Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) knows, I share his concerns on this matter. I would agree that EPA's apparent decoupling of the section 126 petitions from the NOx SIP Call is causing major confusion to industry and State regulators alike, particularly in my State of West Virginia. I join him in his strong encouragement that EPA work with all parties involved in this situation to find a fair resolution, and I look forward to working with him and the chairman and EPA and the industries in this regard.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment. In this amendment, my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, proposes to give the resources needed for the U.S. Fire Administration to implement changes called for in a recent Blue Ribbon Panel report. The panel focused on the need to improve management activities, to appoint a Chief Operating Officer, and to establish a stronger mission statement. Mr. Chairman, FEMA director James Lee Witt and the Fire Administrator, Carrye Brown, both support the changes recommended by the panel. Indeed, these changes are already being implemented. Let me emphasize my very strong support for the activities of the Fire Administration. I know the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) shares my desire to provide the resources needed to implement the panel's report, and I look forward to working with him to do so as this process moves forward. However, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has characterized this offset as coming from EPA's administrative account. What has not been made clear is that this account also happens to contain almost all of EPA's programmatic funding. The cut could mean reductions in air and water protection, compliance assistance activities, pesticide registration, educational activities. As I said, this is EPA's programmatic account, and it will cut deeply, because EPA's funding is marginal in these activities. Those marginal cuts, while they may seem small, loom large when they get down to the programmatic level. EPA is already underfunded in these areas, and this cut could impact it adversely. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment. At the same time, I want to restate my support for FEMA, for the Fire Administration, and for our country's first responders, and to working with the gentleman as this process moves forward to try to get adequate funding in this very important program. I commend the gentleman for his efforts here, and reluctantly oppose his amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed, and I acknowledge that. The point is that the gentleman is operating at the margins of accounts that are underfunded already, so it has dramatic impacts, not only programmatic, but also employment impacts at this point. All of these accounts are underfunded in this whole bill. That is the principal purpose of opposing most of these amendments. We are operating on the margins. We need additional allocation. We need additional headroom in the caps. We need to do something with the budget resolution. These amendments are cutting accounts that cannot afford to be cut because they are already underfunded. While it is an attractive argument to point out that the gentleman's amendment only cuts a small percentage across the board in these accounts, and that is true, it has dramatic effects because these accounts are already at the margins and unacceptably underfunded. So, again, I hope that we get money in this bill as we move forward. I would certainly join the Chairman in working with the gentleman in ensuring that there are additional funds in this very worthy undertaking.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic, being from a rural area.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that would give everybody on the floor an opportunity to speak. If there would be no objection to that, I would agree to 4:00.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of worthy causes advanced here by Members today, Members wanting to increase funding in different accounts, recognizing that in most of those instances the committee wanted to raise the money in those accounts, but not being able to do so because of our skinny allocation. The gentleman from Colorado's amendment is another worthy amendment. State veterans homes are extremely important, and as he points out, the veterans population is aging, and so they will become increasingly important. So I want to first acknowledge the worthiness of the gentleman's amendment and its purpose. Let me first say that the committee recognized the importance of this program and increased the funding above the request; I believe doubled it. I think the gentleman indicated that, from $40 to $80 million. That is not enough. It is not last year's funding. Perhaps as the process goes forward, this will be one of those accounts as we get more money that we can plus up. But I must say, however worthy the cause is, the offsets are the worst I have seen today, proposing to offset, and the gentleman has reduced his offsets to two now. Offsetting the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board by $2 million is a huge cut. It is a 22 percent cut to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's budget. I had a letter last March from the chairman of this board, this investigation board, which investigates chemical accidents around the country, suggesting that under its current spending levels, that it probably would not be able to continue investigations through the end of the fiscal year. This board, as we need more money for State veterans homes, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board needs even more money to do its job. Cutting it 22 percent would be the absolutely wrong thing to do. This is an extremely important mission that the board fulfills. It is having difficulty fulfilling it under its current spending rate, and cutting it would be just disastrous and prevent it from being able to carry out its mission. We do not want to do that, and I am sure the gentleman from Colorado does not want to do that. The second offset the gentleman proposes is equally difficult. It is an offset to EPA's Inspector General account, a $5 million cut, which is a 12 percent cut to the Inspector General's account. Now, the Inspector General's office is the office that is responsible for investigating waste, fraud and abuse, which I am sure the gentleman is very much against in agencies. I am sure the gentleman wants inspector generals out there investigating the agencies to ensure that we do not have waste, fraud and abuse, and to ensure, which is the other mission of the Inspector General, that the laws and regulations that EPA is supposed to carry forward are carried forward properly. This is a 12 percent cut to the Inspector General's office. The Inspector General cannot stand a 12 percent cut in their budget. In summary, Mr. Chairman, while I support the objective of the gentleman's amendment, the offsets are really difficult and, in and of themselves, make the amendment unacceptable. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the chairman for his efforts on the service coordinator issue. I second the gentleman's comments. Our subcommittee has heard over and over about just how valuable the service coordinator committee program can be for elderly and disabled residents of public housing. The subcommittee intended that funds appropriated in the fiscal 1999 year for the resident opportunity and self-sufficiency program be used, among other purposes, to renew all expiring service coordinator grants. I share the chairman's concern about provisions of the recent notice of funds availability that could jeopardize those renewals. I am pleased that HUD has agreed to revise the notice in order to make sure that congressional intent is carried out. I look forward to working with the chairman and other members of the subcommittee to ensure that adequate funding continues to be provided to allow renewal of these service coordinator grants in future years.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the kind comments of the chairman. I want to compliment him on the way he has handled this bill from the very beginning of the year. He has done an excellent job, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. He is particularly capable and very responsive to the legitimate concerns of the minority. That certainly has been appreciated. I also want to join the chairman in expressing appreciation both to the majority and minority staffs, and certainly my permanent staff for the hard work they have done on this bill, without which it would be extremely difficult or actually impossible to move this legislation forward. Again, I appreciate the chairman's considerations. Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the Speaker and to both the majority and minority leadership for their consideration of my personal circumstances regarding the passing of my father immediately preceding the August recess. It was a courtesy which I and my family certainly appreciated. Dad was honored to serve his constituency in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is gestures like this that explain why he was so honored and why I too am honored to serve in this body. I would also like to extend thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his comments today, which were certainly appreciated, and for his graciously supporting my request to postpone consideration of this bill. Mr. Chairman, this is the first year for both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and myself in our respective roles as chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies bill, and I have been impressed by the chairman's capability and by the cooperation which he and his very able staff have extended to the minority. I am pleased to have been a part of that process, even as I remain concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the result that we have achieved to this point. The bill before us has enough serious shortcomings that it is now under a veto threat from the President. However, I know the chairman shares many of my concerns and is committed to addressing these concerns as the bill moves forward, and I look forward to working with him in that regard. Unfortunately, the bill provides inadequate funding levels in most major areas. Let me make clear, however, that I do not attribute these shortcomings to the chairman of the subcommittee. Regrettably, he was faced with a situation not of his own making. He has tried to do the best he could with the hand that he was dealt. The basic problem is that the majority leadership instructed the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies to produce a bill that cuts total spending below this year's level. As a result, the bill now before us provides an increase in veterans medical care but cuts most other agencies and programs, by small amounts in some cases and by large amounts in others. Overall, including last year's emergency funding, the bill's total for fiscal year 2000 is about $3 billion below fiscal year 1999; $1 billion for emergency funding is excluded. And note that these figures represent reductions in actual dollar amounts, before any adjustment for inflation or otherwise. In terms of purchasing power, the cuts are even larger. How or why these limits were decided, I do not know. But I do know the damage that would be caused if this bill is not substantially changed as the process moves forward. Let me begin with NASA, because that agency is slated for some of the largest cuts. Overall, the bill reduces the budget for NASA by $1 billion below current year spending. In short, these cuts seriously jeopardize our Nation's leadership in exploration and development of space. The bill makes an 11 percent cut in space science, the area that funds the planetary probes and space-based astronomical observatories that have generated so much interest and excitement over the past several years. It makes a 20 percent reduction in earth sciences. And in both areas the cuts are heavily targeted to planning for future missions and to development of the next generation of technology, which is fundamentally important to basic research. Over the past 5 years, NASA's budget has already been reduced by almost $1 billion. Simply put, the NASA budget should not be reduced any further. Our space programs advance human knowledge, foster development with wide-ranging uses, generate public interest in science, especially among our young people, and help us better understand what is happening here on Earth with our weather, our climate, and our environment. These cuts are not what our constituencies want, nor are they in the national interest. The second major area of concern about this bill is housing. I am pleased the chairman was able to provide for the renewal of all expiring section 8 housing contracts. However, HUD fares relatively poorly in many other areas and needs additional funding in the section 8 area. We have worsening shortages of affordable housing in many parts of the country as the economic boom drives up rents beyond the reach of low-wage workers. HUD reports that more than 5 million very low-income families are spending more than half of their income for rent but are, at the same time, receiving no federal housing assistance whatsoever. The cuts in this bill would make that problem worse. Public housing would be particularly hard hit: under the bill, basic funding for local housing authorities is cut $515 million below the fiscal 1999 level. Public housing exists throughout the country in small and medium-sized cities as well as large ones. It provides homes for more than 3 million people, more than 