Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am in no way in opposition to this account being funded at the amount designated in the amendment, $150 million, however, there is a better place to do that; and we will certainly, at that time, look as favorably as we can upon the request. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. If the gentleman will just answer the question. Does the first paragraph say, that to obligate amounts under here, that ``none of the funds made available may be expended in excess of the authorization in section 202.''?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I am, in an ongoing discussion.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their leadership on this issue. This amendment is less about a desire in this body of getting resources to fire fighters than it is about the scarcity about the resources that we have to appropriate here. As the chairman indicated, we need a larger allocation to do justice to this amendment. We need more money to do justice to this amendment. We hope as this process moves forward, it will be available. It will be very difficult in the context of the tax cut we had earlier in the year. We are going to work hard to honor both gentlemen's request here as it moves forward. I will support the chairman in that process.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That would have straight-out eliminated the station program. I understand why the gentleman did that. It has been defeated on this floor a number of times and the body has spoken pretty overwhelmingly with regard to that issue. I frankly do not quite understand this amendment, and that is why I want to engage the gentleman in a discussion of it at the front of this overall debate. I have the amendment here before me and it says, ``None of the funds made available in this act may be used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to obligate amounts for International Space Station in contravention of cost limitations established in section 202 of the 2000 authorization for NASA.'' Correct?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rise and compliment the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for this amendment. It brings to the attention of the body the fact that in this bill this account, the Corporation for National and Community Service, was not funded. It also gives us an opportunity to express our support for it. The chairman, I know, is very supportive of this program and has in the past taken the lead in making sure it was restored in conference. The simple fact is, and I want to assure the gentlewoman for the chairman, that there was an outlay problem in this bill. The Senate has more outlays than we do, $300 million. We have fewer outlays than the Senate, so this program was not funded, because it was known that it would be supported in conference. I would like to say that the chairman, as I stated earlier, has taken the lead in restoring this in the past; and I have all the confidence in the world that he will in the future. He is extremely supportive of community service. The corporation funds some wonderful programs; AmeriCorps, Points of Light, it funds at $10 million; Youth Life foundation, it funds at $1.5 million; America's Promise, it funds at $7.5 million; Communities in Schools, $5 million; and Boys and Girls Clubs at $2.5 million. These are very worthwhile programs targeted to our youth principally, and they certainly merit our support and the funding. However, more funding certainly could be used in these areas. This program is an excellent program for focusing in on our youth and funding worthwhile programs that are working to ensure that we support organizations that get them off on the right foot.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring this debate back to where it started. We were in the midst of a very important debate on drug elimination grants. I rise in support of the Kaptur amendment and want to emphasize how important this program has been. This program provides resources for public housing authorities to fight crime and drug use, an incredibly targeted and flexible program for that purpose. Many will say that that is not the proper role of public housing authorities. And while this may be true in the ideal world, the practical experience shows that local law enforcement authorities are not always up to the job. We know that housing authorities have crime problems that are indigenous, that are rooted, and we need programs which focus on that and go to those roots. Why do we propose reducing funds that they receive to fight crime, to hire law enforcement, to construct fences, to remove debris from alleys and to help residents break drug addiction? If we have problems with how some of the funding has been used, then we should address the inappropriate use of the program. Eliminating the entire program is not the answer. We really should be adequately funding drug elimination grants. This amendment, the Kaptur amendment, is an excellent start. By supporting this amendment, I do not want to give the impression that the homeownership initiative she seeks to reduce is unworthy. It is not unworthy. It is a good proposal and should be considered. It is a new start, it is a new initiative, it is the President's. It has not gone through the authorizing process per se, but localities are already permitted to undertake downpayment assistance programs with funds that they receive through the normal HOME program allotment process. This is simply a case of priorities. Drug use in public housing is a problem so great that it merits priority attention. The drug elimination grants program merits support. I remember when Secretary Martinez appeared before our committee, he did not say, or I do not remember him saying, that this program was a bad program, the drug elimination program. He did not say that there was not the problem in housing authorities. What he said, as I remember it, was that this is not the right jurisdiction, this is not the proper place to fund this program, maybe it should be in the Justice Department. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the subcommittee that funds the Justice Department. The Justice Department says that they are not into prevention programs, they are into solving crimes. So they say that Justice is not the proper place to fund drug elimination grant programs. So this bill is where the program is. This is where the program has been funded. This is where the program has been successful, however many hiccups it has had. The problem still remains. We hope that the program has been successful so that the problem is on a downward trend line. But it still remains, the program is still viable, and the program should be funded. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment and commend her for her efforts in this area.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is asking. He is asking is there a net increase or decrease of the funds out of which the drug elimination grants could be funded last year, as compared to this year.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There is a net decrease of $47 million as I compute it. The drug elimination program was funded at $310 million in 2001, and eliminated this year. $263 million was added to the Public Housing Operating Fund, and that resulted in a net decrease, or a net cut. And drug elimination grants were authorized to be activities to be funded out of the public housing operations up to $110 million. So the overall net cut is $47 million.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an opportunity to vote on this critical amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will make in order the amendment offered at the Committee on Appropriations by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and also at the Committee on Rules. The amendment adds $1 billion for veterans medical care, for critical housing programs, and to partially restore funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, some of the issues that have been spoken to here during the debate on the rule. The money would come from paring back the recently enacted tax cut in the top tax bracket from 38.6 percent to 39.1 percent. That is one-half of 1 percent from the richest Americans to help some of the most vulnerable Americans and communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is an open rule that allows all amendments provided for under the House rules to be offered. It also waives all points of order against provisions included in the committee-passed bill. Of particular importance and interest, it waives points of order against a provision offered in full committee by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). This provision would provide $1.3 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency designated as emergency funding. We all know about the disaster that Tropical Storm Allison brought to Texas and the Gulf Coast. Other States, Mr. Speaker, have also recently experienced federally declared disasters. My own State of West Virginia is struggling to recover from recent flooding. Twenty-two counties have been included in the Federal disaster declaration and a recent estimate for West Virginia has placed the damage cost in excess of $175 million. We know that the storm season is just beginning, and FEMA has told us that they will need additional funding. We need to provide it to ensure that communities that suffer disasters are able to receive Federal assistance in a timely manner. While we in the minority would have preferred providing this funding in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental bill that was recently considered, the administration blocked that effort. However, in the statement of administration policy with regard to this bill, on the topic of emergency funding, they have indicated that they do not object now to the House including the emergency funding in this bill for fiscal year 2002. I am pleased that the Committee on Rules protected this provision. I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not grant a waiver making in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations. His amendment would have provided $1 billion in additional resources to adequately fund many of the accounts in this bill that are admittedly underfunded. As an offset, the amendment would have decreased the recently enacted reduction in the highest marginal tax rate by just .5 percent. While I might consider this a minor change, for those who supported the tax cut, it has the implication of shifting millions of dollars from the highest-income citizens in our land to benefit some of the neediest citizens and neediest communities in our land. Because this amendment was not made in order, I support efforts to defeat the previous question so that the rule can be amended to permit the Obey amendment to be considered by the House.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking our excellent chairman, the gentleman from New York, for the work that he has done in crafting this legislation, the many hours that he has spent involved in it. Throughout the development of the bill, he and his staff have been accessible; and they have made every effort to accommodate the concerns that the minority have presented to them. As I know he will tell you, we have not seen eye to eye on nearly all the issues in this bill. But the communication necessary for a cooperative effort has occurred and that is certainly very much appreciated. The departments and agencies that are funded in this bill all deserve adequate funding, but the allocation that we have been given simply does not make that possible. Congress has been operating under unrealistic budget constraints fashioned for the purpose of justifying a huge tax cut. Many concerns were raised during the consideration of that tax cut, most importantly the concern of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. While Members from both parties professed that these funds were sacred, as we await the Congressional Budget Office's mid-term reestimates of the government finances, including projections for fiscal year 2002, which are due out in mid-August, it is becoming clear that the tax cut might well invade the Medicare surplus. This is exactly what Democrats were concerned about. This is not fair to our seniors, and it is not good fiscal policy. It is that same tax cut that is forcing the Committee on Appropriations to make do with fewer resources than are needed. This has resulted in an inadequate allocation to this subcommittee. This has forced the gentleman from New York to engage in a balancing act. While he has been able to do many good things, he has by necessity had to underfund some important accounts. First, let me mention two specific accounts where the gentleman from New York has markedly improved upon the administration's request. The National Science Foundation is provided $4.84 billion, an increase of $414 million over last year. This represents a 9 percent increase rather than the 1.2 percent increase that the President proposed. NASA, an account that has been flat funded for the past several years, is in need of funding increases. NASA would receive an increase of $641 million over last year's funding for a total budget of $14.9 billion. Importantly, the bill and report also begin the process of addressing the cost issues associated with the International Space Station. It provides $275 million toward the Crew Return Vehicle, a vital station component that President Bush would eliminate. This funding is conditioned on NASA reporting back to this committee its plan to address the Space Station cost overrun issue. In addition, NASA is charged with ensuring that research is not compromised in the solution. To underscore the point that research continues to be a principal justification for the Space Station, the chairman's mark includes an additional $35 million for Space Station research. Further, the chairman's amendment includes an amendment that I proposed to the chairman that will add an additional $25 million. Once again, this bill reflects the strong support that science enjoys among the members of this subcommittee. But ensuring adequate resources for science is only one of the many important responsibilities that needs to be fulfilled by this legislation. The funding levels for several of the accounts are clearly inadequate. For example, to his credit, the chairman has increased discretionary funding to the Veterans' Administration by $1.6 billion over last year's level. While this is a large increase, it falls significantly short of the medical care need as outlined most recently by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the authorizing committee. Programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development are cut and several receive no funding at all. These include public housing capital funds, drug elimination grants, rural housing and economic development, empowerment zones, and shelter-plus-care homeless renewals. The Corporation for National and Community Service is zero-funded and the Community Development Financial Institutions fund is sharply reduced from last year. I know that the gentleman from New York shares my concern about most of these accounts and that he would provide more resources to them if he could. Today, amendments will be offered addressing some of the problems in the bill. However, even if adopted they will not remedy all the funding shortfalls in this legislation. Resources are simply not available to address the larger issues. We need more money. From veterans, to housing, to water and sewer needs and even science, more needs to be done, Mr. Chairman. I hope that as this process moves forward, additional resources will be made available allowing us to properly fund the many needy, deserving programs in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) who is a very effective, hardworking member of our subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a distinguished and hardworking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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 going to take to finish this bill. I would not expect to be able to be finished by 2 o'clock tomorrow.

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