
Center, Fire & Rescue Center, a Broward County Emergency Communications 
facility, and satellite facilities for the Broward County Sheriff's 
Office and Florida Atlantic University. The MOC would also include a 
water treatment facility.
  FEMA designated the City of Deerfield Beach, Florida, as our 
country's first Project Impact Community. Since its designation as one 
of the seven pilot Project Impact communities in 1997, Deerfield Beach 
developed a strong Project Impact initiative with over 100 small and 
large partners, completed with risk assessment and mitigation strategy. 
In fact, on November 20, 2000, Deerfield Beach was again recognized by 
FEMA with a Model Community Award.
  The residents of Deerfield Beach demonstrated the importance they 
place on hazard mitigation when they passed an $8 million bond issue in 
November, 1999, to build the MOC, one of the country's first. Another 
$22 million has been committed toward this project over the last few 
years to upgrade the City's water filtration facilities. Moreover, FEMA 
awarded Deerfield Beach with a Hazard Mitigation grant in the amount of 
$400,000.
  An earmark of $25 million for Project Impact would greatly help the 
efforts of communities like Deerfield Beach to be pro-active toward 
emergency preparedness. I am proud of the city's leadership on this 
issue, and I am hopeful that this Congress will recognize the 
commitment of communities like Deerfield Beach by providing these 
important and necessary funds.
  I urge you to support the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps) will be postponed.

                              {time}  2045

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2002, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-377, shall not be less than 100 
     percent of the amounts anticipated by FEMA necessary for its 
     radiological emergency preparedness program for the next 
     fiscal year. The methodology for assessment and collection of 
     fees shall be fair and equitable; and shall reflect costs of 
     providing such services, including administrative costs of 
     collecting such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section 
     shall be deposited in the Fund as offsetting collections and 
     will become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 
     2002, and remain available until expended.


                   Emergency Food and Shelter Program

       To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant 
     to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $140,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That total 
     administrative costs shall not exceed 3\1/2\ percent of the 
     total appropriation.


                     National Flood Insurance Fund

                      (including transfer of funds)

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (``the Act''), the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973, as amended, not to exceed $28,798,000 for salaries and 
     expenses associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance 
     operations, and not to exceed $76,381,000 for flood 
     mitigation, including up to $20,000,000 for expenses under 
     section 1366 of the Act, which amount shall be available for 
     transfer to the National Flood Mitigation Fund until 
     September 30, 2003. In fiscal year 2002, no funds in excess 
     of: (1) $55,000,000 for operating expenses; (2) $536,750,000 
     for agents' commissions and taxes; and (3) $30,000,000 for 
     interest on Treasury borrowings shall be available from the 
     National Flood Insurance Fund without prior notice to the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       In addition, up to $7,000,000 in fees collected but 
     unexpended during fiscal years 2000 through 2001 shall be 
     transferred to the Flood Map Modernization Fund and available 
     for expenditure in fiscal year 2002.
       Section 1309(a)(2) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)), as 
     amended, is further amended by striking ``2001'' and 
     inserting ``2002''.
       Section 1319 of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4026), is 
     amended by striking ``after'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``after September 30, 2001.''.
       Section 1336(a) of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4056(a)), 
     is amended by striking ``ending'' and all that follows 
     through the second comma thereafter and inserting ``ending 
     September 30, 2001,''.
       Section 1376(c) of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4127(c)), 
     is amended by striking ``December 31, 2001'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2002''.


                     National Flood Mitigation Fund

       Notwithstanding sections 1366(b)(3)(B)-(C) and 1366(f) of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003, 
     for activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to 
     structures pursuant to such Act, of which $20,000,000 shall 
     be derived from the National Flood Insurance Fund. Of the 
     amount provided, $2,500,000 is to be used for the purchase of 
     flood-prone properties in the city of Austin, Minnesota, and 
     any cost-share is waived.

                    General Services Administration


                Federal Consumer Information Center Fund

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Consumer Information 
     Center, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $7,276,000, to be deposited into the Federal Consumer 
     Information Center Fund: Provided, That the appropriations, 
     revenues, and collections deposited into the Fund shall be 
     available for necessary expenses of Federal Consumer 
     Information Center activities in the aggregate amount of 
     $12,000,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections 
     accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2002 in excess of 
     $12,000,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be 
     available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts: Provided further, That the Federal 
     Consumer Information Center (FCIC) may not undertake any 
     action that affects its organization, administrative 
     location, or in any way alters its current function or 
     mission mandate without first submitting a proposal to the 
     Committees on Appropriations for approval: Provided further, 
     That such proposal shall include the justification for such 
     action, a description of all planned organizational 
     realignments, the anticipated staffing or personnel changes, 
     an assessment of the effect on the current operations of 
     FCIC, and estimates of the proposed changes on future funding 
     needs.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                           human space flight


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of human space flight research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, support and services; maintenance; construction 
     of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, 
     revitalization and modification of facilities, construction 
     of new facilities and additions to existing facilities, 
     facility planning and design, environmental compliance and 
     restoration, and acquisition or condemnation of real 
     property, as authorized by law; space flight, spacecraft 
     control and communications activities including operations, 
     production, and services; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $20,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; and 
     purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $7,047,400,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2003, of which amounts 
     as determined by the Administrator for salaries and benefits; 
     training, travel and awards; facility and related costs; 
     information technology services; science, engineering, 
     fabricating and testing services; and other administrative 
     services may be transferred to the Science, Aeronautics and 
     Technology account in accordance with section 312(b) of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended by 
     Public Law 106-377.
       For an additional amount for ``Human space flight'', for 
     the development of a crew

[[Page 15012]]

     return vehicle with capacity for no less than six persons, 
     for use with the international space station, $275,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That 
     none of the funds provided under this paragraph may be 
     obligated prior to August 1, 2002: Provided further, That the 
     funds made available under this paragraph shall be rescinded 
     on July 15, 2002, unless the President requests at least 
     $200,000,000 in the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 
     continuation of the crew return vehicle program.


                  science, aeronautics and technology

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology 
     research and development activities, including research, 
     development, operations, support and services; maintenance; 
     construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, 
     revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction 
     of new facilities and additions to existing facilities, 
     facility planning and design, environmental compliance and 
     restoration, and acquisition or condemnation of real 
     property, as authorized by law; space flight, spacecraft 
     control and communications activities including operations, 
     production, and services; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $20,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; and 
     purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $7,605,300,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2003, of which amounts 
     as determined by the Administrator for salaries and benefits; 
     training, travel and awards; facility and related costs; 
     information technology services; science, engineering, 
     fabricating and testing services; and other administrative 
     services may be transferred to the Human Space Flight account 
     in accordance with section 312(b) of the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Act of 1958, as amended by Public Law 106-377.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Roemer

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

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       In title III, under the heading ``National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration'', before the item relating to ``office 
     of inspector general'', insert the following:


          reduction of amounts for international space station

       The amounts otherwise provided in this title for the 
     following accounts and activities are hereby reduced by the 
     following amounts:
       (1) ``Human Space Flight'', the aggregate amount specified 
     in the first paragraph of such account, $1,531,300,000.
       (2) ``Human Space Flight'', the amount specified in the 
     second paragraph of such account for the development of a 
     crew return vehicle, $275,000,000.
       (3) ``Science, Aeronautics and Technology'', the aggregate 
     amount, $343,600,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I have offered over the last 
several years that would eliminate all funding for the Space Station. I 
have done so over the last several years because this Space Station had 
an initial projected cost to the American taxpayers across this great 
country in 1984 of $8 billion.
  Today, in 2001, the General Accounting Office has come out with a 
study that says the total cost of this Space Station, for launching, 
for engineering, for technology, for construction, is not going to be 
$8 billion, it is not going to be $80 billion, it is going to be over 
$100 billion, total cost to the American taxpayer.
  That is a staggering sum of money. I would be the first one out there 
as a proponent for a Space Station if it was going to perform the great 
tasks that we envisioned, a stepping stone with a telescope, like 
Hubble, to help us understand the solar system, a telescope pointed to 
the Earth to help us with the environment, a stepping stone and a 
tether to other planets for exploration. Great scientific discoveries 
promised. It cannot do any of those things today. None of those things. 
But it has gone from $8 billion to over $100 billion.
  I would say to my colleagues, if this was a welfare program, a public 
housing program, an education program, it would not be here today. It 
would have been canceled a long time ago, but it is not. It has got a 
lot of contractors out there building in some States, so it has been 
funded through the years.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that even with the cost and the 
lack of science, that if we had a perfect budgetary situation and it 
was not starting to grow into other programs and hurting some other 
very good space programs, delaying and canceling them, I still might be 
for it. Or if we had not lost $40 billion in our projected surplus in 
the last month, I might be for it.
  But this body needs to make tough decisions about what the priorities 
will be in spending, in cuts, in taxes; and we have got to make those 
decisions in the next few months. So I would hope this body will belly 
up and make some of these difficult decisions and not go around saying 
we can afford to fund every single program, especially this one, who in 
the last few months, NASA officials just announced that they had a $4 
billion overrun, just announced for the next few years. $4 billion for 
the next few years.
  This is the bill, ladies and gentlemen. We line item in this bill how 
much we will spend on housing, how much we will spend on aeronautics, 
how much we will spend on national science. We do not then say, you can 
go over by $4 billion, go do anything you want. The line items are 
there for a purpose. We have the job, our oversight, our 
responsibility, is to try to make sure these programs are run well.
  The proponents on the other side of this I have the utmost respect 
for and served on the Committee on Science for several years with them, 
Members from Texas and Alabama and Virginia and Florida. I respect what 
they are doing, I respect the science that we are trying to achieve, 
and I like many of those Members personally that will be the proponents 
for this Space Station. But, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly hope that 
we can get the cost overruns under control so that this does not 
cannibalize the rest of very worthwhile NASA science programs and 
projects.
  I will not offer this amendment for a vote. I have an amendment that 
will simply fence the total amount we spend on this project in the 
future that Senator McCain has passed in the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and 
wait for future debate on the next amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $23,700,000.


                       administrative provisions

       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', or ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'' by this appropriations Act, when 
     any activity has been initiated by the incurrence of 
     obligations for construction of facilities as authorized by 
     law, such amount available for such activity shall remain 
     available until expended. This provision does not apply to 
     the amounts appropriated for institutional minor 
     revitalization and construction of facilities, and 
     institutional facility planning and design.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', or ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'' by this appropriations Act, the 
     amounts appropriated for construction of facilities shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2004.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Office of Inspector General'', amounts 
     made available by this Act for personnel and related costs 
     and travel expenses of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall remain available until September 30, 
     2002 and may be used to enter into contracts for training, 
     investigations, costs associated with personnel relocation, 
     and for other services, to be provided during the next fiscal 
     year. Funds for announced prizes otherwise authorized shall 
     remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the 
     prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn.

[[Page 15013]]

       No funds in this or any other Appropriations Act may be 
     used to finalize an agreement prior to December 1, 2002 
     between NASA and a nongovernment organization to conduct 
     research utilization and commercialization management 
     activities of the International Space Station.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       central liquidity facility

                     (including transfer of funds)

       During fiscal year 2002, gross obligations of the Central 
     Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct 
     loans to member credit unions, as authorized by 12 U.S.C. 
     1795 et seq., shall not exceed $1,500,000,000: Provided, That 
     administrative expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility 
     shall not exceed $309,000: Provided further, That $1,000,000 
     shall be transferred to the Community Development Revolving 
     Loan Fund.

                      National Science Foundation


                    research and related activities

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and 
     the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C. 
     1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     authorized travel; maintenance and operation of aircraft and 
     purchase of flight services for research support; acquisition 
     of aircraft; $3,642,340,000, of which not to exceed 
     $306,230,000 shall remain available until expended for Polar 
     research and operations support, and for reimbursement to 
     other Federal agencies for operational and science support 
     and logistical and other related activities for the United 
     States Antarctic program; the balance to remain available 
     until September 30, 2003: Provided, That receipts for 
     scientific support services and materials furnished by the 
     National Research Centers and other National Science 
     Foundation supported research facilities may be credited to 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That to the extent that 
     the amount appropriated is less than the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for included program 
     activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings, 
     specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities 
     or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.


          major research facilities construction and equipment

       For necessary expenses of major construction projects 
     pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as 
     amended, including authorized travel, $135,300,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                     education and human resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science and 
     engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia, $885,720,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That 
     to the extent that the amount of this appropriation is less 
     than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     included program activities, all amounts, including floors 
     and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those 
     program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced 
     proportionally.


                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; 
     reimbursement of the General Services Administration for 
     security guard services; $170,040,000: Provided, That 
     contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and expenses'' 
     in fiscal year 2002 for maintenance and operation of 
     facilities, and for other services, to be provided during the 
     next fiscal year.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $6,760,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2003.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

       For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 
     for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as 
     authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $105,000,000, of which $10,000,000 
     shall be for a homeownership program that is used in 
     conjunction with section 8 assistance under the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended.

