Amendment Text: H.Amdt.256 — 107th Congress (2001-2002)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (07/26/2001)

This Amendment appears on page H4705 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages H4680-H4718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in House Report 107-164 
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at 
the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered 
read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2620

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Veteran Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for 
     sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as 
     authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 
     53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans 
     as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and 
     61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other 
     officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and 
     certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life 
     insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of article 
     IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 540 et seq.)

[[Page H4681]]

     and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, 
     1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61; 50 
     U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 735; 76 
     Stat. 1198), $24,944,288,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $17,940,000 of the 
     amount appropriated under this heading shall be reimbursed to 
     ``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for 
     necessary expenses in implementing those provisions 
     authorized in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, 
     and in the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 
     51, 53, and 55), the funding source for which is specifically 
     provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: 
     Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an 
     actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to 
     ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding 
     of individual medical facilities for nursing home care 
     provided to pensioners as authorized.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I really wanted to take this moment as we begin full 
consideration of this bill to thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for their work and the improvements that we 
have been able to afford the citizens of our country in this fiscal 
year 2002 appropriation bill for the Veterans Administration, the 
Housing and Urban Development Department, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, NASA, and the National Science Foundation.
  The bill has many good points. Certainly the National Science 
Foundation increase, the President asked for an increase, we provided 
over an 8 percent increase in this budget. And even in smaller 
programs, like the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which has 
such a fine track record in communities across our country, a 
respectable increase. But I have to say that in other accounts this 
particular bill does not have adequate funding.
  Other Members have talked about HUD's housing programs, and without 
question the reductions in public housing modernization, decreased by 
15 percent; and community development block grants, every single 
community in this country affected by that cut by 6 percent; and 
homeless assistance down by nearly 9 percent. We still have not 
completely solved that problem across our country. The impact on 
Americans as a result of this underfunding of the HUD programs will be 
felt from coast to coast.
  The bill eliminates the popular AmeriCorps program. HUD's Rural 
Housing and Economic Development programs have been eliminated. 
Empowerment zones, Enterprise communities, and the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Grant Program I will talk about in a moment.
  Now, I wanted to say a word about the Environmental Protection 
Agency, also a reduction, and as important as the reduction, the shift 
in responsibility for enforcement to the States. In the case of Ohio, 
my home State, The Washington Post reported just a couple weeks ago 
``Nowhere are the problems cited by the EPA studies of State 
enforcement performance more in evidence than Ohio where so much 
backlog remains. During the past 2 years, 72 percent of Ohio's plants 
and refineries had violations of the Clean Water Act, a third of the 
plants were in violation of the Clean Air Act, and over a third of the 
factories were found to be operating with expired permits required 
under the Clean Water Act.''
  So we have to be conscious that as this bill is considered, there are 
serious imperfections that are contained within it.
  Others have referenced the veterans portion of the budget. We hear 
lots about the greatest generation; books have been written, movies, 
and we are about to build the World War II memorial, one of the most 
important pieces of legislation I have ever sponsored here in this 
Congress. Yet the Veterans Medical Care budget, the budget that will 
actually go to care for those that the Nation says it cares so very 
much about, underfunded by nearly $.5 billion over what the 
administration needs in order to accommodate the lines that are out 
there in hospital after hospital.
  So as the bill moves forward, I really do look forward to working 
with the chairman and the ranking member to perfect it.
  And I just wanted to say a word about the amendment I will be 
offering later this afternoon, because I heard my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), come to the floor a little earlier and 
speak against the drug elimination program in public housing, and my 
friend and colleague from Ohio is a former FBI officer.
  I was very surprised to hear that. But I have to tell him that 
perhaps the part of Ohio he represents is not like my own. But his 
position is going to hurt Cincinnati, it will hurt Dayton, it is going 
to hurt Toledo, it is going to hurt Steubenville, and it is going to 
hurt Lima, because in fact the drug elimination program goes to the 
very heart of communities where drug lords and this drug trade took 
control of people living under the most vulnerable of circumstances.
  The local policing forces, sometimes out of sheer racism and 
sometimes out of the fact that when they wore a uniform they were not 
accepted inside those projects, did not patrol the projects. My 
colleagues can go across this country, in places like Chicago, where I 
personally visited, and see people on the roofs with repeating 
shotguns, with repeating rifles, at a certain time of day. If a drug 
deal was coming down on the street, a mother could not leave that 
project and go buy a bottle of milk because the drug lords were 
controlling the projects. Now, if we have not lived under that 
situation, we cannot appreciate what it really means.
  But the amendment I will be offering will be to continue the drug 
elimination program in public housing at a level of $175 million, 
unlike this bill which zeros it out. And, in fact, our amendment will 
actually cut the program by nearly half from what was existing last 
year.
  But to do this across America is truly a serious mistake.

                              {time}  1700

  Crime has been going down in our country. Why should we do any less 
than President Reagan, the first President Bush and President Clinton?
  Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman and ranking member and look 
forward to perfecting this bill as it moves along.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         readjustment benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 
     chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61), 
     $2,135,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That expenses for rehabilitation program services and 
     assistance which the Secretary is authorized to provide under 
     section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, other than 
     under subsection (a)(1), (2), (5) and (11) of that section, 
     shall be charged to this account.


                   veterans insurance and indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 
     487, $26,200,000, to remain available until expended.

                 veterans housing benefit program fund
                            program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That during fiscal year 
     2002, within the resources available, not to exceed $300,000 
     in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for 
     specially adapted housing loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $164,497,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


                  education loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $3,400.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $64,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

            vocational rehabilitation loans program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $72,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended:

[[Page H4682]]

     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That funds made available under this heading are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $3,301,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $274,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

          native american veteran housing loan program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as 
     amended, $544,000, which may be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.

  guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program 
                                account

       For the administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed 
     transitional housing loan program authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     chapter 37, subchapter VI, not to exceed $750,000 of the 
     amounts appropriated by this Act for ``General operating 
     expenses'' and ``Medical care'' may be expended.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              medical care

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for 
     furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient 
     care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities 
     not under the jurisdiction of the department; and furnishing 
     recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; funeral, 
     burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for 
     beneficiaries receiving care in the department; 
     administrative expenses in support of planning, design, 
     project management, real property acquisition and 
     disposition, construction and renovation of any facility 
     under the jurisdiction or for the use of the department; 
     oversight, engineering and architectural activities not 
     charged to project cost; repairing, altering, improving or 
     providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under 
     the jurisdiction of the department, not otherwise provided 
     for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees 
     and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor, 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal 
     expenses of the department for collecting and recovering 
     amounts owed the department as authorized under 38 U.S.C. 
     chapter 17, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq., $21,281,587,000, plus reimbursements: 
     Provided, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $900,000,000 is for the equipment and land and 
     structures object classifications only, which amount shall 
     not become available for obligation until August 1, 2002, and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     not to exceed $500,000,000 shall be available until September 
     30, 2003: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading, not to exceed $3,000,000,000 shall be 
     available for operations and maintenance expenses of medical 
     facilities: Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall conduct by contract a program of recovery 
     audits for the fee basis and other medical services contracts 
     with respect to payments for hospital care; and, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), amounts collected, by 
     setoff or otherwise, as the result of such audits shall be 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, for the purposes 
     for which funds are appropriated under this heading and the 
     purposes of paying a contractor a percent of the amount 
     collected as a result of an audit carried out by the 
     contractor: Provided further, That all amounts so collected 
     under the preceding proviso with respect to a designated 
     health care region (as that term is defined in 38 U.S.C. 
     1729A(d)(2)) shall be allocated, net of payments to the 
     contractor, to that region.


                     Amendments Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a series of amendments, and I ask 
unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Obey:
       General Provisions
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
       ``Sec. 427. Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to reductions in rates after 
     June 30, 2001), is amended by adding after the table the 
     following:
       ``In the case of taxable years beginning during calendar 
     year 2002, the preceding table shall be applied by 
     substituting `39.1%' for `38.6% '.''
       Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health 
     Administration
       In the paragraph ``Medical Care'', strike 
     ``$21,281,587,000'' and insert ``$21,581,587,000'' in lieu 
     thereof.
       Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public Housing 
     Capital Fund
       In the paragraph entitled ``Public Housing Capital Fund'', 
     strike ``$2,555,000,000'' and insert ``$2,837,000,000'' in 
     lieu thereof.
       Department of Housing and Urban Development
       After the paragraph entitled ``homeless Assistance Grants: 
     insert the following new section:


                      ``SHELTER PLUS CARE RENEWALS

       ``For the renewal on an annual basis or amendment of 
     contracts funded under the Shelter Plus Care program, as 
     authorized under subtitle F of Title IV of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act, as amended, $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That each Shelter Plus 
     Care project with an expiring contract shall be eligible for 
     renewal only if the project is determined to be needed under 
     the applicable continuum of care and meets appropriate 
     program requirements and financial standards, as determined 
     by the Secretary.''
       Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and 
     Management
       In the paragraph entitled ``Environmental Programs and 
     Management'', strike ``$2,014,799,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,021,799,000'' in lieu thereof.
       At the end of the paragraph entitled ``Environmental 
     Programs and Management'', insert:
       ``: Provided further, That the on-board staffing level of 
     the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance shall be 
     maintained at not less than the level authorized for this 
     Office as of December 31, 2000''
       Corporation for National and Community Service
       Strike the paragraph following the center head entitled 
     ``National and Community Service Programs, Operating 
     Expenses'' and insert the following new section:


                    ``(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Is there objection to consideration on the amendments en bloc?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 50 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and myself, the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. Chairman, let me explain what this amendment is all about.
  I served in the legislature with a fellow by the name of Harvey 
Dueholm, who was a retired farmer, probably the single best legislator 
I ever knew. He had a number of pithy observations of life and politics 
in this country. One of the things he said regularly is that one of the 
problems with this country is all that too often the poor and the rich 
get the same amount of ice, but the poor get theirs in the wintertime.
  That is certainly the case with respect to the tax bill which this 
Congress passed a number of weeks ago. To correct that, I am trying to 
offer this amendment today along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Evans) and let me explain what it is we are trying to do.
  When the House voted on the tax bill, it voted on it separately 
before we even had a budget. That meant that, in effect, Members of 
this House were being shielded from the responsibility to make public 
choices about the trade-offs that were wrapped into that tax bill.
  We were never allowed the opportunity to explain in explicit terms 
what the size of that tax bill meant in terms of our ability to, for 
instance, deal with long-term shortfalls in Social

[[Page H4683]]

Security, to deal with long-term shortfalls in Medicare, to deal with 
problems of short-funding in education or any other field.
  I make no apology for the fact that I believe that it is more 
important for us to shore up Social Security than it is for us to give 
people a $300 refund check.
  I make no apology for my belief that it is more important for us to 
shore up Medicare long term than to provide a $53,000 tax cut to the 
wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country.
  I make no apology for the fact that I oppose the idea that we ought 
to cut in half the rate of increase we have had in Federal support for 
education over the past 5 years.
  I make no apology for my belief that veterans are not receiving the 
health care they need in this country.
  I make no apology for my concern about the lack of adequate shelter 
for some of the poorest children in this country.
  I make no apology for the belief that we ought to have stronger 
environmental enforcement and that we ought to be willing to pay for 
it.
  I think all of those priorities are a whale of a lot more important 
than providing the tax cut that we have provided to the wealthiest 1 
percent of people in our society who make more than $330,000 a year.
  So what this amendment tries to do is to make this Congress finally 
make specific choices about specific tax cuts versus specific funding 
programs. It is my belief that there is nothing wrong with cutting in 
half the tax cut that goes to people who make more than $330,000 a year 
so that we will have some money left on the table to provide what this 
amendment tries to provide, which is a $300 million increase in funding 
for veterans' health care and the various increases that I described 
previously in my statement to this House.
  We are going to be providing well over $300 million in additional 
funds under this amendment for housing. We are going to be providing 
funds for Federal EPA enforcement to restore the positions that were 
cut for Federal enforcement. We are going to be restoring partially the 
funding for the Corporation for National Service. We pay for that by 
simply cutting in half the tax cut that was provided to the wealthiest 
1 percent of people in this society.
  Mr. Chairman, I bet that at least two-thirds of the people in that 
top 1 percent, if asked, would say that they would rather that we 
provide adequate housing and adequate health care for veterans than to 
keep whole their new-found tax bonanza.
  I have a sign on the wall of my office, and every time a group comes 
in asking for money, which is about 18 times a day, before they sit 
down and talk about what they want out of Uncle Sam, I make them read 
the sign on the wall which says this: ``What is there that you want me 
to do for somebody else that is more important than whatever it is you 
are going to ask me to do for you today?''
  Mr. Chairman, I believe in a Judeo-Christian society. That is the 
fundamental question we ought to be asking ourselves. I believe if we 
ask that question of the folks who came in to lobby for those tax cuts 
for the most privileged people in this society that a whole lot of them 
would say, ``We do not mind if you scaled our tax cut back just a 
little bit so you can provide to the least fortunate people in society 
or, in the case of veterans, to the people who decided that they would 
be willing to risk everything for somebody else.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is the choice that we are attempting to have the 
House make here today. I recognize that it is an unusual procedure 
because this is not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, but I think doing the right thing is more important than 
jurisdictional dunghills.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York rise in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition; and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in cosponsoring the amendment he is offering.
  The Obey-Evans amendment will provide substantial increased funding 
for veterans' medical care and other important programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey-Evans amendment to address 
the significant shortfalls in funding for veterans' health care in the 
committee's bill.
  I believe a $1.2 billion increase in veterans' medical care funding 
is fully justified. I have prepared an amendment to provide this 
increase.
  There are many challenges that the VA will face in the near future. 
The VA must continue to honor its commitment to our most vulnerable 
veterans with the most serious disabilities. It must meet its growing 
infrastructure needs. Impending clinical staff shortages, including 
nurses, the VA's largest employee group, and the rising cost of 
gasoline plaguing areas around the country are among those challenges.
  It is clear, however, that this House is not prepared to approve this 
$1.2 billion increase today. An increase that will be provided by the 
Obey-Evans amendment is needed. Long before President George Bush 
promised Americans a tax cut, we made a commitment to honor those who 
served and defended this Nation in its most dire hours. It is now our 
duty to make sure that our obligations are paid back to them. Our 
amendment will do this.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the same amendment that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin offered in the full committee. It was considered out of 
order in the full committee, and he is without question on message. He 
stays on message. I recognize that. I congratulate him for that, but I 
think the message is wrong.
  The message should be that the President had an agenda to bring to 
the Congress. He brought it to the Congress. We had debate on whether 
or not the American taxpayer was paying too much money. The debate was 
resolved by Congress. The House and Senate voted to cut the tax rates 
that individual taxpayers pay. The people who pay the most money got 
the largest tax cut, the people who pay the least amount of taxes got 
the least tax cut, and those who do not pay taxes did not get any tax 
cut. I think that is pretty logical, and people can understand that.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are charged with doing today is the Congress's 
primary role, which is creating a budget and spending taxpayers' money. 
We have an allocation. It is the allocation provided to us by the 
budget resolution and the Committee on the Budget in consultation with 
the Committee on Appropriations which handed down our allocation, and 
we have to live with that. That is our allocation.
  Mr. Chairman, we have provided funds for almost every one of the 
areas that the gentleman would otherwise supplement funds, and we think 
that the funding is right.
  I will close by saying I think this is the right formula for spending 
in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-
Evans amendment. I do so because some of us said several months ago 
when we were debating the budget that we knew we were going to get to 
the point when we started talking about appropriations, there would be 
the same hue and cry because we knew then that you cannot get blood out 
of a turnip. We knew that a big tax cut would take away the possibility 
of providing the resources that we needed to care of the needs of our 
people.
  And so here we are with one of the biggest debts that we have, and 
that is the debt that we owe our veterans, the debt that we owe the men 
and women who have given the last measure of everything that they had 
to give. Now we

[[Page H4684]]

come and tell them that there is no water at the well, that there is 
not enough money to provide the needed services.
  People in my community right now are gearing up for public hearings 
next week to talk about which one of our veterans hospitals will get 
closed. Will it be the Lakeside? Will it be the West Side? Will it be 
Hines? Will it be beds eliminated? Will it be mental health services 
that they cannot get?
  And so I join with those who say if we have any responsibility, Mr. 
Chairman, it is the responsibility to fully fund medical services for 
the Veterans Administration. For those men and women who have given so 
much, at least we can give them a little.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
time and for bringing up an amendment that gets to the heart of 
everything that we have been talking about in Congress for the last 
couple of months.
  Let me begin by citing three words: priorities, priorities, 
priorities. In the United States today, we have by far the most unequal 
distribution of wealth and income of any nation on Earth. The 
wealthiest 1 percent of the population owns more wealth than the bottom 
95 percent. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. The 
CEOs of major corporations now earn over 500 times what their workers 
earn. Yet a few months ago it was the wisdom of the President of the 
United States and a majority of the Members of Congress that the 
richest 1 percent, those people who have a minimum income of $373,000 a 
year, need to have, over a 10-year period, hundreds of billions of 
dollars in tax breaks. That is what the President and the Congress 
said.
  Some of us disagree. Some of us think that it is more important that 
we adequately fund education in this country so that every young person 
has the opportunity to succeed in this country. Some of us think that 
it is absurd that the average young person who graduates from college 
today ends up $20,000 in debt because we have cut back, over the years, 
Federal aid to education.
  Some of us think that it is absurd that 1 week after the President 
signed the tax bill and the huge tax breaks for the rich, that 1 week 
later people on his Social Security advisory committee suddenly 
announced that we may have to cut back on the cost of living allowance 
for people on Social Security. Tax breaks for billionaires, but we do 
not have enough money to adequately fund Social Security.
  In my State and all over this country, home health care agencies are 
having a terrible time and have received huge cuts in taking care of 
some of the oldest and most frail people in this country. Visiting 
nurses are unable now to do the job because this Congress, several 
years ago, savaged Medicare. We do not have enough money to take care 
of the old and the frail, but we do have enough money to provide huge 
tax breaks for billionaires.
  In the United States today, we remain alone among industrialized 
nations in not having a strong prescription drug benefit program for 
our seniors. In Vermont and all over this country, elderly people do 
not know how they are going to pay for their prescription drugs. They 
are forced to choose between food and heat and their prescription 
drugs. We do not have enough money to provide strong prescription drug 
benefits. Let us support this important amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this measure, the VA, 
HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. I urge my colleagues 
to support the committee's funding in this measure.
  This legislation does provide $51.4 billion in funding for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and that is an increase of $4.3 billion 
over last year's level. Included in that amount is a total of $21 
billion for veterans health care. That is an increase of $1.2 billion 
over fiscal year 2001 levels, matching the request in the President's 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, as our veterans continue to age, they find themselves 
certainly in greater need of medical care with each passing year. While 
the increase for medical care does fall somewhat short of that 
advocated by some of the veterans service organizations in their annual 
budget reports, this amount is an historical increase. Moreover, it is 
refreshing to see the new administration demonstrate a commitment to 
ensuring that our veterans are going to receive adequate funding for 
health care. That element was sorely lacking in the prior 
administration which consistently submitted flat-lined budgets.
  I would note, however, that unlike the last several years, some of 
these new funds need to find their way to the veterans networks up in 
the northeastern part of our country, particularly in New York. Due to 
the post-VERA formulas, the VISN which contains my congressional 
district remains the only one in the country which finds that its 
funding continues to be cut on an annual basis despite the increased 
funding nationally. That lack of funding takes place in spite of the 
fact that VISN 3 has a greater percentage of specialty care patients 
and otherwise unfunded mandates such as hepatitis C vaccinations. We 
have had to rely on emergency transfers by the Secretary of the VA to 
make up for a portion of the difference.
  Given that the new chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs and I share the same vision, I am concerned that the arbitrary, 
capricious and flat-out discriminatory policy of the last few years in 
distributing the funds that are available should be corrected. I am 
requesting that the Committee on Appropriations reconsider the VA's 
funding allocation formula for VISN 3.
  Given that, I note that H.R. 2620 does provide a badly needed 16 
percent increase for the Veterans Benefits Administration to help 
mitigate the backlog in veterans' claims which has now resulted in 
multiyear delays in getting new compensation claims approved. Our 
veterans have served their country when called. It is unconscionable 
that many now pass away while waiting for that backlog of legitimate 
claims to be approved.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for providing $300 million for 
short-term repairs and improvements to our aging medical facilities 
that was in legislation passed by the House earlier this year, a total 
of $371 million for VA medical research, and over $100 million for 
veterans State extended-care facilities.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this measure is sound legislation. It 
provides adequate funding for so many areas in need and deserves the 
full support of our colleagues.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, when the Committee on Rules was considering the form of 
the rule under which we would consider this appropriations measure, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin sought to have this amendment made in order. 
Unfortunately, it was not made in order.
  Despite the fact that this amendment will not be voted on, I am 
pleased that the gentleman has offered it and was allowed to offer it. 
It is important because it puts into perspective the choices that we as 
a Congress have to make.
  Not very many months ago, Mr. Chairman, this Congress passed a $1.6 
trillion tax cut. That simply means that $1.6 trillion over the next 9 
or 10 years has been taken out of general revenues for this country.
  This amendment looks at that reality and it looks at what section of 
our population most benefited from that tax cut. In fact, the top 1 
percent of income earners receive about 37.6 percent of that tax cut. 
It is that top 1 percent that was the greatest beneficiary of that $1.6 
trillion tax cut--those people who make an average of $1.1 million a 
year. The Obey amendment looks at that reality and then

[[Page H4685]]

looks at the underfunding in this bill and says that this would be a 
fair way to correct this underfunding. It seems proportional to 
calibrate that tax cut to that top 1 percent a little bit. That 
generates enough revenues to fund some of these terribly underfunded 
accounts in this bill and leaves a little bit left over for some other 
bills.
  That is what the Obey amendment does. It takes .5 percent of the tax 
cut for the top income earners, which $1.3 billion (which gives you 
some estimation of how much money they are earning) and redirects it to 
some real people programs. That is a real priority and those are real 
choices and that is what this amendment does. It clearly identifies the 
problem areas in this bill.
  With that $1.3 trillion, the amendment would increase funding for 
veterans medical care. It would increase it by $300 million. The 
amendment would also address the housing needs of low-income and 
disabled citizens. First, it would add $282 million to the public 
housing capital grant account, bringing that account to just over $2.8 
billion, and while this remains below last year's funding, it does get 
it closer. Then funding would also be provided for shelter plus care 
grants. These grants combine low-cost housing with treatment and 
support services.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good amendment. It takes money from 
where it can be afforded and gives it to those who need it most. I 
appreciate the gentleman offering it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for all of his hard 
work on this bill. I want to underscore to those listening that this is 
a $4 billion increase in spending in VA-HUD.
  Having listened to the arguments advanced by the other side of the 
aisle, it now becomes clear why Vice President Gore lost Arkansas and 
lost Tennessee, because he decided rather than advancing the ideas that 
can bring us together, they decide to fight the typical class warfare 
argument. Tax cuts for the rich has been repeated time and time again 
on this floor. They keep saying that 1 percent of the wealthiest 
Americans are getting the biggest advantage under the tax cut. But you 
will notice none of those on the other side of the aisle will tell you 
that a person, say, earning $300,000 a year pays about $120,000 in 
taxes.

