Sue Kelly

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Over 20 years ago, several Members of this House, along with Members from the other body, worked tirelessly and in a bipartisan fashion to advance the interests of small businesses caught in the endless stream of new regulations pouring out of the Federal government. Regulatory agencies and executive departments were constantly advancing new regulations with a one-size-fits-all approach. This approach to regulation was destroying our small businesses. A handful of visionaries came to the rescue with the Regulatory Flexibility Act which is often referred to as the magna carta of small business rights. It was advanced in a bipartisan manner by a group of individuals who deserve our praise today. Members of the House who led the charge back then were Andy Ireland, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and Neal Smith. Their colleagues in the Senate were John Culver and Gaylord Nelson. From the business community, there were many individuals who contributed to this effort, most notably John Motley and former Congressman Mike McKevitt. And, of course, as with most things we do, there was exceptional staff work done on making the Regulatory Flexibility Act a reality, most notably the contributions of then the House Committee on Small Business staffer, Stephen P. Lynch. Happy birthday Reg Flex Act.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, in the 105th Congress I proposed legislation which sought to provide educational assistance for the families of all fallen officers. Though we were not able to fully achieve this objective, with the help of my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, we took an important first step by enacting legislation which provided assistance to some of these families who have lost their loved ones in the line of duty. This bill covers not only our police officers but fire people and corrections officers, as well our public safety officers who make our Nation safe. Today we take action on a proposal to widen the circle of families who are eligible for this assistance. Approval of this bill will mark another significant step in fully recognizing the debt owed to those officers who have given their lives for the sake of all of us. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this measure. This is something we simply ought to do and we need to do. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) in particular, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), for their efforts on behalf of this important issue. I urge my colleagues to vote for this piece of legislation.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Justice estimates that between 1 million and 4 million women are physically abused by their husbands or live-in partners each year. Justice also reports that females account for 39 percent of the hospital emergency department visits for violence-related injuries. According to another poll, up to 40 percent of teenage girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend. Family violence costs the nation upwards of $10 billion annually in medical expenses, police and court costs, shelters and foster care, sick leave, absenteeism, and non-productivity. Mr. Speaker, I have only touched on the tip of the iceberg. Unlike many people, we are in a position to help turn these statistics around. We can begin by passing H.R. 1248, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and help the thousands of men and the millions of women who face abuse in their own homes feel a little safer in knowing that we are here and we are listening and will once again fulfill/our promise and help them escape from abuse and end the cycle of violence. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, not only for the men and women being abused today but for our children who may be the victims of tomorrow.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, the Truth in Regulating Act represents the culmination of nearly 4 years of hard work and is an effort that will provide Congress with a new resource for reviewing new government regulations before they take effect. This is not the bill I had hoped for, but I accept it as a good place to begin. I first introduced this legislation during the 105th Congress with the goal of giving Congress the tools it needs to oversee the steady stream of new and often costly regulations coming from the Federal Government. Government regulations have an impact on every American, Mr. Speaker. In most cases, regulations speak to a noble purpose and can often be viewed as a measure of the value that we place in protecting such things as human health, workplace safety, or the environment. Yet too often government oversteps its bounds in an attempt to achieve these goals, and we all pay the price as a consequence. The price of regulations poses a particularly heavy burden on small businesses and manufacturers, those entities which make up the very thing that drives our economy forward. Estimates vary on the annual cost of government regulations. The Office of Management and Budget estimates $3 billion a year while other estimates run as high as $700 billion every year. Congress has a special entity, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, to help it grapple with our enormous Federal budget, and there is growing sentiment that a similar office is needed within the legislative branch to review and analyze the numerous government regulations that are developed and issued every year. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) highlighted the difference between the Senate version, S. 1198 and H.R. 4924. Let me highlight one of the most important components of this compromise legislation, the inclusion of small business. As the vice chairman of the Committee on Small Business and chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork Reduction, I know that small business owners are very familiar with the burdens that Federal regulations place on them. Some studies have shown that for small employers the cost of complying with Federal regulations is more than double what it costs their larger counterparts. Small businesses need help in addressing this burden. A new mechanism to help Congress to control the regulatory burden on small employers, H.R. 4924 provides such a mechanism. This legislation authorizes GAO to study not only economically significant rules but also rules that agencies identify as a significant impact on small businesses. I think it is essential that Congress have the tools to perform proper oversight of the Federal regulatory process as it affects small firms in this country. The bottom line, the Truth in Regulating Act, is about better information. The purpose of this office is to ensure that Congress exercises its legislative powers in the most informed manner possible. Ultimately, this will lead to better and more finely tuned legislation, as well as more effective agency regulations. This legislation would provide Congress with reliable, nonpartisan information and improve Congress' ability to understand burdens that are placed on small businesses and the economy by excessive regulations. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4924, because only through active oversight can Congress ensure that the laws that it passes are properly implemented. This is a responsibility that Congress must take seriously, because as countless small business owners can attest, not doing so can have dramatic implications. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for his work on this legislation. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for their support, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) for his ongoing support for this important legislation. Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and certainly my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), for moving this legislation swiftly to the floor today and for the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) on this issue. I strongly urge my colleagues to support me in this important effort.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. Child sex offenders are justly condemned by our society as being the worst kind of criminal. The bill being considered today reminds us that perhaps our policies dealing with them do not fully match our rhetorical reproach. The proposal we will vote on today represents the tough approach that must be taken if we are to succeed in reducing sex crimes against our children. An examination of the issue tells us that pedophiles are more likely than virtually any other type of criminal to repeat the same offense--yet the convicted pedophile currently spends on average less than three years behind bars. We have got to do better than that. Child sex offenders ruin lives. They are predators with no conscience. The defenseless children upon whom they prey must deal for the rest of their lives with the scars left by a child sex offender's cowardly actions. We must do more to keep these pedophiles off our streets and away from our children. This bill clearly takes a significant step in this direction through its provision of tougher sentences for repeat offenders, so I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his efforts on this matter, and join him today in advocating its passage.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation, which offers $96.1 million for the U.S. Postal Service as part of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Act, but I do want to mention one area of real concern to the American people. As we consider this, I want to make my colleagues aware of a priority project the Postal Service must undertake--the correction of its ZIP Code to Representative database. This database is currently relied upon by Members of Congress, their staffs, businesses and thousands of Americans each day as a method of matching districts to Members. Unfortunately, most users are unaware that this product is massively flawed. A brief inspection of the database revealed errors that affect more than half of the Congressional Districts in the United States. Included in these mistakes, which include ZIP Codes incorrectly split between Members and the complete omission of ZIP Codes in certain districts, are more than 75 errors that defy geography by being shared by two or more Members whose districts are not contiguous. I have found more than 10 errors in my district alone and have urged my colleagues to take a closer look at their jurisdictions and report what they have found. The response has been overwhelming, and the scope of these difficulties is appalling. On a daily basis, this erroneous product misdirects mail, creates confusion and allows for the accidental violation of federal franking law. Each day citizens wishing to find their Member of Congress are referred to the wrong district, delaying the commencement of casework for those requiring help with a federal agency. Vendors who use the database or products based on the database perpetuate the mistake in the materials they distribute, and Members creating mass mailings inadvertently include addresses that are not in their actual district, violating Congressional Franking Regulations. In an era of accuracy and responsibility, the correction of this defective product should be made a priority by the United States Postal Service. I ask my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that the Postal Service begin the new fiscal year by making the development of an accurate database a priority and reality.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the author of this legislation. I am grateful for the hard work my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means have done in putting together a strong package of tax relief to ensure retirement security for working Americans. Unfortunately, I have been contacted by constituents concerned about potential interpretations of sections 405, 501, and 701 of H.R. 1102. They fear these could negatively affect pension benefits. Over the past months, I appreciate the time the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and members of the committee concerned with pension issues have spent as we have worked together to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed. I thank the gentleman from Ohio and the committee for the report language which addresses some of my concerns. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get assurances that these sections I have mentioned are not intended to be used to harm participants. It is my understanding that these provisions are not intended to be interpreted in such a way as to reduce pension benefits, discourage companies from increasing pension benefits, or to allow violations of the Tax Code. So I ask my friend, the gentleman from the State of Ohio (Mr. Portman), is my understanding correct? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), for his assurances and his continuing efforts on the legislation. With these efforts, we can assure concerned individuals that pensions are enhanced and protected by this legislation. We have an opportunity today to enhance retirement security for Americans. These are all initiatives I have long advocated. I look forward to voting in support of this important legislation today, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in strong support.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kucinich Amendment, which would seriously undermine our efforts to promote stability and reconstruction in Kosova. This amendment seeks to cut off all funding for the Kosova Protection Corps, a civilian organization formed in September of last year to employ demobilized members of Kosova Liberation Army on needed efforts such as disaster response, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance to isolated areas, de-mining and rebuilding the country's infrastructure. The KPC, which operates under the authority of the UN, offers employments to these veterans to engage in constructive activities in support of the country and its people. I understand and share the gentleman's concerns over allegations of acts of violence committed by purported members of this organization. These incidents should be investigated fully and those found guilty should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But to completely cut off funding to an organization that, in the words of the KFOR commander, General Klaus Reinhardt, is ``an essential step to restoring normalcy to this region'', would undercut and negate everything that this country and our European allies have done to restore peace and stability to Kosova. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of former KLA members who joined the KPC were not professional soldiers--they were farmers, laborers or mechanics, individuals with skills that are desperately needed as Kosova re-builds. Yes, they took up arms in the face of naked aggression from Serb paramilitary and security forces. Faced with similar situations, I doubt many in this Chamber wouldn't do the same to protect their homes, their families and loved ones. The war is now over, and it is essential that we support programs such as this which, in a very real sense, beat swords into plowshares by transitioning these veterans to the cause of community service and nation building. That cause would be undercut, Mr. Chairman, if we allow this amendment to prevail. Let's not destroy a worthwhile program and jeopardize the cause of peace because of the misdeeds of a few. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kucinich Amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer today an amendment to strike language from this bill which prohibits funding from being used for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I feel this prohibition is inappropriate, as it imposes a serious detriment to river communities in 25 States, which have chosen to be a part of this initiative. American Heritage Rivers Initiative began in 1997, the purpose behind it being to refocus and improve our efforts to preserve the cultural, economic and historic values of rivers throughout the country. Since then, the initiative has served as an effective tool in supporting voluntary community efforts to restore rivers and revitalize river fronts. Despite the potential it holds for some of our Nation's treasured resources, the communities which have accepted designations under this initiative have been subjected to repeated efforts to undermine their intentions, primarily through the placement of funding restrictions on various agencies involved in this enterprise. The bill being considered today continues this effort by prohibiting funding for the National Resource Conservation Service from being used for purposes under the initiative. I realize that these restrictions have been spawned in part by an undercurrent of concern among those who feel the initiative represents some sort of Federal intrusion into local matters. To this point, let me say this is simply not the case. Throughout the process, proponents of the initiative have gone to great lengths to ensure that local control is not circumvented. In fact, it should be argued that local control is not only preserved, but enhanced by an increased awareness of the options that are available through already existing programs. It should be made clear that the American Heritage Rivers Initiative involves no new mandates. It involves no new money, and it is entirely voluntary. Those communities which are on designated rivers but choose not to be involved are under no obligation to do so. Those which do choose to be involved are subject to no new regulations. I further understand that some object to this initiative because of its origins, and because of the way in which the administration has worked with and responded to Congress in their effort to implement it. When it comes to reports of opposite-minded and uncooperative officials in the administration, I am not without sympathy for my colleagues. Nevertheless, I rise today with this proposal for the simple fact that the restriction in this bill affects stubborn actions not nearly so much as it does the river communities in 25 States across the country which made a conscious choice to be a part of the initiative. I should emphasize that I am not on the floor today with some proposal to force this initiative on communities that do not wish to be a part of it. Nor do I come here today with a proposal to take away a Member's right to preclude communities in their district from being eligible for the initiative. I am here because I object to the practice of placing these restrictions on communities which have made a choice to be a part of the initiative. Members representing those communities should not be forced to go from bill to bill to bill to ferret out these kinds of restrictions simply so they can try to protect their constituents from being penalized for their decision to be a part of this initiative. If there are objections to the American Heritage Rivers Initiatives, I believe there are more appropriate and reasonable approaches than to simply tack restrictions onto a spending bill. I believe that Members of this House who represent communities which have chosen to benefit from the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and Members who believe that these communities should not be penalized for making this decision ought not to sit idly by to watch its gradual deconstruction through appropriations processes. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) if he is willing. Mr. Speaker, access to affordable prescription drugs and health care coverage is a pressing issue for seniors in my district, which is why I support the Medicare Prescription Drug Act. I recently introduced legislation, H.R. 4753, which will create Medicare Consumer Coalition Demonstrate projects under the Medicare+Choice program. These nonprofit, regional coalitions would boost seniors' purchasing clout by allowing large groups of independent beneficiaries to join together and, through market-driven negotiations, drive down costs. I would ask the gentleman to review this legislation and to work with me to see that the concepts embodied in the Seniors Health Care Empowerment Act are incorporated into this and other Medicare reform initiatives that we consider in the coming months. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into the colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California knows, I had intended to offer an amendment today on an issue of great importance to my district. I am not going to offer this amendment, however, with the understanding that the gentleman from California is willing to work with me on this matter. I wish to bring to the gentleman's attention some serious concerns I have regarding the Indian Point 2 nuclear power facility in my district. This plant was shut down in February after a steam generator started leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere. It goes without saying that this was a distressing situation for my community. What merits mentioning, and what brings me to the floor today, however, are the string of revelations in the months following this incident which have fundamentally undermined the community's confidence in the safety of the plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself admitted in March that previous inspections of the plant were ``weak and incomplete.'' The NRC determined in May that operational deficiencies at the plant were serious enough to place it on the agency's watch list. Then we learned that the conduct of the NRC staff responsible for plant safety is now the subject of an investigation by the Inspector General. Despite my repeated requests, the NRC will not postpone their decision on the restart of this plant at least until the investigation is complete, as they would have us believe that it is somehow irrelevant. Just last week, an internal memo from the plant's operator was discovered revealing serious problems which occurred at the plant on the night of the leak. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC saw this document only after stories were written about it in local newspapers. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here. These are legitimate concerns, and it is reasonable for me and my constituents to expect for them to be given full and fair deliberation before that plant is restarted. I would like to make it clear on this floor that this is not the case, that this issue is not being dealt with reasonably, and it is unsettling my community. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the NRC should postpone a decision on restart of Indian Point 2 until the serious and legitimate concerns that have arisen on this issue are addressed. At the very least, it would seem prudent to postpone the NRC's decision on restarting the plant until the final investigation report of the Inspector General's office is released and carefully reviewed by the NRC officials to ensure that the outstanding issues are identified and corrected. Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) agree to work with me in ensuring that the committee continue to provide strict oversight of this serious matter? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his attention to this matter. I hope that this matter will be resolved in the interest of my constituents.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 533) providing for the concurrence by the House with an amendment in the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 2614.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us returns H.R. 2614, the Certified Development Companies Improvement Act to the Senate. The House originally passed H.R. 2614 last August by a voice vote. The resolution before us will accept one of the four Senate amendments added during Senate consideration of H.R. 2614 2 weeks ago. The amendment authorizes the 504 program for 3 more years, through fiscal 2003. The resolution rejects the other three Senate amendments. The three rejected amendments includes language that the House cannot accept. The first rejected amendment would transfer funds from the DELTA loan program and the guaranteed microloan program to the 7(a) loan program. While we understand the need for the transfer, the amendment violates the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations rules since the funds have dissimilar outlay rates. The second rejected amendment mandates that, if certain outstanding 504 license applications are not acted upon within 21 days, those licenses shall be deemed approved. While we agree that the delay at the SBA is unconscionable, Congress should not be in the position of, whenever executive branch inaction arises, stepping in to do their jobs for them. It sets an unhealthy precedent and opens a Pandora's box. The third rejected amendment changes certain eligibility standards for the HUBZone contracting program. Regardless of its merits, this amendment is best discussed as part of the larger reauthorization legislation. It has no bearing on H.R. 2614 and is best discussed with similar provisions in the reauthorization currently being negotiated