Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan has spent a considerable amount of time on this issue during the last 3 years, beginning with the conference report on the 1999 VA-HUD appropriation bill. The gentleman mentions today the necessity for clarity with regard to this issue, and suggests that there is a certain lack of clarity. I would like to speak to that issue, because I respectfully disagree that there is anything unclear about the issue or about the agreement associated with the issue that was achieved in the context of the 1999 VA-HUD conference. In that conference it was made clear, to put it in simple turns, that the EPA or the United States Government could not, would not, under the terms of that conference report, and they acknowledged that they would not if there was nothing in the conference report, try to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to its being ratified by the United States Senate, meaning that they would not engage in a rule-making proceeding to establish standards for American industry out of any requirement, any agreement, flowing out of the Kyoto Protocol. In that agreement, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan was very much a part of that negotiation. Subsequent to that, he has worked in the report language to modify that original report understanding. His modifications, unfortunately, would muddy the original agreement and would breach the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency, or any agency of the United States Government, to engage in international conferences and discuss this topic, this global warming topic, in a very general way or in a specific way. Now, that does muddy the water, because that was never intended. We do not want to gag the Environmental Protection Agency. We do not want to prevent it from engaging developing economies around the world and encouraging them to incorporate increasingly strict emissions standards in their countries as their economies develop. We want to encourage them to do that. Under the gentleman's language, unfortunately, he challenges the ability of any government agency to engage in those agreements. That is why the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts is clear, because it returns the understanding as it is set forth in the 1999 bill and report and eliminates all of the confusion created by the gentleman from Michigan's efforts subsequent to that time. We want to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing, from engaging in any rule-making activity under Kyoto, and they do not want to do it anyway. We want them also to engage the world in this topic, so that the world can improve its environmental standards.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indian (Mr. Roemer) for the purpose only of speaking on his amendment No. 8.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), has stated the agreement as we understand it. All amendments that are going to be in order tomorrow are contained in the unanimous consent agreement and associated with each amendment is a time certain for debate. We will have no objection to the unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of serving as ranking member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies under the service of our very distinguished and able chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for a year, and this is my second year. It has been a distinct pleasure to serve with the chairman and serve under the chairman as he has processed these bills, and as I said in my opening remarks, he has been extremely fair and responsive to the minority as we have worked through them. One of the areas of the bill that I have been very impressed about his support for is the area of the bill that we now are debating, which we are debating, the HUD section. He has been a real advocate on the committee, and exercised his leadership role to the advantage of public housing and all the programs that this amendment really speaks to. I have to conclude from that that the chairman overall, and not speaking specifically about any particular provision, supports this idea of funding these programs that we were not able to fund at the President's request. The other gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), I am extremely impressed with the amendment he has come up with here. He has not only expressed his concern for our level of funding, an inadequate level of funding for housing for the elderly, for housing for the disabled, for homeless assistance grants. He has not only expressed his concern with it and come up with dollar increases for it, but he has done what many amendments, including my amendment, did not do tonight: He has come up with the funding for it. It is an excellent source of funding. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) is to be commended for his ingenuity here. He has taken a piece of legislation that we have passed on the House floor, H.R. 1776, the American Home Ownership and Economic Opportunity Act, and taken provisions out of that to fund this bill, to find $114 million in the first year. What is significant about that? What is significant about it is that the House has already expressed its attitude about the provisions of this legislation. We passed this act in the House on April 6 of this year by a vote of 417 to 8, so the House has already expressed its will on the authorizing provisions that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) is offering to fund the increases in these worthy housing programs that I support and I have to imagine the majority supports. I want to commend the gentleman for that and speak in particular favor of it, because all that has to happen for us to have the increase in housing for the elderly up to the President's request of $779 million, all that has to happen to increase funding for Section 8-11 housing for the disabled up to the President's request to $210 million, and to increase homeless assistance grants, which is desperately needed, by $20 million, would be for the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) to release his point of order on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest if that were to occur and we had no other objection raised we would be affirming, if you will, a vote that has