                              {time}  1730

  They do not tell you the burden that that person carries to fulfill 
the bills we are passing on the floor today. I think the gentleman from 
New York (Chairman Walsh) has done a phenomenal job in trying to meet 
the priority needs of this Nation. If you look throughout the bill you 
will see increasing in funding for AIDS programs, homeless programs, 
military and other vital missions of this country.
  Now, if the other side of the aisle believes that this tax cut is 
such a bad idea, I urge them to rally their supporters together and get 
their supporters to remit their checks, their Treasury checks, back to 
the Treasury and allow them to spend it as they will. I doubt that one 
person will step forward and sign the back of their Treasury check, 
whether they make $100,000, $50,000 or $20,000, so it can be spent in 
reckless abandon on this House floor.
  I know this is going to be a fight about priorities, and I know this 
is going to be a fight about George Bush's tax cut, but, in my heart, I 
believe we can do both. I believe that a family trying to fit braces on 
their children's teeth needs a refund. I believe that people advancing 
an opportunity to maybe finally take a vacation need a refund. I 
believe people preparing to buy a washer-dryer could use a refund.
  The other side wants to refund money to people who never paid the 
taxes because of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
  I would suggest to Members, pay attention to this bill. Focus on the 
good things that it does. Recognize that there is $4 billion of 
increased spending on priorities, and avoid the shrill rhetoric of the 
other side when they call this tax cut for the rich a reckless scheme.
  We are balancing the budget. We are preserving Social Security. We 
are finally increasing, if you will, the contributions to that account 
to make it solvent. We are working on prescription drug coverage for 
the seniors. We are working on a number of issues that will make this 
country stronger. But we will never be strong as a Nation if we 
continue to try to beat each other up over silly sound bites designed 
for the next election, rather than the business on the floor.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which 
will shave just a tiny bit of the tax cut to the top 1 percent of 
wealthy people in this country in order to provide more funding for 
veterans and for other essential needs.
  But I want to make a larger point in reference to some of what I 
heard from the other side of the aisle. We are told by the Social 
Security Task Force that, after 2016, we will have to either raise 
taxes or cut benefits to pay for these Social Security bonds that will 
be redeemed then. Well, those will be about $200 billion a year. The 
tax cut we passed a few days ago will be about $400 billion a year at 
that time.
  So do not tell us we cannot keep faith with our senior citizens to 
redeem our Social Security bonds and pay out the full benefits. It 
would only cost to do that half the cost of the tax cut you just gave 
to the richest people in our country, and, in effect, taking away, if 
you listen to the rhetoric of the Social Security Commission, from all 
the people that depend on Social Security.
  It is not difficult. We do not have to raise taxes. We just have to 
be careful in what we do and not do the tax cut for the richest 1 
percent, if we want to redeem all those Social Security bonds and pay 
all the benefits. We do not have to destroy Social Security in order to 
save it. We just have to not pass the Republican tax cuts.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from West 
Virginia, the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
subcommittee, for the very respectable job they have done in putting 
this bill together. I think that we all need to recognize that.
  But the problem we have with this bill, which is a very real and 
serious and definite problem, is based upon the fact that the tools 
they had with which to operate were inadequate. The funding number that 
they were given is too low. The reason for that is the leadership here, 
at the request of the President, insisted on passing a massive tax cut 
before we had a budget, before priorities were established. That was a 
basic and fundamental mistake, and it is one for which we are going to 
pay dearly, not just this year but in every succeeding year over the 
course of the next decade.
  How are we going to pay? We are going to pay by inadequate provision 
for those people who defended this country in some of the most 
difficult and darkest times in our history, our veterans. We are not 
providing adequately for their health care, and we are not providing 
adequately for the general maintenance that many of them need. We are 
not doing that because we do not have the resources in this bill.
  We are not providing enough housing for people who need housing all 
across America. We have a $20 billion housing deficit today that is not 
being adequately addressed, and we cannot address it because of the 
inadequate funding level in this bill.
  People need housing. There are so many people in my district, I am 
sure, and in every district represented by every Member here, of people 
who cannot find adequate housing because housing is too expensive and 
their incomes are too low.
  The gentleman from Florida was up here a little bit earlier in the 
context of this debate talking about questions that have been raised by 
his constituents concerning the relationship between toxic and 
hazardous waste and the exposure of people to toxic and hazardous waste 
and their health conditions, debilitating, declining health conditions. 
What is the relationship?
  There is an unquestionable relationship between people who have been 
exposed to toxic and hazardous waste and decline in their health in 
forms of cancer, attacks of the endocrine system, in

[[Page H4686]]

developmental disabilities. And this bill, unfortunately, because it 
has an inadequate funding level, does not deal with the problem of 
enforcement of toxic and hazardous waste laws. Therefore, people in 
Florida and other places all across the country are being exposed to 
toxic and hazardous substances which are destroying their health.
  There is not enough money in this bill to deal with the problems of 
drug control in public housing. We fund hundreds of millions of dollars 
to deal with the problem that we think we have in South America, 
sending money down there to kill South Americans, but we do not provide 
enough money to save the lives of Americans in public housing. The 
priorities are inadequate, and it is because of inadequate funding 
because of that tax bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not reduce the size of the tax cut 
for a single middle-income American. The only persons affected on the 
tax side by this amendment are people in the top 1 percent of earners 
in this country who make more than $330,000 a year.
  I am sure that they are all fine people. That is not the issue. I do 
believe that they can afford to have a slightly smaller tax cut. I do 
believe they do not need an entire $53,000 tax cut, which is on average 
what they will receive under the tax package that was passed. I do not 
believe that they need that full tax cut as much as sick veterans need 
better medical care, or as much as low-income children need to get out 
of rat traps and into decent housing, or as much as we all need 
adequate enforcement of our laws to protect the environment.
  I am amused by one of the previous speakers who talked about the tax 
rebate and who it ought to go to. This has nothing whatsoever to do 
with the tax rebate. People are going to get their tax rebates, 
although I would note I did get a complaint from a reporter in my 
district because his grandmother, who died a year and a half ago, did 
get a tax rebate in the mail, and the letter was labeled: Blank name, 
``deceased.'' With all due respect, I do not know many people whose 
last name is ``deceased.''
  I would prefer to see to it that what tax rebates we do give go to 
live veterans in need of health care, go to the families of live 
children who need better housing, and go to those Americans who are 
sacrificing in order to provide national service in their own 
communities; and I make no apology for that.
  I find it interesting that somehow people talk about class warfare. I 
think the middle class has already lost, if there has been a war, 
because the CBO shows that the top 1 percent of earners over the past 
20 years has had their after-tax income rise by $414,000, while the 
middle class has had their income rise over that same period, their 
after-tax income, by about $3,400. Some victory for the middle class.
  So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if people think veterans are 
getting adequate health care, fine; oppose the amendment. If you think 
poor kids are getting adequate housing, fine; oppose the amendment. 
This issue is not whether you are for or against tax cuts. This is an 
issue of who you think has a greater need, who you think has a greater 
requirement for assistance from Uncle Sam.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I will be prepared to 
yield back the remainder of the time when the gentleman is prepared to 
yield back the remainder of his time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close the debate, and I will honor the gentleman's agreement that I 
will yield as soon as he does.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a phony choice. We do not have additional funds 
available to us to spend, and we cannot in the process of creating this 
legislation amend any existing legislation, and that is what the 
gentleman has asked us to do.
  The debate over tax cuts is over. In fact, the check is in the mail. 
These funds are not available to us to spend. We have an allocation. It 
is a substantial amount of money. The subcommittee has met for hundreds 
of hours in hearings and in planning to develop this bill, as a 
subcommittee and full committee. The bill passed the full committee on 
a voice vote. I think it has strong support within the Committee and 
within the Congress; and, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would 
reserve my point of order and ask Members to continue to support this 
bill as it stands after having made the choices that we have made.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment directly amends existing law, and I would ask for a 
ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard further on the point of 
order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fully consistent with the 
rules of the House. The House would have had the opportunity to vote on 
it if the Committee on Rules had waived the rules of the House in the 
same manner that they waived those rules for consideration of this bill 
as a whole. So I believe the amendment is consistent with the rules of 
the House. However, the manner in which those rules have been exercised 
I recognize has effectively blocked us from having this amendment come 
to a vote. I regret that, but I cannot do much about that.

                              {time}  1745

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends existing law. The 
amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the National Estuary Program 
and for providing additional funds for the program in the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill; and I would like to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy.
  First, I would like to express my appreciation to the chairman and 
members of his subcommittee for their hard work and continued support 
of the National Estuary Program, NEP. Congress recognized the 
importance of preserving and enhancing coastal environments with the 
establishment of the National Estuary Program in 1987. The NEP's 
purpose is to facilitate State and local governments' participation in 
``Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans'' for threatened and 
impaired estuaries.
  While the NEP has been successful in developing these CCMPs, we have 
increased the number of estuaries in the National Estuary Program 
without matching funding. This has the necessary affect of slowing our 
progress in restoring these estuaries.
  In my district, for example, in New Jersey, an NEP called Barnegat 
Bay exists. The Barnegat Bay watershed drains from a land area of 
approximately 550 square miles. Over 450,000 people live in the 
Barnegat Bay watershed. That population actually doubles in the summer 
as people flock to the New Jersey shore. The continued economic health 
of the Barnegat Bay watershed is dependent upon the continued health 
and the national beauty of its waters. The Barnegat Bay estuary is not 
only a vital component of New Jersey's tourist industry, but an 
important natural resource that supports populations of commercially 
and recreationally significant fish, as well as rare and endangered 
species.
  The Environment Protection Agency plays a vital role and collaborates 
with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, nonprofit 
institutions, industries, and citizens to address these estuaries' 
environmental issues.
  The NEP received $20 million to develop its CCMPs. This is not enough 
to

[[Page H4687]]

fund the implementation of the CCMPs for now 28 estuaries. That is why 
we must increase funding for the National Estuary Program to protect 
these vital natural resources and support the efforts of the local 
communities to implement their CCMPs.
  The Senate bill currently has $25 million for the estuary program. I 
would urge the chairman to work with conferees of the Senate and House 
to increase the level of funding for the National Estuary Program.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for 
his pioneering efforts in developing this very important national 
program and for his continued efforts to ensure the National Estuary 
Program remains a strong program to protect our national estuaries for 
the future.
  I agree that this program has been successful with developing and 
maintaining local government, nonprofit, industry, and volunteer 
support from within the States where these estuaries are located. That 
is why we have increased funding this year for this program to $20 
million, a $2 million increase over last year. I would be glad to work 
with the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey to assure that this 
very important program continues to protect and enhance our precious 
national estuaries.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 7, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to submit this 
amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. This amendment would 
appropriate an additional $1 million to the Veterans Health 
Administration.
  I had another amendment that would come later, but I am not going to 
offer it in the interest of the time of all of the membership of this 
body, but I am determined to try and do something about the hypocrisy 
that sometimes abounds in this Congress.
  I want to make it very clear that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee; the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the full committee; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member of the full committee, have done the very 
best that they can within the budgetary boundaries under which they 
must operate.
  The arguments that we are making do not go, in the final analysis, to 
class warfare, they go to: What is it that motivates us as individuals 
to want to take care of the needs of this country? It is commonly said, 
``The mark of a great country is not what it does for those with the 
most, but for what it does for those with the least.'' This bill 
clearly does not do enough, having argued that the persons who have the 
responsibility of perpetrating it have done what they can, but it does 
not mean all of us did everything that we could.
  Public housing is grossly underfunded in this bill. This underfunding 
harms the people who depend on Congress to help them live meaningful 
lives. Without it, many could be evicted from their homes and forced 
into the streets. Congress, this institution, I think, tends to forget 
that we are talking about real people, about real families; people who 
depend on all of us, all 435 here and the 100 in the other body, to do 
something about their problems, to look out for them and to work to 
ensure that their lives are not wasted away in degradation and poverty.
  It is not an abstract issue of refunding a few hundred dollars to 
people who do not really need the money. Let me address the gentleman 
from Florida, my dear friend and colleague, that said that not many 
would send theirs back. I would send mine back in the morning if I knew 
that it was going to provide for veterans; if I knew that it was going 
to provide for public housing in this country that is desperately in 
deterioration and in need of assistance from all of us.
  Let me give as an analogy what transpired in the great State of 
Florida that I am a fifth generation person from. Living there all of 
these years, we came to a point where we decided 2 years ago that we 
were going to give the taxpayers, me, my mama, everybody else in 
Florida, $1 billion back, while our schools were deteriorating, while 
our election system was putrid, and while all of the circumstances 
surrounding those who are impoverished in our State were continuing to 
deteriorate. Ostensibly, each one of us was supposed to get $260. I 
never got my check. What it was was hocus-pocus. It was a whole bunch 
of mysterious accounting; but yet, when the legislature convened this 
year, there was a $1 billion shortfall, and still the schools are 
crumbling, still the schools are overcrowded. Yes, the poor are 
desperate.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin was correct. None of us need not make an 
apology at all about caring, and every man and woman in this 
institution cares about veterans. But how did we address them? We did 
not address them. According to the major veterans' organizations, this 
bill provides less than one-half the amount that is considered 
necessary to ensure decent health care for our Nation's veterans.
  Veterans put their lives on the line. We come down here and say that 
all the time. They put their lives on the line for all of us; they left 
their families for us.
  I traveled with my Republican colleagues very recently to Normandy 
and we stood there and saw what veterans have done on behalf of all of 
us, and there was not a man or woman among us, and it was a bipartisan 
group, that did not leave there teary-eyed, mindful that we were 
standing on the shoulders of those 9,000 people, including countless 
others, who gave us this right to come here and try to do something for 
everybody, not just for a handful of people in our country.
  Yet, we are not willing to pay even half of what veterans should 
receive.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am told that this allocation of $1 million was 
recently in a second or third analysis of the funds available. The 
Congressional Budget Office found approximately an additional $1 
million that had not been spent. The gentleman has proposed that we 
spend it in veterans' medical care. I cannot think of a better place to 
put this found money, so we will accept the amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh). I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), the ranking member, and maybe the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Foley); and I can use it on the 45th Street Veterans 
Administration Building.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in order to take time, because apparently 
I will again not have the opportunity, to speak on a matter of very, 
very critical importance to many of my constituents, and to 
constituents all across the country. We have tried for many years to 
have the Congress act on a particular measure of importance to our 
Nation's honor.
  Before the war, my colleagues will recall that the Philippine Islands 
were a United States protectorate, a possession. It had been in this 
status for 42 years. When the war came about, President Roosevelt 
issued a military order on July 26, 1941, in which he invited the 
citizens of the Philippines to enlist in the Army and to join forces 
with the United States to fight the enemy. Nearly 200,000 Filipinos 
responded without hesitation to defend their homeland and to defend the 
flag of the United States.
  From 1941 to 1945, thousands of Filipino soldiers fought alongside 
American soldiers. They fought in every major battle in that area. They 
endured years of captivity as prisoners.

[[Page H4688]]

 They lost their lives defending our values and our sense of freedom.
  Based upon the promises made to them by the United States Government, 
these veterans expected when the war ended that they would be treated 
the same as all other veterans of World War II. General McArthur 
reaffirmed that they would be treated like all other veterans.
  Inexplicably, in 1946 the Congress broke that promise to the Filipino 
veterans by revoking their full benefits by passing Public Law 70-301. 
It is this act of Congress that we have been seeking for years to 
overturn. We have taken a few measured steps forward, but I rise today 
to call attention to this issue, because we should have included $30 
million to provide for the health care of these veterans. That is the 
least that they are entitled to.
  So I would hope that in the course of consideration of this bill and 
others like it in this House and in our respective committees, that we 
will find it possible to accord these few thousand Filipino World War 
II veterans, who are still surviving, the benefits that they are 
entitled to have as veterans who fought with our American veterans in 
the World War II battlefields.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the assistance of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman, over the past months and years to 
address what has become an important and divisive area in our district, 
and that is our national environmental policy on contaminated sediments 
and, specifically, EPA's policy on contaminated sediments in the Hudson 
River.
  By now, many in Washington and throughout the East Coast have heard 
of this controversy. I happen to represent the district in which the 
proposed 40 miles of dredging would occur.
  Let us remember, Mr. Chairman, the EPA, in the closing months of the 
Clinton administration, proposed a massive environmental dredging 
project that would drastically affect both the ecology of the Upper 
Hudson River and the economies of the communities along its banks. This 
is a decision that the vast majority of the people in the communities 
that I represent, who are directly impacted, are rightly concerned 
about and concerned about the long-term impacts of any project and the 
scientific basis for it.
  As it is, for the past several years the committee report has 
directed the EPA with respect to its policies on contaminated 
sediments. Specifically, the committee report states, ``For fiscal 
years 1999 through 2001, the Congress included specific direction to 
EPA regarding the Agency's ordering of dredging or other invasive 
sediment remediation technologies pending the National Academy of 
Sciences' completion of a study intended to address dredging, capping, 
source control, natural recovery, and disposal of contaminated 
sediment, and comparing the risks of each technology.
  ``The committee notes that this study has been completed and 
published, and to the greatest extent practicable, expects the Agency 
to adopt as part of its own sediment remediation strategies those 
guidelines as presented in the Academy report.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is critical. It is critically important that the EPA 
follow this direction and implement the NAS recommendations, which were 
highly critical of community outreach efforts with respect to its 
review of the Hudson River PCB contamination.
  In fact, the NAS found the EPA community involvement process in the 
Hudson to be a failure. Mr. Chairman, with EPA's cooperation, the NAS 
recommendations will inject sound science into a policy on the Hudson 
River that has unfortunately been driven by other agendas.
  I want to remind everyone looking at this issue why I am concerned 
about the EPA's dredging and landfilling proposals.
  As background, the Hudson Valley residents, having twice now been 
lied to or misled by the EPA, are understandably concerned about the 
impact of the largest environmental dredging project in history on the 
ecology of the river and the negative impacts on the region's economy.
  First, in 1997, the EPA was forced to reveal that it was conducting 
secret studies on the Hudson Valley farmland for siting of PCB 
landfills, after many months of deliberately deceiving the public as to 
the existence of those studies. They were looking, Mr. Chairman, 
effectively, by virtue of eminent domain proceedings, to take the 
valuable farmlands, the property, the homes of the residents that I 
represent.
  After this revelation and subsequent congressional hearings, EPA 
officials committed to prevent this type of public deception from ever 
happening again.
  Sadly, and secondly, questions continue to exist on the logistics of 
handling and disposing of 100,000 truckloads, 100,000 truckloads, of 
PCB-contaminated sediment and the disruption it would bring to the 
river.
  When the EPA released its report and proposed remediation plan for 
the Upper Hudson on December 12, 2000, Administrator Carol Browner and 
other EPA officials broadly discussed the possibility of siting two 
hazardous waste dewatering facilities at Moreau and Albany, New York. 
EPA officials flatly denied that the EPA had gone far enough to propose 
additional sites for such handling facilities.
  On February 5 of this year, responding to a Freedom of Information 
request by CEASE, a local grassroots organization, the EPA was forced 
to release an internal memo identifying 12 such sites that the EPA was 
looking at to create those facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems that, on the issues most sensitive to local 
residents in this particular incident, the EPA's history indicates that 
its preferred policy is to hide from the public. This is a serious 
problem. It is important for my constituents in the 22nd Congressional 
District, and I think for all New Yorkers, to have confidence that the 
NAS scientific recommendations are properly considered.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an editorial from today's 
Journal News located in downstate Westchester County, New York, that 
points out that ``dredging would cause short-term elevations of PCB 
levels downriver. . . . It would damage marshlands, which might not be 
able to recover. And it might not, after all, thoroughly clean PCBs 
from the riverbed.
  ``With that much doubt still lingering about the safety and 
effectiveness of wholesale dredging, a limited approach sounds more 
like sensible prudence than a sellout.''
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) for his effort; and I would ask that all Members look 
at this issue.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to also draw the attention of the Members of 
this House to the Hudson River Superfund site. The Hudson River 
Superfund site is the largest Superfund site in the Nation. It runs for 
about 150 miles, from the Battery to the Federal dam at Troy.
  It is a Federal Superfund site and a State Superfund site, for that 
matter, in New York because of the fact that the General Electric 
Company, over a period of several decades, dumped hundreds of tons of 
polychlorinated biphenyls into the Upper Hudson River above that dam. 
Most of these PCBs are now still concentrated in so-called hot spots or 
concentrations of PCBs in this location around Fort Edward and a number 
of other localities up above that dam.
  This site is a hazardous waste site because PCBs are extraordinarily 
toxic. They are toxic in the sense that they are known to be cancerous 
in animals, and they are suspected to be and some would say known to be 
cancerous in humans, as well.
  PCBs cause cancer. They also attack the endocrine system. That is the 
natural defense system of the body. It protects us against the invasion 
of disease. That endocrine system is attacked by PCBs. It makes it much 
more difficult for people to defend themselves against ailments and 
causes a whole array of sicknesses to exist in bodies that are exposed 
to these very toxic chemicals.
  Furthermore, PCBs attack the developmental system, and they are known 
to cause low birthweight babies and to cause a deterioration in the 
intellectual ability of infants as the mothers have been exposed to 
PCBs. So, Mr. Chairman, that is just a given indication of the 
seriousness of this question.

[[Page H4689]]

  For several decades, going back to in fact the late 1970s, both the 
State of New York and the Federal Government have examined this 
question. Over a period of time they have attempted to develop a 
solution for it. At no time, except within the last 8 years, has this 
been done in a very serious way.
  However, over the course of the last 8 years, and particularly within 
the last 6 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has developed a 
plan to remediate much of the PCBs from the Hudson River in order to 
protect people, particularly those located up in the upper river but 
also those people who live in the lower river, from the damage that is 
caused by the presence of these PCBs in the river.
  Let me say parenthetically, that damage, of course, has resounded 
throughout the ecological system of the Hudson River. Every form of 
life, from the tiniest biota to the largest animals at the top of the 
food chain, are affected with these PCBs; and anyone who eats any of 
the animals out of the river, any of the fish, chemicals, anything that 
comes out of the river, absorbs quantities of PCBs into their body.
  The PCBs concentrate in the fatty tissues within the body. Those PCBs 
concentrated in the fatty tissues are passed on to infants by the 
lactating mothers of those infants, again giving an indication of the 
seriousness of this particular problem.
  The EPA now has developed a plan to deal with this issue. That plan 
is to dredge the concentrations of PCBs, remove them from the river, 
and reduce very substantially the level of this problem and the damage 
it is causing to the environment and to human health.
  Now, however, we receive indications from the new EPA in a new 
administration that once again we may be facing inordinate and 
irresponsible, unconscionable and unexplainable delays. It seems, it is 
rumored, that this EPA, under this new administrator in this new 
administration, is not going to follow through on the carefully 
developed plan formulated by the Clinton administration EPA, formulated 
by the scientists within the EPA, peer-reviewed by scientists outside 
of the EPA, and found to be sound in virtually every detail.
  In spite of all that, this EPA under this administration, with this 
administrator, is backing away from the plan, we are told. How ironic 
that is when one considers that this EPA administrator, when she was 
the Governor of the State of New Jersey, repeatedly is on record saying 
that she favored dredging the PCBs out of the river. Now, apparently, 
she may be taking a different tune, apparently at the direction of the 
White House.
  I hope that that is not the case. This is a serious problem, and it 
needs to be addressed intelligently and seriously.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
New York.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for his leadership on the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies in putting together this bill.
  As a scientist, I am especially heartened by the funding increase 
provided for the National Science Foundation. This bill funds NSF at 
$4.8 billion, which is a 9 percent increase, $414 million over the 
fiscal 2001 funding level.
  By approving this funding increase for NSF, we in the House make 
clear our understanding that the type of basic research in science and 
engineering that is supported by NSF is vital, not only to our Nation's 
continued economic leadership, but to continued increases in our 
standard of living and, indeed, to the sustainability of that standard 
of living.
  In recent years we in Congress have been committed to doubling the 
budget of the National Institutes of Health by 2003. We are justifiably 
proud of that effort.
  At the same time, we must also be aware that advances in the physical 
sciences, mathematics, computer science, and engineering are 
fundamental to the developments in medicine.
  To give an example, the move to double the NIH budget is motivated 
largely by the desire to cure cancer, among other serious diseases. 
However, many of the tools used to diagnose and treat cancer, among 
them x-rays, MRIs, CAT scans, and radiation treatments, come from the 
world of physics.
  Just yesterday I spoke to a research physician who pointed out that 
much of his research today would have been impossible just 15 years 
ago. The advanced tools that are now crucial to his work were developed 
just recently from work done in physics.
  We in Congress should have the goal of doubling the budget of NSF 
over the next 5 years through 15 percent annual increases. Overall, 
scientific and technical progress requires a balance between all of the 
sciences, which requires that funding for NSF keep pace with the 
funding for NIH.
  I applaud the chairman and his subcommittee for recognizing that fact 
by providing this substantial and well-justified funding increase for 
NSF in this bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks and 
for his leadership on all science issues in the House and for being a 
strong advocate for science.
  The subcommittee is acutely aware of the need for vigorous basic 
research effort in this country, which starts with the work of the 
National Science Foundation. Too often we overlook the importance of 
basic research in the sciences and in engineering also because its 
results are not always immediately applicable to tangible products. 
Breakthroughs in medical research, on the other hand, are more easily 
understood.
  I would like to echo the gentleman from Michigan in saying that we 
would do well to recognize the diversity of scientific endeavors that 
contribute to medical advances. I find it telling that the recent very 
noteworthy success of the human genome project, for example, was built 
on cutting-edge research in computer science, chemistry and other 
subjects of the kind supported by NSF.
  If the resources were available to us, the subcommittee would support 
an even greater increase in NSF funding than the 9 percent increase 
over fiscal year 2001 that is in the bill. We feel, nevertheless, that 
the increase is a strong start in guaranteeing that our Nation remains 
preeminent in basic research for years to come.
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Carson of Indiana

  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Carson of Indiana:
       In title I, in the paragraph relating to ``Veterans Health 
     Administration--medical care'', after the aggregate dollar 
     amount insert the following: ``(reduced by $16,200,000)''.
       In title I, in the paragraph relating to ``Departmental 
     Administration--office of inspector general'', after the 
     aggregate dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $16,200,000)''.