                        Selective Service System


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System, 
     including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training 
     for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service 
     System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian 
     employees; and not to exceed $500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; $25,003,000: Provided, That during 
     the current fiscal year, the President may exempt this 
     appropriation from the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, whenever 
     the President deems such action to be necessary in the 
     interest of national defense: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in 
     connection with the induction of any person into the Armed 
     Forces of the United States.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of 
     this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific 
     limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such 
     travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth therefor 
     in the budget estimates submitted for the appropriations: 
     Provided, That this provision does not apply to accounts that 
     do not contain an object classification for travel: Provided 
     further, That this section shall not apply to travel 
     performed by uncompensated officials of local boards and 
     appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to travel 
     performed directly in connection with care and treatment of 
     medical beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs; 
     to travel performed in connection with major disasters or 
     emergencies declared or determined by the President under the 
     provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act; to travel performed by the Offices 
     of Inspector General in connection with audits and 
     investigations; or to payments to interagency motor pools 
     where separately set forth in the budget schedules: Provided 
     further, That if appropriations in titles I, II, and III 
     exceed the amounts set forth in budget estimates initially 
     submitted for such appropriations, the expenditures for 
     travel may correspondingly exceed the amounts therefor set 
     forth in the estimates only to the extent such an increase is 
     approved by the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the 
     administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be 
     available in the current fiscal year for purchase of 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act 
     or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available, 
     without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses, 
     for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for 
     utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of 
     the Federal National Mortgage Association, Government 
     National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
     Corporation, Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or 
     any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured 
     bank within the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
       Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended--
       (1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee 
     of the United States unless--
       (A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a 
     voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and 
     the items or services for which such expenditure is being 
     made; or
       (B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such 
     certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is 
     specifically authorized by law; and
       (2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the 
     General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law 
     from such audit.
       Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency may be expended for the transportation 
     of any officer or employee of such department or agency 
     between the domicile and the place of employment of the 
     officer or employee, with the exception of an officer or 
     employee authorized such transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344 
     or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
       Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients 
     that do not share in the cost of conducting research 
     resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the 
     Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the 
     recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the 
     grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
       Sec. 408. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used, directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
     Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
     proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the 
     Consumer Product Safety

[[Page 15014]]

     Commission pursuant to section 7 of the Consumer Product 
     Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
       Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law, 
     or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an 
     existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any 
     appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting 
     service shall be limited to contracts which are: (1) a matter 
     of public record and available for public inspection; and (2) 
     thereafter included in a publicly available list of all 
     contracts entered into within 24 months prior to the date on 
     which the list is made available to the public and of all 
     contracts on which performance has not been completed by such 
     date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall be 
     updated quarterly and shall include a narrative description 
     of the work to be performed under each such contract.
       Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of 
     any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive 
     agency: (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in 
     full compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder; and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to 
     such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies, 
     analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency 
     which is substantially derived from or substantially includes 
     any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain 
     information concerning: (A) the contract pursuant to which 
     the report was prepared; and (B) the contractor who prepared 
     the report pursuant to such contract.
       Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of such department or agency.
       Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001 
     with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than 
     22 miles per gallon.
       Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this 
     Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real 
     property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 
     unless the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits a report 
     which the Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a 
     period of 30 days has expired following the date on which the 
     report is received by the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 415. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for 
     indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management 
     and Budget Circular A-21.
       Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2002 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the program, project, or 
     activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating 
     to risk assessment, the protection of private property 
     rights, or unfunded mandates.
       Sec. 419. Corporations and agencies of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the 
     Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to each such 
     corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make 
     such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of such Act as may be 
     necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the 
     budget for 2002 for such corporation or agency except as 
     hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these 
     corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or 
     mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly 
     provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of 
     other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior 
     appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not 
     apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of 
     these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are 
     necessary to protect the financial interest of the United 
     States Government.
       Sec. 420. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     term ``qualified student loan'' with respect to national 
     service education awards shall mean any loan determined by an 
     institution of higher education to be necessary to cover a 
     student's cost of attendance at such institution and made 
     directly to a student by a state agency, in addition to other 
     meanings under section 148(b)(7) of the National and 
     Community Service Act.
       Sec. 421. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to promulgate a final 
     regulation to implement changes in the payment of pesticide 
     tolerance processing fees as proposed at 64 Fed. Reg. 31040, 
     or any similar proposals. The Environmental Protection Agency 
     may proceed with the development of such a rule.
       Sec. 422. The Environmental Protection Agency may not use 
     any of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act to implement the Registration Fee system codified at 
     40 Code of Federal Regulations Subpart U (sections 152.400 et 
     seq.) if its authority to collect maintenance fees pursuant 
     to FIFRA section 4(i)(5) is extended for at least one year 
     beyond September 30, 2001.
       Sec. 423. Except in the case of entities that are funded 
     solely with Federal funds or any natural persons that are 
     funded under this Act, none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     used for the planning or execution of any program to pay the 
     expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties to 
     lobby or litigate in respect to adjudicatory proceedings 
     funded in this Act. A chief executive officer of any entity 
     receiving funds under this Act shall certify that none of 
     these funds have been used to engage in the lobbying of the 
     Federal Government or in litigation against the United States 
     unless authorized under existing law.
       Sec. 424. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other 
     than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the 
     Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
       Sec. 425. All Departments and agencies funded under this 
     Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing 
     statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of 
     ``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of 
     their business practices and public service activities.
       Sec. 426. Section 104(n)(4) of the Cerro Grande Fire 
     Assistance Act (Public Law 106-246) is amended by striking 
     ``beginning not later than the expiration of the 1-year 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof, ``within 120 days after the 
     Director issues the report required by subsection (n) in 2002 
     and 2003.''.

  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill, through page 93, line 25, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Bishop

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

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Bishop:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

       Subtitle B of title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5197-5197g) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 629. MINORITY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish a minority 
     emergency preparedness demonstration program to research and 
     promote the capacity of minority communities to provide data, 
     information, and awareness education by providing grants to 
     or executing contracts or cooperative agreements with 
     eligible nonprofit organizations to establish and conduct 
     such programs.
       ``(b) Activities Supported.--An eligible nonprofit 
     organization may use a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement awarded under this section--
       ``(1) to conduct research into the status of emergency 
     preparedness and disaster response awareness in African 
     American and Hispanic households located in urban, suburban, 
     and rural communities, particularly in those States and 
     regions most impacted by natural and manmade disasters and 
     emergencies; and
       ``(2) to develop and promote awareness of emergency 
     preparedness education programs within minority communities, 
     including development and preparation of culturally competent 
     educational and awareness materials that can be used to 
     disseminate information to minority organizations and 
     institutions.

[[Page 15015]]

       ``(c) Eligible Organizations.--A nonprofit organization is 
     eligible to be awarded a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement under this section with respect to a program if the 
     organization is a nonprofit organization that is described in 
     section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 
     U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of 
     such Code, whose primary mission is to provide services to 
     communities predominately populated by minority citizens, and 
     that can demonstrate a partnership with a minority-owned 
     business enterprise or minority business located in a HUBZone 
     (as defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632(p))) with respect to the program.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--A recipient of a grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement awarded under this section may only use 
     the proceeds of the grant, contract, or agreement to--
       ``(1) acquire expert professional services necessary to 
     conduct research in communities predominately populated by 
     minority citizens, with a primary emphasis on African 
     American and Hispanic communities;
       ``(2) develop and prepare informational materials to 
     promote awareness among minority communities about emergency 
     preparedness and how to protect their households and 
     communities in advance of disasters;
       ``(3) establish consortia with minority national 
     organizations, minority institutions of higher education, and 
     faith-based institutions to disseminate information about 
     emergency preparedness to minority communities; and
       ``(4) implement a joint project with a minority serving 
     institution, including a part B institution (as defined in 
     section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1061(2))), an institution described in subparagraph (A), (B), 
     or (C) of section 326 of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1063b(e)(1)(A), 
     (B), or (C)), and a Hispanic-serving institution (as defined 
     in section 502(a)(5) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5))).
       ``(e) Application and Review Procedure.--To be eligible to 
     receive a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under 
     this section, an organization must submit an application to 
     the Director at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Director may reasonably require. The 
     Director shall establish a procedure by which to accept such 
     applications.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002 and such funds as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2007. Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of 
the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their 
hard work on this bill and also the Chair and ranking member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the committee which has 
the authorizing jurisdiction.
  I stand before Members today to ask for their support for my 
amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. My amendment appropriates 
no additional funds. It only authorizes the use of existing funds for 
an important program. In substance, it authorizes the director of FEMA 
to establish a minority emergency preparedness demonstration program 
utilizing grants, contracts and agreements with community-based 501(c)3 
nonprofit corporations. The program will allow the nonprofits to 
research the status of emergency preparedness in minority households in 
urban, rural and suburban communities and to enhance emergency and 
disaster response preparedness. It would authorize the director to 
provide grants or to execute contracts and cooperative agreements with 
eligible nonprofit corporations to establish and to conduct these 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, in just this past year, 51 disasters were declared in 
33 different States. In fact, this year already 23 disasters have 
already been declared in 22 different States. These disasters include 
tornadoes, winter storms, floods, spring storms, earthquakes, and ice 
storms. Unfortunately, these numbers do not include the hundreds of 
fires that occur annually. According to FEMA, the impact on minority 
communities is 2\1/2\ times more than on any other group.
  It is my hope that all people in high-risk circumstances will benefit 
from this program which will document and make available information 
about the dangers that are present in different locations as well as 
the practical guidance on how to protect against these disasters. I ask 
my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is good for America 
and it is good for the people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and thank him for this 
amendment. The amendment would establish a new program within FEMA for 
the purpose of increasing the awareness of disaster preparedness needs 
within minority communities. He has very well stated the need. This is 
an amendment that we have checked with the chairman of the authorizing 
committee and the appropriate subcommittee Chair. They are in agreement 
that this is a good amendment.
  While FEMA has existing programs structured to raise the general 
awareness within all communities of the need to prepare for disasters, 
I agree with the gentleman that focusing on special populations may be 
necessary. It is for this reason that I rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Bishop) for offering this amendment which establishes a Minority 
Emergency Preparedness Demonstration Program at FEMA.
  In my home State of California, we have experienced more than our 
fair share of natural disasters, earthquakes, floods, fires and what 
have you, over the past decade. We are still recovering from the pain 
and devastation created by the Northridge Earthquake back in 1994. 
Minority communities like the one I represent need more information to 
help them prepare for these sorts of disasters. After Northridge, many 
people were left homeless. FEMA did an outstanding job of helping our 
community, but I think a Minority Emergency Preparedness Program could 
do even more, if this were funded through FEMA.
  People in minority communities are often more heavily impacted by 
these types of disasters. People often live in poorly designed housing 
and have limited access to emergency preparedness materials that are 
printed in their own language. It makes sense to have information 
available to them in their own language. This would provide assistance 
to Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment. It gives us an 
opportunity to really reach out to those communities that have been so 
severely impacted with natural disasters and emergency situations. I 
believe that this will be a real opportunity for our government to be 
user friendly to the individuals and to the communities that often bear 
the brunt of the worst that nature has to offer.
  I would ask that we support this amendment. I thank the chairman and 
the ranking member of the committee, as well as the chairman and 
ranking members of the authorizing committees for their cooperation and 
support. We appreciate that very much; and we think that when we have 
completed our work on this bill, we will have done a day's work for the 
people of America. I urge passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 15016]]