already occurred in the House, as I say, on April 6. With an overwhelming majority 417 to 8, the Members of this body approved the funding mechanisms that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) is suggesting to fund this, if the gentleman from South Carolina would release his point of order. If he did that, we would be funding these accounts, authorizing the provisions in the appropriation bill, doing what the House wanted to do with the American Home Ownership and Economic Development Act, do what the National Association of Realtors is asking us to do, to authorize these provisions, and at the same time increasing funding to the President's request in some cases, and in some cases, like the homeless, providing $20 million more to programs that are extremely worthy. I would ask the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) if he would release his point of order and we could move forward and, perhaps on a real bipartisan basis, approve the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) to fund these projects.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that the gentleman has a valid point of order. We appreciate the opportunity to debate the issue here, and again we recognize the validity of the point of order.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the increases in my amendment are fairly modest. Most programs would still be smaller than they were 6 years ago after adjustment for inflation. Indeed, several, such as housing for the elderly and the disabled, and homeless assistance, would remain below where they were 6 years ago in actual dollar amounts with no adjustment for inflation or for anything else. There are very real needs for modest expansion of housing and community development programs. We can and should do better than the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies had the resources to do in this bill. I very much hope we will be able to do better by the time this bill reaches the President's desk, and I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) shares that hope as well.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to cite a statistic that I actually did cite in my remarks to bolster the gentleman's argument, that in this robust economy, that the housing conditions in the HUD report recently completed tells us that there are 5.4 million very low income households with worst case scenarios, they are called worst case households, that is households with incomes below 50 percent of the local medium who are paying more than half of their incomes for housing needs and receiving no assistance whatsoever. A great shortfall in the Section 8 vouchers. There is a great need out there, as the gentleman is describing, and this amendment, if we get the money, eventually, hopefully we can, the budget resolution that was passed by the majority falls far short of that that would be adequate to meet these basic housing needs. So at the end of the day, we hope that that money is available. However, as of this point in time, the budget resolution supported by the majority which supports tax reductions for high-income individuals and no support for those who are the most neediest in our society for the most fundamental need, which is housing, that this Nation should be providing, rather than considering the tax cuts. The priorities of the budget resolution are simply upside down when they provide for tax cuts for wealthy Americans and do not provide resources for the most needy in our society.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly discuss the amendments that the chairman proposes to merge here. I want to begin by expressing my agreement with the premise of these amendments that the Veterans Medical Research account and the State Grants Account for extended care facilities are both underfunded. Two of the amendments in this unanimous consent request, those of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), would together increase the VA Medical Research Account by $30 million. As I said before, VA research has been widely praised for its quality and medical advances. Indeed, this Congress has clearly demonstrated its interest in medical research, specifically in the National Institutes of Health, which received a $2.2 billion increase last year, an increase of over 14 percent. We should be doing the same for VA medical research. And although these amendments do not get us to that point, they are a good start. In addition, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) would increase the State Grant Account for the construction of extended care facilities by $30 million, for a total of $90 million, the same level as was enacted for Fiscal Year 2000. The need for extended care facilities is great, and this increase will help meet that need. All that being said, I do have concerns regarding the offsets of these amendments. One offset would take $25 million from NASA's Human Space Flight Account. It is a small cut relatively, but I am a bit apprehensive about making any cuts to this account, particularly at a time when we are literally months away from establishing a permanent human presence in the Space Station. This account also funds the Space Shuttle Program, and reductions could either force delays or cuts in the mission manifest or, even worse, force cuts to important shuttle safety upgrades planned by NASA. The other NASA offset is also somewhat distressing. It would take $30 million from NASA's Science Aeronautics and Technology Account. This account funds almost all of NASA's activities other than the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, such activities as space science, aeronautics, earth science and NASA's academic programs. This account was also the only NASA account in this bill to receive less than the President's request. Mr. Chairman, NASA's budget has been cut for years and this amendment cuts an already anemic account. Finally, the last of these amendments would take $5 million from EPA's operating programs account, which includes just about all the agency's activities other than science research and Superfund. Although this is a very small cut, the relevant account is already 10 percent below the President's request. All that being said, I supported the gentleman's unanimous-consent request and the acceptance of the underlying amendments. I do look forward to working with the chairman and the other body in conference to restore the NASA and EPA funding as we move forward.