1 million of whom are age 62 or older. The cuts in this bill will mean reduced staff, more deferred maintenance and a growing backlog of capital needs. They threaten to make the good housing worse while hampering efforts to fix the bad. Another problem is the lack of any funding for incremental housing assistance vouchers. Last year, the VA-HUD bill funded 50,000 new housing vouchers, targeted specifically to helping families make the transition from welfare to work. The number of new vouchers funded by this bill is zero. I have similar concerns about the large and small cuts in a wide range of other HUD housing programs; CDBG, homeless assistance grants, housing for people with AIDS, brownfields redevelopment, and lead paint hazard abatement, to name a few examples. I think it is unfortunate the bill rejects every one of the administration's proposals to spur development in areas left behind in the economic boom. Turning to veterans, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the committee found a way to provide a $1.7 billion increase for veterans medical care. Although that amount falls short of the $3 billion increase that veterans' groups say is needed to keep up with the needs of war veterans, $1.7 billion is a substantial improvement. However, medical care is not the only area of concern at the VA. The bill reduces the construction accounts by more than 50 percent below fiscal year 1999. Failing to update and maintain aging hospitals and other veterans facilities will only lead to more problems later. Moving on to EPA, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the committee provided a $106 million increase above the administration's request. Unfortunately, that still leaves the agency $278 million below this year's level. Specific programs that will suffer as a result of this cut include the Clean Water Action Plan and the program of pesticide reregistration mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should mention the bill's complete elimination of the Americorps program. This was not a choice that our subcommittee made, but rather one that was imposed at a later stage. Fundamentally, AmeriCorps gives young people an opportunity to do community service in exchange for a very modest stipend and help in financing their future education, which is just the sort of thing we want our young people to be doing. Can we really no longer afford the $400 or $500 million needed to continue this worthwhile effort? I might better understand all of the cuts made by this bill if we were in a time of fiscal crisis, Mr. Chairman. But we are not. Rather, we are in a period of unprecedented prosperity. The federal budget deficit has declined steadily every year since 1992, and last year it turned into a surplus for the first time in 3 decades. Every projection shows that surplus continuing to grow. Yet we are told by the majority leadership that we do not even have enough money to continue many programs in the VA-HUD bill at the current year's level. I find that incredible. If we cannot adequately meet the needs of veterans' programs, affordable housing, and scientific research during these prosperous times, then when can we? Even more discouraging is the fact that the majority's budget plans call for this situation not only to continue year after year, but to actually get steadily worse. And here, of course, I am not referring to the majority on this committee but rather to the majority leadership of the House. The leadership's budget resolution calls for total appropriations for domestic programs in fiscal year 2001 to be less than those in fiscal year 2000. By fiscal year 2004, the resolution calls for domestic appropriations to have fallen by more than 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. Make no mistake about it, that is what pays for the nearly $800 billion tax cut that was passed by the Congress last month. The vision for the future presented by that budget plan is that every year we do a little less; that every year our public housing gets a little more dilapidated; that every year we fund a little less basic science research; that every year the standard of medical care for our veterans goes down a bit; that every year the backlog of sewage treatment and safe drinking water needs gets a little bigger. And in the view of the majority's budget plan, all this is acceptable because it allows a huge tax cut bill to be enacted. This steady decline in public services is not my vision for the future, nor do I think it is our constituents' vision for the future or, indeed, the vision of many of my colleagues in this Chamber. However, that is the path that this Congress appears to be headed down. And if this bill is not fixed before it is presented to the White House, we will have taken another big step down that path of decline. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no disagreement with the gentleman's objective of adding funds for incremental Section 8 housing assistance vouchers in fiscal year 2000. Quite the contrary. I support this objective and will do all I can to bring it about by the time this bill becomes law. These vouchers are badly needed. HUD's latest housing needs report tells us that there are more than 5 million very low income families paying more than half their income for rent or living in seriously substandard housing and yet receiving no federal housing assistance. Last year's VA-HUD bill provided funds for 50,000 additional housing vouchers to help make a small dent in this backlog of needs. I think it is unfortunate the bill now before us is unable to provide any funds for new vouchers. I also support the gentleman's effort to add funds to public housing operating subsidies. I think that there is widespread agreement that additional funding is needed to allow this housing to be maintained in decent conditions. However, I part company with the gentleman and his good intentions when he proposes to cut the appropriation for the space station. We have already had a lengthy debate about the space station in connection with the Roemer amendment, and I will not repeat all my arguments again now. Let me simply say the station is an important part of a program that will offer valuable scientific and technological benefits. Perhaps even more to the point, Congress has repeatedly voted to proceed with this project; and, if the voice vote we heard today is any indication, is still doing so. The space station is now coming to fruition, with the first two components on orbit in the next awaiting launch. We should stand by our earlier decisions and let the program proceed, rather than jeopardizing investments already made by the United States and its international partners. The $305 million cut proposed by the gentleman certainly would hamper progress on the space station. It would disrupt the current assembly schedule, raise costs in the long