  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides additional 
funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector 
General, and it will reap a manyfold return in cost savings and result 
in a greatly improved quality of health care for American veterans.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs is the second largest executive 
branch agency. Yet this behemoth is monitored by an Office of Inspector 
General staffed at one of the lowest levels among all 29 statutory 
Inspector Generals when Inspector General staffing is compared to total 
agency employment.

                              {time}  1815

  The VA IG has a staff of 365 nationwide. If the VA office of the IG 
was staffed at just the average ratio among the 29 statutory Inspectors 
General, the staff would be 4,000 full-time employees. My amendment, 
Mr. Chairman, would provide funding for an additional 110 full-time 
staff on the IG's team and permit an acceleration of the IG's facility 
assessment program from its current 6-year cycle to a more reasonable 
3-year cycle.
  A migration from the 6-year cycle to the 3-year cycle would enhance 
the IG's

[[Page H4690]]

ability to determine the root causes of departmental management 
inefficiencies. With proactive oversight, the VA Office of the 
Inspector General can identify tremendous cost savings measures and 
assure that taxpayers' dollars are put to their best use. In the end, 
this will provide for smarter management, greater cost savings, and, 
most importantly, better, more accessible health care for our veterans. 
An accelerated proactive assessment cycle would likely yield savings or 
redirect funds to better use in the billion dollar range.
  In fiscal year 2000, the VA OIG staffed 369 positions at a cost of 
$45 million and was able to demonstrate solid performance results, 
including 338 arrests, 280 indictments, 247 convictions, 496 
administrative sanctions, $302 million in funds put to better use, 
$11.4 million in dollar recoveries, and $13.8 million in fines, 
penalties, restitution and civil judgments. These savings were realized 
under the 6-year assessment cycle, and a 3-year cycle would do so very 
much more.
  Mr. Chairman, let me assure my colleagues that I have long fought and 
continue to fight for the enhancement of medical benefits for veterans. 
As we consider adopting this amendment, I assure all of my colleagues 
that, as the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigation of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I consider this 
a true value of effective oversight, and I ask for their support of 
this amendment. It is cost effective.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised, quite frankly, at this 
amendment. I fully expected there would be more amendments adding 
additional funds to the already precious dollars that are in VA medical 
care, but this amendment would take $16 million out of veterans medical 
care. This is money that goes toward surgical procedures, towards 
pharmaceutical drugs, towards nurses and doctors, heat and lights, and 
running these facilities. To hand over these funds to the Inspector 
General's office, to me, just does not make good sense. So I strongly 
oppose the amendment.
  We have already provided the Inspector General with an increase of $6 
million over last year, a 15 percent increase from in their fiscal year 
2001 budget. It is also a $4 million increase over this year's budget 
submission. This amendment would result in close to a 50 percent 
increase in the budget. I suspect the Inspector General could not 
handle that much money, they could not put that many people on, and 
this money is dearly needed for veterans medical care. I would hate to 
jeopardize the health of our veterans by reducing this already 
substantial but certainly dear amount of money.
  So I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Committee for 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I respect very much the gentleman's 
argument in terms of the amendment that I offered, and I realize that 
on its face it does probably raise red herrings in terms of what I am 
doing; that I may be taking away medical benefits from veterans in 
favor of the Inspector General. But as I indicated in my opening 
remarks, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is cost effective and it will 
allow the expansion of Inspectors General to generate more money for 
the Veterans Administration.
  I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we engage in further 
dialogue with the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and 
see if we cannot work out this situation in terms of advancing the idea 
that I have here in terms of trying to help the Veterans 
Administration.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CARSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. If the gentlewoman would be prepared to withdraw the 
amendment, we would be happy to sit down and discuss this with her at 
length, and with the authorizing committee, to see if we can address 
her concerns.
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman has offered that, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     medical care collections fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year in the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund 
     under section 1729A of title 38, United States Code, shall be 
     transferred to ``Medical care'', to remain available until 
     expended.


                    medical and prosthetic research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003, $371,000,000, plus reimbursements.


               Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
       In title I, in the paragraph under the heading ``Veterans 
     Health Administration--medical and prosthetic research'', 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased 
     by $24,000,000)''.
       In title III, under the heading ``National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration--human space flight'', after the dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $24,000,000)''.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with the Republican manager, the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the Democratic manager, my 
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  First, I would like to recognize both the chairman and the ranking 
minority member for their continued support for medical and prosthetic 
research in the Veterans Health Administration. It is in great measure 
due to their support and commitment that this bill has come to the 
floor with approximately $20 million more than had been initially 
programmed for prosthetic research.
  Dating back to the spring, when I first contacted them and their 
colleagues in the Committee on Appropriations, urging them to take the 
necessary step that we began last year when the chairman similarly 
approved my amendment to raise the funding of this very program, they 
have once again responded affirmatively to my request that we increase 
the funding for this extremely important research program.
  Secondly, I would like to emphasize that this increase will assist 
the VA research program in achieving the stability necessary for 
successful research, one that can eventually achieve its full potential 
for finding cures and treatments for many chronic and terrible 
diseases. The VA research program is uniquely positioned to advance 
diagnosis and treatment for conditions that particularly affect 
veterans, including prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease, 
Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, spinal cord injury, and aging-
related diseases. But I remind my colleagues that, ultimately, our 
Nation as a whole is the beneficiary of research conducted by the VA.
  Mr. Chairman, this generous increase would not have been possible 
without the complete support of the chairman and the ranking member. I 
believe in their commitment to this program and trust they will work 
with the Senate in conference to secure up to the $391 million for this 
program. I wish to note that our colleagues in the Senate have provided 
a $40 million increase for this deserving program. I ask the chairman 
and the valued ranking member for their commitment to work with their 
Senate counterparts during conference to achieve the highest possible 
funding for the VA medical and prosthetic research program.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

[[Page H4691]]

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for his advocacy in this area. The bill provides $20 million 
over last year's funding level for VA research, plus $30 million in 
construction funds specifically for research facility rehabilitation.
  Because the Senate has provided a higher funding level for VA 
research in their bill, this account will be an issue in conference; 
and we will take into account the views and concerns of the gentleman 
from Illinois and the other Members who have expressed an interest in 
increasing funding for this important account as we move forward.
  I thank the gentleman for his willingness to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for 
bringing this issue to the attention of the full House, and I want the 
gentleman to know that it is certainly high on the priority list for 
the chairman. He added $10 million in this account during the full 
committee, and we have just heard him express his real support for 
taking a strong look at it during conference.
  I commend the gentleman for bringing it to our attention, and I 
understand he is going to withdraw his amendment, but I just want to 
assure him that both sides of the aisle are supportive and will support 
him in conference.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for all their 
work on this issue, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Are there any further amendments to this paragraph?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in the administration of the 
     medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, 
     supply, and research activities, as authorized by law; 
     administrative expenses in support of capital policy 
     activities, $66,731,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That 
     technical and consulting services offered by the Facilities 
     Management Field Service, including project management and 
     real property administration (including leases, site 
     acquisition and disposal activities directly supporting 
     projects), shall be provided to Department of Veterans 
     Affairs components only on a reimbursable basis.

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     administrative expenses in support of Department-wide capital 
     planning, management and policy activities, uniforms or 
     allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services, and the 
     Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail, 
     $1,195,728,000: Provided, That expenses for services and 
     assistance authorized under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(1), (2), (5) 
     and (11) that the Secretary determines are necessary to 
     enable entitled veterans (1) to the maximum extent feasible, 
     to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable 
     employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily 
     living, shall be charged to this account: Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading, not to 
     exceed $60,000,000 shall be available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003: Provided further, That from the funds 
     made available under this heading, the Veterans Benefits 
     Administration may purchase up to four passenger motor 
     vehicles for use in operations of that Administration in 
     Manila, Philippines: Provided further, That travel expenses 
     for this account shall not exceed $15,665,000.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Foley

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Foley:
       In title I, in the paragraph relating to ``Departmental 
     Administration--general operating expenses'', after the 
     aggregate dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $25,000,000)''.
       In title III, in the paragraph relating to ``National 
     Science Foundation--research and related activities'', after 
     the aggregate dollar amount insert the following: ``(reduced 
     by $92,000,000)''.

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the veterans benefits 
claim process in this country is a disaster. This disaster is not the 
fault of the dedicated employees of the VA or Mr. Anthony Principi, the 
new Secretary of Veterans Affairs, but rather the bulk of the blame 
lies with the years of neglect and lack of planning AND foresight.
  When a typical veteran in my State has to wait an average of 171 days 
to get a response to a claim, no one can doubt that we have a serious 
problem. Would any of us expect to wait 171 days after filing a medical 
claim with our insurer before actually getting the check in the mail? 
No one would. No American would wait. Yet this is exactly what our 
national veterans have to face every time they file a benefit claim 
with the Veterans Administration.
  What is worse is that, according to the administration's own budget, 
that 170-day wait may well exceed 270 days this year. That 100-day 
increase in the claims turnaround time is estimated by the 
administration even after the good chairman, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), has increased by a $128 million earmark in this bill 
to alleviate that problem. In fact, recently, in our supplemental bill, 
and I commend the gentleman from New York for aggressively pursuing 
this problem, he provided another $19 million. So we are making 
progress.
  But let no one be mistaken, this is a crisis. Veterans in my State 
and across the country sometimes die before their health or other 
benefit claims can be processed.

                              {time}  1830

  These claims stem from veterans who feel they have been unjustly 
denied the benefits they are entitled to and deserve. For example, my 
State of Florida has only one processing facility currently operating 
with a 24,000 case backlog. The second largest State in the Union with 
veterans residing in the State and only one processing facility.
  My amendment will add $25 million to the VA general operating expense 
account for the express purpose of hiring and training additional 
claims processors. The increase would be offset by a similar amount 
from the National Science Foundation's $3.6 billion research account 
which the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and I will add, has generously 
increased over last year's level by $292 million.
  The amendment is not aimed at lessening the good that the National 
Science Foundation does. But our rules require offsets, and this 
becomes a matter of priorities.
  The Foley amendment uses the NSF's polar and antarctic research 
accounts as an offset. The base bill recommends $3.6 billion for 
National Science Foundation research next year, an increase of over 
$300 million. Taking $25 million from the NSF's already increased 
account is far less significant than the additional claims processors 
that the VA could hire with this additional funding.
  This is a meaningful amendment which will make a significant dent in 
the turnaround time for claims processing. This is a nationwide 
problem, one that Secretary Principi and I have talked about. He has 
personally stated this is his primary goal of fixing as new head of the 
VA. Let us give him the funding he needs.
  The amendment is about priorities. One of the highest priorities 
should be taking care of those who fought the wars for us. Yes, these 
are interesting times, and these are aggressive bills which I believe 
seek to solve a lot of our country's problems. But at a time when our 
Vietnam vets and Korean vets and World War II vets and Desert Storm 
vets are being told to wait, we are increasing by $300 million monies 
in accounts that probably could take a little bit of a reduction in 
order to satisfy and help those who have sacrificed.
  Again, focus on where the amount of money comes from, the NSF's polar 
and antarctic research accounts as offsets.
  I again thank the chairman and I do want to underscore the fact that 
his committee and his chairmanship has brought a lot of great benefits 
to veterans. I know help is on the way in a number of these other 
areas, but I would urge Congress to accept my amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H4692]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would remind 
my good friend and colleague from Florida that we are spending over $51 
billion in the veterans' accounts this year. The entire science budget 
for the National Science Foundation is under $5 billion. That is a ten 
to one ratio. Obviously, one can see where our priorities are. They are 
on our veterans, on providing for their benefits, on providing for 
their health care, on providing for the administration that is a very 
important and significant portion of the Federal budget.
  Fifty billion for veterans, less than 5 billion for research. We all 
know how important research is to the future of all Americans, 
including our veterans. Make no mistake about it, the investment that 
we are making in the National Science Foundation will resound also to 
the veterans as it will with all members of the American society. 
Besides, we have already increased this account by almost $146 million, 
the President's request.
  For the benefits administration alone we provided just under $1 
billion, $955 million. We funded this bill at the President's request 
which was an increase of $129 million over last year; $148 million if 
we consider the supplemental funding we passed last week.
  We have fully funded the VA's plan to hire 400 claims processors, 
continuing our commitment to improve the claims situation as we 
provided funds for 400 new claims processors just last year.
  This is Secretary Principi's highest priority. He is focused on this. 
He is asking for resources. He has a plan. Let us let him implement 
that plan.
  The VA cannot hire more people at this point. More money will not 
translate to more people. The budget request for NSF's request by the 
President was barely a 1 percent increase. We are doubling the National 
Institutes of Health. It does not make sense to double the National 
Institutes of Health without making dramatic increases also in the 
National Science Foundation. It is the basic science, the math, the 
physics that makes all of this possible, all of this research possible.
  So we needed to make that increase, and we did. The subcommittee 
stepped up to the plate and provided a 9 percent increase. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) would cut nearly 
one-third of our increase out of that budget, a situation which I 
believe is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
  The Nation's economy depends on the research conducted through NSF. I 
strongly oppose this amendment. These funds coming out of NSF will hurt 
the veteran just as much as if we cut them out of their own budget.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bad news is 
the gentleman states the problem correctly, that there are large delays 
waiting for these medical claims to be processed, to be considered. The 
good news, however, is that the chairman addressed the issue in this 
bill. It is contained in this bill.
  The gentleman said let us give the Secretary the funding he needs. 
Well, the chairman gave him the funding he asked for, which I assume is 
the funding he needs. The President's request was fully funded at $146 
million, a $146 million increase.
  I think the gentleman should be pleased with the treatment of this 
problem in the bill, and it is being addressed aggressively last year 
with an increase of 400 new employees on task and 400 will be added as 
a result of this bill.
  The offset the gentleman proposes is absolutely terrible. We have 
been working very hard during the last several years to increase NSF's 
funding. The gentleman takes it from the NSF increase and, by my 
computations, he is taking $92 million, which is about a third of the 
increase that we are providing for NSF.
  So, on the one hand, I think the gentleman raises a legitimate 
concern. It is being addressed in the bill, however; and he should be 
pleased with that. On the other hand, where he is taking the money it 
is particularly difficult because that is an account that we are trying 
to increase. It is very meritorious to increase, and the cut he takes 
from that is really a horrendous cut that would be taken to NSF.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise with some reluctance to oppose this amendment, 
and the reluctance is that it is offered by my good friend the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). The gentleman is engaged in a noble 
cause, but I will oppose it precisely for the reason that has been 
specified before this evening: This amendment would decimate the 
National Science Foundation's budget, particularly in the area of polar 
research and the Antarctic.
  We discussed just a few moments ago the work of the National Science 
Foundation and how necessary it is to fund it at a level to keep pace 
with the funding at the National Institutes of Health, because so much 
of the work at the NSF is related to the work of the NIH in its battle 
to fight various diseases such as cancer, diabetes and the many other 
diseases that they are engaged in fighting.
  In addition, the National Science Foundation is engaged in many other 
areas of research. In regard to the polar and Antarctic research which 
the gentleman from Florida seeks to cut, it is a unique research 
program that tackles many problems which cannot be tackled anywhere 
else in the world. For example, these research funds resulted in the 
first discovery of the ozone hole, which alerted our whole planet to 
the need to do something about chlorofluorocarbons and led to measures 
in both industry and government to end our very large use of 
chlorofluorocarbons; as a result we are beginning to see a shrinking of 
the ozone hole.
  In addition, because of the unique position at the pole, this is an 
ideal spot for astronomy. From that position many stars can be viewed 
that cannot be seen well from other areas of our planet.
  The amount that the gentleman is proposing to take out of this 
research budget is approximately one-third of the budget allocated for 
that work. That is a severe cut. We discussed earlier the small amount 
of the increase in the NSF budget compared to the NIH budget and 
discussed the need to seek a doubling of the NSF budget. We are not 
even close to doing that this year.
  If we take even more money out, it would be a serious blow to the 
budget of the NSF and to the scientific work that is carried out at the 
National Science Foundation. All of us value that research and benefit 
from it very, very directly. If I had the time, I could spend an hour 
pointing out all of the benefits derived from the funds spent on the 
basic research done by the National Science Foundation.
  For these reasons, I urge that we vote ``no'' on this particular 
amendment. I urge even more strongly that the sponsor withdraw the 
amendment. I think his effort to help veterans is noble, but his 
funding proposal would cause inestimable damage to the National Science 
Foundation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the gentleman from Florida to withdraw his 
amendment so we do not engage in a vote which could be detrimental to 
the National Science Foundation.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. The gentleman from Florida proposes to reduce research 
funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by $92 million and 
funding for the Department of Veteran Administration's (VA) General 
Operating Expenses account by $25 million.
  For fiscal year 2002, this appropriations bill adds $4.3 billion to 
VA's fiscal year 2001 budget of $47 billion, and increase of over 9.2 
percent. That $4.3 billion increase is nearly equal to NSF's entire 
budget. To this increase, the gentleman wishes to add $25 million by 
taking $92 million from NSF's significantly smaller appropriation.
  Each year when the VA/HUD bill comes to the floor, amendments are 
offered that would strip NSF of funding to pay for other programs--some 
worthy, others not. I believe that this practice is shortsighted. This 
House has continually recognized the important role NSF and basic 
research have played in our Nation's economic and technological 
development.
  NSF is the government's premier science agency. It supports cutting-
edge research to answer fundamental questions within and

[[Page H4693]]

across scientific disciplines. This research has helped fuel new 
industries and jobs that have propelled economic prosperity and changed 
the way we live.
  Maintaining the Nation's leadership in science will require keeping 
open the pipeline of new ideas and innovations that flow from 
fundamental research. NSF is the Federal Government's only agency 
dedicated to the support of education and fundamental research in all 
scientific disciplines, from physics and math to anthropology and 
zoology. Today's NSF-led research in nanotechnology, advanced 
materials, biotechnology, and information technology are laying the 
groundwork for the technologies of the future, and in the process 
training the scientists, engineers, and technology entrepreneurs of 
tomorrow.
  While I agree with the Gentleman on the need to reduce the backlog of 
VA benefits claims, I do not think that cutting the funding of the 
Nation's premier science agency is the way to do this. Therefore, I 
oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be 
postponed.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh), in a colloquy regarding funding for Hispanic-
Serving Institutions, known as HSI's, under the National Science 
Foundation Education and Human Resources Program.
  There are over 200 HSI's throughout this country that are enrolling 
an ever-increasing number of Hispanic college students. Hispanics are 
now the second largest minority in the United States. Many of these 
students are the first generation Americans in their family to attend 
colleges or universities. We need to encourage them to complete their 
education and to enter fields like math, science and engineering, where 
our country is experiencing a severe shortage.
  The National Science Foundation is charged with the responsibility of 
improving math, science and engineering education across the country. 
To do this, NSF provides several competitive grant programs for which 
schools can apply to train teachers, students and improve the quality 
of their math, science, engineering and technology programs. Past 
authorization language has required the NSF to target under-represented 
populations. However, to date, Hispanic-Serving Institutions have 
received less than 2 percent of the grant funding available.
  Mr. Chairman, does the appropriations subcommittee chairman agree 
that the NSF should be targeting under-represented populations such as 
the HSIs?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank the gentleman from Texas 
for bringing up this important issue.
  As the gentleman knows, we have made every effort to increase the 
budget for the National Science Foundation to the highest level 
possible and spread those funds as broadly as possible among programs 
throughout the Foundation. In this context, the subcommittee has placed 
great emphasis on providing additional dollars for several programs 
emphasizing math, science and engineering education.
  Generally speaking, we in the Foundation should do all that can be 
done to promote these programs at all educational institutions, but I 
certainly agree with the gentleman that a special effort should be made 
to target minority-serving institutions and in particular Hispanic-
Serving Institutions for enhancement of these important programs.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Will the chairman work with me and the leadership of 
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to develop report language urging the 
National Science Foundation to do more aggressive outreach and grant 
solicitation amongst HSIs so that more of them can improve their math 
and science programs to better educate Hispanic students?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to work with the gentleman 
from Texas and his Congressional Hispanic Caucus to find ways to make 
the grant programs funded under this bill more accessible to HSI's and 
to encourage the National Science Foundation to work to increase the 
number of HSI's participating in its grant programs.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh); and I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

                              {time}  1845

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    national cemetery administration

       For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery 
     Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise 
     provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor; 
     cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one 
     passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations; and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, $121,169,000.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $52,308,000.


                      construction, major projects

       For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes 
     set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 
     8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code, 
     including planning, architectural and engineering services, 
     maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated 
     with equipment guarantees provided under the project, 
     services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm 
     drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition, 
     where the estimated cost of a project is $4,000,000 or more 
     or where funds for a project were made available in a 
     previous major project appropriation, $183,180,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which not to exceed $20,000,000 
     shall be for costs associated with land acquisitions for 
     national cemeteries in the vicinity of Sacramento, 
     California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Detroit, Michigan: 
     Provided, That except for advance planning activities, 
     including needs assessments which may or may not lead to 
     capital investments, and other capital asset management 
     related activities, such as portfolio development and 
     management activities, and investment strategy studies funded 
     through the advance planning fund and the planning and design 
     activities funded through the design fund and CARES funds, 
     including needs assessments which may or may not lead to 
     capital investments, none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be used for any project which has not been 
     approved by the Congress in the budgetary process: Provided 
     further, That funds provided in this appropriation for fiscal 
     year 2002, for each approved project shall be obligated: (1) 
     by the awarding of a construction documents contract by 
     September 30, 2002; and (2) by the awarding of a construction 
     contract by September 30, 2003: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall promptly report in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations any approved 
     major construction project for which obligations are not 
     incurred within the time limitations established under the 
     preceeding proviso: Provided further, That no funds from any 
     other account except the ``Parking revolving fund'', may be 
     obligated for constructing, altering, extending, or improving 
     a project which was approved in the budget process and funded 
     in this account until one year after substantial completion 
     and beneficial occupancy by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs of the project or any part thereof with respect to 
     that part only.


                      Facility Rehabilitation Fund

       For altering, improving, or rehabilitating facilities under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     $300,000,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading 
     $30,000,000 shall be only for projects authorized pursuant to 
     section 2(b)(5) of H.R. 811 as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on March 27, 2001; and $270,000,000 shall be 
     only for projects achieving the purposes authorized in 
     sections 2(c)(1), (2), and (3) of H.R. 811 as passed by the 
     House of Representatives on March 27, 2001: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds under this heading may be used for the 
     construction of a new building unless a credible assessment, 
     approved by the Secretary, demonstrates new construction 
     would be more cost-effective than rehabilitating the existing 
     building.


                      construction, minor projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning and 
     assessments of needs which may lead to capital investments, 
     architectural and engineering services, maintenance or 
     guarantee period services costs associated with equipment 
     guarantees provided under the project, services of claims 
     analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system 
     construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the 
     purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102,

[[Page H4694]]

     8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, 8122, and 8162 of title 38, 
     United States Code, where the estimated cost of a project is 
     less than $4,000,000, $178,900,000, to remain available until 
     expended, along with unobligated balances of previous 
     ``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are 
     hereby made available for any project where the estimated 
     cost is less than $4,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be 
     for Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) 
     activities: Provided, That from amounts appropriated under 
     this heading, additional amounts may be used for CARES 
     activities upon notification of and approval by the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds in 
     this account shall be available for: (1) repairs to any of 
     the nonmedical facilities under the jurisdiction or for the 
     use of the department which are necessary because of loss or 
     damage caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2) 
     temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize 
     further loss by such causes.