  Mr. Chairman, after having consulted with my ranking member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), we agree this is a 
constructive amendment, that it is a positive idea, that it helps the 
bill, and we accept it. We urge its adoption.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
Representative Sanford Bishop's amendment to authorize FEMA to 
establish a minority emergency preparedness demonstration program, 
under which funding would be provided to eligible non-profit 
organizations to conduct research into the state of preparedness and 
disaster response awareness in African American and Hispanic 
households.
  A number of my constituents in Watts, Compton, Lynwood, and Long 
Beach are minorities who have been affected by natural disasters. There 
is an ever-present threat of an earthquake and the looming potential of 
floods. It is essential that they have contingency plans based on 
timely information in order to prepare for potential disasters. It is 
critical that funding be made available to determine the degree to 
which communities of color are aware of and prepared to respond to 
impending disaster. I offer my support to my colleague for this very 
timely amendment, and commend him for his foresight.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen:
       At the end of the bill, after the last section (before the 
     short title) insert the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or 
     administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and a Member 
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment along with my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), to prevent the 
Veterans Administration from using the existing Veterans Equitable 
Resource Allocation formula to allocate veterans medical dollars across 
the country. This is the 3rd year in a row that I have offered this 
amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  In 1997, Congress passed legislation that authorized the VA to 
develop a new formula for allocating veterans medical care dollars 
across the Nation. The resulting formula, VERA, has not worked as 
intended. VERA has had a terrible effect of restricting access to 
veterans medical care in my part of the Northeast, including my 
district in New Jersey, which is part of Veterans Integrated Service 
Network, or VISN, 3. This network, which serves parts of New York and 
New Jersey, has borne the brunt of this funding shift. According to the 
VA's own figures, funding for VISN 3 has been reduced by 6 percent or 
$64 million at a time when most other networks have received funding 
increases.
  New Jersey has the second oldest veterans population in the Nation 
behind Florida. Our State has the fourth highest number of complex-care 
patients treated at our hospitals. Yet New Jersey's older, sicker 
veterans are routinely left waiting months for visits to primary care 
physicians and specialists or are denied care at our two VA nursing 
homes.
  Something is fundamentally wrong with the VERA allocation formula if 
it continues to decrease funding for areas where veterans have the 
greatest medical needs. All veterans, regardless of where they live, 
have earned and deserve access to the same quality of medical care, 
care that is too often denied under the current formula.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to withdraw this amendment today, but this 
issue must be addressed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member seeking time in opposition to this 
amendment?
  If not, the gentleman from New Jersey still has time remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
  Congressman Frelinghuysen, along with New York Representative Maurice 
Hinchey, have been tireless crusaders for the rights of our nation's 
veterans, and this amendment highlights this fact by forcing the VA to 
abandon its flawed funded formula for providing for the health care 
needs of America's veterans.
  Under the current system, VERA bases its resource allocation on 
sending more dollars to areas where there are more veterans--not where 
the needs are the greatest.
  While that may sound rationale--the result has been horrendous for 
areas of the country like Queens and the Bronx, which I represent.
  The facts bare out that increasingly more VA dollars are going to the 
South and Southwest portions of the country were more veterans live--
veterans who are often younger and healthier.
  The result is less resources in the areas of the country, like New 
York City, where the veterans are older, sicker, and in more desperate 
need of care.
  I heard a story from a constituent regarding a VA hospital he saw 
while on vacation in Florida. It was a state of the art facility, with 
plenty of doctors and nurses on call--and no patients.
  He and his wife informed me that the place was virtually empty--but 
that facility had the best money can buy.
  In New York City, meanwhile, we continue to see lay-offs of the 
professional doctors and nurses at our VA hospitals and clinics; long 
lines for care; and a far too high ratio of nurses per patient.
  I am not saying that we should deprive our veterans in the South and 
Southwest part of the country their fair share of resources; all we ask 
for this amendment is that the VA provide equal treatment and resources 
to all veterans regardless of where they reside.
  It is a shame that the VERA system has pitted veterans in one region 
of the country versus veterans in other regions.
  Therefore, I am supportive of the Frelinghuysen amendment to prohibit 
any Federal funds from implementing or administering the VERA system.
  I ask all of my colleagues from throughout the Nation to support this 
amendment that has caused so much pain for so many veterans.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.
  My congressional district in southern Nevada has the fastest growing 
veteran population in the country.
  The medical facilities in my district have seen a 24.4 percent 
increase in the number of veterans that they serve over the past year. 
This is a phenomenal increase.
  Unfortunately, veterans programs in southern Nevada do not receive 
sufficient funding to provide all the services that veterans need and 
this shortfall in funding has had a negative impact on the delivery of 
veterans health care services.
  Clinics are short-staffed and veterans are still waiting far too long 
for medical appointments. Demands for veteran health care services in 
southern Nevada is increasing faster than the availability for 
facilities and providers. We need more resources.
  The VERA system is a fair and equitable way to ensure that the 
distribution of VA funds is consistent with the distribution of the 
veterans population.
  The implementation of this system is an essential step forward in the 
continued improvement of our VA health care system.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman I want to commend the gentleman 
for his strong advocacy on behalf of Veterans Networks that have a 
rapidly

[[Page 15017]]

aging population and an aging infrastructure to maintain. The VA in the 
State of New Jersey has the tough challenge of providing quality health 
care services to a veterans population that is the second oldest on 
average in the Nation. And unlike many other States that have older 
populations, New Jersey has an aging health care infrastructure that is 
proven costly to maintain and to operate.
  As the gentleman knows, we have been working for some time to find 
solutions to this problem so that our veterans are not shortchanged by 
VERA.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs for his comments.
  As the gentleman knows, I and nearly 30 of my colleagues have 
introduced legislation to address the problem of resource allocation 
within the VA health care system. Many of us believe that areas of the 
country with the high cost of living have been unfairly disadvantaged 
under the existing resource allocation formula. I also know that the 
gentleman is working on several VA health care initiatives that are 
designed to improve the VA health care system to provide better service 
for our veterans.
  My question is, what is the best way to ensure that veterans health 
services, particularly specialty care services like spinal cord injury 
treatment, are adequately maintained for all of our veterans, and not 
just those in certain parts of our country?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I do thank my friend from New 
Jersey for his excellent question. I believe, like the gentleman does, 
that a veteran is a veteran is a veteran, no matter in what part of the 
country he or she happens to reside. As the gentleman knows, in some of 
our networks, there has been an erosion in certain specialty care 
services. For example, in 1996, we required the VA to maintain a 
certain level of capacity in specialized programs. We now know that 
despite this Congressional requirement, specialty care bed capacity has 
been reduced by as much as 65 percent.
  I wish to reassure the gentleman that, in fact, I am working, as 
chairman of the full Committee on Veterans Affairs, on a comprehensive 
VA health care improvement and capacity restoration bill. Once that 
bill is finalized and I have a chance to share that proposal with many 
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I believe he and others will find 
that it will appropriately and compassionately address many of the 
concerns which the gentleman has raised so adequately on the floor 
today.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments and for his leadership, as well as the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to join my colleagues in supporting 
this amendment. VERA, the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, 
is badly in need of what my colleague from New Jersey attempts to do 
with this, and my colleague from New York.
  Under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I have 
witnessed the results of cuts that have effectively removed hundreds of 
millions of dollars from the lower New York area veterans network.
  VERA is fundamentally flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's 
methodology, its implementation, and the VA's oversight of this new 
spending plan.
  The veteran's network in our area has the oldest veterans population, 
the highest number of veterans with spinal cord injuries, the highest 
number of veterans suffering from mental illness, the highest incidence 
of hepatitis C in its veterans population, and the highest number of 
homeless veterans.
  It is inconceivable and intolerable that the VA would continually 
reduce our region's funding.
  VISN 3 has required reserve funding for the last 4 years because our 
veterans hospitals keep running out of money.
  When will we realize that the VA should fund our hospitals properly 
the first time and leave reserve funds for emergencies?
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment and make the investment in our veterans hospitals necessary 
to keep our promise to our veterans. The veterans of this Nation were 
there is our time of need. We ought to do the same for them.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Frelinghuysen amendment, for the third year in a row.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen) which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used 
by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the 
Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. Unfortunately 
this has turned into a regional legislative battle between northeastern 
states and especially low-population Great Plains and Rocky Mountain 
states' delegations on one hand, and on the other hand the Sunbelt 
states with their larger numbers of veterans retirees. Those of us 
representing the former see our veterans left out in the cold while the 
money flows to the populace Sunbelt states. Once again, we may be out-
voted but it certainly isn't fair to veterans in our states.
  From the time the Clinton Administration announced this new system, 
this Member has voiced his strong opposition to VERA because of its 
inherent flaws in inequitable distribution of funds, and has supported 
funding levels of the VA Health Administration above the amount the 
Clinton Administration recommended.
  This Member is proud to have supported the increases in funding which 
Congress has provided for veterans health care recent years. However, 
the veterans health care system in Nebraska continues to experience 
growing service and funding shortfalls each year even after the forced 
closing of two of our three in-patient facilities, reducing the number 
of full time employees fourteen percent and completing integration of 
all three VA Medical centers. In fiscal year 1999, the VISN 14 area--
consisting of Nebraska and Iowa experienced a $6 million shortfall. In 
fiscal year 2000, the shortfall was $17 million. In fiscal year 2001, 
the shortfall was $48 million. For the short-term, the VA Central 
Office has provided VISN 14 with a $32 million loan, which it will be 
required to repay, and a $16 million grant. While VISN 14 continues to 
experience growing shortfalls in funding, the number of patients 
continues to increase.
  Clearly the VERA system has had a very negative impact on Nebraska 
and other sparsely populated areas of the country. All members of 
Congress should agree, Mr. Chairman, that the VA must provide adequate 
services and facilities for veterans all across the country regardless 
of whether they live in sparsely populated areas with resultant low 
usage numbers for VA hospitals. The funding distribution unfairly 
reallocates the VA's health care budget based strictly on a per capita 
veterans usage of facilities. There must be at least a basic level of 
acceptable national infrastructure of facilities, medical personnel, 
and services for meeting the very real medical needs faced by our 
veterans wherever they live. There must be a threshold funding level 
for VA medical services in each state and region before any per-capita 
funding formula is applied. That is only common sense, but the Clinton 
Administration had too little of that valuable commodity when it comes 
to treating veterans in our part of the country humanely and equitably.
  In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
the Frelinghuysen amendment and fulfill the obligation to provide care 
to those who have so honorably served our country--no matter where they 
live in these United States of America.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for his passionate 
advocacy on behalf of our Nation's veterans and veterans in his 
district. I am sympathetic to his concerns about VERA, being myself 
from the Northeast.
  This is not an easy issue for every Member from the Northeast or 
Midwest, many of whom have a concern about the impact of medical 
dollars moving to growing regions. We hear from colleagues representing 
the South and the Southwest worried that not enough is being provided 
in their regions.

[[Page 15018]]

  So I am hopeful that the new VA Secretary will give some attention to 
this issue, and that, together, we can find a solution. I thank the 
gentleman for withdrawing his amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman New York (Mr. 
Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my leader on the subcommittee for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that the veterans health care budget 
submitted by the Bush Administration is woefully inadequate to meet the 
needs of our veterans across the country, but because of the computer 
formula known as VERA, veterans in New York and other States will 
suffer disproportionately.
  VERA and the inadequate funding levels in this bill will guarantee 
cuts in health care for many veterans across the country. While VERA 
purports to provide equitable health care in all regions, without 
question it has lowered the quality of care in many places. VERA is not 
equitable or fair to veterans in many parts of the country.
  Since 1995, in the Hudson Valley Health Care System, area which 
serves part of New York, we have seen the following: there has been a 
cut in the number of employees by 34 percent; beds have been cut by 52 
percent; while the number of unique patients has increased by 76 
percent; and the number of visits has increased by 84 percent.
  Despite increasing enrollment, our share of resources continues to 
shrink under VERA. VISN 3 and the region that I represent treats older 
and sicker veterans more so than any other VISN in the country. They 
have the highest fuel costs in the Nation, by far. We have the highest 
reported incidence of hepatitis C in the Nation and are treating the 
greatest number of hepatitis C patients, and have the highest rate of 
homeless veterans. VERA does not account for any of these costs.
  Despite the cuts in services and efforts to maximize operating 
efficiencies, we are still facing even more funding shortfalls in this 
part of the country. All the cuts in personnel and facilities that can 
be conceived of have been made in our region, yet VA facilities are 
facing a $32 million shortfall in the Hudson Valley area of New York, 
while VISN 3 as a whole is facing a $160 million shortfall.
  Under VERA, every year is a funding emergency, forcing us to beg for 
additional funding to address these shortfalls. This year, 4 VISNs are 
receiving emergency funds because of inadequacies in this VERA formula. 
My region, number 3, is receiving $64 million, far short of what is 
needed. Because of VERA and this year's inadequate budget, it is an 
absolute certainty we will need emergency funding to get through this 
next year.
  While those being injured the most under VERA are those who reside in 
the Northeast and Midwest areas of our country, other regions have 
suffered in the past and may do so again under VERA in the immediate 
future. In fiscal year 2002, the losses would include VISNs serving the 
following regions: the Bronx, New York; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Chicago, 
Illinois; Long Beach, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Phoenix Arizona; 
Albany New York; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

                              {time}  2115

  Our veterans should not be penalized because of where they live, but 
as long as the Veterans' Administration is allocating resources in the 
name of this VERA formula, we will continue to have these inadequacies 
and injustices that do a great disservice to veterans in my part of the 
country and in many others.