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think the authorizing committee has been invited to bring that legislation to the floor.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine this amendment being supported on a bipartisan basis. The fixes that we need to HUD were contained in the Mollohan amendment, to increase funding for incremental Section 8 vouchers, for public housing capital fund, for the public housing operating assistance, for Native American housing block grants, for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, for community development block grants, all programs that were cut significantly in this bill, as was the very account that the gentlewoman proposes to cut another $1 million out of, the S&E account. Obviously it takes money, it takes people to administer these programs. The request from the President for the FTEs, that is, the number of people to work at HUD to help people with housing problems, to administer all of these programs that are short-sheeted in this bill, the President's request was for 9,300 FTEs. This bill funds 9,100, already a significant cut. The President requested $1.095 billion for the S&E account, the account that the gentlewoman takes $1 million out of. This bill appropriated $90 million less than the President's request already, or an 8 percent cut the S&E account took from the President's request in this bill. We can ill afford to take more money out of the S&E account. If we have administrative challenges at HUD, the way to address them is not by further cutting the account from what this bill already cuts but to appropriate not only the programmatic requests at the requested level but also the S&E account, the people who administer, who are out there delivering the services to people. We cannot continue to cut the programmatic side and the S&E side and deliver adequately the housing needs of the most needy in our society. We cannot continue to do that. This is really, let us face it, a symbolic cut, a symbolic amendment, just taking a jab at HUD by taking another jab at the civil servants who work hard every day in every way to deliver these needed services to people who are the most needy in our society. No, I cannot imagine this amendment being supported on a bipartisan basis because I think we understand the motives behind it.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill unfortunately represents a series of missed opportunities, and housing is one of the areas in which those missed opportunities are most severe. The amendment I am offering proposes to alleviate some of the most serious shortfalls by adding just over $1.8 billion to the HUD title of the bill. In saying the bill falls short of what is needed, I mean no criticism of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and others involved in putting this bill together. They did the very best they could with the resources available to them. Indeed, the chairman and his staff have included some useful and innovative provisions that will do real good, such as the language allowing increases in the payment standard for Section 8 housing vouchers in areas with tight rental markets and high rents. The basic problem for this bill is simply the majority party's budget plan provides insufficient resources for overall domestic appropriations, mainly in order to focus on an agenda of tax cuts targeted to the high end of the income scale. My amendment contains no offsets. There really are not places in this bill with excess funding that could be diverted to other purposes. I understand my amendment is subject to a point of order, and I will withdraw it at the appropriate time. My purpose in offering the amendment is simply to encourage a debate about the levels of funding that are necessary and appropriate for housing programs. Housing is an area where national needs seem to be more acute, despite the booming economy. Yes, more people have jobs than before and incomes are rising, but in many areas rents are rising faster than incomes. People working at modest wages are often finding it harder and harder to keep a roof over their family's heads. HUD's latest report on housing conditions tells us that there are 5.4 million very low-income households with worst case housing needs; that is, households with incomes below 50 percent of the local median who are paying more than half of their income for rent and receiving no housing assistance whatsoever. The fastest growing segment of that group is people working full time. According to a recent survey of six cities by the Conference of Mayors, waiting times to get in public housing average 19 months in most cities. Waiting times for Section 8 vouchers averages 32 months. Officials in those cities estimate that their housing assistance programs serve just 27 percent of eligible households. Considering that we are in a period of strong economic growth and that the Federal budget is in the best shape it has been for decades, you might think we would be taking steps to deal with these housing problems. But, unfortunately, the bill before us takes a step backward in funding for housing and community development. Some of our colleagues may disagree and insist that the bill really improves several billions of dollars of spending increases for HUD. Those increases are largely illusionary, Mr. Chairman. They reflect the fact that the subcommittee found less unused budget authority to rescind this year than last, and that old, long-term Section 8 housing assistance contracts have been expiring and now require new appropriations just to continue the old levels of assistance. When you remove those accounting factors, you find that essentially all HUD programs in this bill are either flat or decreased a bit. Now, that makes no sense. For example, the bill provides funds for about 100,000 additional housing assistance vouchers as proposed by the administration to try to make at least a small reduction in the number of families with worst case housing needs. That is what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman. It provides funds for about 100,000 additional housing assistance vouchers. Vouchers