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the HUD/VA Appropriation bill. I want to commend the chairman of the 
subcommittee Mr. Walsh and ranking democrat Alan Molhan on the funding 
levels provided for veterans programs by the bill.
  This bill provides a 16 percent increase in funds for the Veterans 
Benefits Administration. VA Secretary Principi proposes to use these 
funds to hire and train 900 additional employees to address the 
increased workload in the disability and education claims areas. The 
increased workload is a result of an increased number of claims and 
legislative changes to the adjudication process. Addressing this 
backlog is an urgent task which the Secretary has attempted to confront 
in a very forthright and open manner.
  But, frankly, I am deeply concerned and dismayed about the blatantly 
unfair criticism that blames him and the Bush administration for a 
situation that clearly was the result of policies and practices in 
place before he became VA Secretary. I share his concern about partisan 
attacks that hold him accountable because this backlog has not yet been 
resolved. I say to those who would make such criticisms that they 
cannot absolve themselves of some of the responsibility. Congress 
passed the Veterans Claims Assistance Act last year and that Act alone 
required the VA to review over 50,000 disability decisions to assure 
compliance with that act. In addition, the two previous VA Secretaries 
had substantial opportunities to make the claims process more timely 
and responsive to veterans, yet Secretary Principi faced a backlog of 
over 500,000 disability claims and 130,000 education claims when he 
took office. Sec. Principle is a good and honorable man who cares 
deeply about veterans. He is responsive and an outstanding leader. The 
criticism of him is unjustified, unfair and unwarranted.
  As I noted, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides a 16 percent increase 
for the Veterans Benefits Administration. I cannot think of too many 
Departments that have seen a 16 percent increase in 1 year. I believe 
that this is probably as much money as could be productively used in 
fiscal year 2002. This budget is a very good one, but we should not 
assume that simply by increasing the budget these backlogs will 
disappear overnight. The VA is already hiring employees using funds 
they expect to receive in the supplemental appropriation bill. But it 
takes several years for an employee to obtain the requisite skills 
necessary to correctly decide a veteran's disability claim. While I 
expect we will see progress, there is no magic wand that will solve 
these matters overnight.
  Mr. Chairman, on the health care side, the bill reported by the 
Committee on Appropriations, and again I want to thank the chairman and 
ranking member for their faithfulness to our veterans. This legislation 
provide a $300 million increase in funds to funding bill H.R. 811, 
which we passed earlier this year for medical facility rehabilitation 
projects. I want my colleagues to understand that even though we have 
not gotten Senate agreement yet on the Veterans Hospital Emergency 
Repair Act, H.R. 811, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) are willing to fund this 
new authorization. I think they break some very important ground by 
their willingness to do this.
  As the chief sponsor of H.R. 811, I can say that it is readily 
apparent that even though the VA may need to tear down or declare 
excess some of its aging facilities that are vacant and not needed to 
serve veterans in the future, there is an urgent need to renovate 
medical facilities throughout the country that will be serving veterans 
for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the proposed budget for VA 
facility repair and renovation has not come close to meeting the 
documented needs of a system with an estimated value of some $35 
billion.
  An independent study by Price Waterhouse suggested that with a system 
as valuable as this one, an annual investment of about $700 million to 
$1.4 billion would be ideal. Unfortunately, VA budget proposals in the 
past few years contained far less than this for capital renovation 
projects. The changes in medical practice and technology demand that 
facilities be modernized on a regular basis; and frankly we have 
ignored that need in VA health care facilities in the last few budgets.
  That is why all Members should be aware of the provision in the bill 
pledging $300 million in capital construction funds to keep VA 
facilities and the care they deliver up to date. This is the problem we 
were attempting to address in H.R. 811 when we passed it earlier this 
year, and this appropriations language likewise addresses it as well. 
Again, I want to commend the gentleman from New York and all members of 
the committee for supporting this funding.
  The reported bill also includes substantial increases in the budgets 
for state home construction grants, medical and prosthetic research, 
and the national cemetery system. Coupled with a projected increase in 
receipts from insurers, an increase of $1.2 billion over the 2001 level 
would be provided for medical care. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee 
is aware, the VA carried forward $1.3 billion from last year into the 
current fiscal year. In addition, health care receipts are about 25 
percent higher this year than last year, so that a total of $800 
million in additional funds of medical care attributable to these 
receipts is a realistic possibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is also fair to mention the issue of VA 
managers diverting medical care funds in a manner that reached new 
heights late last year. Of the $20 billion in medical care funds 
provided for the current fiscal year, $6.2 billion was appropriated for 
three items. Those three items are pharmacy (drugs), Hepatitis C care, 
and long-term care. As we learned earlier this year from newly-
confirmed VA Secretary Tony Principi, VA doesn't need all of this $6.2 
billion, and plans to spend $750 million of it on other health care 
needs.
  Given the VA's ability to reprogram sums as a large as this without 
any explanation or authorization, it seems to me we need to take a much 
closer look at how VA is spending its money and what it is currently 
requesting. One of the themes I've stressed since becoming Chairman is 
to hold VA officials accountable for the decisions they make and how 
they spend taxpayer dollars. Thus, I think a one billion dollar 
increase is defensible and generous if we're going to have officials 
requesting funds for one purpose and then spending it one something 
else altogether. In addition, I believe we will finally see the long-
awaited improvement in medical collections of around $200 million in 
the current fiscal year, and that increase should carry over into 
fiscal year 2002.
  All in all, I believe this is a very good bill for veterans, one that 
provides substantial increases where the funds will do the most good. 
Given the demands by millions of veterans for a high-quality affordable 
health care benefit, it is nearly impossible to say that higher 
appropriations for medical care are unnecessary. But they is a very 
good bill, and it keeps our pledge to maintain the quality for those 
veterans now enrolled with VA for their health care. Mr. Chairman, I 
urge all Members to vote for this bill.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to identify with the remarks of my colleague who 
just spoke, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs,

[[Page H4695]]

and I wish to address the House in two capacities: one, as a friend of 
the veterans, as a veteran myself; and, two, in relationship to the 
amendment previously discussed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Foley).
  The fact of the matter is I know of no better friends for the 
veterans of America than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). They both have very important 
roles to play, the gentleman from New Jersey as chairman of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from New York, who is 
where the rubber meets the road, on the Committee on Appropriations.
  We can do all the authorizing in the world, but it does not mean much 
unless you follow up with appropriations. The gentleman from New York, 
to his credit, time after time has been there for the veterans, time 
after time has put more money in the budget to address very real 
problems that must be solved if we are to fulfill our commitments to 
the men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States 
military.
  I am very much aware of the delays in solving the claims processing 
crisis. Indeed it is a crisis. On several occasions I have spoken to 
the gentleman from New York about this. Others have, too. We have 
always received the same answer: ``We will be there when we are needed. 
Don't just judge us by our words. Judge us by our deeds.'' This budget 
includes $128 million, an 11 percent increase, for the Veterans 
Administration to address the claims processing problem. That deserves 
our praise and support.
  Now, we can always do more, but the fact of the matter is we are 
doing more than what is adequate to address a very real, legitimate 
problem. But to suggest that we take from another very sensitive area, 
and this is where I put on my second hat, as chairman of the Committee 
on Science, to suggest that we take money away from the National 
Science Foundation, which even Ronald Reagan, in my early years on the 
Hill, wanted to double funding for over a 5-year period, because he was 
wise then and we are wise now; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) is evidencing the wisdom of the Congress in providing additional 
funds for the National Science Foundation.
  I do not need to remind my colleagues that we have been through a 
decade of unprecedented growth, quarter after quarter, year after year, 
growth in our economy. It is a little bit soft right now, a little bit 
shaky. People are concerned. I would suggest to my colleagues in the 
House that the way to continue to move forward, to make sure this 
economy keeps percolating is, one, to do what we have already done, cut 
taxes to get money back into the pockets of the American taxpayer, and 
so that they can help keep this economy humming, but secondly to invest 
in appropriate science, to invest in the basic research that is so 
essential for the continued prosperity in America. We did not get where 
we have been these past 10 years, quarter after quarter year after year 
of growth because we just wished for better things to happen. We got 
there because we invested in science, and science has rewarded us with 
unprecedented developments. The whole Internet economy, the whole 
telecommunications industry growth, these are things that are products 
of science.
  So I would suggest that to acquire $25 million more for something 
that is already being addressed in a very substantial way, $128 million 
more in the Walsh bill, but to get that additional $25 million by 
taking $92 million and, boy, talk about fuzzy math, it is tough to 
understand and explain in this short time how that comes about, but to 
take $92 million away from the National Science Foundation is just not 
the thing to do. We can do what we should do in a responsible way, 
continuing to provide more funding for the National Science Foundation 
and do what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is proposing, more 
funding, $128 million more to solve a very real problem, that is, the 
backlog in the claims processing for the men and women who have served 
our Nation so nobly.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership. I 
want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for what he is continuing to do, to 
make certain everyone clearly understands that our veterans are 
uppermost in our minds. We have an obligation. We have a commitment. We 
are going to meet it.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague from New Jersey, my 
chairman. I chair the Subcommittee on Health for the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. I too would like to commend the gentleman from New 
York and the ranking member of this committee for their support of 
veterans issues and particularly for improving the access veterans can 
have to health care across the country.
  But I would also like to come here this afternoon and thank my 
chairman for working on another issue and it is one that is very 
important to a community of mine back home, Hutchinson, Kansas. 
Hutchinson is a community of just over 40,000 people. On January 17 of 
this year, the city experienced a series of explosions caused by 
natural gas that leaked into abandoned salt mines that migrated under 
the community. People in Hutchinson woke up that day to headlines and 
photographs demonstrating a major occurrence had occurred in this small 
town. Explosions rocked the community for the next 2 days, and fires 
continued to burn for the next 5 months. The explosions leveled two 
downtown buildings, destroyed homes, hundreds of people were forced to 
relocate, move their home and businesses, and tragically two people 
died as a result of injuries sustained from this occurrence.
  Just 2 weeks ago, another gas explosion occurred causing more damage 
to the community, both physically and emotionally. Hutchinson has a 
long history of salt production, resulting in hundreds of abandoned 
mines underneath the city and the surrounding region. In order to 
ensure that no natural gas further escapes and ignition occurs from 
these mines, each must be located and properly capped to ensure safety.
  Addressing this situation is vitally important to this community and 
its future. It is an important priority for our country. Even President 
Bush mentioned in his energy strategy this tragedy. I have requested 
assistance from the chairman. This is the first time I have come to the 
gentleman from New York asking for assistance in this manner. I was 
anticipating being intimidated by the gentleman. He met me with 
sympathy and empathy. I am very grateful for that kind of response. I 
appreciate the gentleman indicating his willingness to assist and 
provide support as this bill goes to a House-Senate conference.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just to briefly respond to the gentleman, I 
thank him for bringing this issue to my attention and to the attention 
of the committee. This catastrophic loss that occurred to his 
community, this devastating incident, seriously undermines public 
safety and economic activity in this city and the region. I know his 
concern is heartfelt. He has pressed this case before us. I will 
continue to work with the gentleman from Kansas during the conference 
to see what assistance we can provide to Hutchinson, Kansas. I thank 
him for his hard work on behalf of his community.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in 
a colloquy with the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Chairman, to address the serious shortage of suitable housing for 
frail, low-income seniors, the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD bill included 
authorizing language to provide a pilot program for up to three grants 
for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial property into 
assisted living facilities for the elderly. Unfortunately, in that year 
the appropriation language did not allow HUD to issue a NOFA to 
implement the authorizing language.
  In fiscal year 2001, the necessary appropriation language was 
included in the VA-HUD bill, and $7.5 million of Section 202 funds were 
made available to provide for the pilot program of

[[Page H4696]]

grants for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial 
property into assisted living facilities. Yet, upon issuance of the 
NOFA, HUD rejected all applications for these grants.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today has again appropriated funds 
for the conversion of eligible assisted living projects. I am concerned 
that HUD will continue to ignore congressional mandates on this issue, 
and I would ask the chairman if he would work with me in conference to 
correct this problem so that we can expedite the previously authorized 
pilot program for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial 
property into assisted living facilities for the elderly.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
issue to our attention and for the amount of energy and thought he has 
put into this. We have discussed this at length, and I would be happy 
to work with the gentleman as the bill moves forward to address the 
issue prior to conference.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
chairman's consideration.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee. I want to commend the gentleman for the 
robust increases he has included in H.R. 2660 for veterans health care 
programs. I again want to reiterate to my colleagues that an increase 
of $1.2 billion for the VA's Medicare account will go a long way toward 
improving services for our veterans.
  There is an area of particular interest to me I would like to discuss 
the with the distinguished chairman, and that is the success of 
Alzheimer's disease. I am proud to support a bill that will help to 
improve the treatment of veterans that suffer from this debilitating 
dementia.
  As cochairman of the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force, I am proud 
of the clinical research the VA has been conducting on Alzheimer's 
disease. As the chairman is aware, the VA has developed a very 
promising model to treat Alzheimer's patients at the Bedford, 
Massachusetts, VA facility. This model emphasizes a home-like setting, 
making patients feel comfortable, instead of subjecting them to painful 
and heroic medical interventions, and employs an interdisciplinary team 
of clinicians, dieticians and therapists. All reviews of the Bedford 
program have concluded that it provides better care than traditional 
long-term care approaches.
  It is my hope that, with the additional resources contained in this 
bill, the VA will take concrete steps to examine successful Alzheimer's 
programs such as the Bedford VA model and look to expand this approach 
to other VA medical centers.
  I will yield to the chairman on that issue.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for the passionate 
leadership that the gentleman provides on that committee for our 
veterans. He is always there to defend the interests of our veterans 
and to make sure we meet the commitments we made to our veterans.
  I would also like to thank him for his interest and support in 
finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease. As the gentleman surely knows, 
nearly 600,000 veterans are estimated to be suffering from brain 
disease, dementia and related disorders such as Alzheimer's. I am in 
fact a member of the task force, and I share his commitment to helping 
patients and their families who are struggling with this condition.
  As for the chairman's question, I believe that, yes, the VA should be 
carefully examining the Alzheimer's programs it manages, identifying 
promising models of care and then ensuring that successful models are 
implemented at other medical centers. In this manner, all of our 
veterans can receive the very latest treatment methods. Our veterans 
deserve nothing less.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the distinguished chairman for his commitment to our Alzheimer's 
patients, particularly to those who happen to be veterans, the 600,000 
that he mentioned.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         parking revolving fund

       For the parking revolving fund as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     8109, income from fees collected and $4,000,000 from the 
     General Fund, both to remain available until expended, which 
     shall be available for all authorized expenses except 
     operations and maintenance costs, which will be funded from 
     ``Medical care''.


       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

       For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State 
     nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel, 
     modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and 
     domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to 
     veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8131-8137, $100,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Departmental 
     Administration--grants for construction of state extended 
     care facilities'', after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,806,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian 
     housing--housing certificate fund'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $195,194,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian 
     housing--housing certificate fund'', after the seventh dollar 
     amount (relating to incremental vouchers), insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $195,194,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian 
     housing--housing certificate fund'', after the eighth dollar 
     amount (relating to amounts made available on a fair share 
     basis), insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $144,762,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian 
     housing--housing certificate fund'', after the ninth dollar 
     amount (relating to amounts made available to nonelderly 
     disabled families), insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $50,432,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning 
     and Development--home investment partnerships program'', 
     after the aggregate dollar amount insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning 
     and Development--home investment partnerships program'', 
     after the second dollar amount (relating to the Downpayment 
     Assistance Initiative) insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $200,000,000)''.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will provide an additional 
34,000 Section 8 vouchers, 10,000 of which will be reserved for 
disabled families. In addition, the amendment would add almost $5 
million to veterans' extended care facilities.
  I wish we could offer an amendment for a greater number of new 
vouchers, because the need is so great. Unfortunately, with such severe 
cuts to so many important housing programs necessitated by the budget 
resolution we passed earlier this year, it is difficult to find an 
offset that would provide the funds necessary to do so. We must focus 
the scarce resources in this bill on the areas of greatest need.
  Therefore, the amendment offsets the increase in funds for additional 
Section 8 vouchers and for the additional funding for veterans' 
extended care facilities by removing $200 million from the Down Payment 
Assistance Initiative which is an unauthorized part of the HOME 
program. By postponing appropriations for this initiative until it is 
actually authorized and until a number of concerns raised by local 
mayors regarding the structure of the program have been addressed, we 
will be able to use these funds immediately on chronically underfunded 
housing programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the Down Payment Assistance Initiative is not only 
unauthorized, no committee hearings have been held on this initiative, 
it is unclear how the program will be administered, it is unclear that 
most low-income people would have sufficient income to be able to 
utilize the program, and, frankly, we should hold hearings and we 
should properly design and authorize this program, and then we will 
know how much to appropriate for it. Meanwhile, we can better use these 
funds on the chronically underfunded existing programs.
  This bill makes dramatic and alarming cuts to next year's housing 
budget,

[[Page H4697]]

yet the need for housing assistance is staggering. By HUD's estimates, 
there are 5 million low-income families, almost 11 million people, who 
have worst-case housing needs; five million families who spend more 
than 50 percent of their income on rent or live in severely substandard 
housing. None of these 11 million people receive any housing 
assistance.
  More importantly, there is not one local jurisdiction in the United 
States in which a full-time, full-time, minimum wage worker can afford 
the market rent for a one-bedroom apartment in his or her neighborhood. 
A study of 70 metropolitan areas showed that someone earning the 
minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a week to be able to afford 
the market rent in those areas.
  What do we say to the working people of this country when they work 
endless hours, sacrificing time with their families, all in an effort 
to provide for their families, and they still cannot afford a decent 
place to live? We must not ignore these needs.
  The Section 8 voucher program is one of the most effective and cost-
efficient means of eliminating worst-case housing needs. 1.5 million 
families have been able to find affordable housing through the use of 
Section 8 vouchers. Rental assistance allows families to enter the 
private housing market and choose where they want to live. By reducing 
housing costs, these vouchers can free up funds within the budgets of 
low-income families for necessary expenses such as health and child 
care.
  Unfortunately, the Section 8 program is severely underfunded. In New 
York City alone, there are nearly 200,000 people, 200,000 people, on 
the Section 8 waiting list. Nationwide, the average wait for those 
entering the Section 8 program is about 2 years; and in some places 
people have been on the waiting list for over 10 years.
  Over the last 3 years, Congress has gradually increased Section 8 
vouchers by too low an amount, but it has increased it by 50,000, 
60,000, and 79,000 in the last 3 years respectively. But with a 
national waiting list of Section 8 vouchers being well over 1 million 
families today, these increases are drops in the bucket. This bill 
increases the number of Section 8 vouchers by only 34,000.
  With so many people in need, it is not the time to reverse the 
progress of the last 3 years. To add only 34,000 vouchers this year is 
to actually cut the annual increase in vouchers by 46 percent.
  This amendment will increase the housing certificate fund by $195 
million to provide an additional 34,000 Section 8 vouchers, of which 
10,000, as I said, will be targeted to the disabled. The remaining $4.8 
million dollars in savings created by this amendment will be dedicated 
to the State Extended Care Facilities Program to finance the 
construction and renovation of veterans' nursing home and hospital care 
facilities.
  I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is a modest action, 
given the shortage of affordable housing, but it is necessary to help 
thousands of low-income families, while, at the same time, providing 
resources to improve home care facilities for our Nation's veterans. By 
increasing funding for programs targeted at a wide range of people, 
from those with disabilities, to veterans, to those working to make 
ends meet at low salaries, this amendment sends a message that all 
people are deserving of the dignity and stability of a decent home.
  I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is instructive because it shows 
how difficult it is to find additional funds in this to reorder the 
priorities in this bill.
  The amendment would cut $200 million from funds that the President 
has asked us to provide to help low-income families to become 
homeowners.
  Now we spend approximately $16 billion on Section 8 vouchers. We are 
actually looking at a program that will allow individuals to use those 
Section 8 housing vouchers to purchase a home. It is a pilot program. 
We believe that the American dream still exists, and the President has 
said not only should we try this pilot program with Section 8 vouchers 
for mortgages but we should provide $200 million to low-income families 
to help to make the initial down payment, that big chunk of money that 
we all know is necessary to plunk down before you can make a deal with 
a bank on the mortgage.
  I cannot think of a better way, Mr. Chairman, to help families to 
move from welfare to work and from renting to owning. This is the 
President's major initiative in this bill, and I think we should honor 
it.
  What the gentleman does is he proposes to take all of that money, all 
$200 million, and spend it in other areas of the bill. What he has 
proposed is to provide 34,000 additional Section 8 housing vouchers, 
and some 10,000 of those would go to disabilities.
  I would submit that imitation is the highest form of flattery. That 
is exactly what we did in the bill. He is just doubling it.
  But the problem with that is, while we have done our very best to 
provide new vouchers to help families in need of housing, we continue 
to see those funds go unused. None of the funds we provided for new 
housing vouchers in fiscal year 1999 or 2000 was actually used, and it 
is likely that this will be the case again this year, since HUD has not 
yet awarded the new vouchers that have been provided.
  At the same time, public housing authorities continue to fail to use 
the vouchers they already have. On average, PHAs are providing 
fulfillment of only 93 percent of the vouchers that have been 
allocated. Consequently, huge amounts of money continue to go unspent. 
Last year, HUD recaptured over $1 billion in unused voucher funds, 
money that would have funded 171,000 vouchers.
  So I cannot support, Mr. Chairman, taking these funds that will help 
poor families to buy their home, to get a piece of the rock, to get a 
piece of the American dream, to deny them that, by putting it into a 
program that HUD cannot possibly spend the money for.
  What I urge is that we reject this amendment.
  I submit for the Record a letter that I received in my capacity as 
chairman of the subcommittee from the Enterprise Foundation, the 
National Council of State Housing Agencies, the National League of 
Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National 
Community Development Association supporting the HOME program and that 
$200 million presidential earmark.

                                                    July 26, 2001.
     Hon. James T. Walsh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, HUD, and 
         Independent Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned representatives of state 
     and local governments and non-profit community development 
     organizations thank you for increasing FY 2002 funding for 
     the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program to $2 billion 
     in H.R. 2620, the FY 2002 VA/HUD appropriations bill. We 
     strongly urge you to reject any House floor amendments to 
     reduce HOME funding.
       As you clearly recognize, HOME is one of the most important 
     tools states and local governments have to respond flexibly 
     to their unique and diverse affordable housing needs. HOME 
     has consistently exceeded congressional expectations by 
     assisting families with incomes below the HOME limits, 
     leveraging significant public and private housing funds, and 
     sparking innovative solutions to a wide array of housing 
     challenges.
       HOME's success in answering the nation's housing needs is 
     limited by a single factor--inadequate funding. Though 
     Congress authorized HOME at $2 billion when it created the 
     program in 1990, Congress has never appropriated that amount. 
     A HOME appropriation of $2 billion for the upcoming fiscal 
     year is barely enough to compensate for the loss of 
     purchasing power HOME has suffered since Congress first 
     funded it nearly a decade ago.
       We agree that a number of federal housing programs need 
     more funding. HOME is one of the most deserving among them. 
     Please insist on at least $2 billion in HOME funds in FY 
     2002.
           Sincerely,
       The Council of State Community Development Agencies.
       The Enterprise Foundation.
       The Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
       The National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies.
       The National Council of State Housing Agencies.
       The National League of Cities.
       The National Association of Counties.
       The National Community Development Association.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge that Members reject the amendment.

                              {time}  1915

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the pending amendment?