                 Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Waxman

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

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Waxman:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement 
     any provision of the April 2001 report entitled ``Plan for 
     the Development of a 25-Year General Use Plan for Department 
     of Veterans Affairs West Los Angeles Healthcare Center''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a noncontroversial amendment clarifying that an April 2001 
report entitled ``The Plan for the Development of a 25-Year General Use 
Plan'' for the VA West Los Angeles Health Care Center is a preliminary 
plan in the development of a master plan for the lands on that 
property. There is concern about the status of this preliminary plan 
because it contains some controversial provisions strongly opposed by 
the local residents, community groups, and public officials. This might 
have been avoided, but no local, county, and State officials, and only 
a very small number of community organizations in the area were allowed 
to participate in the process to develop this plan. The West L.A. VA 
also opposes parts of the plan.
  The VA will make its decisions for the future use of the West L.A. VA 
lands under the existing CARES (Capital Assessment Realignment for 
Enhanced Services) process that was initiated in 1999. Under this 
process, the VA will conduct a detailed analysis of VA property 
throughout the country to determine the best option for serving 
veterans in each area.
  This amendment would bar the use of Federal funds to implement any of 
the April 2001 plan's provisions. Its intent is simply to clarify that 
it is only a preliminary report and that this final plan for use of the 
land will be developed under the CARES process.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing controversial about this amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but 
I am not in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. We have discussed 
this with the gentleman. The request is to put the implementation of 
this study on hold until there is more input from the community and 
with the local representatives. We would be prepared to accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

       Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Rangel: 
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the requirement under section 
     12(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437j(c); relating to community service).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment would strike the funding for the redundant provision 
that is in the 1998 Public Housing Act that requires tenants in public 
housing to do community work. It has taken about 3 years for HUD to put 
together the regulations in order to guide this, and HUD does not 
oppose the striking of the funds that are imposed upon the tenants in 
public housing, because there is no other provisions for other people 
that receive Federal funds to do this type of thing.

[[Page 15019]]

  In addition to it, the local and State communities are all working 
hard under the welfare reform legislation to see that people who are 
able to work can work, and it is an unfunded mandate, and I am certain 
that HUD could be using the funds for other purposes. I understand the 
authorizing committee has no objections to this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any HUD funding to be used 
to implement the community service requirements that we passed as part 
of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. As a member 
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I worked with my 
colleagues on this provision and know it to be very fair with a great 
deal of flexibility for those subject to it.
  This amendment seeks to reverse an important initiative that was part 
of our welfare reform effort. In approving the Community Service 
Initiative, we sought to create a mutuality of obligation between the 
provider of the housing and the recipient of the housing. This 
obligation is not overwhelming, it only calls for 8 hours a month of 
assistance from the resident; that is only 2 hours a week. It is a very 
flexible requirement.
  The initiative was crafted to have no real limits to what can be 
considered community service so that it can be satisfied by planting 
and maintaining a garden, voter registration efforts, or can be work 
with the big brothers or big sisters programs. Under the language of 
the provision we give the individual Housing Authorities full authority 
to make the determination for what is an allowable activity.
  This initiative enjoys bipartisan support and was not only supported 
by the Clinton administration, it was included in former President 
Clinton's own public housing reform proposal which he sent to the Hill 
prior to our consideration of the Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998.
  Who is required to comply with this initiative? Residents of public 
housing who have the time. The language of the law clearly exempts the 
elderly, the disabled, the employed, those who are in school, and/or 
are receiving training, those in a family receiving assistance under a 
State program, and those who are involved in the welfare reform 
program. With all of those exceptions, who is left? Individuals who are 
unemployed, those who have dropped out of school, those who are fully 
capable and have the time to give something back to the communities in 
which they live.
  What happens if these individuals choose not to comply with this 
community service provision? They are not immediately tossed out on the 
street. However, noncompliance can be grounds for nonrenewal of the 
public housing lease at the end of the 12-month lease term, which can 
lead to eviction.
  This issue comes down to one of personal responsibility. This was a 
major theme of the welfare reform laws we successfully changed. 
President Clinton signed those laws; they were good laws. This is one 
of them. The language from the Senate committee report seems to best 
sum up, and I am quoting: they say, ``The provision is not intended to 
be perceived as punitive, but rather considered as a rewarding activity 
that will assist residents in improving their own and their neighbors' 
economic and social well-being and give residents a greater stake in 
their communities.''
  In recent years we have made great progress in an effort to reform 
welfare and reform public housing. This initiative has a strong link in 
this effort. Recently, I saw residents of the Housing Authority of New 
Orleans buildings outside cleaning up yards after the weekend. They 
were patrolling areas that might not otherwise have been clean. They 
would have been filled with trash. They told me, the residents who were 
cleaning them up, that they had been cleaning a lot of trash up. Now 
the yards are clean on a Monday morning, the children are outside 
playing in the grassy areas, grandmas are walking their grandchildren 
around, helping them learn to ride their bikes.
  Mr. Chairman, this initiative works. I think we have to preserve the 
community service provisions of the 1998 Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
please consider this opposition to the Rangel amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from New York is right in 
dealing with the exceptions that are under this law. After we get 
finished with all of that, the only people that are left are the 
elderly, working families, and the disabled, and those who are in 
school.
  This is not a part of welfare reform. We have legislation that deals 
with welfare reform. We have legislation that deals with communities 
and States that require working for those people who are able to work. 
This is the only type of allowing the indignity of putting this type of 
burden on poor folks in public housing when there is no such 
requirement for any other type of Federal assistance, including Section 
8.
  Now, HUD knew how difficult it would be for them to superimpose their 
standards on the welfare standards. This is a housing bill; this is not 
a welfare reform bill. That is the reason that they took so long in 
getting these regulations that are almost unenforceable, and that is 
the reason why they do not object to having this stricken from the 
record.
  Mr. Chairman, we have cut a lot of good services out of the HUD 
programs to be able to give assistance to kids to get education and 
recreation and to avoid drug addiction. But this is also an unfunded 
mandate that forces the public housing people to take a look at this 
and to put this burden on people when we have the cities departments of 
welfare, the State departments of welfare to do it. The Housing 
Authority is no place to enforce the welfare laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with the gentleman prior to this 
debate. I had no knowledge that anyone on our side would oppose him and 
based on the conversation we had and right at this very moment, I still 
feel that this is an amendment that I can support. The agency from New 
York, in conversation with the gentleman, has agreed with him on this. 
So I continue to support the gentleman's amendment and I would be 
prepared to accept it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Rangel amendment.
  This is an amendment that respects the dignity of public housing 
residents.
  In 1998 the Congress passed legislation that essentially says that 
public housing residents aren't as good as other Americans.
  It requires residents to fulfill community service because they 
receive the benefit of public housing.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision was mean spirited when it was passed and 
we should overturn it today.
  Residents of public housing do receive a government benefit. In that 
way they are similarly situated to hundreds of millions of other 
Americans.
  They receive a benefit just as home owners are allowed to deduct 
mortgage interest from their taxes.
  They receive a benefit just as FHA and VA home loans receive a 
benefit.
  They certainly do not receive a benefit as great as those that huge 
multinational corporations are granted on taxes from federal, state, 
and local governments.
  I could stand on the floor of this House and name thousands of 
special interests that receive some sort of special government benefit 
because they have been determined to be worthy of such treatment by 
Congress.
  Just as many of these residents are moving from welfare to work we 
have singled out public housing residents has having to justify 
themselves by completing community service.
  We should be ashamed of such shoddy treatment of people with lower 
incomes.
  How will we administer this mess of a requirement?

[[Page 15020]]

  In New York City, NYCHA administers housing for 426,000 residents--30 
percent of whom are elderly.
  This community service requirement, even with exemptions for the 
elderly, will require a huge amount of resources to monitor compliance.
  In the context of a housing bill that already under funds housing--
administration will simply take additional much needed resources away 
from where they are needed.
  This is truly meddling by the federal government in the affairs of 
local citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and repeal this 
belittling requirement of public housing residents.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

       Amendment No. 40 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert 
     the following new section:
       Sec. __. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act shall be made available to any person or 
     entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy American 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The trade deficit in America has risen to $30 billion a month. It now 
approaches close to $360 billion a year. That is unbelievable. I think 
the least that we can do is wherever possible in expending Federal 
dollars, and certainly there are quite a few dollars being expended in 
this bill, would be to look for the probability and the possibility of 
spending those funds on American-made goods.
  This amendment not only does that, but it would disallow and prohibit 
anyone who is violating the Buy American law from being eligible for 
grant money under the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I am not opposed to the amendment. We are very much prepared 
to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their hard work in 
putting this bill together.
  I rise for the purpose of engaging the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Given the subcommittee's overall funding allocation, the task of the 
chairman and the ranking member was a daunting one, to say the least. 
This bill funds many of our Nation's priorities: veterans, housing, the 
environment, FEMA, NASA, and science.
  Unfortunately, the subcommittee's overall allocation was too low to 
meet all of these priorities. One of those underfunded priorities in 
this bill is clean water.
  I was prepared to offer an amendment tonight to restore funding for 
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund back to its current-year level. 
Our country's water infrastructure and environmental needs are not 
diminishing. In fact, EPA's own estimates show that our local 
communities are facing a $330 billion gap in water infrastructure 
investments over the next 20 years. Now is not the time to reduce the 
Federal commitment to these communities.
  Mr. Chairman, the State Revolving Funds are an important financing 
tool that helps them meet their growing clean water needs. I want to 
commend NUCA, the American Oceans Campaign, the Sierra Club, NRDC, the 
League of Conservation Voters, and others for helping to highlight our 
country's environmental and infrastructure needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and his staff for agreeing 
to work to increase the overall funding for the Clean Water SRF as this 
bill goes to conference with the other body.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for raising this 
important issue, and I remain committed to work to increase the 
allocation for the Clean Water SRF as we go to conference with the 
Senate. I agree that our communities face growing environmental and 
infrastructure challenges, and we must maintain our Federal commitment 
to them. It is the right thing to do for our environment as well as the 
economic development of these communities.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
leadership.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 
a colloquy.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I just wanted to continue along the venue the gentleman had with the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). I just wanted to commend 
the chairman for his personal interest and leadership in helping us 
zero in on these issues dealing with water and infrastructure.
  I am particularly interested in the gentleman's willingness to work 
with us on the State Revolving Fund, because this is an area that, from 
my perspective, ought to be able to bring together a wide variety of 
opinions because of the fact that it is a revolving fund that deals 
with loans rather than grants; that requires more of an investment from 
local communities; the fact that for some instances where people do not 
have the start-up money, it actually is better than a grant, and that 
it has money over time.
  I want to express my appreciation for the gentleman's focus on this 
and offer any help that I can give to help reinforce this as it works 
its way through the legislative process, because it means so much to 
the livability of our communities.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his thoughts on this issue, Mr. 
Chairman. I spoke earlier on the Barcia amendment. I know he feels very 
strongly, as do I. There is a tremendous, tremendous void out there in 
our ability to deal with combined sewer overflows, with clean water 
issues throughout the country.
  Clearly, the Congress needs to step up and take this issue on head 
on. We are looking for direction from the authorizing committee. I 
would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to help to reorder 
some of the priorities, because this is something that I certainly rely 
on in my community, and I know the gentleman does. There is broad 
interest throughout the Congress on this. I thank the gentleman for his 
interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) 
for a colloquy.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I join my colleague in supporting the increased funding for the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund. Investment in

[[Page 15021]]

wastewater infrastructure may not be a glamorous issue, but it is a 
fundamental component of efforts across the country to create and 
maintain livable communities.
  The Clean Water State Revolving Fund has been the Federal 
Government's primary and most effective tool in helping communities 
meet wastewater and infrastructure needs. The needs are enormous. Even 
under the most conservative estimates, we are still not investing 
enough in wastewater infrastructure. We wonder how our water gets 
dirty. We need to fix our wastewater problems.
  The EPA estimates that we face over $300 billion of wastewater 
infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. New figures have been 
coming out showing significantly higher figures. The longer we wait to 
address these needs, the worse the problem will become. It is 
imperative that we do everything we can now to assist our communities 
in building environmental infrastructure.
  I commend the chairman for putting in funding for the State Revolving 
Fund which is significantly higher than the level proposed by the 
administration, but I do believe that an even higher funding level will 
be necessary in the coming years.
  I offered, with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, a 
bill, H.R. 668, which calls for $3 billion in funding for the State 
Revolving Fund. I do understand the constraints faced by the chairman 
in funding the many programs in this bill; but I hope, at the very 
minimum, that we will be able to reach the fiscal year 2001 level of 
$1.35 billion in this bill.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and trying to achieve a 
funding level in this bill that more accurately represents the 
tremendous needs of our communities across the Nation.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her strong 
support for this program and for her leadership in helping to make the 
Hudson River fishable, swimmable, and even more beautiful than we found 
it.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Roemer