run, of course, and delay the point at which the station is permanently occupied and scientific experiments begin. But more fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, I reject the notion that we have to choose between science and housing. I think we can and must do an adequate job on both fronts, and on many others as well. The reason that housing is underfunded in this bill is not because the NASA budget is crowding it out. Rather, this bill cuts the NASA budget by $1 billion below the prior year's level. The NASA budget. It is cut by $1 billion in this bill below last year. A cut roughly comparable in dollar terms and larger in percentage terms than the cut in the HUD's budget, as bad as the cut is in the HUD budget. So we must oppose any further cuts to NASA even if done in order to restore some cuts in housing, just as I would oppose any further cuts in housing to restore cuts in NASA. The proper solution here is not cutting one underfunded program to take care of another, but seeking to ensure that this bill has enough funding available to address needs in all the programs it covers. An unrealistic budget resolution that was passed by a majority of this House, promoted and pushed by the majority leadership, pits advocates for good programs against each other. The budget extremists win when their victims start competing against one another. The real solution here is to openly acknowledge that we need to raise these budget caps, as we have acknowledged de facto by robbing other subcommittees to pump up the funding in the ones that are being brought to the floor so that the subcommittee, particularly Labor-HHS that is left behind, is woefully underfunded. That is an implicit, de facto acknowledgment that we have raised the caps. The way to solve this problem is to acknowledge it publicly and get about doing it and getting adequate funding in these programs and not to proceed to assume surpluses that do not exist with large tax cuts, as this House passed a month or so ago. We cannot pit tax cuts against domestic discretionary programs that are woefully underfunded and at the same time allow the budget extremists to allow these programs, these domestic discretionary programs that so desperately need funding that prove themselves that have widespread support, as we hear on the floor, to start trying to cannibalize each other. That is a process that I regret. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully oppose the amendment but look forward to working with the gentleman to try to get additional funding in this bill so that we can fund adequately the program that he is fighting for so hard and so effectively.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Let me first say that I recognize the good intentions of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). I would agree with him that NASA science, aeronautics and technology account is seriously underfunded and will need a major influx of resources between now and the time it is sent to the White House. As I have said previously, I believe we should be increasing NASA's budget, not determining where it should be cut. Nevertheless, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment for the same reasons that I am opposing most of the NASA and NSF related amendments. First, this kind of amendment, if passed, could give the false impression that this part of the NASA budget is now fixed. Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. The science, aeronautics, and technology allocation in this bill is $678 million below the current year appropriation. This amendment is something of a drop in the bucket. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment due to the nature of the offsets which the gentleman has identified. Even without this amendment, the reductions to EPA already recommended by the Committee on Appropriations will reduce by $194 million the agency's operating programs which are the backbone of its environmental protection efforts, result in 246 fewer communities receiving grants under the Clean Air Partnership Fund to help them determine the best ways to clean their air and improve the health of their citizens, and lead to 25 fewer communities receiving funds to ensure safe and pure water. If those cuts that are already in the bill that I just enumerated are not enough, the gentleman's amendment would require an additional $100 million reduction to EPA programs. The proposed amendment, if adopted, would lead to further reductions in Superfund to $15 million, which would mean the completion of fewer Superfund toxic waste sites. It would result in a further reduction to the clean water efforts, meaning that the 180 million Americans who visit the coast every year may experience more beach closures from sewage spills and pollution runoff. Twenty-eight million Americans whose jobs are supported by coastal waters could be impacted by increased fish contamination and low dissolved oxygen levels. A further reduction to air programs, which would mean that additional tons of air toxics will adversely affect the health of our most vulnerable populations. The gentleman's amendment would mean a further reduction to environmental enforcement meaning that fewer inspections and investigations would be conducted. The gentleman's amendment would result in cuts in funding for the agency's 9 compliance assistance centers, jeopardizing the support that thousands of facilities now receive. Finally, Mr. Chairman, a reduction to the agency's important work would be affected if the gentleman's amendment were adopted, important work on pesticides safety, when that would mean that the agency could not complete the work Congress instructed it to do in the recent Food Safety Act. Hundreds of pesticide tolerances would not be reassessed. Foods with unacceptable levels of pesticide would go undetected and potentially put thousands of Americans at risk for cancer and birth defects. Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I would oppose the gentleman's amendment and would ask that my colleagues join me in defeating it.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just rise to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment. I wish it were in order, and I wish the Chair would rule it in order because it joins better than any other amendment or joins better than any other amendment I have heard the issue that is before us in the Congress and the Nation at large, and that is, as my colleagues know, how are we going to deal with this surplus; tax cuts, or are we going to fund veterans, homeless, education, health care? I commend the gentleman for successfully doing that, I am afraid the amendment is not going to be in order, but I think this issue that it raises is very important and is the issue as we move forward policy in the next year.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).