[[Page H4698]]

  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


          grants for construction of state veterans cemeteries

       For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or 
     improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. 2408, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2002 for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to 
     any other of the mentioned appropriations.
       Sec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2002 for salaries and 
     expenses shall be available for services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 103. No appropriations in this Act for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for 
     ``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor 
     projects'', and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be 
     available for the purchase of any site for or toward the 
     construction of any new hospital or home.
       Sec. 104. No appropriations in this Act for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospitalization or 
     examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled 
     under the laws bestowing such benefits to veterans, and 
     persons receiving such treatment under 5 U.S.C. 7901-7904 or 
     42 U.S.C. 5141-5204), unless reimbursement of cost is made to 
     the ``Medical care'' account at such rates as may be fixed by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2002 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans 
     insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for payment of 
     prior year accrued obligations required to be recorded by law 
     against the corresponding prior year accounts within the last 
     quarter of fiscal year 2001.
       Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2002 shall be 
     available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding 
     prior year appropriations accounts resulting from title X of 
     the Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86, 
     except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts 
     they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
       Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38 
     U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38 
     U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance 
     Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating 
     expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the 
     insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided, 
     That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus 
     earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year 
     2002, that are available for dividends in that program after 
     claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves 
     have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of 
     administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of 
     surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement 
     shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost 
     of administration for fiscal year 2002, which is properly 
     allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to 
     the provision of any total disability income insurance 
     included in such insurance program.
       Sec. 108. (a)(1) Section 1729B of title 38, United States 
     Code, is repealed. Any balance as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     Health Services Improvement Fund established under such 
     section shall be transferred to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund established under 
     section 1729A of title 38, United States Code.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of 
     such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 1729B.
       (b) Section 1729A(b) of such title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (9); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(7) Section 8165(a) of this title.
       ``(8) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health Care 
     and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; 38 U.S.C. 8111 
     note).''.
       (c)(1) Section 1722A(c) of such title is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``under subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``under this section''; and
       (B) by striking the second sentence.
       (2) Section 8165(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Improvement 
     Fund established under section 1729B of this title'' and 
     inserting ``Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care 
     Collections Fund established under section 1729A of this 
     title''.
       (3) Section 113(b) of the Veterans Millennium Health Care 
     and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; 38 U.S.C. 8111 note) is 
     amended by striking ``Department of Veterans Affairs Health 
     Services Improvement Fund established under section 1729B of 
     title 38, United States Code, as added by section 202'' and 
     inserting ``Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care 
     Collections Fund established under section 1729A of title 38, 
     United States Code''.
       Sec. 109. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs shall continue the Franchise 
     Fund pilot program authorized to be established by section 
     403 of Public Law 103-356 until October 1, 2002: Provided, 
     That the Franchise Fund, established by title I of Public Law 
     104-204 to finance the operations of the Franchise Fund pilot 
     program, shall continue until October 1, 2002.
       Sec. 110. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease proceeds 
     to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by that account 
     during a prior fiscal year for providing enhanced-use lease 
     services, may be obligated during the fiscal year in which 
     the proceeds are received.
       Sec. 111. Funds available in any Department of Veterans 
     Affairs appropriation for fiscal year 2002 or funds for 
     salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be 
     available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management 
     and the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint 
     Adjudication for all services provided at rates which will 
     recover actual costs but not exceed $28,555,000 for the 
     Office of Resolution Management and $2,383,000 for the Office 
     of Employment and Discrimination Complaint Adjudication: 
     Provided, That payments may be made in advance for services 
     to be furnished based on estimated costs: Provided further, 
     that amounts received shall be credited to ``General 
     operating expenses'' for use by the office that provided the 
     service.

  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill be considered as read through line 25 of page 20, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will look to the manager for that unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the ranking 
member of the authorizing committee has risen to offer an amendment, 
and we had had prior discussion, and I would suggest that remaining in 
regular order, I believe it would be the gentleman's opportunity to 
offer his amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thought 
that this would allow that to occur, and then all of the other ones at 
the end of title I.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York make a unanimous 
consent request to open up the bill through page 20, line 25?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, page 
20 through 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. 11 Offered by Mr. Evans

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an Amendment No. 11.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Evans:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds provided by this Act may be 
     used for the purpose of implementing any administrative 
     proposal that would require military retirees to make an 
     ``irrevocable choice'' for any specified period of time 
     between Department of Veterans Affairs or military health 
     care under the new TRICARE for Life plan authorized in the 
     Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public 106-398).

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of this 
amendment at this point in the reading?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I had 
assumed that this was in title I, and there are about 6 or 7 amendments 
remaining in

[[Page H4699]]

title I that I assume the unanimous consent allowed to occur. Did the 
maker of the motion assume that?
  The CHAIRMAN. Amendment 11 is drafted to the end of the bill.
  Mr. FILNER. Okay. But other amendments to title I would be in order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman 
offering his amendments at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is without prejudice to any other amendment in 
title I.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Department 
of Veterans' Affairs from expending appropriated funds for the purpose 
of implementing a proposal contained in President Bush's budget.
  The budget proposal would require all military retirees, including 
the one-quarter million veterans currently enrolled for care in the VA, 
to choose between either the VA or the DOD as their exclusive health 
care provider. This proposal has incurred the justifiable anger of our 
military retirees, the military itself, and the veterans service 
organizations. I believe that retirees have earned their right to 
access health care benefits in both systems and should be given that 
right and choice.
  Mr. Chairman, while it is my understanding that the legislation will 
be needed to enact my proposal, I wish to prohibit any efforts by the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs to begin implementation of it. Congress 
should have more time to fully assess the effects this legislation will 
have and its impact on the lives of former servicemen and women.
  Military retirees have devoted their lives to serving our country. We 
will breach our commitment if we allow the VA and the Department of 
Defense to simply implement their proposal that eliminates veterans' 
choice of providers. The truth is that these two systems provide very 
different packages of services and military retirees have earned the 
right to both.
  I hope every Member of Congress will agree that this proposal is 
worthy of approval, and I urge its approval. I want to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and my chairman on the authorizing 
committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for getting this 
done. I appreciate it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We have 
no objection to the amendment. We support in theory what the 
administration is trying to do. Both the VA and DOD cannot adequately 
plan and budget for services when both of these departments do not know 
the number of people they are serving. However, there are very few 
details from either VA or DOD, nor have we heard explanations on the 
effects or restrictions of the proposed policy. So until DOD and the VA 
can present us with a complete, well-thought-out plan, I support the 
amendment of the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and fully support it. I 
just wanted to express that. I appreciate the gentleman's contribution 
to veterans.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), my good friend and ranking member 
on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to prohibit the use of funds in 
fiscal year 2002, to implement the administration's proposal that 
military retirees be required to make an irrevocable choice between 
military or VA health care for a defined period of years.
  While we certainly want to encourage more efficient use of scarce 
Federal health resources, at this juncture, we simply do not have 
enough information about the potential impact of that specific 
proposal. I do not think either the VA or the Department of Defense is 
really prepared to deal with the implications of requiring this choice, 
and both health care systems are already experiencing considerable 
strain serving their beneficiaries. We need to understand the 
implications of this proposal much, much better.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues to adopt it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Evans amendment. Forcing military retirees to choose between VA or DOD 
TRICARE is wrong.
  Our country owes an enormous debt to the men and women who served in 
the Armed Forces.
  It is because of their vigilance and dedication that we can enjoy the 
freedom that is cherished by every American.
  In exchange for their service to our country, we promised them 
medical care for life. Without this amendment we will be taking a step 
backwards from this promise.
  This issue is of the utmost importance to the military retirees in 
Marin and Sonoma counties.
  Our community is fortunate to have the leadership of colonel Jack 
Potter, who works tirelessly to ensure that retired veterans have full 
access to both VA and DOD's TRICARE health care services.
  Mr. Chairman, military retirees have earned their right to 
participate in both plans. If older retirees want to use tricare 
services for routine care, they should not then be forced to give up 
access to VA health care services.
  The sixty-five thousand retired veterans in my district who are both 
medicare-eligible and enrolled in the VA Health Care System should not 
be the scapegoats for the Veterans' Administration's funding problems.
  As colonel Potter points out, more than two-thirds of veterans who 
are enrolled in the VA health care system have disabilities.
  If they want TRICARE for routine care, but are denied access to the 
VA's highly respected specialty care services, disabled veterans may 
not be able to get comparable care through other military or private 
health care systems.
  Many will be referred back to the VA for this specialized care at 
their own expense--that's an unacceptable financial burden to place on 
these retirees.
  Another important consideration for our older military retirees is 
access to no-cost services, such as hearing aids. These services will 
not be free under TRICARE.
  As you can see Mr. Chairman, the plan proposed in the appropriations 
bill will cost our veterans more money for fewer medical care options.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Evans amendment and correct the 
wrong that will be done to our deserving veterans.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) to strike $200 million for the down payment 
assistance initiative to mostly fund additional section 8 vouchers. 
This amendment would move this bill in the wrong direction and should 
be opposed, as it was. As a member of the Committee on Financial 
Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and a former 
home renovator, I have worked on these issues, and I believe this 
legislation as drafted by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
moves in the right direction.
  First, this amendment cuts the President's new down-payment 
assistance initiative for getting more first-time home buyers into 
their own homes. I cannot understate the importance of this initiative. 
So many Americans lack the opportunity to purchase a new home and spend 
a large percentage of their income on monthly rent. That can be the 
right choice for some, but most families greatly benefit from the 
purchase of their own homes. A home helps them create wealth for their 
families and, in the form of equity, also invests them in the 
community. In short, we help the families rise on the economic ladder 
and build stronger communities in the process. It is truly the American 
dream to own one's own home, a dream we have to help make a reality for 
families who currently lack that opportunity.
  Second, this amendment designates funding for additional section 8 
vouchers. This would be in addition to the 34,000 new vouchers this 
bill already provides. What I find interesting about this amendment is 
that the Democrat-controlled Senate provides half of that, 17,000 new 
section 8 vouchers. Why? In

[[Page H4700]]

the report that accompanies the Senate bill, they stated, ``The 
reduction from the administration's request reflects the concerns of 
the committee that vouchers do not always provide the best 
opportunities for low-income families to obtain affordable housing.''
  Perhaps our esteemed colleagues in the Senate know about the problems 
housing authorities have had in distributing section 8 vouchers.
  In my home county of Westchester, New York, we have 13,207 people on 
the section 8 waiting list, yet the county and communities are not able 
to use all of their section 8 vouchers because of a combination of lack 
of available housing units and the inability of section 8 vouchers to 
cover the fair market rent for the area.
  I cannot help but feel frustrated by this problem. Here we have a 
program in place with extra vouchers to assist families; here we have a 
very long list of families who have applied for this assistance, yet 
they are unable to use them because they are priced out of the market. 
Unfortunately, the solution to this problem is not to add more 
vouchers. That solution will only come with more and new and affordable 
housing coming on to the market.
  In short, the legislation takes an important step in the right 
direction addressing the current affordable housing crisis in our 
Nation. Unfortunately, the Nadler amendment would have reversed these 
positive initiatives to add funding to an area where it cannot be used. 
I have urged my colleagues to join me in voting against the Nadler 
amendment.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       At the end of title I, add the following new section:
       Sec. ____. (a) Medical Care.--In addition to amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there is hereby 
     appropriated $30,000,000 for ``Medical Care'' for health care 
     benefits for Filipino World War II veterans who were excluded 
     from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section 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, as 
     amended.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I make this amendment which is embodied in 
bipartisan legislation by a large group of Members of this body, 
including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who wrote the 
maiden legislation; the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who 
has been a strong supporter of this legislation; the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is with us today; and the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), who spoke earlier; and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi); the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Millender-McDonald); the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and 
others who have contributed to this legislation.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. Chairman, 55 years ago this Congress committed a terrible 
injustice. After World War II, after the victory that occurred, of 
course first in Europe and then in the Pacific, those who were drafted 
into the U.S. Army from our Philippines protectorate were 
unceremoniously deprived of the benefits that were promised and earned 
as veterans of the United States. In 1946 the then Congress rescinded 
all the benefits that had accrued to our Filipine allies.
  There was no doubt of the contributions that the Filipinos made. Side 
by side with Americans, they held onto the Philippines and held up the 
Japanese advance for many, many, many months beyond what the Japanese 
had expected, and thus allowed the United States, at a terrible time in 
1941, to prepare for the war.
  These Filipinos fought at Bataan, where their resistance took many, 
many months. When they were finally captured, Americans and Filipinos 
were led on the famous death march, where hundreds and hundreds died on 
the march and later in the prison camps in which they were held.
  They fought bravely at Corregidor, and again the Japanese were held 
up much longer than they had expected before they conquered the 
Philippines. Along with Americans who were in the Philippines, their 
guerrilla forces harassed for many, many months until MacArthur was 
able to return. When MacArthur returned and landed at Leyte and then 
was able eventually, of course, to defeat the Japanese, he attributed a 
good part of his victory to his Filipino allies.
  President Roosevelt had drafted all the units of the Philippine Army, 
all of the members of the Commonwealth Army, all of the so-called 
scouts, the Old Scouts, New Scouts, all of the guerrilla units into the 
American Armed Forces. The implication was that they would be treated 
as American soldiers, and therefore, American veterans. But after the 
war was over, the Philippines did achieve independence and this 
Congress said, ``Thank you, but no thank you. Your new government can 
take care of you, and everything we promised, we rescind.''
  I thought that was a terrible injustice, Mr. Chairman. The injustice 
burns very deeply into the remaining veterans who are alive, barely 
75,000 from over a quarter of a million or 300,000 who had fought in 
the war. They are in their seventies and eighties. What they want most 
before they die is the dignity and honor that would come from being 
American veterans.
  This amendment I have before us is a step toward that where we 
provide them a very modest sum of money, $30 million, to be eligible 
for health care benefits, as any other U.S. veteran. I think this is 
the least of what we can do for these allies who did so much for us in 
World War II.
  Mr. Chairman, because this has not been accepted earlier in 
authorization, I designate this as an emergency because it is an 
emergency. It is an emergency because our morality as a nation needs to 
be corrected, but more important, these gentlemen are about to die. Let 
us reward these folks finally with the honor and dignity that they 
deserve as our allies in World War II.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) to add $30 
million in health care benefits to a group of veterans who are in 
desperate need of our assistance.
  Filipino veterans who fought by our side in World War II have never 
received fair and adequate veteran benefits because of the 
Congressional Rescission Act of 1946.
  I have long been an advocate of assisting our Filipino veterans. For 
the past several Congresses, along with the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner), we have introduced legislation to amend 
title 38 of the U.S. Code in order to provide that the persons 
considered to be members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army veterans 
and members of the Special Philippine Scouts, by reason of their 
service with the Armed Forces during World War II, should be eligible 
for full veterans' benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, on July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued a military 
order, pursuant to the Philippines Independence Act of 1934, calling 
members in the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the 
United States Armed Forces of the Far East under the command of 
Lieutenant General Douglas MacArthur.
  For almost 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine 
Commonwealth Army fought alongside the Allies to reclaim the Philippine 
islands from Japan. Regrettably, in return, Congress enacted the 
Rescission Act of 1946. That measure limited veterans' eligibility for 
service-connected disabilities and death compensation, and also denied 
the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army the honor they deserved 
for being recognized as veterans of the United States Armed Forces.
  A second group of veterans, the Special Philippine Scouts, called New 
Scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945 
primarily to perform occupation duty in the Pacific, were similarly 
excluded from benefits.
  These members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the Special

[[Page H4701]]

Philippine Scouts served just as courageously as their American 
counterparts during the Pacific War in World War II. Their 
contributions helped to disrupt the initial Japanese offensive 
timetable in 1942 at a point when the Japanese were expanding their 
aggression unchecked throughout the western Pacific.
  This delay in the Japanese plans helped to buy valuable time for the 
scattered Allied forces to regroup, to reorganize and prepare for 
checking the Japanese advance in the battles of the Coral Sea and 
Midway.
  Many have forgotten how dark those days before that victory at Midway 
really were. Their actions also earned the Philippine soldiers the 
wrath of their Japanese captors. As a result, many of the Filipinos 
joined their American counterparts in the Bataan Death March, suffering 
inhumane treatment which redefined the limits of human depravity.
  During the next 2 years, Philippine Scout units operating from 
mobile, isolated bases in the rural interior of the Philippine Islands 
conducted an ongoing campaign of guerilla warfare, tying down precious 
Japanese resources and manpower.
  In 1944, Philippine forces provided invaluable assistance in the 
liberation of the Philippine Islands, which in turn became an important 
base for taking the war to the Japanese homeland. Without the 
assistance of these Philippine units and guerilla forces, the 
liberation of the Philippine Islands would have taken much longer and 
been far more costly in lives than it actually was.
  In a letter to the Congress dated May 16, 1946, President Harry 
Truman wrote, ``The Philippine Army veterans are nationals of the 
United States and will continue in that status after July 4, 1946. They 
fought under the American flag and under the direction of our military 
leaders. They fought with gallantry and courage under the most 
difficult conditions during the recent conflict. They were commissioned 
by the United States. Their official organization, the Army of the 
Philippine Commonwealth, was taken into the Armed Forces of the United 
States on July 26, 1941. That order has never been revoked and amended. 
I consider it a moral obligation of the United States to look after the 
welfare of the Philippine veterans.''
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is time for us to correct this injustice 
to provide the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the 
Special Philippine Scouts with the benefits of the services they 
valiantly earned during their service in World War II.
  These veterans are well into the twilight years of their lives. It is 
long past time for our Nation to pay meaningful acknowledgment to their 
valuable contribution to the cause of freedom and democracy in the 
Second World War.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) to restore some measure of 
health benefits to Filipino veterans who fought in World War II. This 
amendment would simply provide $30 million in health care benefits 
through the VA system for those veterans who honorably served our 
country.
  On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued a military order calling 
members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into service. For nearly 4 
years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine Commonwealth army 
fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippine Islands from 
Japan.
  A second group, the Special Philippine Scouts, enlisted after October 
6, 1945. Despite their valiant service, Congress enacted the 1946 
Rescission Act to limit their veteran benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be a small step towards ensuring 
Filipino veterans receive benefits just like other veterans who served 
in World War II. For fundamental fairness, I urge the adoption of the 
amendment, and want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for their leadership.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say, Mubulhi Ag Filipinos, and to Filipinos, 
mama haline keta Hunggung Wacus.
  To the Filipinos I say, I will love you until the end of Earth.
  I was stationed in the Philippines for many years, and I lived and 
almost died with them in Vietnam. I want to tell the Members, there is 
no more loyal group to the United States than the Filipinos.
  I have never met a Filipino that turned his or her back on the United 
States or a friend, but I think this country has turned its back for 
too long on those people that fought and died for Americans.
  General MacArthur said, ``I shall return.'' The Filipinos never left. 
They gave their todays for many, American lives. They fought and they 
died.
  Many have seen the old John Wayne movies. They say, ``It was just a 
movie,'' but it depicted the lives and the sacrifices of Filipinos at 
Corregidor, Manila, Bagio City. Places like that, and the Bataan Death 
March, ring in our ears and our history, but yet, Filipinos lived and 
died in those issues, in those battles.
  I served with thousands of Filipinos in the Navy that served on Navy 
ships. They served for 20 years just so that they could become American 
citizens. We have turned our back on them for 60 years with their 
sacrifices, what they have given to this country. They have never 
forgotten.
  I think the gentleman from New York said, how many are left today? 
Not very many. Yet, we promised them as veterans, as freedom fighters, 
veterans' benefits. They have been turned down.
  So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), and people who support this issue.
  Members will not see very many Filipinos on welfare. Instead, we will 
see their children at our universities, because if we go into the 
Filipino community we will see them honor God and country and hard 
work, and the family values that all of us cherish. But they live it 
every single day, not only as citizens here, but as citizens in the 
Philippines, as well.
  The Navy right now, as a matter of fact, is short sailors. During a 
period of time, they were our most loyal sailors. I have a bill coming 
forward that says we ought to reinstitute that program to have 
Filipinos serve, so they could become American citizens, just like in 
the past.
  I want to tell the Members, in San Diego, the last American flag to 
fly over the Philippine Islands before it fell, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) has it in his office. That flag, at great risk 
to a Filipino, when the Japanese tore it down in Bagio City, he wrapped 
it up in a piece of canvas and saved it for the end of the war, because 
it was of value to freedom. We should value those same traditions.
  Today the President of the United States recognized thousands of 
Filipinos at the White House today for their 60 years of service as 
veterans. If we recognize that value, if we take a look and have a 
resolution to that from the President of the United States, from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Secretary Principi, then it should be 
recognized that they deserve the benefits due to veterans.
  We are asking only for justice, what we say we all stand for in this 
body.

                              {time}  1945

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full 5 minutes, but I did want to 
rise to associate myself with the comments of our colleagues who have 
spoken before on behalf of the Filner amendment to restore health care 
benefits to Filipino war vets, and I thank my colleague for his 
leadership in offering this amendment and his leadership over the years 
on behalf of Filipino vets. He has done more than anyone, and any of us 
who care about the Filipino vets and the commitment our country has 
made to them are deeply in his debt.
  As my colleagues have mentioned, for 4 years during World War II more 
than 100,000 Filipinos fought alongside the Allied Forces to free the 
Philippines from Japanese occupation. Drafted into the service in 1941 
by order of President Roosevelt, these historic soldiers served under 
the command of Lieutenant General Douglas

[[Page H4702]]

MacArthur, fighting valiantly to recapture the Philippines and playing 
a key role in the allied victory in the Pacific.
  Our Nation has not given these veterans the honor and respect they 
deserve at the hands of our country. In 1946, Congress denied benefits 
to these veterans and to another group of special Filipino Scouts who 
enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945. Although these 
brave soldiers, and many of their fellow soldiers, gave up their lives 
for freedom, our country denied them the recognition and benefits 
accorded to other servicemen and women in the Armed Forces. It took us 
50 years to give the Filipino Scouts the promised citizenship.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us in our communities and all of us in our 
country are very blessed with a great Filipino-American community. In 
spite of the fact that we have not honored our commitment to them, they 
have blessed our country with their commitment to family values, with 
their commitment to the work ethic, and with their very, very staunch 
patriotism.
  This amendment would make $30 million available to provide Filipino 
veterans with the same health care benefits received by other World War 
II vets. These World War II Philippine veterans are elderly now, their 
numbers are dwindling. A number of them are suffering from health 
problems. We are running out of time. It is time to right this wrong 
and give the Filipino vets the recognition they deserve in their 
twilight years.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment on health 
benefits for Filipino vets. It is the least we can do, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand to first commend my friend and my fellow 
Californian for his tenacious leadership in keeping this front and 
center, this issue that is really an unfair issue, and that is giving 
due diligence to the Filipino veterans who served admirably in World 
War II.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I simply rise in strong support of the 
Filner amendment to H.R. 2620, the VA-HUD appropriations bill. This 
amendment would appropriate $30 million for medical care and general 
health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans.
  I have perhaps the largest concentration of Filipino citizens in my 
district in the city of Carson, and I tell my colleagues that they are 
constantly crying and pleading for fairness to be done and say this 
amendment will begin to correct a wrong visited upon the Filipino 
veterans who served alongside the U.S. forces during World War II.
  Our agreement or even disagreement with the current policy and 
economic pressures should never diminish our love and profound respect 
for the men and women who chose duty over personal safety and went into 
the battle-torn areas carrying our flag. We should have resources to 
take care of those Filipino veterans who have sacrificed on behalf of 
our Nation.
  This amendment simply addresses the health care needs for a forgotten 
group of veterans, namely the Filipino veterans. These loyal and 
valiant men fought, suffered, and, in many instances, died in the same 
manner and under the same commander as other members of the United 
States Armed Forces during World War II. Their services to the Nation 
parallels others whose efforts and service have not been recognized or 
compensated.
  We cannot forget the valiant and valuable services performed by the 
Filipino veterans. The Filner amendment will appropriate $30 million 
for the health care benefits for these veterans of World War II who 
were excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Act of 1946. As we 
continue to address the needs of our Nation's veterans, we should heed 
the word of President Lincoln who called on all Americans ``to care for 
him who shall have borne the battle.''
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and adhere to 
President Lincoln's call.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation 
bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in 
pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall 
not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and as 
such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I do. I understand the Chairman's 
reservation. He gives the impression that anything that constitutes 
legislation or emergency is somehow beyond the rules of this House, and 
yet in this bill there are dozens, I would think, maybe hundreds, I do 
not know, nobody can tell me, of provisions that are not authorized in 
legislation. In fact, we have a $1.3 billion emergency designation in 
the bill.
  So to make the point that this is legislation and it is emergency, we 
all agree, but this has been done in this bill, in this Congress, many, 
many, many, many times for billions and billions and billions of 
dollars. I would just ask, on behalf of the 60,000 Filipino veterans 
that are left alive, that the gentleman does not insist on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency designation 
under section 251(b)(2)(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985. Based on similar rulings--for example, on June 19, 
2000--the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kleczka

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kleczka:
       At the end of title I, insert the following new section:
       Sec. ____. (a) Authority of Department of Veterans Affairs 
     Pharmacies to Dispense Medications to Veterans on 
     Prescriptions Written by Private Practitioners.--Subsection 
     (d) of section 1712 of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Subject to section 1722A of this title, the Secretary 
     shall furnish to a veteran such drugs and medicines as may be 
     ordered on prescription of a duly licensed physician in the 
     treatment of any illness or injury of the veteran.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended by striking the sixth through ninth words.
       (2) The item relating to that section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of that title is 
     amended by striking the sixth through ninth words.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the committee 
giving me time to explain the amendment, although I do recognize that a 
point of order does lay against this proposal.
  The amendment I offer to the bill would improve veterans' access to 
prescription drugs by permitting the Veterans Administration to accept 
the prescriptions written by a veteran's family doctor.
  As my colleagues listen to this explanation, they might say, gosh, 
this is common sense. Why is this not being changed today? Well, the 
current law mandates that the veteran who is going to get a 
prescription from the VA has to see his primary doctor. In its wisdom a 
few years ago, Congress permitted nonservice connected disability 
veterans access to medical care, specifically the drug benefit. 
However, because of this law, veterans are having to wait 9 months to a 
year before they can see a Veterans Administration doctor. And once 
they wait that long, naturally, they have to still go to their local 
pharmacy and pay the full price for their drugs. But once they finally 
get through the waiting process, the doctor at the VA will examine the 
veteran and, for the most part, come to

[[Page H4703]]

the same conclusion that the veteran's family physician came to, and 
then they get whatever drug is being prescribed.
  Well, not only are the veterans being inconvenienced by the long 
wait, but also the examination by the veteran's physician costs money. 
It is estimated that each visit to the primary VA doctor, which is 
duplicative at best, costs about $254. In fact, many times the cost to 
the veteran's hospital for the VA physician visit is more than the 
drugs being given to the veteran.
  The Inspector General testified before a Senate committee on July 24 
of this year, and he indicated their recommendation was that this 
process should be streamlined. They recommended that the VA seek a 
statutory change authorizing the VA to fill prescriptions written by a 
veteran's family doctor.
  The thing that is very important to note is Members here, care, that 
IG indicated this change would save some $1.3 billion. Now, that cost 
savings can be plowed back into the veterans' health care and buy a lot 
of health care and clearly a lot of pharmaceutical drugs for veterans.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the chairman of the subcommittee 
would drop his request for the point of order. It clearly is 
appropriate to the bill, especially in light of the fact that this 
amendment would save the VA budget some $1.3 billion.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 rule XXI. The rule states in 
part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in 
order if changing existing law.''
  This amendment directly amends existing law, and I would ask for a 
ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I do, and in closing and in response to 
the point of order being raised by the gentleman from New York, I 
cannot dispute that. In part there is legislating contained in this 
amendment. But in large part, and I think the gentleman would agree, if 
in fact the IG is even close to the mark, saving $1.3 billion in the 
legislation that the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
West Virginia took so much time to put together, and did such a great 
job on, would come in handy for providing payment for these 
prescription drugs that these veterans are getting.
  But I think the gentleman is accurate in his assessment, and I ask 
the Chair to rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends existing law. The 
amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner) may offer his remaining four amendments to 
this title en bloc, may debate them for 16 minutes, equally divided, 
and I retain rights to reserve points of order on this en bloc 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman from New York to give 
the Chair a better explanation of the time division.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the idea is to provide each side with 8 
minutes to discuss these four amendments en bloc. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) and I have discussed this, and I believe he 
finds it acceptable.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. There will be 16 minutes for the Filner amendments en 
bloc, equally divided 8 minutes per side, and all amendments thereto.


          Amendments No. 1, 2, 4, and 5 Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments No. 1, 2, 4, and 5.

                              {time}  2000

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments:
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments numbered 1, 2, 4 and 5 offered by Mr. Filner:

                            Amendment No. 1

       At the end of title I, add the following new section:
       Sec. ____. (a) Medical Care.--In addition to amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there is hereby 
     appropriated $1,700,000,000 for ``Medical Care''.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section 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, as 
     amended.
                                  ____


                            Amendment No. 2

       At the end of title I, add the following new section:
       Sec. ____. (a) Compensation and Pensions.--In addition to 
     amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there 
     is hereby appropriated $3,000,000 for ``Compensation and 
     Pensions'', to be available only to establish a presumption 
     of service-connection for the occurrence of Hepatitis C in 
     veterans who were exposed to Hepatitis C risk factors during 
     active military, naval, or air service.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section 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, as 
     amended.
                                  ____


                            Amendment No. 4

       At the end of title I, add the following new section:
       Sec. ____. (a) Medical Research.--In addition to amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there is hereby 
     appropriated $24,000,000 for ``Medical Research''.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section 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, as 
     amended.
                                  ____


                            Amendment No. 5

       At the end of title I, add the following new section:
       Sec. ____. (a) Readjustment Benefits.--In addition to 
     amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there 
     is hereby appropriated $871,700,000 for ``Readjustment 
     Benefits''. The provisions of H.R. 320 of the 107th Congress, 
     as introduced, are hereby enacted into law, and the amount 
     provided by this section shall be available only for the 
     purpose of increases in benefits in the Montgomery GI Bill 
     program made by those provisions.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section 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, as 
     amended.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the en 
bloc amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved against the en bloc 
amendments.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a series of amendments with regard to the 
Veterans Administration budget.
  The chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member know that all 
of the Members of this body hold the view that their commitment to 
veterans cannot be challenged, nor can the commitment of our chair and 
ranking members of the authorizing committee.
  Yet because of the budget situation we are in and notwithstanding 
improvements to the veterans budget over the last couple of years, the 
veterans budget is still grossly underfunded. As we like to say on the 
Democratic side at the Veterans Committee, we do not have a surplus 
unless we have paid our bills. We have not paid our bills to our 
Nation's veterans. We have not kept our commitment. We have not honored 
our contract.
  My amendments try to put the money that would indicate our commitment 
back into this budget. I have the money designated as an emergency 
because, under the rules of House, otherwise I would have to take 
offsets to those agencies within this particular bill. I do not want to 
play off housing or environment or science against the needs of our 
veterans.
  I will state that there is an emergency out there, Mr. Chairman. We 
have veterans who are waiting months and months and months, sometimes

[[Page H4704]]

years for the adjudication of their claims. We have veterans waiting 5, 
6, 8 months to see a doctor. We have veterans with hepatitis C, 
recently diagnosed, having emerged after 20 years, a fatal disease that 
we do not have sufficient understanding of or resources to treat.
  We are condemning our veterans to die. We have not figured out how to 
provide long-range care. We have not done what we should have for the 
homeless veterans, 500,000 of whom are on the street tonight. We do not 
put sufficient money into medical research. Eleven or 12 years after 
the Gulf War, we do not have any understanding of or treatment for 
Persian Gulf War illness. Hundreds of thousands of veterans are 
suffering from that.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the resources in our society to say to those 
who are under the GI bill for education, let us make that GI bill 
really effective.
  Mr. Principi, who is now the Veterans Administration Secretary, wrote 
a report before he became Secretary when he was chairman of the so-
called Transition Commission; and he proposed that the Montgomery GI 
bill for education fully fund education, tuition and fees at college, 
plus books, plus expenses, plus a stipend of roughly $1,000 a month. 
That would make that benefit real. That would give the veterans what 
they earned, and that would be a great recruitment tool for our forces.
  Yet, what do we do now? We give a $500 or $600 a month stipend. Most 
veterans cannot use that because it is insufficient. So I am asking in 
my amendments for what we just owe our veterans and what we have the 
money for.
  Our budget is based on the fact that we just passed the tax cut this 
year of about $2 trillion over the next decade. That leaves us without 
paying our debt to our veterans.
  How do I know how much money is needed? The Chair of the committee is 
often saying, no matter what money we give, everybody wants more. I 
will tell my colleagues, all the veterans' service organizations of our 
country got together and produced something called the independent 
budget. It is a very analytical and professional job. It does not just 
say, give me more money because I am a veteran. It says, put in this 
much money to the veterans' benefit administration so we can reduce the 
waiting times for adjudication to 30 days. It says, put in the amount 
of money we need so we do not have to wait 6 months for doctors. It 
says, put in the money for research so we can deal with Persian Gulf 
War illness and we can deal with post-traumatic stress syndrome.
  The veterans know what we need and we know we are not giving it to 
them, Mr. Chairman. We had on the floor earlier statements from the 
committee and from the authorizing committee that says we are doing 
everything we can for our veterans. I would challenge those colleagues 
to go with me to any town meeting anywhere in America and say to our 
veterans, we are doing what we should be doing for you. They would not 
be given a very good reception.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an additional $1.7 billion for the health 
care of our veterans. The billion dollars that the Chair refers to that 
increased this year does not even keep up with inflation. We have got 
to at least keep up with inflation and move forward on a whole variety 
of efforts.
  I have asked for money to make sure that veterans who are exposed to 
hepatitis C, probably a fatal disease, get the treatment and care that 
they need. I have asked that we fully fund the Montgomery GI bill at 
the level that is asked for in legislation that the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans) has introduced. I ask for research money to make 
sure that the VA, which has been in the forefront of research on a 
whole variety of things, a national resource that has been kept us and 
this Nation in the forefront of medical research.
  We can keep those efforts in an excellent capacity. We can give the 
veterans the benefits they deserve. As our veterans are older, long-
term care becomes more important. The aging of our population requires 
more resources and a different kind of attention.
  And whether we are talking about the Persian Gulf illnesses, PTSD, 
Parkinson's disease, mental health illnesses, spinal cord injuries or 
heart disease, these are areas where we can give our veterans the 
treatment and care and attention they deserve.
  So if we are to keep the promises that we made to our Nation's 
veterans, we should provide a budget that will address these needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, to 
allow the designation of an emergency, to really show the veterans, the 
country which has produced this incredible surplus, they gave us this 
country and we owe it to them.
  I know my colleague will ask for a point of order based on the fact 
that these are emergency designations. Come on, let us treat our 
veterans as real colleagues. Let us say it is an emergency. Let us give 
them the attention they need.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's 
amendment which would restore the purchasing power of the GI bill.
  I was encouraged earlier this session by the House's passage of H.R. 
1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act, which 
provided a modest and much needed increase to the GI bill's monthly 
benefits.
  At a time when drastic tax cuts have overshadowed our nation's 
priorities, it was refreshing that the House took up legislation that 
improved education benefits for service men and women.
  Educational benefits are the military's best recruiting tool, and the 
GI bill must be modernized to meet today's demands.
  However, while this measure provides a stronger education package to 
the men and women who choose to serve our country in uniform, I regret 
that we could not have achieved more.
  Ultimately, unfortunately, the cost of this legislation was 
considered too prohibitive after the Administrations $1.35 billion tax 
cut.
  Tax cuts precluded Mr. Evans the ranking member, from offering his 
amendment during subcommittee mark-up of H.R. 1291, which was abruptly 
canceled.
  H.R. 320, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act, which Mr. Evans 
intended to offer as an amendment, would have significantly improved 
educational benefits for veterans by covering the full cost of tuition, 
fees, books and supplies as well as provide a subsistence allowance for 
those who enlist or reenlist for four years.
  Mr. Filner's amendment mirrors the objectives of H.R. 320 and would 
give the Montgomery GI bill a much needed boost and move us closer to 
offering a competitive education package for the men and women who 
served our country with their military service.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an 
appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  This amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and, as 
such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and 
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is 
recognized.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the technical basis for the 
point of order. I know the commitment that the Chair has for veterans, 
and I ask the gentleman to see beyond the technicalities. The gentleman 
knows his bill contains legislation that has not come before this 
House. He knows his bill contains emergency funds.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not asking for any radical kind of move for 
this House. This is asking to make the commitment to our Nation's 
veterans that we have in our budget, the ability to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment en bloc includes an emergency 
designation under section 251(b)(2)(a) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in each constituent part of the 
amendment en bloc.

[[Page H4705]]

  Based on a ruling of the Chair on June 19, 2000, on a similar 
amendment, the amendment en bloc constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        housing certificate fund

              (including transfer and rescission of funds)

       For activities and assistance to prevent the involuntary 
     displacement of low-income families, the elderly and the 
     disabled because of the loss of affordable housing stock, 
     expiration of subsidy contracts (other than contracts for 
     which amounts are provided under another heading in this Act) 
     or expiration of use restrictions, or other changes in 
     housing assistance arrangements, and for other purposes, 
     $16,334,242,000, of which $640,000,000 shall be from 
     unobligated balances from amounts recaptured from fiscal year 
     2000 and prior years pursuant to a reduction in the amounts 
     provided for Annual Contributions Contract Reserve Accounts, 
     and amounts that are recaptured in this account to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That not later than 
     October 1, 2001, the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall reduce from sixty days to thirty days the 
     amount of reserve funds made available to public housing 
     authorities: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, $16,125,241,000, of which 
     $11,285,241,000 and the aforementioned recaptures shall be 
     available on October 1, 2001 and $4,200,000,000 shall be 
     available on October 1, 2002, shall be for assistance under 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (``the 
     Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 1437): Provided further, That the 
     foregoing amounts shall be for use in connection with 
     expiring or terminating section 8 subsidy contracts, for 
     amendments to section 8 subsidy contracts, for enhanced 
     vouchers (including amendments and renewals) under any 
     provision of law authorizing such assistance under section 
     8(t) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 1437f(t)), contract 
     administrators, and contracts entered into pursuant to 
     section 441 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act: 
     Provided further, That amounts available under the first 
     proviso under this heading shall be available for section 8 
     rental assistance under the Act: (1) for the relocation and 
     replacement of housing units that are demolished or disposed 
     of pursuant to the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and 
     Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134; Stat. 1321-
     269); (2) for the conversion of section 23 projects to 
     assistance under section 8; (3) for funds to carry out the 
     family unification program; (4) for the relocation of 
     witnesses in connection with efforts to combat crime in 
     public and assisted housing pursuant to a request from a law 
     enforcement or prosecution agency; (5) for tenant protection 
     assistance, including replacement and relocation assistance; 
     and (6) for the 1-year renewal of section 8 contracts for 
     units in a project that is subject to an approved plan of 
     action under the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation 
     Act of 1987 or the Low-Income Housing Preservation and 
     Resident Homeownership Act of 1990: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount provided under this heading, no less than 
     $11,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund 
     for the development and maintenance of information technology 
     systems: Provided further, That of the total amount provided 
     under this heading, up to $197,246,000 shall be made 
     available for incremental vouchers under section 8 of the 
     Act, of which $157,334,000 shall be made available on a fair 
     share basis to those public housing agencies that have a 97 
     percent occupancy rate; and of which $39,912,000 shall be 
     made available to nonelderly disabled families affected by 
     the designation of a public housing development under section 
     7 of the Act, the establishment of preferences in accordance 
     with section 651 of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13611), or the restriction of occupancy to 
     elderly families in accordance with section 658 of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 13618), and to the extent the Secretary determines 
     that such amount is not needed to fund applications for such 
     affected families, to other nonelderly disabled families: 
     Provided further, That up to $195,600,730 from amounts 
     available under this heading may be made available for 
     administrative fees and other expenses to cover the cost of 
     administering rental assistance programs under section 8 of 
     the Act: Provided further, That the fee otherwise authorized 
     under section 8(q) of such Act shall be determined in 
     accordance with section 8(q), as in effect immediately before 
     the enactment of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility 
     Act of 1998: Provided further, That $886,000,000 is rescinded 
     from unobligated balances remaining from funds appropriated 
     to the Department of Housing and Urban Development under this 
     heading or the heading ``Annual contributions for assisted 
     housing'' or any other heading for fiscal year 2001 and prior 
     years: Provided further, That any such balances governed by 
     reallocation provisions under the statute authorizing the 
     program for which the funds were originally appropriated 
     shall not be available for this rescission: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall have until September 30, 2002, to 
     meet the rescission in the proviso preceding the immediately 
     preceding proviso: Provided further, That any obligated 
     balances of contract authority that have been terminated 
     shall be canceled.


                      public housing capital fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out 
     capital and management activities for public housing 
     agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g), 
     $2,555,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003: 
     Provided, That, hereafter, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law or any failure of the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development to issue regulations to carry out 
     section 9(j) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437g(j)), such section is deemed to have taken effect 
     on October 1, 1998, and, except as otherwise provided in this 
     heading, shall apply to all assistance made available under 
     this same heading on or after such date: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount provided under this heading, in 
     addition to amounts otherwise allocated under this heading, 
     $262,000,000 shall be allocated for such capital and 
     management activities only among public housing agencies that 
     have obligated all assistance for the agency for fiscal years 
     1998 and 1999 made available under this same heading in 
     accordance with the requirements under paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of section 9(j) of such Act (except that the provisions of 
     section 9(j)(4) shall not apply to such amounts): Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary may not delegate to any Department 
     official other than the Deputy Secretary any authority under 
     paragraph (2) of such section 9(j) regarding the extension of 
     the time periods under such section for obligation of amounts 
     made available for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or 
     2002: Provided further, That notwithstanding the first 
     proviso and paragraphs (3) and (5)(B) of such section 9(j), 
     if at any time before the effectiveness of final regulations 
     issued by the Secretary under section 6(j) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(j)) providing for 
     assessment of public housing agencies and designation of 
     high-performing agencies, any amounts made available under 
     the public housing Capital Fund for fiscal year 1999, 2000, 
     2001, or 2002 remain unobligated in violation of paragraph 
     (1) of such section 9(j) or unexpended in violation of 
     paragraph (5)(A) of such section 9(j), the Secretary shall 
     immediately recapture any such amounts and reallocate such 
     amounts among public housing agencies that, at the time of 
     such reallocation, are not in violation of any requirement 
     under paragraph (1) or (5)(A) of such section: Provided 
     further, That for purposes of this heading, the term 
     ``obligate'' means, with respect to amounts, that the amounts 
     are subject to a binding agreement that will result in 
     outlays immediately or in the future: Provided further, That 
     of the total amount provided under this heading, up to 
     $51,000,000 shall be for carrying out activities under 
     section 9(h) of such Act, of which up to $10,000,000 shall be 
     for the provision of remediation services to public housing 
     agencies identified as ``troubled'' under the Section 8 
     Management Assessment Program: Provided further, That of the 
     total amount provided under this heading, up to $500,000 
     shall be for lease adjustments to section 23 projects, and no 
     less than $43,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of 
     information technology systems: Provided further, That no 
     funds may be used under this heading for the purposes 
     specified in section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, up to $75,000,000 shall be 
     available for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     to make grants to public housing agencies for emergency 
     capital needs resulting from emergencies and natural 
     disasters in fiscal year 2002.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois:
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian 
     Housing--public housing capital fund'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $100,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian 
     Housing--revitalization of severely distressed public housing 
     (hope vi)'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the concentration of poverty, 
any way one looks at it, simply stated is not productive. It is 
inhumane, unethical. It is not diverse and does not work.
  According to the 1999 census data, 32.3 million people in the United 
States live in poverty. That gives us a poverty rate of 11.8 percent. 
The National Coalition reports as many as 3 million people are homeless 
during the course of a year. Of this number, 80,000 of them are in the 
City of Chicago. The concept of mixing income in neighborhoods offers 
the best practice of hope for low-income individuals.

[[Page H4706]]

  Chicago, one of the most poverty-stricken cities in the Nation, has a 
tremendous need to uplift the quality of life for its residents. 
Currently, in Chicago the Robert Taylor and Rockwell Gardens 
developments, two of the most well-known public housing developments in 
the country, are in separate need of Hope VI funding which will allow 
integration and economic prosperity.
  I stand today, Mr. Chairman, to beg, to implore, to appeal to the 
entire 107th Congress, and to argue to increase the funding for this 
program by $100 million. Hope VI provides disadvantaged families and 
communities across the country with opportunities for revitalization 
and new chances, chances for advancement.
  All of us would probably agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is time to tear 
down the high-rise public housing developments, the high-rises, as we 
know them, the concentrations of poverty. These families need hope and 
an adequate chance. It is time to fight inner city crime, teen 
pregnancy, high unemployment, which are all concentrated in the urban 
ghettos that exist in this Nation centered around high-rise public 
housing developments.

                              {time}  2015

  To improve the quality of life for these families, it is necessary to 
improve the quality of public housing. We can do that by providing the 
necessary support services, the programs, that encourage residents to 
go to school, find employment, develop careers, and realize a better 
quality of life. All of this is found in HOPE VI.
  By 1999, HOPE VI had provided benefits to 7,840 current resident 
families, including 4,076 families relocated to section 8 in new units, 
5,668 new families in revitalized development, 1,969 families leaving 
TANF, and a 98 percent increase of youth participation in self-
sufficiency programs. HOPE VI had achieved leveraged ratios of 31 cents 
for every dollar in 1993 and increased this ratio to $2.07 by 1999. 
HOPE VI revitalization has reduced the average density of on-site 
development from 23 to 11 and the average percentage of very low income 
families from 92 to 35 percent. The ultimate outcome of these 
developments has improved the quality of life for residents of HOPE VI 
developments and better integration into the overall community.
  The city of Chicago has a bold new transformation plan for public 
housing, and, that is to replace the high-rises with mixed-income 
housing where individuals can interact with different-type persons 
across the board. But that transformation plan is contingent upon being 
able to receive assistance from HOPE VI. Unless there is adequate 
funding for HOPE VI, then we run the risk of going to the well and 
there being no water, of going to the trough and there being no 
substance.
  And so I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that we support this amendment and 
continue to give hope to the millions of people who need hope and can 
receive it through the HOPE VI program.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $100 million from the Public 
Housing Capital Fund in order to increase the HOPE VI program. As has 
been discussed today, we have already reduced the capital program for 
public housing. So I do not think it is a good idea to go any further.
  The bill provides for $573 million in the HOPE VI program which is at 
the same level as last year. As the gentleman knows, the bill already 
includes a reduction below last year for capital fund based on the 
unspent fund problem. There are approximately $7 billion in unspent 
funds in the capital fund. There has been a lot of discussion and 
opposition to cutting it further or even cutting it that much. However, 
we do maintain funding for those public housing authorities which are 
actually spending their funds.
  The gentleman's amendment would cut $100 million of the $262 million 
we have targeted to those high-performing public housing authorities in 
order to provide a 17 percent increase in HOPE VI. While I appreciate 
his support for HOPE VI, I must point out that, like the Public Housing 
Capital Fund, HOPE VI is another account where there are significant 
amounts of unspent funds. In fact, there are over $3 billion in unspent 
HOPE VI funds. So while I share the gentleman's support for the 
program, I cannot support cutting the capital fund further in order to 
provide a 17 percent increase in the HOPE VI program and, therefore, I 
urge the rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if someone is doing an illustrated dictionary and needs 
perhaps a metaphorical or a dictionary of figures of speech and wants 
to illustrate the phrase ``robbing Peter to pay Paul,'' that is the 
dilemma we are in now.
  I know the gentleman from Illinois who cares deeply about lower 
income people is as unhappy as many of us on this side in particular 
are at this kind of choice. I admire his commitment to the HOPE VI 
program which has been a very important one, because HOPE VI has been 
extremely useful in my district. My dilemma is that we also have a 
problem with public housing capital funds. And so, Mr. Chairman, 
Members who are undecided as to how to vote on this will get no 
guidance from me. They seem on the whole to do without that in general, 
so that is okay. But this is important because it underlines the 
tragedy that this bill represents. It quite literally sets the poor 
against the poor, lower income working people against lower income 
working people, public housing against subsidized housing for the 
elderly, anticrime/drug efforts in public housing against efforts to 
rehabilitate that housing.
  This indicates how terribly inadequate this bill is. The gentleman 
from New York said no matter how much money there was, people would say 
it was inadequate. I have to tell him he is wrong, and I hope he will 
test us someday. Come in here with a bill that does not cut virtually 
every program in real terms.
  Let us talk about the public housing situation. The public housing 
operating budget is cut in real terms. We are told it gets an increase, 
but out of that increase they are supposed to pay the higher utility 
bills. By the way, the Secretary of HUD when he testified before our 
committee and was asked what the budget assumed, the operating budget 
for public housing regarding fuel bills, he told us he did not endorse 
this. He, as a good soldier, told us that the Energy Department had 
instructed him to say that the expectation is that fuel bills next year 
will be lower for the housing authorities and, therefore, they were to 
get less money for that. They are to get some additional money and out 
of that pay for the public housing drug elimination program. On the 
capital funds, it has already been reduced some. We are told, well, it 
is reduced because they have not spent it all. They have not spent it 
all in part because you do not spend responsibly right away, you have 
to do capital planning, and they are doing this.
  This bill underfunds virtually every category where we are dealing 
with housing. Public housing in particular deserves our attention. I 
quoted before the President's laudable sentiment that he would not 
leave any child behind. More poor children live in public housing than 
in any other segment obviously of our society.
  And we are talking about this terrible choice. The gentleman from 
Illinois is not attacking public housing. The HOPE VI program helps 
public housing. What we are talking about here, as he correctly brings 
to us with this amendment, is this terrible choice about public 
housing. Which aspect of it will we underfund the worst? Will we let 
the projects deteriorate in general with inadequate capital funding? 
Will we allow, under HOPE VI, some concentration to improve them?
  There are other areas of problems. I will be getting later to the 
question of the Federal Housing Administration. I want to stress again, 
it is not simply the poor and lower income working people who are being 
hurt by this Congress' failure and this administration's refusal 
adequately to fund things, the FHA program that builds multiple family 
housing for middle-income people has been shut down for months for want 
of $40 million; and it will turn out later that they are, in fact, 
overcharging in other FHA programs, we are told by more than $50 
million.
  So this amendment is to me a terrible dilemma. We have two very 
valuable programs that serve the poorest people in this society, and we 
have to