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration--
       (1) to obligate amounts for the International Space Station 
     in contravention of the cost limitations established by 
     section 202 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Authorization Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-391; 42 
     U.S.C. 2451 note); or
       (2) to defer or cancel construction of the Habitation 
     Module, Crew Return Vehicle, or Propulsion Module elements of 
     the International Space Station.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a Member opposed each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would start off by explaining to this prestigious 
body what this amendment does do and what it does not do.
  First of all, what it does not do: it does not eliminate funding for 
the Space Station. This is not a killer Space Station amendment. As a 
matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a fencing, a capping 
amendment.
  This simply states, and it reiterates what they have done in the 
United States Senate, language offered by Senator McCain, and passing 
the Senate, that there will be $25 billion allocated for the life of 
the Space Station for construction costs, $17 billion for Space Station 
shuttle launch costs, for a total of $42 billion, $42 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, where I come from and where most Americans come from, 
that is a lot of money. That is not a killer amendment. That is just 
simply saying, you guys have to build the Space Station for this cost, 
and you cannot continue to go over it with inefficiencies and delays 
and overruns, because that hurts other precious programs: housing 
programs for our poor, feeding programs for our hungry, education 
programs for our children. We are going to be fighting for every dollar 
we can get this fall in our budget.
  I would say to the Members, $42 billion, is that enough? Is that 
enough, when we have 18 percent of our children in this country in 
poverty? When we have some soldiers who are on food stamps, is $42 
billion enough? We will see.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I offer this amendment is because, according 
to a Bush administration Office of Management and Budget document, here 
is what they say about the international Space Station: ``Recent cost 
growth on the Space Station is estimated at approximately $1 billion 
for 2001 and 2002 and $4 billion for the next 5 years.'' That is recent 
cost growth. That is a total of $5 billion in recent cost growth.
  Mr. Chairman, that is Washington parlance, for those out there, 
saying that we have a humongous cost overrun, $5 billion. So that is 
why we are saying that we have to fence the money, $42 billion they 
have in NASA to spend on the Space Station, and that is it.
  Now, we will probably have some proponents say, well, that is not 
enough. What if we go over by $3 billion or another $10 billion? No 
other program gets that latitude. We do not have education programs 
that come back to the Government and say, well, we had more hungry kids 
in the school lunch program, Mr. Congressman. Can you give us another 
$5 billion? It does not happen. It happens here. So what we are saying, 
like the Senate said, put a fence around it and cap the costs.
  I continue, Mr. Chairman, to be very worried about this program. We 
continue to be very concerned about it because the science is 
dwindling. Instead of sending up scientists to the Space Station, we 
are sending up tourists to the Space Station. We need people, if they 
are going to be up there, performing the kind of science that will help 
our citizens and lead to good discoveries to cure people of disease, 
rather than selling the Space Station to the highest bidder, $15 
million today, $25 million tomorrow. We cannot afford to do that. That 
tourist takes up valuable space that we need to perform science.
  Mr. Chairman, the science is dwindling; the cost is going through the 
roof. Let me read to the Members what scientists are saying about the 
Space Station.
  In Florida Today on June 16 of this year, they said, ``Now, a year 
since construction began in earnest on the station, it is still hard to 
find a scientist outside of NASA who expects much progress from the 
station research.''
  Robert Park, a researcher for the American Physical Society, says 
this: ``It is impossible to name a field of science that has been 
changed or even altered by this kind of research. You finally end up 
with a Space Station that does not do science.''
  I can go on. Kenneth Baldwin, with the Department of Biophysics at 
the University of California, says, ``If you are going to use the 
justification for the Space Station to have science as the primary 
product, should you continue to build up and maintain it with a 3-
person crew when you cannot have any science?''
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to shortly reserve some of my time and come 
back after we hear from some of the proponents of the Space Station who 
have some good and compelling arguments. But I sure hope they are not 
arguments about limiting them to $42 billion. That is $42 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) seek time 
in opposition?
  Mr. WALSH. I rise in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee on Science.

[[Page 15022]]


  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, let me say that I 
have the deepest admiration for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer), and this body will be certainly not as bright and not as 
profound a place when he no longer is with us. And I know that he is 
not planning to run for reelection. We will miss him very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel very grateful to have had the opportunity to 
serve with the gentleman in the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. 
Over the years, he has been a voice for prudence and a voice for, yes, 
for second thoughts about the Space Station.
  Let me say that in the beginning of his term, his arguments made a 
lot of sense, a lot more sense. As the years have gone by, however, and 
we have invested billions and billions of dollars into this program, 
yes, in the beginning it might have made sense to postpone the Space 
Station for a number of years. The voice of the gentleman from Indiana 
was there saying, Do not waste the money.
  But sometimes once you have made a commitment, it is actually more 
responsible then to move forward and make sure that the project in 
which you are involved is a success, rather than turning back.
  If we support the Roemer amendment now, what it will mean is we will 
not have science on the Space Station. That is what it will mean. The 
laboratory will not work. We will not have the science experiments. 
Yes, there is some question whether or not, and from the beginning, 
whether or not we were going to have great achievements in space in 
these science labs; but one way to ensure that there is never any great 
achievement or breakthrough for mankind on this in the microgravity 
research being conducted in the Space Station is to pass the Roemer 
amendment, which fences off this money.
  Yes, we are now in a crisis at the Space Station. There has been an 
overrun, and we are going to need to come up with $5 billion. It does 
not mean it has to come from us. I am going to Ireland; I am going to 
Italy. I am speaking to other allies.

                              {time}  2145

  I will be traveling over the break to those other countries and will 
be speaking to leaders, for example in the Gulf region, to try to find 
other people who might want to invest in this incredible, historic 
engineering project in space.
  If we look into the sky, we see a bright shining object that was not 
there before. We can either turn out that light and say that it is a 
failure and it represents the failure of mankind, or we can work at 
this moment, now, and make sure that we succeed in this endeavor. It is 
not time to turn back, it is not time to just fence things off, to put 
shackles on the hands of those of us who are trying to make this 
project succeed. Together, Democrats and Republicans, and it has always 
been a bipartisan project, can work together to make sure that that 
light in the sky is a symbol of progress and hope and, yes, even 
overcoming bureaucratic obstacles and great hardships, and overcoming 
them together.
  The gentleman from Indiana has had a great career. It has been an 
honor serving with him. But I ask my colleagues not to support his 
amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank my good friend from California for the kind words. I very much 
not only enjoyed serving with him but learning a great deal from him as 
well; learned about science and learned about surfing as well too.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Ganske), a Republican sponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague from Indiana for his 
persistence on this amendment. We have had this debate a lot. Before I 
came to Congress in 1995, a few years before that, there was a huge 
debate on this, and the space station only stayed in existence by, I 
think it was about a one-vote margin. It was very, very close.
  At that time, opponents to the space station pointed out basically 
what has happened, and that is that we have had these tremendous cost 
overruns. The science was questionable. We are now down to a module 
that will hold three people. It takes two-and-a-half people to keep the 
thing running, so that leaves about 10 hours a week for somebody to do 
science in the space station.
  We are looking at Russia not having kept its commitments. Cost 
overruns. This amendment would cap the space station funding at $25 
billion for construction costs and $17 billion for related launch 
costs. It would not cancel the space station funding for fiscal year 
2002, but the space station is expected to be $4 billion over budget by 
2006. That puts it substantially over the $25 billion budget cap 
imposed in the fiscal year 2001 NASA authorization act. NASA has 
proposed cutting scientific research to pay for the construction cost 
overruns.
  I think it is time for this body to realize that we are just not 
getting the benefit for the cost. Will it make a difference in terms of 
what this body decides to do for the gentleman from Indiana and myself 
to have brought this amendment back up again tonight? Probably not. But 
I would still urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote for the 
Roemer-Ganske amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman who is offering 
the amendment in a little discussion about his amendment, but first I 
want to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in 
commending the gentleman for his sincere interest in this issue and for 
his bringing the issue to the Congress in the past, and his persistence 
in doing it. I think the station is a much better enterprise because of 
his efforts. We all need challenged, and certainly NASA needs 
challenged in many areas. So before we start a debate, I want to 
compliment the gentleman.
  Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman for the compliment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I understood the gentleman's first 
International Space Station amendment here. It was an amendment much 
like the amendments he has offered in the past, I think the last 5 
years, as a matter of fact. It was a straight-up cut; was it not?
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. The gentleman is correct, the amendment I offered earlier 
and withdrew was a kill amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. That would have straight-out eliminated the station 
program. I understand why the gentleman did that. It has been defeated 
on this floor a number of times and the body has spoken pretty 
overwhelmingly with regard to that issue.
  I frankly do not quite understand this amendment, and that is why I 
want to engage the gentleman in a discussion of it at the front of this 
overall debate. I have the amendment here before me and it says, ``None 
of the funds made available in this act may be used by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration to obligate amounts for 
International Space Station in contravention of cost limitations 
established in section 202 of the 2000 authorization for NASA.'' 
Correct?
  Mr. ROEMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, and if he is 
reading the amendment, then that is the way it is written.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is the first paragraph. ``None of the funds may be 
used to obligate amounts in contravention of that act. Then it says, 
``or defer or cancel construction of the habitat module crew return 
vehicle propulsion module.'' As I understand that, the gentleman is 
saying they cannot expend above the authorization on the one hand; is 
that correct?
  Mr. ROEMER. Is the gentleman yielding to me to explain my amendment?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I am, in an ongoing discussion.
  Mr. ROEMER. I will be happy to explain the amendment.

[[Page 15023]]


  Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. If the gentleman will just answer the question.
  Does the first paragraph say, that to obligate amounts under here, 
that ``none of the funds made available may be expended in excess of 
the authorization in section 202.''?
  Mr. ROEMER. The first part of the amendment, as the gentleman knows, 
simply states what the United States Senate has passed as a cap for 
what can be spent according to the authorization levels for both launch 
and construction costs.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time. In the second paragraph, the 
gentleman prohibits deferment or cancellation of construction of three 
pieces to the station, the habitation module, the crew return vehicle, 
and the propulsion module. Is that correct?
  Mr. ROEMER. I am delighted my friend is so interested and intrigued 
with the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, it is the amendment we are debating here on the 
floor, so I am quite intrigued with it.
  Mr. ROEMER. The amendment states they shall not exceed an authorized 
bill for a cap; they cannot go over what we have already approved and 
passed as a Congress and been signed into law for a cap. And then it 
says do not jeopardize the lives of the scientists and the astronauts 
on that by cutting life-sustaining or life-threatening equipment that 
may get them off the space station that is in danger. Do not cut an 
escape vehicle needed to get those people off.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. And that is a really good cause. I acknowledge that, 
and I agree with the Member on that. But the Member is setting up here 
an impossible situation. The gentleman is taking the flexibility away 
from NASA to manipulate funding between these projects, to engage the 
international community to help fund these projects, to delay projects 
in order to stay within the authorization.
  Mr. ROEMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the flexibility 
is there. I simply say they have $42 billion, $42 billion, to decide 
what to do to build a safe and scientifically worthwhile space station.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I understand that, but the gentleman understands, 
because he is a real student of this, that the dollars are just too far 
in excess of the authorization and that complying with both paragraph 
one and paragraph two is impossible.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just to note that in terms of flexibility, the crew 
return vehicle and the habitation module, which the gentleman just 
mentioned, those are two areas we are working with right now to see if 
our allies could pick up the cost for these. Under the Roemer 
amendment, we would have to pay for them ourselves rather than if we 
could pick up an extra $2 billion from our allies. Why not let them pay 
for a crew return vehicle or habitation module?
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Every time we have engaged these other countries in 
trying to help us, like the Russians, we end up paying for everything 
they were supposed to pay for. It is yet another cost overrun for us.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said in 
his opening remarks that it is not a killer amendment. I think it is a 
killer amendment for the reasons that I have tried to bring out here in 
our discussion. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Science.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here and to join 
in the accolades for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). It is an 
annual group of accolades, and I am very pleased that the vote on the 
amendment will not reflect the veneration that we have for this Member 
that is leaving.
  We are a Nation of slogans. I think MacArthur said ``the object of 
war was victory,'' I think Franklin Roosevelt said, ``The only thing we 
have to fear is fear itself,'' but Billy Graham said one that I can use 
here. He said, ``Love the sinner but hate the sin.'' And here I really 
love the gentleman from Indiana, but I absolutely hate this amendment.
  I have the amendment memorized because I think this is the fifth or 
sixth straight time that the gentleman has come with this god-awful 
amendment, and I just hope that my colleagues will listen carefully and 
vote their conscience.
  As crafted, this amendment could eventually force unwise choices to 
NASA's human space flight program, which includes both the shuttle 
program and the space station program. It is a bad amendment. It is an 
amendment that looks reasonable at first glance, but it really creates 
more difficulties than it solves.
  Actually, simply put, the Roemer amendment would deny NASA the 
ability to make any adjustments to the space station program that might 
be needed to live within the funding cap contained in last year's NASA 
authorization bill. We already have a cap. There is a cap. It would 
also prevent NASA from making the adjustments to the space station 
program included in the President's fiscal year 2002 budget. I think 
the President was a little conservative in his budget, and we are 
working with him on that. I think it is short of the needs we need.
  So I think we should oppose this amendment and once again wish the 
gentleman from Indiana good sailing. May the wind be at the gentleman's 
back when he goes back to Indiana and becomes, maybe, the next governor 
or the United States Senator from there. God bless the gentleman.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I would echo the great respect for my neighbor and colleague 
from Indiana expressed in the Chamber today. I am more convinced than 
ever that the gentleman from Indiana is one tough customer, but I will 
rise as a new member of the NASA Committee on Science to express my 
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague.
  Now, my colleague's amendment seems to be predicated on the assertion 
that we cannot spend additional money because we cannot afford to make 
mistakes in the space program. Mr. Chairman, there has certainly been 
some growing pains associated with the space station over the last year 
in particular. But original ground-breaking research is, by its very 
nature, fraught with failure and disappointment. We should expect a 
project of this magnitude to benefit from an environment defined by 
academic freedom. Adopting this measure will be ignoring the original 
intent of the Congress that has always supported full funding of the 
space station to produce a world-class research facility.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want great science, we must defend the programs 
that make it possible.