with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the House version of H.R. 2614. It amends the Small Business Investment Act to make changes in the Small Business Administration's section 504 loan program without adding any unnecessary language or issues. The 504 program guarantees small business loans for construction and renovation and provides nearly $3 billion of financial assistance every year. It is an important program that needs our unencumbered support. H.R. 2614 makes five basic changes to the 504 program. It increases the maximum debenture size for section 504 loans from $750,000 to $1 million and the size of public policy debenture-backed loans from $1 million to $1.3 million. It adds women-owned businesses to the current list of businesses eligible for the larger public policy loans up to $1.3 million, continuing our efforts to increase assistance to women- owned businesses. It will reauthorize the fees for the program which keep the 504 program at a zero subsidy rate, covering all the costs resulting in no cost to the taxpayer. H.R. 2614 will also grant permanent status to the Preferred Certified Lender Program before it sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2000. Finally, to improve recovery rates on defaulting 504 loans, H.R. 2614 makes the Loan Liquidation Pilot Program a permanent program. Mr. Speaker, I again want to urge my colleagues to support the House amendment to H.R. 2614. It would mean a significant improvement in services to their small business constituents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, so I reserve my right to close.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I wish to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), for all his efforts; and I also want to thank very much the ranking Democratic member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), for her assistance and cooperation. It is a hallmark of our committee that we work in such a bipartisan way. This is solid legislation that we, we the small business owners of America, need to have in place. This resolution supports a clear House position and accepts a reasonable Senate amendment, and I ask all the Members to support it.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 533, the resolution just agreed to.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill put together by the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and in support of the McGovern amendment. The amendment increases the funding for Women's Business Centers program and the Women's Business Council located within the Small Business Administration. Women's Business Centers play a major roll in empowering women entrepreneurs with the tools necessary to succeed in their business. Ninety-three sites in 50 States and territories tailor their services to the communities they serve. Many Centers target low-income women. The Centers assist women in focusing their business plans through courses and workshops. They provide information on access to financing and mentor services. Women's Business Centers contribute to the success of thousands of entrepreneurs, enhancing their management capacity, and offering critical community infrastructure necessary for fledgling businesses to operate within. During the course of the 106th Congress, the Committee on Small Business sought more information about the Women's Business Center program as we reconsidered its reauthorization. It soon became clear that, while the program was expanding around the country to States without Centers, existing sites were experiencing obstacles to their own growth. Women's Business Centers are granted Federal funds through Small Business Administration's Women's Business Center program. As women continue to launch businesses at twice the national rate, it is critical that the Women's Business Centers program be able to meet the demand of this dynamic market segment. The seed money they receive from their Federal grants has helped over 50,000 women start or expand their businesses. Some sites, particularly those located in rural areas, have limited access to foundations, corporations, and banks, which provide the private funds to match our Federal funds. This funding is desperately needed so that especially these centers struggling to reach the thousands of women seeking assistance are not forced to close. Mr. Chairman, this amendment also adds funding to the Women's Business Council. The NWBC was created by Congress to serve as an independent source of advice and counsel to the President and Congress on issues of importance to women entrepreneurs. The Council has provided the women's business community with a seat at the policy- making table and has addressed cutting edge issues of access to capital that pose a challenge to women seeking to launch and grow their businesses. Mr. Chairman, I support both of these programs vital to women entrepreneurs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Hinchey amendment. Under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I have witnessed the results of cuts that have effectively removed nearly $300 million from the lower New York area veterans network. VERA is fundamentally flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's methodology, its implementation, and the VA's oversight of this new spending plan. Our veteran's network has the oldest veterans population, the highest number of veterans with spinal cord injuries, the highest number of veterans suffering from mental illness, the highest incidence of hepatitis C in its veterans population, and the highest number of homeless veterans. It is inconceivable and intolerable that the VA would continually reduce our regions funding. VISN 3 has required reserve funding for the last 3 years because our veterans hospitals keep running out of money. In this fiscal year, VISN 3 required $102 million in reserve funding. In the next fiscal year it expects to request even more. When will we realize that the VA should fund our hospitals properly the first time and leave reserve funds for emergencies? I beseech my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and make the investment in our veterans hospitals necessary to keep our promise to our veterans. The veterans of this Nation gave their best for us. Now we need to do our best for them.