[[Page H4707]]

choose between them. The President said we need to do a tax cut of that 
magnitude because it is not the government's money, it is the people's 
money. People live in public housing. The government does not live in 
public housing. The residents of public housing are people who are in 
need. This dilemma is brought upon us by that irresponsible tax cut.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. 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 Illinois (Mr. Davis) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer an amendment regarding the 
National Science Foundation, an amendment that would help assure some 
much-needed expertise in scientific project management for the National 
Science Foundation. Rather than offer an amendment that might not have 
an appropriate dollar amount, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished gentleman from New York concerning the construction 
of scientific facilities and instruments provided in the National 
Science Foundation appropriation.
  First let me congratulate the gentleman from New York and the 
Committee on Appropriations as well as his staff for the well-thought-
out NSF appropriation. As he knows, NSF's primary mission includes 
funding peer-reviewed, investigator-initiated research by individuals 
or small groups. This is an operation that the NSF has managed well. 
However, NSF has seen its role in funding larger projects such as the 
construction of radio and optical telescopes expand significantly in 
recent years. Problems encountered in the management of some of these 
projects and concerns raised by the NSF inspector general suggest that 
the NSF may not have an adequate plan, adequate experience or adequate 
resources with which to effectively oversee these large-ticket 
projects. Indeed, language in the President's budget blueprint directs 
NSF to develop a plan ``to enhance its capability to estimate costs and 
provide oversight of project development and construction.''
  Does the Committee on Appropriations share these concerns?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. We do. The Committee on Appropriations shares the 
gentleman's concern concerning the current lack of oversight for 
project management within the National Science Foundation. In its March 
2000 report to Congress, the Inspector General of the National Science 
Foundation reported that ``NSF does not have adequate policies and 
procedures in place to address the complex problems involved in 
overseeing and administering large infrastructure awards.'' This is why 
the committee report included language directing NSF to establish 
project management procedures and accounting systems.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, I think that is excellent. 
The National Science Foundation is currently drafting a facilities 
management and oversight plan and is expected to present a final draft 
to the National Science Board at their August meeting. As chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Research, I will be holding a hearing early in 
September to review this policy and try to ensure that it will 
adequately address concerns with regard to accounting, appropriate 
management, and construction oversight of NSF projects.
  Scientific experiments are, by their nature, high-risk ventures that 
challenge the state of the art, if you will, in a number of 
technologies. As a result, these projects require rigorous cost and 
schedule control systems so that management can identify problems early 
and minimize the impact on the total project cost and success. Just as 
importantly, these projects require a management team that is extremely 
knowledgeable about the underlying science and has extensive experience 
in the management of large-scale, complex scientific projects.
  I hope that our two committees can continue to work together to 
ensure that NSF has the resources and personnel it needs to manage 
these large, taxpayer-supported projects.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the committee shares the gentleman's goal of 
providing NSF with sufficient resources to adequately manage and 
safeguard the taxpayer's investment. As he noted, NSF is increasingly 
involved in the construction of these large complex scientific 
experiments and facilities. It is also increasingly reliant on 
detailees and other temporary employees to supplement their Federal 
workforce. A cadre of experienced Federal project management 
professionals would certainly improve the institutional memory and 
accountability within NSF.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continue 
working with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), and 
certainly the ranking member, to assure that we maintain the high 
standards for quality in research equipment and construction projects 
as has been very evident in the excellent past work of NSF in research.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
issue before us. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the 
future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     public housing operating fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payments to public housing agencies for the operation 
     and management of public housing, as authorized by section 
     9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1437g(e)), $3,494,868,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be provided to 
     the Office of Inspector General for Operation Safe Home: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for programs, as 
     determined appropriate by the Attorney General, which assist 
     in the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of violent 
     crimes and drug offenses in public and federally-assisted 
     low-income housing: Provided further, That funds made 
     available in the previous proviso shall be administered by 
     the Department of Justice through a reimbursable agreement 
     with the Department of Housing and Urban Development: 
     Provided further, That no funds may be used under this 
     heading for the purposes specified in section 9(k) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended.


     revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope vi)

       For grants to public housing agencies for demolition, site 
     revitalization, replacement housing, and tenant-based 
     assistance grants to projects as authorized by section 24 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 
     $573,735,000 to remain available until September 30, 2003, of 
     which the Secretary may use up to $5,000,000 for technical 
     assistance and contract expertise, to be provided directly or 
     indirectly by grants, contracts or cooperative agreements, 
     including training and cost of necessary travel for 
     participants in such training, by or to officials and 
     employees of the department and of public housing agencies 
     and to residents: Provided, That none of such funds shall be 
     used directly or indirectly by granting competitive advantage 
     in awards to settle litigation or pay judgments, unless 
     expressly permitted herein.

                  native american housing block grants


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as 
     authorized under title I of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (25 
     U.S.C. 411 et seq.), $648,570,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $2,200,000 shall be contracted through the 
     Secretary as technical assistance and capacity building to be 
     used by the National American Indian Housing Council in 
     support of the implementation of NAHASDA; of which $5,000,000 
     shall be to support the inspection of Indian housing units, 
     contract expertise, and technical assistance in the training, 
     oversight, and management of Indian housing and tenant-based 
     assistance, including up to $300,000 for related travel; and 
     of which no less than $2,000,000 shall be transferred to the 
     Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of 
     information technology systems: Provided, That of the amount 
     provided under this heading, $5,987,000 shall be made 
     available for the cost of guaranteed notes and other 
     obligations, as authorized by title VI of NAHASDA: Provided 
     further, That such costs, including the costs of modifying 
     such notes and other obligations, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize the total principal amount of any notes and other 
     obligations, any part of

[[Page H4708]]

     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $52,726,000: 
     Provided further, That for administrative expenses to carry 
     out the guaranteed loan program, up to $150,000 from amounts 
     in the first proviso, which shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'', 
     to be used only for the administrative costs of these 
     guarantees.


           indian housing loan guarantee fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 
     184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-13a), $5,987,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $234,283,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, up to $200,000 from amounts in the 
     first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'', to be 
     used only for the administrative costs of these guarantees.

                   Community Planning and Development

              housing opportunities for persons with aids

       For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 
     AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12901), $277,432,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2003: Provided, That the Secretary may 
     use up to $2,000,000 of the funds under this heading for 
     training, oversight, and technical assistance activities.

                       community development fund


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For assistance to units of State and local government, and 
     to other entities, for economic and community development 
     activities, and for other purposes, $4,801,993,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the 
     amount provided, $4,399,300,000 is for carrying out the 
     community development block grant program under title I of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended 
     (the ``Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 5301): Provided further, That 
     $69,000,000 shall be for grants to Indian tribes 
     notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of such Act; $3,300,000 
     shall be available as a grant to the Housing Assistance 
     Council; $2,794,000 shall be available as a grant to the 
     National American Indian Housing Council; $5,000,000 shall be 
     available as a grant to the National Housing Development 
     Corporation, for operating expenses not to exceed $2,000,000 
     and for a program of affordable housing acquisition and 
     rehabilitation; $5,000,000 shall be available as a grant to 
     the National Council of La Raza for the HOPE Fund, of which 
     $500,000 is for technical assistance and fund management, and 
     $4,500,000 is for investments in the HOPE Fund and financing 
     to affiliated organizations; and $34,424,000 shall be for 
     grants pursuant to section 107 of the Act: Provided further, 
     That no less than $15,000,000 shall be transferred to the 
     Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of 
     information technology systems: Provided further, That 
     $21,956,000 shall be for grants pursuant to the Self Help 
     Housing Opportunity Program: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 20 percent of any grant made with funds appropriated 
     under this heading (other than a grant made available in this 
     paragraph to the Housing Assistance Council or the National 
     American Indian Housing Council, or a grant using funds under 
     section 107(b)(3) of the Act) shall be expended for 
     ``Planning and Management Development'' and 
     ``Administration'' as defined in regulations promulgated by 
     the Department.


               Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows: 
       Amendment No. 22 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning 
     and Development--community development fund'', after the 
     aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning 
     and Development--community development fund'', after the 
     dollar amount specified for Youthbuild program activities, 
     insert the following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Management and 
     Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $10,000,000)''.

  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will increase funding for 
the YouthBuild program by $10 million. We are in the midst of an 
affordable housing crisis in this country. One of our most basic needs 
is to increase access to safe, affordable housing. That is why I am so 
concerned about the significant underfunding of so many of our most 
vital housing programs. Not only do many of our communities face a 
shortage of housing stock, but much of what is currently available is 
in disrepair and cannot be lived in.
  That is where YouthBuild comes in. This program involves young people 
in meaningful work in their communities, constructing or rehabilitating 
much-needed homes for homeless and low-income people. Projects range 
from rehabilitating 10-unit buildings to constructing new single-family 
homes.
  Finished buildings are rented as affordable housing. Sometimes they 
represent opportunities for low-income community residents to buy their 
first homes. As a result, housing that is substandard is transformed 
into attractive homes in communities where there is a critical need for 
housing.
  As my colleagues are aware, the YouthBuild program provides grants on 
a competitive basis to nonprofit organizations to assist high-risk 
youth between the ages of 16 to 24 to learn housing construction job 
skills and to complete their high school education. What is more, 
program participants enhance their skills as they construct or 
rehabilitate affordable housing for low- and moderate-income persons. 
In fact, to date, more than 7,000 units of housing have been produced 
by YouthBuild participants.
  As they develop these marketable skills which will allow them to 
secure future employment, they are contributing to the revitalization 
of their community, and they are doing it in conjunction with the many 
community-based organizations, local small businesses and international 
corporations who have provided matching funds for these programs.
  YouthBuild is currently training 6,500 people at 145 sites in 43 
States. While this is certainly commendable, we could and should be 
reaching so many more people and places. In fiscal year 2000, HUD 
received 273 YouthBuild applications but could only fund 78 of them. 
And while we should be increasing funding for this important program to 
allow every applicant to receive funding, it is instead funded well 
below the need.
  What do we say to an 18-year-old kid who wants to get into the 
construction trade but cannot get training? ``I am sorry, the funding 
is not there. You will have to find another way.''
  Although YouthBuild deserves a significant increase, given the 
current budget restraints, I am merely asking that this vital program 
receive an additional $10 million in fiscal year 2002. With this 
increase, we will provide aid to over 100 communities nationwide.
  My amendment offsets this increase by taking an equivalent amount 
from HUD's Salaries and Expenses account, which receives a $25 million 
increase. It stands to reason that if we can afford the money to 
implement a program that requires our neediest citizens to work for 
free, then we should provide the funding necessary to give these people 
access to job training.
  This is an amendment that everyone can support. If one supports 
promoting self-sufficiency and community involvement for at-risk youth, 
one should support the YouthBuild program. If one agrees that we are in 
a housing crisis and affordable housing that these programs produce 
will be valuable to our communities, one should vote for this 
amendment.
  I hope that Members will support this amendment and work with me to 
begin a dialogue on the productive, successful means of promoting self-
sufficiency.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Velazquez amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to oppose my good friend and colleague 
from New York who does such a great job for our State, but its 
difficulty is that the cut that has been proposed in the HUD Salaries 
and Expenses account would force HUD to either cut over 100 staff 
members in order to provide the 17 percent increase in YouthBuild, or 
find some other accommodation, which I think would dramatically affect 
HUD's ability to operate and administer its programs.
  Last year, the YouthBuild program received a 17 percent increase in 
the fiscal year 2001 bill, and that increase was maintained in 2002.

[[Page H4709]]

  This is obviously a very difficult choice, but I would ask Members to 
stay with the subcommittee bill; and, therefore, I would oppose the 
amendment, which would provide another significant increase to a 
program that was increased dramatically last year at the expense of 
HUD's staff.
  Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Sonoma County People for Economic Opportunity in 
Santa Rosa, California, my district, operates a successful YouthBuild 
program, one that could actually be set up as a model across this 
Nation.
  I am absolutely pleased and proud to stand in strong support of this 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) to 
increase funding for YouthBuild. In fact, if I had my way, we would set 
a path in this Nation so that every single year we would increase the 
YouthBuild program by at least 17 percent.
  While building and remodeling homes for low-income families, 
YouthBuild-Santa Rosa participants literally rebuild their own lives. 
YouthBuild participants, who are unemployed young people between the 
ages of 16 and 24, learn construction skills that start them down a 
career path to a lifetime of well-paid jobs, jobs they can actually 
afford to raise a family on.
  If a participant does not have a high school diploma, it is possible, 
encouraged and mandated that they complete their education, with strong 
support from mentors, tutors and learning labs.
  YouthBuild programs help young people to develop personal and family 
living skills as they develop their life goals and their life plans. We 
know they do a good job, because 85 percent of the participants who 
completed their YouthBuild program went on to either attend college or 
to take good jobs. With the tools and skills they learn at YouthBuild, 
young people take control over their future. They do not become a 
burden to their communities. They do become contributors to their 
communities and to our country.
  YouthBuild programs are great investments. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Velazquez amendment; and I urge that we increase the 
funding for YouthBuild, not just this year but every year in the 
future.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, everybody says that they want to do things 
for young people. They recognize they are a special problem. But when 
you have a perfect program like YouthBuild, we have a great deal of 
difficulty getting it continued and expanded.
  YouthBuild is the perfect program in terms of maximum participation 
and use of resources by the people who are being helped and minimum 
bureaucracy, minimum overhead. I have a YouthBuild program in my 
district, and it functions in the poorest community in my district, in 
one of the poorest communities in the United States.
  Brownsville is a community that has many indices that run parallel in 
a negative way. No matter how you look at it, the number of young 
people who are in juvenile delinquency programs, the number of AIDS 
cases, the low level of education, the low reading levels, that 
community has every strike against it, and young people have a rough 
time.
  But the YouthBuild program has a director who came aboard several 
years ago and said, ``If you want to be in this program, no alcohol, no 
drugs. You have got to be here on time, and you have got to be here 
frequently. One or two absences, and you are out.'' Yet the program has 
a long waiting list.
  Young people see the program as having a concrete and immediate 
consequence. They see themselves being able to get a job. They also are 
required to get a high school diploma at the same time.
  You have some other features in this program which run parallel to 
some of the kinds of things that are being talked about at great length 
nowadays, the faith-based initiatives.
  The program that runs in my community would not be there if it was 
not for the Episcopal Diocese working in cooperation with the 
community. A large investment was made by the Episcopal Diocese. They 
have helped to keep the program going and develop it, and now the 
program has been able to get funding from other sources.
  YouthBuild on a national level has been able now to attract funding 
from foundations and from private industry. It is the model of a kind 
of partnership program that we should all be striving for.
  But let us not let the willingness of the private sector to invest or 
the willingness of foundations to invest be a cop-out for the Federal 
Government. Why should we bow out of a program that costs very small 
amounts of money, and I think we are talking about a $10 million 
increase here? Every year we have asked for very small increases, and 
the money is definitely directed into the activities and the programs 
which help the young people.
  It has a double impact, of course: the training for the young people, 
and then they actually do renovation and reconstruction of housing that 
poor people are able to go into.
  So I would like to have us send a message out there, that we are no 
longer going to continue the present trend of backing away from the 
sponsorship of meaningful youth programs. In the Department of Labor, 
we have moved away from the Summer Youth Employment Program. Programs 
for young people have been relegated to the States to continue. The 
Summer Youth Employment Program, which was so vital, some States are 
doing a good job, some are not. But we backed away from that vital 
program. In general, the funding for youth programs has gone down in 
the Department of Labor, job training programs of the type offered by 
YouthBuild.
  At the same time that we are backing away from job training programs, 
the programs that are meaningful in terms of providing occupational 
development for young people, shortages of all kinds keep developing. 
We are being told now that school construction in New York City is 
costing too much because they have a shortage of skilled craftsmen.

                              {time}  2045

  We do not have enough carpenters; we do not have enough sheet metal 
people in the construction industry. We are having a problem of being 
overpriced because of the great pressure where the demand is greater 
than the supply in terms of skilled personnel.
  Some years ago, we backed away from vocational education in New York 
City and the Federal Government. And we also ratcheted up the effort to 
provide vocational education to a new category we call technical 
education, and we got so technical until it got away from the education 
of youngsters who could go into some trades that pay very well and that 
are in demand. Youth Build brings us back to the reality that there are 
large numbers of young people who will not stay in school they will not 
go to college, but they are serious and they will respond to an effort 
where they see a concrete benefit at the end. Youth Build offers a 
concrete benefit at the end. They have a job doing something in the 
neighborhood, doing something that not only pays well to begin with, 
but it promises to pay more and more, and they are encouraged to go 
into the apprenticeship programs of the various trades.
  So for $10 million we get $1 billion worth of response in terms of 
helping young people. I urge a yes vote for this important amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will not take the 5 minutes. I just wonder how many of my 
colleagues, particularly the chairman and others on the other side of 
the aisle, who would restrict this program have visited one. I visited 
them twice in my district, and it is an inspiration to see young people 
who have dropped out, who are at risk, whose lives could end up being a 
total mess, back in school and learning construction skills and 
building housing for low-income families.
  Now, what could be a more efficient and more productive use of 
Federal dollars for housing? We are taking at-risk kids, diverting them 
from problems, giving them education, teaching them construction skills 
and building housing for low-income people. This

[[Page H4710]]

program could use a 50 percent or a 100 percent increase every year and 
put tens of thousands of kids back on the right track.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very modest amendment to 
increase this program.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  I thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering this amendment.
  I strongly support her efforts to increase the appropriation for 
YouthBuild by $10 million. The current level of $60 million in the bill 
flat funds this laudable program--a program that helps at-risk youth 
learn valuable skills enabling them to gain employment and ultimately 
break the cycle of poverty. This $10 million increase will make a 
significant difference.
  YouthBuild students work across the country, including in my city and 
state. In New York City, the unemployment rate is above the national 
average, and a significant number of these unemployed New Yorkers are 
young people. Programs like YouthBuild can have a positive impact on 
our nation's young adults.
  The program offers job training, education, counseling, and 
leadership opportunities to unemployed and out-of-school young adults, 
ages 16-24, through the construction and rehabilitation of affordable 
housing in their own communities. Many graduates go on to construction-
related jobs or college.
  YouthBuild works in conjunction with Community Based Organizations, 
local small businesses, and international corporations who provide 
matching funds for these programs.
  This is a great initiative we all can support. Not only does 
YouthBuild help individual young people, but their work benefits many 
low-income families in our neighborhoods.
  I support the Valazquez amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to invest in our young people!
  Vote in favor of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the pending amendment?
  Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
         Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $29,387,000 shall be made available for capacity building, of 
     which $24,945,000 shall be made available for ``Capacity 
     Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing'' 
     for LISC and the Enterprise Foundation for activities as 
     authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 
     (42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as in effect immediately before June 
     12, 1997, with not less than $4,989,000 of the funding to be 
     used in rural areas, including tribal areas, and of which 
     $4,442,000 shall be for capacity building activities 
     administered by Habitat for Humanity International.
         Of the amount made available under this heading, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may use up to 
     $54,879,000 for supportive services for public housing 
     residents, as authorized by section 34 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and for residents of housing 
     assisted under the Native American Housing Assistance and 
     Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) and for grants for 
     service coordinators and congregate services for the elderly 
     and disabled residents of public and assisted housing and 
     housing assisted under NAHASDA.
         Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $25,000,000 shall be available for neighborhood initiatives 
     that are utilized to improve the conditions of distressed and 
     blighted areas and neighborhoods, to stimulate investment, 
     economic diversification, and community revitalization in 
     areas with population outmigration or a stagnating or 
     declining economic base, or to determine whether housing 
     benefits can be integrated more effectively with welfare 
     reform initiatives: Provided, that any unobligated balances 
     of amounts set aside for neighborhood initiatives in fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 may be utilized for any of 
     the foregoing purposes.
         Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $59,868,000 shall 
     be available for YouthBuild program activities authorized by 
     subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act, as amended, and such activities shall 
     be an eligible activity with respect to any funds made 
     available under this heading: Provided, That local YouthBuild 
     programs that demonstrate an ability to leverage private and 
     nonprofit funding shall be given a priority for YouthBuild 
     funding: Provided further, That no more than ten percent of 
     any grant award may be used for administrative costs: 
     Provided further, That of the amount provided under this 
     paragraph, $2,000,000 shall be set aside and made available 
     for a grant to YouthBuild USA for capacity building for 
     community development and affordable housing activities as 
     specified in section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993, 
     as amended.
         Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $77,000,000 shall be available for grants for the Economic 
     Development Initiative (EDI) to finance a variety of economic 
     development efforts.


         community development loan guarantees program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

         For the cost of guaranteed loans, $14,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003, as authorized by section 
     108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $608,696,000, notwithstanding any aggregate limitation 
     on outstanding obligations guaranteed in section 108(k) of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That in addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, $1,000,000, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''.

                       brownfields redevelopment

         For Economic Development Grants, as authorized by section 
     108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 
     as amended, for Brownfields redevelopment projects, 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall make these grants available on a competitive basis as 
     specified in section 102 of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.


                  home investment partnerships program

                     (including transfer of funds)

         For the HOME investment partnerships program, as 
     authorized under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act, as amended, $1,996,040,000 to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the 
     total amount provided under this heading, $200,000,000 shall 
     be available for the Downpayment Assistance Initiative, 
     subject to the enactment of subsequent legislation 
     authorizing such initiative: Provided further, That should 
     legislation authorizing such initiative not be enacted by 
     June 30, 2002, amounts designated in the previous proviso 
     shall become available for any such purpose authorized under 
     title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing 
     Act, as amended: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, up to $20,000,000 shall be 
     available for Housing Counseling under section 106 of the 
     Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968; and no less than 
     $17,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund 
     for the development and maintenance of information technology 
     systems.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. La Falce

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

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. LaFalce:
         In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning 
     and Development--home investment partnerships program'', 
     after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
         In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning 
     and Development--home investment partnerships program'', 
     after the dollar amount specified for the Downpayment 
     Assistance Initiative, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $100,000,000)''.
         In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning 
     and Development--homeless assistance grants'', after the 
     aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased 
     by $122,600,000)''.
         In title II, in the item relating to ``Management and 
     Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $22,600,000)''.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) and I are offering jointly, would restore funding 
cuts made in the bill to vital homeless prevention programs in order to 
provide sufficient funding to renew expiring rental assistance grants 
for the disabled, the mentally ill, veterans, and other individuals at 
risk of homelessness.
  One year ago, in a very bipartisan effort, Congress was forced to 
take emergency action to reinstate funding for