                              {time}  2200

  The amendment authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), 
Mr. Chairman, today would not so much kill the Space Station as he has 
attempted to do before perennially in this Chamber, but it may well 
wound it and wound it mortally. But I would offer this conclusion, that 
this debate is not just about dollars and sense, Mr. Chairman; all 
Americans are descendents of pioneers who journeyed to or prevailed in 
this wilderness Nation.
  More than any other people in modern times, we are a Nation of 
explorers and adventurers. Let us not, in this day, abandon the most 
compelling aspect of American character. Our ancestors led the world 
into the unknown with faith and courage. Let us continue to lead the 
world with that same faith and courage into unimaginable riches of 
space.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, (Ms. Woolsey).

[[Page 15024]]


  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer amendment 
to cap funding for the International Space Station. I rise to thank our 
good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his leadership 
on this issue and many other very important issues here in the House of 
Representatives. He will be missed.
  When I came here 9 years ago, the gentleman was leading the effort in 
proving the point that the Space Station was too costly for what we 
were going to get out of it for this Nation. I was with him then, and I 
am as convinced today as I was 9 years ago that the gentleman is 
absolutely right on this issue.
  I am a member of the House Committee on Science. It is hard to be a 
member of the House Committee on Science and not support the Space 
Station. But I can say as a member, I am respectful of the very 
valuable work that NASA does to push the envelope of technology for the 
aeronautical field and for understanding our universe in general.
  I support the Romer amendment, however, because I believe one NASA 
project, the Space Station, has cast too large a shadow over our 
Federal budget. When the Space Station was proposed in 1984, the 
estimated price tag was about $8 billion. Can we all imagine $8 
billion?
  Now the construction price alone has quadrupled the original price 
tag. On the Committee on Science we are still holding periodic hearings 
that discuss the continuing cost overruns for the Space Station.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest we can do better by our budget and we can do 
better by our children. By voting to cap the construction and launch 
costs for the Space Station, we can invest this money in as worthy but 
more reliable programs, both at NASA and other areas of our Federal 
budget. In this time of tight Federal funding, I believe now is the 
time to put the reigns on the Space Station. Invest in our country.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to add to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), that I have enjoyed serving with 
him.
  We have fought this battle many years now. I happen to disagree with 
him over this particular issue. We have agreed on a lot of other 
issues. He has offered this House a valuable service. Frankly, he has 
offered NASA a valuable service by keeping the pressure on NASA.
  I have to say, though, I hope the gentleman will withdraw this 
amendment much like he withdrew the other amendment. This is a very 
ill-advised amendment.
  The chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee have done an 
outstanding job of making sure that NASA's budget was kept within the 
perspective of this particular bill. The ranking member has made 
excellent points in arguing why this amendment today does not work.
  The Roemer-Capps amendment is a Catch-22 for NASA. It is a wolf in 
sheep's clothing. The gentleman is trying to put a cap on this, but a 
cap already exists and the committee has worked within that cap. Do not 
support this ill-advised amendment. It does not provide NASA with the 
flexibility to deal with the cost issues that it must deal with. I hope 
the gentleman will withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  The Space Station is in orbit. We have research going on up there 
right now. As we all know, NASA recently recorded significant cost 
overruns. The administration responded appropriately by canceling three 
elements.
  I think there are some serious problems with the proposal the 
administration has put forward. I certainly agree with the sentiment of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) that we need to work 
with our European allies to see if we can get at least the crew return 
vehicle and the module built.
  The proposal the gentleman from Indiana is putting forward 
essentially says we have to stay within the cap, and we already have a 
cap, but we have to go ahead and build all those elements.
  That is like your spouse comes home and says, Honey, we are over 
budget. We cannot screen in the porch and buy that new car. Then you 
were to respond, we are going to stay on budget and we are going to 
screen in the porch and buy that new car. Your spouse might turn to you 
and scratch her head and say, Gee, honey, how the heck are we going to 
do that?
  This is in many ways a very clever amendment, but it is a totally 
unworkable amendment. I believe it is just another attempt to try to 
kill the Space Station program. I would strongly encourage all my 
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I think the basis most clearly articulated by our ranking member, who 
pointed out that by operation of the first half of the amendment NASA 
is precluded from going over the cap and by operation of the second 
portion of the amendment NASA is precluded from deferring or delaying 
enhancements that would, in effect, force it to exceed the cap. It is 
unfortunately a Catch-22 that takes away the flexibility that NASA 
needs to sustain this program.
  The Space Station holds out great promise in terms of science, the 
advancement of science and the development of commerce. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this Catch-22 amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I am for the 
amendment, so I do not have to say anything nice about the gentleman 
from Indiana. But I would anyway if it were relevant.
  We have been sitting here for 3 days on this bill. In area after area 
important to the most needy people in our society, we have had a large 
degree of agreement that we have not been able to do what is required. 
We have cut funds for fighting drug-induced crime in public housing. We 
have not got enough in Section 8. We are about to have a rollcall in 
which veterans in one part of the country will be pitted against 
veterans in another for health care.
  The list of pressing unmet basic needs is very long. That is why I am 
for this amendment. The Space Station is a good thing in itself; but in 
the context in which we are operating and which we have not got the 
funds to provide some people with the basic necessities of housing, of 
health care, of a decent education, I do not think it is justified to 
continue to spend as much as we have been spending on the Space 
Station.
  I was a supporter of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) when we 
tried to stop it. It is obviously too late to stop it. But it is not 
too late to impose very stringent fiscal controls. The reason is, I 
would hope, clear to anyone who has been following this debate. We have 
not got enough money to meet the mandate of the Clean Water Act. We 
have not got enough money for people to be decently housed in the face 
of a housing crisis. We cannot provide veterans health care everywhere 
we want. This is an amendment that does not say the Space Station 
should not happen. We have lost that fight. But rather, that we have to 
impose fiscal restraints. If we do not impose them here, we impose them 
in housing, we impose them in veterans health care, and we impose them 
in the environment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, one of the people who I think about when I 
listen to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) speak is Keely 
Woodruff, a 6-year-old girl who has a developmental age of only 2\1/2\ 
because

[[Page 15025]]

of epileptic seizures, who now is progressing nicely because of a 
device invented through our efforts in space. The contributions NASA 
has made to our country and the world are absolutely priceless.
  This is an ill-conceived, ill-thought-out amendment. It actually 
works against the apparent interest of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) of holding down costs as it requires construction without a 
thoughtful plan, a construction effort, I might add, comparable to our 
first trip to the Moon. It could actually cause deeper cuts in the 
station itself and cause the so-called cap to be a killing blow. Is 
that not the real intention?
  The annals of great events of history are not filled by those content 
to live in the present without vision, but by those who sought to 
understand the unknown and change their future. If we cancel this 
program, what will we say and what will that say to our partners in the 
international community about U.S. leadership in the 21st century?
  How can we begin to place a dollar value on the improvements and 
quality of life for all humanity that we know from the last 20 years of 
experience will come from space research. Vote down this killing 
amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer 
capping amendment. I will reiterate all of the compliments previously 
stated, having served with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. The International Space Station 
is something that is working; but regarding the capping of it, Mr. 
Chairman, we do not have enough money to do everything we want to. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) talked about that. We need to 
continue what we should be doing in the space program, and the 
International Space Station is a great example of international 
cooperation. It had some rough sledding, but it is on schedule now. We 
have had crews up there since October 2000. They have made so much 
long-term progress in research in biotechnology, radiation, health, and 
such classroom-friendly lessons as Earth and near-object observation.
  Mr. Chairman, that is why this amendment should be defeated, because 
there are so many other things that we can talk about.
  The ISS has been a model of multinational coordination between 
Europe, Russia, Canada, Japan, Brazil and the U.S. If Congress 
eliminates or even caps funding for the station by passing one of these 
amendments, it would be a betrayal of our international partners.
  Since October 2000, two crews have occupied the station and brought 
many of the early scientific experiments on-line. These experiments 
include research into long-germ space flight on humans, biotechnology, 
radiation, health, and such classroom-friendly lessons as earth and 
near object observation.
  The space station is on track and operating, with several missions 
already complete. This NASA budget maintains that momentum and builds 
on the successes of this program.
  Critics have charged that funding the space station will push out any 
smaller space exploration endeavors like the Mars Pathfinder Mission or 
the Hubbel Space Telescope, which have had enormous success.
  This simply is not true. NASA, with the development of the space 
station, will have a platform from which future space exploration and 
research can be launched.
  Members of the shuttle crews, along with station inhabitants, have 
been able to overcome all of the problems that they have encountered, 
showcasing their ingenuity, creativity and skill. The ground support 
personnel have also played crucial roles in overcoming these obstacles.
  We are standing on the brink of the twenty-first century. Capping 
funding for the international space station would be irresponsible.
  It would cost us billions of dollars, along with countless hours of 
hard work and effort by NASA scientists, researchers, astronauts, and 
engineers. We would be best cripple and at worst lose our foothold to 
future space exploration and a valuable platform for scientific 
research.
  Again, I am opposed to the amendment and support the funding for the 
international space station in this bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let 
me say as everybody else has said that I have nothing but the greatest 
respect for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), although I suspect 
he will be here 1 more year, so we may have to do this one more time. 
Having said that, I hope that the gentleman's amendment is defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, this is something of a red herring amendment. We have 
already decided we are going to build the Space Station. We have 
already invested tremendously in it, and we have a cap that exists in 
the law and we have the ultimate cap that exists on the floor of this 
House and on the floor of the other body. Ultimately Congress decides 
how much money we are going to spend, regardless of whether we put some 
rhetorical cap in or not.
  This is a program which is already up and running. It would be a 
mistake to pass this type of amendment which would actually be 
counterproductive to the program. Quite frankly, it could ultimately 
result in further cost overruns as you delay projects going forward. I 
hope my colleagues will look at this amendment, see that it is 
unworkable and defeat it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close.
  Mr. Chairman, it is written in the Bible that without vision the 
people shall perish. Certainly vision in our great society means 
technology and science. It means that bright, shining star in space 
that is our Space Station. But vision also means justice. Justice for 
all of the people in this great country. Vision means hope and dreams 
for the great people called Americans in the United States.
  And in this bill which these two gentlemen have worked so hard to 
craft, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), we need even more justice and hopes and 
dreams for veterans that are not getting sufficient health care in this 
country, and risked their lives for this country overseas. For 
children, for children being raised in some of our public housing that 
is despicable, that is rat-infested. Yet we will go $5 billion over 
budget without blinking an eye for 3.5 people in space.