alone, however, are not enough. There is also a need for programs to help stimulate production of low-income housing. Ultimately, we may need some new programs in that area. As an interim step, my amendment puts a bit more money into those housing production programs that are in place, the home block grant for local governments, the Section 202 and Section 811 programs that finance development of housing for low income elderly and disabled people, and the Native American Housing Block Grant, just for example. We should also remember the key role played by public housing. My amendment adds a bit for public housing capital grants to help chip away at the $22 billion backlog in public housing modernization needs, and gives operating grants a 4 percent increase to help cover rising utility and payroll costs. It provides a $100 million increase for Community Development Block Grants, instead of the $295 million decrease in the bill. The amendment also funds the administration's APIC initiative, as recently agreed to by President Clinton and Speaker Hastert. Unfortunately, that agreement between the Speaker and President Clinton is not funded.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know we cannot fix this problem here today, but I want the gentlemen to know that we are sympathetic on this issue. These Filipino veterans enlisted in the United States Armed Services during World War II to fight against the Japanese. At the time, the Philippines were a protectorate of the United States and not an independent country. They fought bravely, at great sacrifice, under the orders of the U.S. military commands, and had every reason to expect full veterans benefits. For the reasons which I do not fully understand, however, in 1946, the law established for this particular group of veterans a two-tier system with less benefits. In particular, they have less health care and lower rates of disability compensation, even when they now live in the United States. I would hope that the authorizing committee could look into this situation, and hopefully look into it expeditiously, and make appropriate adjustments for these Filipino veterans who fought both for their country and for the United States.

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

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I appreciate the hard work that he has put into considering our concerns for the language as it was drafted in the bill. I appreciate the fact that we have reached a satisfactory compromise on this issue. I again compliment the gentleman on his good work.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I did during our committee markup, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and to his staff for their courtesy in dealing with our side of the aisle during this process. Although I do not think this bill is adequate in its current form, I applaud him for doing his best with the hand that he was dealt. The chairman is to be commended for doing the right thing for veterans medical care, providing a $1.3 billion increase and for providing a $2 billion increase to fully fund renewal of Section 8 housing contracts. But beyond these two large increases in the bill, the numbers before the committee tell a story of missed opportunities. We certainly appreciate the chairman's courtesy, we appreciate his listening to our concerns as the bill has been marked up, but because of the allocation that he has been given, he has, I think, and the bill reflects, missed a lot of opportunities. Instead of expanding even slightly our support for public service by young people through AmeriCorps, this bill zeros that program out totally, a move that would almost certainly lead to a presidential veto. Instead of providing the support the President requested for basic research at the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $508 million less than that requested by the President for the National Science Foundation. Instead of providing the amount requested for NASA's science and technology, the bill falls short by $323 million. In doing so, the bill abruptly terminates research and development on the next generation of reusable launch vehicles that would replace the space shuttle and reduce the cost of access to space. Instead of doing a bit more to help solve the crisis of affordable housing, the bill provides essentially no expansion of Federal housing assistance and actually cuts key programs like Community Development Block Grants and public housing below the current year level. And instead of providing the amounts for FEMA that the administration calculates would be needed even for an average year of hurricanes, floods and tornadoes, the bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested. As a result, it jeopardizes FEMA's ability to respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters. The best that can be said is that this plan spreads the pain more or less evenly across all accounts, except of course for AmeriCorps, which this bill totally zeros. But when I examine the funding levels in the chairman's mark, I have to ask myself why are we not providing more resources for medical research at the Veterans Administration or for construction of State- needed extended-care facilities for veterans? Why are we not doing more to expand the supply of affordable housing and helping our Nation's homeless? Why are we not doing more for environmental restoration and protection? And why are we not doing more to explore space and perform the basic scientific research that is directly responsible for our current economic boom? We have the largest budget surplus in decades, a surplus that keeps growing with every estimate. Yet rather than using part of that surplus to better meet our national needs, the majority leadership has decided, instead, to reserve it; to reserve it for large tax cuts targeted at upper-income levels that will never be enacted. That approach was wrong last year, and it is wrong now. Once again the Congress is being put through an exercise. The appropriation subcommittee chairmen are being given unreasonably low allocations and are being told to write bills accordingly, which they reluctantly do. By the time these bills are signed into law, however, we end up with something so markedly different that it begs the question of why we