[[Page H4711]]

the renewal of homeless Shelter Plus Care, and SHP permanent housing 
grants which HUD did not renew as part of its continuum of care funding 
process. This rescued thousands of our most vulnerable Americans from 
losing their rental assistance and from becoming homeless. In my 
district alone, almost 200 very low income individuals were threatened 
with the loss of assistance and the loss of a home.
  Learning from this experience, last year's House-passed VA-HUD 
appropriations bill authorized renewal of expiring Shelter Plus Care 
grants through the section 8 certificate fund, which would have 
eliminated the risk of nonrenewal. In conference, the House and Senate 
agreed to a similar approach establishing a separate $100 million 
account for expiring Shelter Plus Care grants and directing HUD to 
develop a mechanism to renew expiring SHP permanent housing grants. 
Early this year, the administration's budget request was to continue 
funding this separate renewal account in the amount of $100 million.
  So it seems inexplicable to me that the majority has elected to cut 
this $100 million renewal account. The effect is to reduce funding for 
homeless programs by $100 million and put tens of thousands of 
individuals at risk of losing their rental assistance.
  The National Alliance to End Homelessness, which strongly supports 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from California and myself, has 
written that projects would be shut down in the best of circumstances 
under this bill, and further pointed out that effective planning would 
be impossible, and that local communities would be in grave doubt about 
the ongoing viability of existing projects.
  The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill has written in strong 
support of our amendment and notes that the bill would have the effect 
of undoing last year's farsighted decision by Congress to promote long-
term stable funding from HUD and threatened to disrupt successful local 
programs.
  This amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and 
myself would avert this crisis by restoring the $100 million cut made 
to the account to renew Shelter Plus Care grants and providing an 
additional $22.6 million to renew all SHP permanent housing grants. 
Specifically, the bill increases the homeless assistance grants account 
by $122.6 million with the intent in conference to establish a reliable 
source of renewals, either through the section 8 account or a separate 
renewal account.
  I understand that the majority will argue, as it does in their 
committee report, that action is not needed at this time to address 
renewal needs. The problem is that grants which expire on October 1, 
2002 and later have no source of funding to renew such grants, except 
to apply for funding under the fiscal 2002 continuum of care 
competition. This is because the account established last year for 
renewals may not be used to renew any grants expiring after fiscal year 
2002.
  This exposes tens of thousands of at-risk families to the same risk 
of nonrenewal that we faced last year. However, even if such renewal 
grants are approved under the competitive award process, many projects 
will run out of money, and that is because the continuum of care awards 
have historically been made in December, months after many of the 
grants run out of money. It is for these reasons that all of the groups 
that deal with these programs say that the bill does not adequately 
address the problem of renewals.
  I understand that the majority will argue, as it does in their 
committee report, that action is not needed at this time to address 
renewal needs. The problem is that grants which expire on October 1st, 
2002 and later have no source of funding to renew such grants--except 
to apply for funding under the FY 2002 continuum of care competition. 
This is because the account established last year for renewals may not 
be used to renew any grants expiring after fiscal year 2002.
  Finally, I would like to briefly anticipate objections the majority 
may have with our offset--the 50 percent reduction in new funding the 
bill provides for the administration's proposed $200 million 
Downpayment Assistance Initiative. $100 million is more than enough 
money in the first year for a program that has not even been 
authorized. If this program is so important, I would ask why the 
Housing Subcommittee has not even held a hearing on this initiative.
  It would also ironic be ironic if the majority insists on $200 
million for this initiative, when its very first action on taking over 
the House six years ago was to eliminate the $50 million in funding for 
a virtually identical program, the National Homeownership Trust Act, 
which also block granted funds to states for down payment assistance.
  It is interesting to note Republican arguments at that time, that a 
down payment block grant program authorizes nothing that is not 
currently allowed under HOME and CDBG. That argument is still valid; 
apparently the majority no longer wants to emphasize this fact. $6 
billion is currently available under these two programs for states, 
cities, and counties; so it is hard to argue that it is critically that 
they need all of the $200 million for this new initiative.
  Finally, our amendment cuts $22.6 million from the HUD Salaries and 
Expense Account, still leaving a small increase compared to last year.
  So I think we are faced with a simple choice: should we restore 
homeless funding cuts in this bill, cuts which threaten tens of 
thousands of individuals with the risk of homelessness--in order to 
fully fund a new, untested, unauthorized, undebated initiative that is 
already fully authorized under HOME and CDBG.
  I think the choice is obvious. I urge support for the LaFalce-Lee 
amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of many amendments which goes after the 
President's initiative to provide funds to low-income families to help 
them to buy homes. As I mentioned earlier, we have about $16 billion in 
the bill for section 8 housing vouchers, and I think there has been a 
high demand for those, and it is a popular program. We have provided 
additional funds for section 8. Some of those funds will be used in 
pilot programs around the country to help to encourage low-income 
families who are now renting to utilize those vouchers for 
homeownership, to make monthly mortgage payments.
  What the President has proposed, and Secretary Martinez has asked us 
to support, is providing $200 million nationally so that those 
individuals would be provided with the funds to make that down payment, 
that big chunk of money that we all know we have to come up with in 
order to make the initial mortgage deal. The section 8 housing vouchers 
hopefully will provide the taxpayer and the owner with a very good 
investment, a very good return on those section 8 vouchers.
  So it is an important initiative, and it would be wrong to deny low-
income families moving from welfare to work and from tenantship to 
ownership. Those funds are important. We need to keep those funds where 
they are.
  Now, as far as the homeless program where these funds would be 
provided, let me just state my feeling. I feel very strongly that we 
need to provide funds to help people who are homeless to find permanent 
homes. My first action as city council president in Syracuse back in 
1987 was to establish a homeless and housing vulnerable task force. It 
has been working ever since. The need continues, but I think we have 
done a very good job in central New York in providing homes for the 
homeless.
  We have provided over $1 billion in this bill for that purpose 
nationwide. It is an increase, albeit a slight increase, over last 
year. So the subcommittee's commitment and support for programs to 
provide help to the homeless is in place.
  As I believe the gentleman knows, all fiscal year 2002 renewal costs 
for Shelter Plus Care programs are fully funded. Mr. Chairman, 2002 is 
fully funded. The committee has already indicated it would address 
fiscal year 2003 needs for this program in next year's bill. The 
committee's action is identical to the way funding for these costs have 
always been treated with the exception of 2001, and is identical to the 
way all programs in this bill are treated.
  This amendment proposes to treat this program differently than every 
other program in this bill by using fiscal year 2002 funds to forward-
fund fiscal 2003 costs. To do this, the gentleman would cut $100 
million out of this very important program, and those funds would be 
divided amongst the States, including New York's, which would get a 
large proportion of these funds, and also to 594 cities to help provide 
affordable housing to members of our communities.

[[Page H4712]]

  In addition, it would cause HUD to eliminate over 268 jobs by taking 
$22 million from salaries and expenses.

                              {time}  2100

  I believe the real intent behind the gentleman's agreement is to 
ensure that fiscal year 2003 funding needs for this program do not 
compete with any other program next year.
  While I have sympathy for his desire to essentially create an 
entitlement program, we cannot support this. We oppose it. It makes no 
sense to cut funds to States and localities and eliminate HUD employees 
to set aside funding that is not even needed next year for this 
program. I would therefore urge rejection of the amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that the LaFalce-Lee amendment really aims 
to correct, as we heard, just one piece of this appropriations bill 
that cuts $1.7 billion in budget authority from HUD's budget.
  This amendment is also, incidentally, supported by the United States 
Conference of Mayors. It restores funding for some of the most 
vulnerable people in our society, those who are homeless and have the 
special problem of dealing with mental illness, disabilities, or who 
are turning around their lives in recovery from alcohol or drug abuse.
  The Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing Program subsidizes 
housing for people with these special challenges and also offers 
continuum of care services for mental illness and other disabilities. 
For example, in my home district in Alameda County of California, there 
are approximately 13,000 homeless people and many more at risk for 
homelessness.
  Mr. Chairman, most of these people now more than ever are women and 
children. In every one of our congressional districts there are 
homeless people. Shelter Plus Care operates nationwide and helps keep 
thousands of disabled and mentally ill people from walking the streets 
at night untreated and with no place to live.
  A California study found that supportive housing reduces emergency 
room services and in-patient hospital stays by more than 57 percent. So 
with this very small investment we can save taxpayers hundreds of 
millions of dollars and provide humane treatment and shelter.
  In our affordable housing debate, we talk about rental assistance, we 
talk about home ownership for low-, moderate-, and middle-income 
individuals and families, which we all support. But our debate and our 
initiatives are very devoid of housing issues as it relates to the 
homeless, so this amendment really does recognize them as deserving of 
our attention, also.
  The offsets to this amendment still leave $100 million for this 
unauthorized downpayment assistance program. We have not even held 
hearings yet on this unauthorized program, so we have all supported 
downpayment assistance programs, even when my colleagues on the other 
side have not.
  This offset leaves intact a net increase also in HUD salaries and 
expenses over the last fiscal year. So, Mr. Chairman, there is really 
nothing compassionate about the cuts to HUD, nearly $2 billion in cuts 
made to fund the nearly $2 billion tax cut. That is not very 
compassionate, if you ask me.
  This bill actually cuts $493 million from public housing programs, 
including the complete elimination of the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Program. It cuts $640 million from Section 8, $322 million 
from Community Development Block Grants, $200 million from empowerment 
zones, and $25 million from the Rural Housing and Economic Development 
Program. So now with this, also, we are really seeing the real impact 
in the cost of this Bush administration tax cut.
  So I guess what I want to ask tonight is, will this Congress really 
continue to place the burden of the tax cut on the back of the 
homeless, the mentally ill, and the indigent? What type of a society 
will we be if we approve this really I think disgraceful bill, if we do 
not amend it tonight?
  I ask Members for an aye vote on this amendment to restore and 
support decent and humane treatment for our homeless and the mentally 
ill, who also happen to live in the richest country in the world.
  Finally, let me just say that States, counties, and cities will get 
$6 billion in HOME and CDBG funds in fiscal year 2002 which can be used 
to do all of the activities authorized under the downpayment housing 
initiative.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by 
my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). This amendment 
unfortunately would cut in half the funding for an important initiative 
proposed by the President to assist low-income families to purchase 
their own homes.
  With this money, he proposes to forward-fund the Shelter Plus Care 
program. While I am a strong supporter of the Shelter Plus Care 
program, it is not necessary to add additional funds to the program to 
ensure that all contract renewals will occur. This funding would then 
be used to forward-fund contracts in fiscal year 2003.
  This would set an unnecessary precedent. I believe the money is put 
much better to use in the downpayment assistance initiative next year. 
We must do more to move low-income families into their own homes. This 
is a critical need that we need to work to address. We know the 
barriers for low-income families to purchase their own home, and one of 
the largest is the downpayment.
  I cannot understate the importance of this initiative. So many 
Americans lack the opportunity to purchase a new home and spend a large 
percentage of their income on their monthly rent. That can be the right 
choice for some but not for all.
  Most families greatly benefit from the purchase of their own homes. A 
home helps a family create wealth through equity. It also invests them 
into the community. In short, we help these families rise on the 
economic ladder and build stronger communities in the process.
  It is truly the American dream to own one's own home, a dream we must 
make a reality for families who currently lack the opportunity to 
realize this goal.
  In addition, the LaFalce amendment cuts $23 million from the salary 
and expense accounts from HUD. HUD is struggling with real problems 
these days. They have shut down programs because their mission in 
recent years has been so spread out that they have been incapable of 
properly overseeing and implementing the programs that they administer.
  Secretary Martinez has been working to refocus HUD on their true core 
mission, one of providing and facilitating the creation of housing. 
This is not the time to reduce the resources of HUD.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on 
Financial Services, says he will oppose any amendment that cuts money 
for the downpayment assistance program of the HOME program. In short, 
let us work on the funding for the Shelter Plus Care program next year 
when they really need the funding.
  In the meantime, let us fully fund the President's downpayment 
assistance initiative in this bill by joining me in defeating the 
LaFalce amendment.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York has offered a very 
thoughtful amendment, once again aimed at helping the people in our 
society most in need of help.
  Now, it is unfortunate that the motif of this bill comes through 
again. It is so substantially underfunded because the tax cut deprived 
us of these revenues that it makes a choice between two needy groups.
  This choice is a little easier for this reason. The $200 million in 
the HOME program which has, in this bill, been earmarked for a home 
ownership program is an interesting example of retrograde behavior on 
the part of my colleagues on the other side; not the only example, but 
an interesting one. This one more clearly leads to a repudiation of 
some of their own professed principles.
  The HOME program has been a block grant, in effect. It gives monies 
to the cities and the consortia with a great deal of flexibility. It 
had been working very well, apparently too well for the Republican 
leadership and the President. The President decided he wanted

[[Page H4713]]

to do something for poor people, but he did not want to actually spend 
any new money on doing it.
  The President went shopping for the poor, but he unfortunately did 
not think when we were talking about poor people that he could go to a 
store, because that requires money, and he gave that away in the tax 
cut. So the President went to the recycling bin to see what he could 
find for the poor people.
  He found $200 million that had already been assigned to the poor 
people. This great act of charity that comes forth Members should 
understand is not additional money. It is an earmarking of $200 million 
that had previously been sent to the mayors. I should not even say 
recycling, because that assumes somebody else had discarded it. The 
mayors had not discarded this. This is something the mayors had been 
planning to spend.
  Indeed, the $200 million for home ownership, again, it is not a new 
money program. It is $200 million for home ownership taken out of a pot 
of money that had previously been given as a block grant to the mayors. 
So it is putting a categorical stamp, to a certain extent, on what had 
been a block grant program, which the Republicans will do from time to 
time when they want to, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The mayors, the National Conference of Mayors, the League of Cities, 
do not like this earmark, so the $200 million here is over the 
objection of the people who have been the administrators of the program 
and the recipients of the program.
  If indeed this amendment were ultimately not to pass, and of course 
the way we are working it tonight we will not know that for a while, 
probably until a couple of days until we have these roll calls, or 
maybe later, I will propose we will cancel out the $200 million 
earmarks and leave it where the mayors and League of Cities want it to 
be.
  In other words, I think we should go back to the block grant and 
repudiate this faux gift that comes from the President. He is making a 
gift of somebody else's money for home ownership.
  But, on the merits, we talk about the American dream. Let us first 
try to alleviate the American nightmare. Let us first try to show a 
response to the poorest of the poor, the homeless. Can there be in this 
wealthy society anything less morally tolerable than homeless children? 
Can anyone let any other program go by while children are still 
homeless?
  The gentleman from New York gives us a chance to remedy that 
situation, to a certain extent, by taking money that is now being 
assigned to programs that the people who run the programs do not want. 
Granted, their first choice would be to have the money on an 
unrestricted basis, but the way it now stands, that is why we have, 
from so many mayors, support for this.
  The President is also a bad one from that standpoint. HOME has been a 
very flexible, very well-run block grant. The notion of now letting 
conservative politicians look generous, not by providing any additional 
funding for low-income people but by putting restrictions on what has 
heretofore been a successful, relatively unrestricted set of programs 
geared to local needs, ought to be rejected.
  So I hope this amendment is adopted. If this amendment is not 
adopted, I will then be offering next the amendment, and we will have 
the choice when the roll calls come to put all that money at least back 
into the unrestricted pot.
  Let us not allow a situation in which the President plays Santa Claus 
with money that really should have gone to the mayors and which the 
mayors would rather see go to alleviating the homeless than not.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is horrible to be in a time of tight budgets and 
deficits. I have been through that in this Congress. But, of course, 
that is not the case today. But from the debate tonight on the floor, 
we would think that that was the case.
  Earlier we heard, well, we could not afford to improve and enhance 
veterans' health care. There is just not enough money. We had to make 
tough choices. They had to make copayments and be deprived of needed 
health care.
  We could not afford more money for the YouthBuild program to help 
reform youth, get them on a straight path, and build low-income 
housing.
  Now we are being told we have to choose between the downpayment 
initiative and the Shelter Plus Care program. I thought we had a 
multitrillion dollar looming surplus. I thought that was why the 
Republicans jammed through a $1 trillion tax cut, particularly heavily 
oriented towards those who earn over $273,000 a year. Most of whom are 
not homeless, I expect.
  Mr. Chairman, 3.5 million people are likely to experience 
homelessness during a given year in the United States, and 45 percent 
of those people will be employed. They do not meet the stereotypes. 
Thirty-nine percent are children, as mentioned by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts before me, and 27 percent are disabled.
  One-third of families currently requesting shelter have to be turned 
away for lack of room, families trying to stay together. The family 
values party does not want to help them stay together because they are 
not putting the money out to do the job.
  I am especially concerned in light of the committee's decision to 
increase the permanent housing set-aside, the 35 percent. Just last 
year the permanent housing set-aside was raised to 30 percent of all 
funds under McKinney-Vento. That last-minute change does not sound like 
it means anything except a percent here, in Washington, D.C.; a billion 
here, a billion there. But the last-minute change of Congress caused 
HUD to reprioritize their grants, and new transitional housing projects 
for homeless families were left on the chopping block.
  In fact, in my district alone, Douglas County lost $126,458, a county 
with a very high unemployment rate that has been hit hard because of 
the recession in the timber industry. Curry County lost $113,637. 
Benton, Lincoln, and Lynn lost $271,518.
  Other States lost money because of this additional set-aside.

                              {time}  2115

  We should not be forcing these sorts of choices; $1.3 million all 
together for rural Oregon counties and $1 million for rural continuum 
of care.
  We do not have to make that choice. If I just went back and pulled 
out the budget and the rosy scenario and all the things that have been 
used here on the floor to pass the tax cut that favors those who earn 
over $273,000 a year, we would find that if we just applied those same 
assumptions and rosy scenarios, or God forbid we cut back on the big 
tax breaks for those at the very top, we could afford all these and we 
would not have to make these choices.
  So I reject what is being offered on the majority side, saying, oh 
well, we just cannot afford that this year, maybe next year; and, well, 
we have to make these tough choices. These are choices that need to be 
made to hold together the social fabric of this society, to hold 
together homeless families, to help the 39 percent of homeless kids, 
and the 27 percent who are disabled. We, the greatest society on Earth, 
can afford to do this little bit.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lee-LaFalce 
amendment. According to HUD, over 10,000 San Franciscans are currently 
homeless. Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing Program permanent 
housing grants are a critical component of our nation's response to 
this growing crisis. These programs must be preserved, and this 
amendment provides the necessary funding.
  Supportive housing programs link employment, substance abuse, mental 
health, and other supportive services to permanent supportive housing 
for chronically ill homeless individuals and families. Studies show 
that these programs are very successful. Tenants of supportive housing 
use fewer emergency room and inpatient hospital services, increase 
their earned income and rate of employment, and reduce their dependence 
on public assistance.
  The claim that Shelter Plus Care does not need funding in FY 2002, 
and that such action would constitute ``forward funding'' is untrue. 
Failure to provide renewal funding will result in a significant 
shortfall for Shelter Plus Care Programs nationwide, and a loss of 
approximately 260 units of housing in my district.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lee/LaFalce amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce).

[[Page H4714]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 230, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 280]

                               AYES--189

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

                               NOES--230

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     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--14

     Blumenauer
     Cubin
     Hall (OH)
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Linder
     Lipinski
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Radanovich
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2149

  Messrs. McHUGH, KINGSTON, GUTKNECHT, GILLMOR, and PORTMAN changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RAHALL and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, after consulting with the committee that has 
jurisdiction on the floor this evening, we have determined that it is 
possible, with cooperation from our Members, for us to take the five 
votes that have been ordered thus far this evening in just a few more 
moments. Those five votes would be the last votes that Members would be 
asked to cast this evening. We would ask that the committee continue to 
work through title II this evening, with an understanding that any 
votes that are ordered on title II will be taken up at 9 o'clock in the 
morning when we resume the bill, and having completed the work through 
title II should make it possible for us, with good cooperation, to 
complete consideration of this bill by 2 o'clock tomorrow, our normal 
Friday getaway time.
  The committee has been very cooperative. The committee is to be 
commended for their good spirit and their efforts to make life better 
for the Members. I should, however, advise the Members at this time 
that if we are unable to finish the work by 2 o'clock tomorrow, and 
everybody that has examined the amendments that are before us is in 
agreement that we should be able to do so comfortably given the time 
agreements that we can make, but if that is impossible, we will 
continue tomorrow to work beyond our normal Friday getaway time until 
such time as the bill is completed, and we will not leave until the 
bill is completed.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, on a bit lighter note for all of our 
colleagues, tonight happens to be a great event that you may not be 
aware of, but tonight happens to be the 20th anniversary of Mike Oxley 
being a Member of this great institution, having been elected in a 
special election in 1981. I think we all owe Mike Oxley a great round 
of applause for his 20th anniversary.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished leader for 
yielding.
  I question the gentleman's estimate about when we can finish this 
bill even if we were to proceed here tonight. There is a lot of 
material here. He might be right, he might be wrong, but my judgement 
is he is probably underestimating the amount of time it is

[[Page H4715]]

going to take to finish this bill. I would not expect to be able to be 
finished by 2 o'clock tomorrow.
  Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. Let me just say, 
Mr. Chairman, that would be unfortunate for so many Members who had 
planned to leave by 2, but it has been my experience in this body that 
when we all work together and pull in the same direction, in good humor 
and cheer, that we can meet our goal. I fear we must try. Our schedule 
for next week is, quite frankly, very exciting; and we simply cannot 
afford to let this bill hold over for next week.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I understand Members' desires to leave, but 
there is a constitutional responsibility to debate seriously important 
issues. I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity. Under the schedule proposed by the majority 
leader, we would be debating much of these important housing issues 
beginning sometime after 11 o'clock tonight until the early hours with 
no votes. I cannot agree to that, and I must inform Members that there 
will be no assurance of not having votes. There are votes on appeals 
from the chair. There are motions to rise. The problem is that 
important issues have to be discussed. We have all week next week. I am 
ready to work, but I will not agree, and Members should not expect to 
leave at 11 o'clock while we debate these important issues and not have 
votes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts has made 
his point. The fact is he can, in fact, delay everything we try to do 
tonight and prevent us from completing our work. In that event we would 
have to work through the weekend.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley); amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler); amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis); amendment No. 22 offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez); amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Foley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated 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 107, 
noes 311, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 281]

                               AYES--107

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Baird
     Barr
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bryant
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Coble
     Condit
     Costello
     Crane
     Crowley
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Israel
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Larsen (WA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Weiner
     Wexler

                               NOES--311

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bass
     Blumenauer
     Cubin
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hunter
     Istook
     Linder
     Lipinski
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2214

  Mr. PICKERING and Mr. Langevin changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. FLETCHER, SCHROCK, SESSIONS and ENGLE changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 281, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 281, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.


                      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

[[Page H4716]]

the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139, 
noes 284, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 282]

                               AYES--139

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--284

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blumenauer
     Combest
     Cubin
     Hall (OH)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2222

  Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RUSH and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 60, 
noes 360, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 283]

                                AYES--60

     Andrews
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeGette
     Doyle
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hilliard
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lucas (KY)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McKinney
     Mink
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Owens
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Ross
     Rush
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shays
     Solis
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Wynn

                               NOES--360

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes

[[Page H4717]]


     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Cubin
     Hall (OH)
     Hilleary
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Otter
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2229

  Ms. HARMAN, Mr. BAIRD, and Mr. DOGGETT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) 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 216, 
noes 209, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 284]

                               AYES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     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)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     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 (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     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
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     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)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Blumenauer
     Cubin
     Hall (OH)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2239

  Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. STEARNS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Mr. 
ISAKSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. MATHESON, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and 
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. LaFalce

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce)

[[Page H4718]]

on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124, 
noes 300, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 285]

                               AYES--124

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Strickland
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wu

                               NOES--300

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Blumenauer
     Cubin
     Hall (OH)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Miller (FL)
     Nethercutt
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  2247

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be no 
more procedural votes this evening; that the committee be allowed to 
work with the Members in question on title II of the bill, without 
interruption; and as they complete that work this evening, any votes 
that are ordered on amendments be postponed until 9 a.m. tomorrow 
morning.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair already has the authority to postpone votes 
on amendments but not on procedural motions.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there be no more 
procedural votes this evening and that the committee be allowed to 
continue its work on title II.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee of the Whole cannot entertain that 
request.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title II be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. FRANK. I object.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is clear and obvious to me that the 
Members of this body cannot work tonight effectively and make progress 
on this bill. That is unfortunate. Obviously, it will delay our 
departure tomorrow. But in consideration of the mood that we find on 
the floor this evening,
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2620) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, 
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________