                              {time}  2215

  Where is the vision and the justice and the fairness in that kind of 
allocation of resources?
  When we talk in the Bible, Mr. Chairman, about vision and fairness 
for these great people, we mean for AmeriCorps, which is not funded in 
this budget; we mean for public housing, which is not adequately funded 
for the poorest of the poor in this great country; and we mean to help 
us fight the scourge of drugs which are especially hurting the most 
vulnerable people in inner city areas.
  I would hope that we would at least cap and fence the funds on this 
program.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority 
whip.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members of this body to oppose 
this amendment because it will seriously damage our space program.
  I say to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Chairman, that our vision is 
circling the Earth. The vision is the Space Station that is circling 
the Earth. I say a fully functioning Space Station is the linchpin of 
our vision of human space flight. The intention of this amendment, make 
no mistake about it, is to kill the Station. It effectively denies NASA 
its flexibility to ensure that the Station remains viable.
  The prohibition against deferring the habitation module, the crew 
return vehicle, and the propulsion module seems designed to help the 
Space Station; but in fact it does not. This amendment requires NASA to 
develop these parts of the Station under a cap, without the flexibility 
of working within their

[[Page 15026]]

budget. And this amendment, make no mistake about it, kills the 
Station. The fact is we have an obligation to our international 
partners. The United States is the leading pioneer in space travel, and 
we ought not renege on agreements we have made to the nations that are 
following us into space through the International Space Station team. 
More importantly, we have an obligation to protect the investment of 
American taxpayers and the vision that we see in space travel.
  I implore Members to reject this amendment. I hope they will support 
the underlying bill, because it will provide the necessary resources to 
achieve our human space flight goals.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank:
       Page 93, after line 25, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 427. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     hereby revised by reducing the aggregate amount made 
     available for ``Public and Indian Housing--public housing 
     operating fund'', reducing the amount specified under such 
     ``public housing operating fund'' item for the Inspector 
     General for Operation Safe Home, reducing the aggregate 
     amount provided for ``Management and Administration--office 
     of inspector general'', and reducing the amount specified 
     under such ``office of inspector general'' item that is to be 
     provided from the amount earmarked for Operation Safe Home, 
     and none of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
     to fix, establish, charge, or collect mortgage insurance 
     premiums for mortgage insurance under title II of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) made available 
     under any multifamily housing mortgage insurance program 
     affected by the interim rule issued by the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development on July 2, 2001 (66 Federal 
     Register 35070; Docket No. FR 4679-I-01), in an amount 
     greater than the cost (as such term is defined in section 502 
     of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) of such program, by 
     $5,000,000.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 2001, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to talk here in this amendment about the Federal Housing 
Administration, the FHA. Earlier this year, this House passed a bill to 
reduce the fees that were charged to people trading in stocks. The 
rationale was that the stock fees charged through the SEC were bringing 
in more than it cost to administer the program, and so we put through a 
substantial reduction in that cost.
  In fact, what happened is that the FHA is following a similar 
pattern. The FHA statute, which I reference in this amendment, defines 
cost. Cost is the break-even point for the FHA. We have been told that 
the FHA cannot engage in subsidizing programs. In fact, and it is a 
mark of great disappointment to many that this Congress and this 
administration have allowed the multifamily FHA programs to lapse for 
want of a $40 million credit subsidy as it is called. And what has 
happened is that we now learn that while the FHA is claiming it has to 
shut down some programs for credit subsidy, it is in fact overcharging 
elsewhere.
  This amendment simply says that the FHA can no longer overcharge and 
make a profit for the Treasury on these multifamily programs but must 
stay at cost.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Frank for offering this 
amendment to prevent unnecessary rent increases in affordable housing 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  We are in a housing crisis. The economic expansion of the past few 
years has been accompanied by skyrocketing home prices and rents. There 
is a severe shortage of affordable housing, and in many areas, any type 
of housing.
  In my home state of California, about half of renter households pay 
more than the recommended 30 percent of their income toward shelter. 
However, 91 percent of low income renter households, with annual 
incomes less than $15,000, spend more than 30 percent of their income 
toward rent. These low income households outnumber low cost rental 
units by a ratio of more than 2-to-1, both statewide and in Los Angeles 
County.
  About two-thirds (66 percent) of senior renter households pay more 
than 30 percent of their income toward shelter. 85 percent of low 
income senior renters pay more than 30 percent toward rent. And with 
the aging of our population, these percentages will soon translate into 
much higher numbers.
  Furthermore, the rising tide of the recent economy has failed to lift 
all boats. Household incomes of renters in my state have failed to keep 
pace with inflation, falling significantly between 1989 and 1999 in 
inflation adjusted terms. The inflation adjusted income of poor renters 
fell nearly 14 percent, and the median income for renters with children 
fell 11 percent.
  Overcrowding and substandard housing conditions continue to be a 
severe problem, particularly in Los Angeles County.
  The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) multifamily mortgage 
insurance programs support new construction and substantial 
rehabilitation of apartments by both private and nonprofit developers. 
These units are crucial to meet the critical need for affordable rental 
housing. In my home state of California, there is a shortfall of almost 
600,000 affordable units.
  These programs, which require federal budget appropriations in the 
form of a credit subsidy allocation, have been shut down since April 
because funding for fiscal year 2001 has been exhausted. This has 
jeopardized more than $3 billion in construction loans for more than 
50,000 rental units across the country. This shutdown impacts more than 
$53 million in loans for 827 units in my home state of California, 
where, as I have stated, the need for such units is dire.
  In addition, this Administration has refused to use $40 million 
dollars in emergency funds that were appropriated at the end of last 
year to keep these programs open. An additional $40 million was 
allocated by the House in this year's supplemental appropriations bill, 
but the money was stripped in the Conference Committee. As a result, 
the program is unlikely to reopen until the next fiscal year. 
Furthermore, the Administration's budget request for FY 2002 is also 
inadequate.
  The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as 
most of the housing industry agree that the current system of 
calculating credit subsidy needs is fundamentally flawed. Currently, 
there is a HUD study underway in conjunction with the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) that is likely to show that these programs 
are self-supporting without congressional appropriations. This study is 
expected to be completed by the beginning of the next fiscal year.
  In the meantime, to address the credit subsidy shortage, HUD plans to 
increase the mortgage insurance premium for these programs by 60 
percent, from 50 basis points to 80 basis points. This will relieve the 
alleged need for credit subsidy but will undercut the ability of the 
programs to provide affordable rental housing.
  This premium increase will raise rents in the affected housing 
developments by 4 or 5 percent, by HUD's own estimate, and may reduce 
the production of affordable rental units.
  This amendment by my colleague from Massachusetts will prohibit HUD 
from raising premiums in excess of what they need to run the program 
without a credit subsidy. The Frank amendment will prevent a build up 
of surplus funds that are not used for housing and would end up 
returning to Treasury for other purposes. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment to prevent unnecessary rent increases for 
affordable housing.
  We should not penalize those who can least afford it for the 
Administration's failure to address this issue.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of Budget

[[Page 15027]]

Totals for fiscal year 2002 on July 26, 2001, House Report 107-165. 
This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I understand this point of order. Just in 
case, I did have a second version that is allowed which we will get to 
if this point of order is sustained.
  I did want to make clear to people what the basis of the point of 
order is. The Congressional Budget Office has apparently ruled that the 
FHA has been making a profit off the multifamily programs; and, 
therefore, an amendment which would say that the FHA in the future must 
not make a profit, must in fact in the future set these premiums only 
at cost, is out of order because it is a budget charge. In other words, 
the basis of the point of order is a CBO ruling that the FHA has been 
making a profit, not the FHA, the Treasury has been making a profit off 
multifamily housing. That is why the National Association of 
Homebuilders and Realtors and others have been supportive of my 
amendment.
  But the sad fact is that given the way our rules are, I do 
acknowledge that my amendment requiring the FHA to set these fees at a 
break-even price will cost some money and it would stop the FHA from 
making a profit for the Treasury off multifamily housing, regrettably.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts violates section 
302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee 
on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that the net 
fiscal effect of this amendment would be an increase in budget 
authority of $20 million and that this amendment would therefore cause 
the level of budget authority provided in the bill to exceed its 
section 302(b) allocation.
  As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act and 
the point of order is sustained.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank:
       Page 93, after line 25, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 427. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     hereby revised by reducing the aggregate amount made 
     available for ``Public and Indian Housing--public housing 
     operating fund'', reducing the amount specified under such 
     ``public housing operating fund'' item for the Inspector 
     General for Operation Safe Home, reducing the aggregate 
     amount provided for ``Management and Administration--office 
     of inspector general'', and reducing the amount specified 
     under such ``office of inspector general'' item that is to be 
     provided from the amount earmarked for Operation Safe Home, 
     and none of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
     to fix, establish, charge, or collect mortgage insurance 
     premiums for mortgage insurance made available pursuant to 
     the program under section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d)(4)) in an amount greater than the 
     cost (as such term is defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990) of such program, by $5,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 27, 
2001, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a more limited amendment and it is in order 
because it has an offset. The offset comes from a program which has 
been severely criticized by the General Accounting Office. It is a 
program called Operation Safe Home which is run inappropriately, many 
of us feel, including, I must say, the General Accounting Office, by 
the Inspector General of HUD. Inspectors General should be checking up 
on other people's programs, not running their own. So it takes $5 
million.
  What this amendment says, and it builds on what I said before, we 
have one of the multifamily housing programs in the FHA and it is known 
as 221(d)(4). The FHA is planning to raise the premiums on the 
221(d)(4) program telling us that it is now running at a deficit. 
Remember, other multifamily programs are running at a surplus. That is 
why my first amendment was ruled out of order, because I tried to 
recapture that surplus by lowering the fees.
  What this amendment simply says is that when the administration 
raises the fees on the 221(d)(4) program, they can only raise them to 
break even, they cannot make a profit. The legislation defines cost, 
cost being what you break even at, including, obviously, an estimate of 
losses.
  This amendment is very simple. Again, it is strongly supported by the 
homebuilders, by the Realtors, by I think most organizations concerned 
with housing supply. What it says is when people go out to build 
housing, and we are talking here about private profit-making entities 
under the (d)(4) program doing unsubsidized housing, this is not 
housing for the very poor but housing for middle-income people, for 
working people, the FHA should not charge them for insurance more than 
the cost of that insurance. The Federal Government should not deter the 
construction of multifamily housing at this time of great housing 
crisis by charging an extra fee over and above what is needed for the 
program to break even.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we do not make money on this 
program, a program that benefits only for-profit developers to build 
moderate- and high-income housing, not low-income housing. In fact, the 
taxpayer through, this appropriation bill, has repeatedly subsidized 
this program. In fact, last year, we subsidized the program to the tune 
of over $80 million. Even that was not sufficient to satisfy the 
industry's demands, and the program has been shut down since that time.
  To put it in perspective, the amount of money the gentleman now says 
we are, quote, ``making off this program next year'' is less than $3 
million compared to the $80 million it cost the taxpayer in fiscal year 
2001. Making money in the sense that the gentleman explains it is 
nothing more than somebody's estimate about a series of economic 
factors that may or may not occur over a period of time.
  Lord knows, we have seen OMB and CBO make bad estimates, not to 
mention the Members of our own committees. So I think it is a little 
disingenuous for the gentleman to argue that we have been using this 
program to pay for other things when in fact it is just not generating 
funds.
  As a practical matter, this amendment would have little impact on the 
amount of the premium increase charged. In fact, HUD estimates that 
this amendment would increase the premium by a mere two one-hundredths 
of 1 percent.
  I believe the real intent behind the gentleman's amendment is to try 
to somehow stop these premiums from going forward. There is broad 
opposition among the special interest groups to stop this premium 
increase. But in order to make this program work and in order to 
prevent further appropriations against this bill, FHA needs to go 
forward with this premium increase.
  We have seen the kinds of hellacious decisions that we have had to 
make, the trade-offs that we have had to make throughout this bill. If 
this premium increase does not go forward, we could be back here next 
year trying to find an additional $230 million somewhere in this bill 
to offset the cost of this program.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice is relatively simple. Do we continue to 
allow the program to remain shut down, or

[[Page 15028]]

do we allow the premiums to go into effect? I think we should allow the 
premiums to go into effect and let the program run. If we adopt this 
amendment, at a minimum we would delay the restart of the program, 
because HUD would have to reissue new rules to change their premium for 
what amounts to less than two one-hundredths of 1 percent of an 
increase. We would also be giving a break to a single group of for-
profit developers, including nonprofit developers. These are all 
nonprofit developers.