Mrs. KELLY

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that the CBO has certified is budget and outlay neutral. This amendment increases funding for the Public Housing Operating Fund by $1 million. To offset the cost of the amendment, it reduces funding for the HUD Management and Administration Salaries and Expenses by the same amount. As a member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Development, I have worked in an oversight role for HUD for a number of years. In that time, I have witnessed a great deal of change at HUD. I can unequivocally state that HUD does an excellent job at public relations. Listen, if HUD dedicated the same energy toward ensuring a decent, safe, and sanitary home and suitable living environment for every American, I believe we would have the smallest of tasks before us today. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we have a long way to go to recognize those laudable goals. It is unfortunate, but today's HUD is plagued with problems that simply cannot be blamed on passive administrations. Countless reports of the GAO and the HUD Office of the Inspector General cite deep-rooted government waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and a general lack of oversight. For instance, the General Accounting Office recently reported that in 1998 HUD made nearly $1 billion in section 8 overpayments because the agency cannot validate the income eligibility of housing assistance applicants. This wasted money could have provided housing for some 150,000 more families. Another example is the HUD Office of the Inspector General, which has reported for years that HUD operations suffer from systematic management weaknesses. HUD's response has been the HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan, but the IG reports that the agency remains far from addressing the systematic management weaknesses. These problems demand action. Yet, instead of acting on recommendations of independent investigations, HUD has thrown good money after bad, writing their own reports and hiring consultants to write glowing reports about what a great job HUD is doing. Unfortunately, these reports do not magically fix HUD's deep-rooted problems. I have received from the HUD Inspector General's office a list of these reports by outside consultants on which HUD has spent well over a million dollars. Mr. Chairman, I include the following list for the Record: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Task Order Amount of Contract No. No. Contractor Name Date of Award Contract Purpose ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPC-21273.................... 5 Price Waterhouse Unknown Indefinite Responding to Coopers. Quantity audits and findings (the GTR is from Housing) OPC-21217.................... 4 Price Waterhouse 9/30/99 $1,000,000 FILA Audit Coopers. Response OPC-18542.................... 14 Price Waterhouse 10/30/98 126,984 Evaluate the Coopers. accomplishments of 7 critical projects of HUD 2020 OPC-21387.................... Basic Squire, Sanders 3/31/99 200,000 Legal Services & Dempsey. to assist in defense of claims asserted Purchase Order............... ............ Day, Berry & 5/26/98 48,000 Investigation of Howard. EEO complaint Purchase Order............... ............ Williams & 5/26/98 49,875 Investigation of Connolly. EEO complaint OPC-18531.................... 4 Ernst & Young... 9/21/99 146,962 Independent analysis of CB effectiveness OPC-18532.................... 8 Booz-Allen...... 9/26/97 37,576 2020 Technical Assistance OPC-18532.................... 9 Booz-Allen...... 12/18/97 412,724 2020 Assessment, includes subcontracts with Champey and Osborne OPC-18533.................... 4 Andersen 7/15/99 155,713 HUD Customer Consulting. Survey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Above is a listing of HUD initiated contracts that were intended to dispute OIG audit or investigative matters. A comprehensive listing would be difficult to compile. The procurement data system (1) has hundreds of vendors, (2) does not identify subcontractors, (3) is not linked to the HUDCAPS disbursement system, and (4) the tasks descriptions provide minimal detail. Also, the amount column is the obligation amount, actual payments would need to be verified with the payment system (HUDCAPS). We suspect that costs were greater for some contract items, but we are uncertain as to if and when these payments were made. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) has conducted several reviews of HUD activities at the specific direction of Congress. NAPA's contract activity with HUD has been a little over $1 million. NAPA's reviews of procurement and staff resources are two recent examples where HUD used favorable portions of these reports to dispute issues developed during OIG audits. Mr. Chairman, these reports were compiled by Price Waterhouse, Coopers, Booz Allen, Anderson Consulting, Ernst & Young, and others. While outside evaluations are helpful, my concern is that HUD directed their focus away from their problem areas or limited the scope of the consultants' report to such a point that they could not properly evaluate the program. For instance, Ernst & Young was paid nearly $150,000 last September to evaluate the effectiveness of the Community Builders program. Unfortunately, they were limited to a select 40 community builders, each chosen by HUD of the more than 800 in place. I ask, how can we see any value in such an investigation? We cannot allow such problems at HUD to continue. We have to send a strong message that the HUD mission is safe, clean, strong, and affordable housing and not a good public relations effort. My amendment is reasonable. We move $1 million from the Management and Administration Salaries and Expenses account to the Public Housing Operating Fund, where I am confident it will be spent on providing a suitable living environment for people dependent on public housing. It was my hope that the Public Housing and Operating Fund could have been funded at a higher level. With the budgetary constraints placed on my good friend from New York, the chairman of the VA-HUD subcommittee, the levels in this bill are admirable. I look forward to continuing our work to raise to fund further. Passage of this amendment certainly is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in favor of an amendment to send a clear message to HUD on the proper use of HUD funds. The waste, fraud, abuse, poor oversight, and mismanagement indicative of HUD must be properly addressed and denied no longer.

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