go through this exercise at all. I want to be clear about this. I believe the gentleman from New York has done the very best job he could do with what he was given. However, I reject the notion that this is the best we as a Congress can do. This bill, through no fault of the chairman, is a series of missed opportunities, missed opportunities to improve our Nation's water and sewer infrastructure, which virtually almost every community in this country either needs improvement in or need water and sewer infrastructure to begin with; missed opportunities to assist people of modest means to afford decent housing; missed opportunities to ensure our continued leadership in science and technology, and the list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. If we do not take these opportunities now, at a time when we are experiencing the best economy in a generation, when will we? During full committee markup, we on this side of the aisle offered several amendments in an attempt to add funds in a few critical areas. Unfortunately, all of those amendments were defeated, some by razor thin one-vote margins. We will attempt to do the same today and tomorrow as the full House considers this legislation. No matter what happens, Mr. Chairman, with these amendments, I believe that this process should move forward. It is also important that Members understand that, although this bill on its face appears to meet many programmatic needs, it falls short in one very significant area: meeting the priorities of individual Members. If the chairman has been approached by as many Members as I have, it is clear that great needs are going unmet. This bill must receive additional resources before the chairman will be able to address the interests of Members. The good news is that by the time the process is complete, I expect to see something markedly different than what we have before us today. I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. At that time I sincerely hope, and I hope that the chairman shares that hope, that such a bill will reflect the needs of our Nation and of our Members. This Congress has the means to provide health care to our veterans, to assist our elderly and less fortunate in securing housing, and to make the critical investments in research and technology that have fueled the largest economic expansion in history. When we do that, we will have a bill that everyone can support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The Department of Veterans Affairs' medical budget is not the appropriate place from which to fund Department of Justice lawsuits. It funds the Veterans Administration Department's own legal expenses, and funding Department of Justice lawsuits to the tune of $4 million or even higher, because there is no limitation here, would significantly reduce funds available for veterans' medical care. Mr. Chairman, it has been stated or alluded to that the effect of the restriction placed in the bill, and let me read it, Mr. Chairman, it says, ``None of the foregoing funds may be transferred to the Department of Justice for purposes of supporting tobacco litigation.'' The restriction in here only says that none of the funds out of the Veterans Affairs medical budget can be transferred to the Department of Justice for its litigation purposes. It has been alleged that that has the effect of blocking the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the tobacco industry. I respectfully disagree with that. It does no such thing. It does not preclude the Department of Justice from moving forward with lawsuits. What it does do, the bill language simply prohibits the Veterans Administration from transferring veterans' medical care dollars to the Department of Justice. That is the only intention and the only motivation, to preserve those scarce medical care dollars. That money would come out of the medical care collections fund. Indeed, it does fund legal expenses for the Veterans Administration in this area: ``Legal expenses of the Department for collecting and recovering amounts owed the Department.'' There are people very busily working over at the Veterans Administration spending dollars out of that account to collect third party pay, to collect dollars that are owed from other areas. They significantly multiply their salaries. That is, they are responsible for generating a lot of dollars. Take that $4 million out of this account and, arguably, we would reduce by a factor of many times $4 million the amount of money available for veterans' medical care. The budget for veterans' medical care has been severely stressed during the last several years. After 2 years of flat budgets, Congress enacted a substantial increase in medical care last year. The bill before us today builds on that increase by fully funding the President's budget request for medical care, more than $1.3 billion over current funding. I cannot support an effort to divert funding from this priority in order to fund the operations of another agency. God bless the other agency, let them move forward with their lawsuit with their own funds; in this case, the Department of Justice. That department, the Department of Justice, has received significant increases during the past decade, as opposed to the Veterans Administration. In 1990, the Department of Justice received $8.8 billion. By 1996, that had risen to over $16 billion, and current year funding is over $20 billion. The Department of Justice is not an agency that has faced the same restrictive budgets as the VA. It can afford to prosecute this lawsuit without taking money out of the veterans account. Each appropriations subcommittee must establish its own priorities for the agencies under its jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the veterans organizations are split on this issue, but that the American Legion, while it supports the Department of Justice going forward with its lawsuit, does not support taking health care dollars from the VA to pay for the litigation and thinks it is counterproductive, especially with the growing demand for services by the aging veteran population. This amendment does not stop any litigation, or this restriction, excuse me. It simply provides that that money will not come out of veterans' health care, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).