                              {time}  2230

  I believe it is inequitable and it sets a terrible precedent that 
causes further delays in the restart of the (d)(4) program. I would 
urge this amendment be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I believe my friend from New York may have 
contradicted himself. First he said we are not making money off this 
program, but then he said we would only be making a little.
  What HUD has told us is they raise it not two-tenths of a percent, 
but three-tenths of a percent. Now, that may not seem like a lot, but, 
I do not know, if your mortgage went from 7.2 percent to 7.5 percent, 
would you shrug that off? Costs are cumulative. It is millions of 
dollars.
  By the way, the argument, and I want to make it very clear, the 
structure of this amendment, the amendment says they can only charge 
what the statute describes as break even, as cost. And who says that 
that will be a money loser? CBO.
  In other words, the Congressional Budget Office scored my amendment. 
I did not ask them to. I did not run to CBO and say, boy, I really 
wanted you to tell me this is going to cost money. If I never heard 
from CBO again for the rest of my life, I would be very happy. But CBO 
says, wait a minute; if you tell the FHA that it can only charge break 
even, we are going to lose money. This is what CBO says.
  Then the gentleman says I am doing this for these special interests. 
I did notice he talked a little unkindly it seemed to me about profit-
making institutions.
  I like one thing about housing. In almost every debate, people on the 
other side criticize us for not understanding the beauty of capitalism 
and the importance of the profit motive. But when it comes to housing, 
all of a sudden respect for the profit motive disappears, and the 
gentleman says, oh, these people want to make a profit.
  I am glad there are people trying to make a profit trying to build 
multi-family housing for working families. And these special interests, 
yes, there are some special interests. Let me read them. I confess. Mea 
culpa. The Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the National 
Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, the 
National Apartment Association, the National Multi-Housing Council, 
yes, they are special interests. They are especially interested in 
getting housing built, and that is why they support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. I think it is a simple, straight forward, 
commonsense amendment that would simply prohibit HUD from overcharging 
users of the FHA multifamily insurance program.
  Now, no credit subsidy funding has been provided in this bill for the 
multifamily for-profit program, and I understand the committee's 
decision to eliminate that subsidy. Unfortunately, however, elimination 
of the subsidy requires an increase in the premiums that are paid by 
program users. That could translate into higher debt service and up-
front costs for owners and higher rents for families that depend on 
this housing.
  Many users of the for-profit program think that the credit subsidy 
formula that HUD is currently using to calculate premiums may not 
accurately reflect the actual risk to the government of the loans as 
they are now being underwritten. In other words, the premiums next year 
could be higher than are necessary to fully support this program.
  HUD has reportedly initiated a reassessment of the credit subsidy 
formula to see if this is the case. This amendment simply makes clear 
that if, based on its reassessment of the credit subsidy formula, HUD 
determines that the formula should be changed, then program premiums 
should not be higher than is necessary to support the program. It is as 
simple as that. It makes good sense. It simply underscores what I hope 
HUD would do on its own.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively arcane amendment. I do not suspect 
there are even 10 Members in the Congress who have a full grasp of what 
is going on here.
  We are governed by the Budget Act. We are governed by credit reform. 
We cannot make changes in those rules. What we have to do is respond to 
the program. What we traditionally do to respond to the needs in the 
program is appropriate additional funds.
  This program should be pay-as-you-go. I want to be clear: if this 
amendment were to pass and this language is added to this bill, we 
would have to go to conference and find another $230 million for an 
offset to fund the program.
  Now, you have seen the choices we have had so far. There is not a 
good choice that we have seen in the 3 days we have been working on 
this bill. But I submit we will have to come back in conference, we 
will have to come back and look for additional funds to come up with 
$230 million. There are only so many places you can go. You can go to 
the Veterans Administration, you can go to NASA, you can go to HUD, you 
can go to National Science Foundation, you can go to FEMA, but those 
are not good choices.
  I would urge the House to stick with the committee bill, to oppose 
the gentleman's amendment. Please do not put us in a position where we 
have to go out and find an additional $230 million in an already tight 
allocation. Reject the gentleman's amendment and let us go forward to 
conference with the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my friend from New York. I think 
he may have qualified if we gave out Academy Awards for the best 
original screen play.
  The gentleman says $230 million. CBO says $5 million. I mean, CBO 
scored this amendment. Now, there was one version which they said was 
going to cost hundreds of millions. Yes, to do what I would most like 
to do across-the-board with the FHA would cost several hundred million.
  But this amendment deals only with the (d)(4) program where HUD has 
proposed to raise it by 30 basis points, three-tenths of a percent, and 
I got a CBO score, and it says, which is why this is in order, I have a 
$5 million offset. If I only had a $5 million offset for $230 million, 
obviously I would be out of order.
  Secondly, I would say the gentleman says we have to work with the 
Federal Credit Reform Act. I agree. That is what the amendment says. 
The amendment says do not raise the premiums in an amount greater than 
the cost, as such term is defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit 
Reform Act of 1990. So what this says is, live by the Federal Credit 
Reform Act definition of cost, and CBO says this particular amendment 
only costs $5 million.
  I had an earlier amendment that might have cost more. The gentleman 
succeeded in getting that one knocked out of order. This one is $5 
million. It does set the principle that they should not be making a 
profit. Five million dollars is not a huge amount of money, but it is 
more than they should be getting out of multi-family housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen).

[[Page 15029]]


  Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  First of all, I think the point the chairman makes and the author of 
the amendment makes is this should not be handled in an appropriations 
bill. The Committee on Financial Services ought to be looking at this. 
If FHA wants to raise the fees, it ought to come under the Federal 
Credit Reform Act, and that is where it ought to be dealt with.
  Second of all, the reason why I support the gentleman's amendment, 
and there is a lot of confusion of how these credit subsidy programs 
work, and the chairman is well aware of how they work, he understands 
how they work, but there is a problem in the (d)(4) program and in the 
(d)(3) program, and part of the problem is that Congress appropriated 
money for the current fiscal year, but part of that had emergency 
designation. The Office of Management and Budget has held up that 
money, and that is why the program is not working at this point in 
time.
  In my State, and I would assume in most States, there are a lot of 
projects, nonprofit projects, that utilize both the (d)(3) and can 
utilize the (d)(4) program, which have been shut down, and that affects 
the housing stock for middle-income and lower-income families around 
the country.
  Finally, I think it is unconscionable that the administration, on the 
one hand, wants to receive money for the general fund in the form of 
offsetting receipts through raising the premiums, while at the same 
time they will not release money that the Congress has already 
appropriated that was done for the current fiscal year. Yet, in the 
budget that we passed and through legislation which we have not taken 
up on the floor of the House, but went through the Committee on 
Financial Services, and legislation that I supported, we are making 
reductions in excess or offsetting fees for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission registration fees and investor fees in there. Now, I support 
that, but that is counter to what this does.
  So, I think the gentleman is on the right track. We ought to pass his 
amendment. The administration ought to release the additional subsidy 
allocation that is in the current fiscal year's budget so the (d)(3) 
and (d)(4) programs can get back up and running, and let the 
authorizing committee address this problem going forward.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused by the chairman's position on 
this proposed amendment. The amendment says do not raise FHA premiums 
above what it would cost to actually insure.
  Now, when I first heard the chairman's argument, he said well, we are 
not making any profit on FHA premiums. Then, by the time I got to the 
floor I heard that if we did this, it was going to cost us $280 
million. The CBO says that it would cost $5 million, which is what the 
gentleman from Massachusetts has found as an offset to make the budget 
back in balance.
  The problem is that if FHA premiums are raised beyond the actual cost 
of the insurance, people who are buying houses will pay that extra 
cost. It is that simple. No funny business, no fuzzy math. If the 
premium is higher than the actual cost of the insurance, that extra 
cost is going to be borne by homeowners or home buyers. In a market 
where people are trying to acquire homes, that could be the difference 
between somebody being able to afford a home and somebody not being 
able to afford a home.
  So, I think this is just simple, straightforward math here. It cannot 
be that the provision is redundant, which is what the chairman of the 
committee said originally, because we are not making any profit on 
this. If that were the case, the amendment that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has offered would simply be a redundant provision, 
because what his amendment says is we do not want you to make a profit. 
If it is as the CBO has indicated, that the offset required is $5 
million, then he has found a $5 million offset, and it is an 
appropriate offset. If the premiums are raised $280 million, then home 
buyers are going to bear that cost.
  Whatever the case, the gentleman from Massachusetts should have his 
amendment passed, and we should not pass the cost on to home buyers.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say in fairness to the gentleman from New York, 
it is true, my concerns do not deal only with the 221(d)(4) multiple 
family housing program. I do object to the FHA's pricing in general. 
But, under the rules, the only one that could be in order now, because 
I needed an offset, was this narrow one.

                              {time}  2245

  I do agree, as the gentleman from Texas has said, that this is an 
issue that ought to be addressed in the authorizing committee. The fact 
is we have a situation in which multifamily programs of the Federal 
Housing Administration were shut down because they said they needed $40 
million more in credit subsidy, while the totality of programs in the 
FHA were returning many times that to the Treasury, and the analogy of 
the gentleman from Texas about the SEC was appropriate. So I hope the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity will address this.
  Getting the FHA out of the business of making a profit is a very 
simple and straightforward way to reduce the cost of housing, 
multifamily, single family, across the board. That is up to the 
authorizing committee. But here we can set a precedent which says, to 
the extent that we can control it, we will tell the FHA, live by the 
definition of cost in the bill, do not charge more for the insurance 
premium than is necessary for you to break even, and do not burden the 
people who are going to live in multifamily housing or any other 
patrons of the FHA by charging them more than would otherwise be 
necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just state that the Administration is strongly opposed to this 
amendment. There are a number of special interest groups who have 
contacted Members on this amendment, but the Administration is clearly 
in opposition.
  This is a very complicated issue that not a lot of Members have spent 
a lot of time with. Let me just try to make it as clear as I can.
  The intent of this amendment is to kill the premium increase. There 
was a lot of discussion about this earlier in the year, about attaching 
additional appropriations to the supplemental; the industry was 
lobbying for more money, no premiums; more money, no premiums. The 
intent of this amendment is to kill that premium increase.
  We want this program to be successful, but we want it to pay as it 
goes. If it is going to pay as it goes, we have to increase the 
premium. If Members support this amendment, it will kill that premium 
increase and if that is the case, we go to conference looking for $230 
million in additional outlays and allocation.
  Do not put us in that position, I would say to my colleagues. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in

[[Page 15030]]

the following order: Amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Barcia); Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps); and an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Barcia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 99, 
noes 325, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 293]

                                AYES--99

     Allen
     Baird
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Berry
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     English
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fossella
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Goodlatte
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Olver
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Rivers
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Shows
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                               NOES--325

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Carson (OK)
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Conyers
     Hansen
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Lipinski
     Payne
     Radanovich
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2311

  Messrs. BACA, KING, KUCINICH and WEINER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi, 
BARTLETT of Maryland, MOORE, DICKS, PICKERING, and BAIRD changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 6 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 294]

                               AYES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)

[[Page 15031]]


     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barton
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Gallegly
     Hansen
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Lipinski
     Payne
     Radanovich
     Saxton
     Sherwood
     Smith (MI)
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2319

  Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 212, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--212

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

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen

[[Page 15032]]


     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Hansen
     Istook
     Jefferson
     John
     Lipinski
     Payne
     Saxton
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2329

  Ms. HART, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. PICKERING, and Mrs. KELLY changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HARMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2330

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002''.

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the VA/
HUD appropriations bill. This bill severely under-funds public housing 
and other critical programs. At a time when 5.4 million families are 
paying more than half of their income to live in substandard housing 
throughout the country, the Bush administration has decided that public 
housing programs are no longer a priority for our country.
  The VA/HUD appropriations bill approved by the Appropriations 
Committee cuts public housing and community development programs by 
$1.8 billion.
  This budget is clearly headed in the wrong direction. More than 
34,000 households are on the waiting list for housing vouchers in the 
city of Chicago, and under this budget, and under this budget they will 
have to continue to wait for a long time.
  This bill reduces Section 8 reserves by cutting $640 million. This 
cut will result in as many as 30,000 families losing Section 8 
vouchers. The bill also reduces the number of Fair Share Section 8 
vouchers by 78 percent.
  In addition, this bill eliminates funding for the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Fund. This is a crucial initiative, and Chicago and other 
cities have used it successfully to combat drugs in public housing to 
give public housing residents a safe place to live.
  This bill further endangers those most in jeopardy, our homeless, by 
cutting almost $100 million from homeless prevention and shelter 
programs.
  Under the bill we are debating today, Community Development Block 
Grants funds are cut by over $300 million and zeroes out funding for 
empowerment zones--a $200 million cut. These are the resources upon 
which our cities rely to perform important economic and community 
development. They should be restored.
  I find it unconscionable that the Bush administration would declare a 
surplus and consider our country well off enough to provide its richest 
1% the bulk of a $1.3 trillion tax cut, but in the same breath finds it 
appropriate to cut $1.8 billion that would provide housing for our 
nation's most needy.
  No American family would ever declare a surplus if they can't afford 
to put a roof over their head. However, as an American family, we are 
doing just that with this bill. I urge all Members to support 
amendments that will attempt to restore funding for public housing and 
other programs that were cut in the administration's request and the 
underlying bill. And, if it is not amended, I urge a no vote on the VA/
HUD bill.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2620, the 
Fiscal Year 2002 Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. This bill 
provides $112.7 billion for these agencies, seven percent more than 
current funding and $2.1 billion more than the President's budget. Most 
importantly, I support this bill because it provides $1.3 billion in 
disaster relief for FY 2002, which will be needed in Houston and many 
other current and future disaster areas.
  In a normal appropriations year, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, housing, scientific research and the Veterans 
Administration are my largest concerns in the VA-HUD and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act. However, this year is extraordinary 
because on June 5, Tropical Storm Allison, which formed spontaneously 
in the Gulf of Mexico, dropped up to 40 inches of rain on parts of my 
district over a week-long period. Harris County, Texas experienced an 
estimated $4.8 billion in damages, over 90,000 people in Texas have 
sought federal assistance, and the Texas Medical Center, the world's 
largest medical center, experienced over $2 billion in damages, 
shutting down Houston's three largest hospitals for weeks.
  As a result of this unexpected calamity, FEMA's FY 2001 funds are 
expected to run out or barely cover expenses for this year. FEMA 
expects their responsibility for Texas alone to reach $2.4 billion, 
which the FEMA and the Office of Management and Budget realize will 
require additional funding over the $2.3 billion initially provided by 
the Subcommittee. We are in the midst of hurricane and wildfire season 
for 2001 and we will experience those dangerous times again in 2002. 31 
federal disaster declarations have been made this year and as many will 
surely be made again next year. Just the declaration of Tropical Storm 
Allison will claim the majority of disaster relief funds for this year 
and next. As such, I ask all my colleagues to support the effort to 
provide an extra $1.3 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund.