John Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and would point out that this is not an amendment that simply cuts money out of the bureaucracy. It is not a bureaucratic cut. The cuts proposed by the amendment are irresponsible in today's atmosphere where immigration and terrorism threats to the government and U.S. citizens are real. Cutting the Federal buildings fund by $261 million would leave the fund without the resources it needs to build critical, secure crossings on our southern border with Mexico and strengthen the Federal buildings against the threat of terrorism. Let me repeat that. Vote for this amendment and you are voting against building border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border and against funding to secure Federal buildings against terrorism. The amendment would completely eliminate GSA's new construction of six border stations at the crossings in McAllen, Texas; El Paso, Texas; San Luis, New Mexico; Columbus, New Mexico; Calexico, California; and Nogales, Arizona. In addition, the amendment would eliminate the Food and Drug Administration's Montgomery County, Maryland project, as well as the remote delivery facility in Anacostia for mail sorting for the Federal Government, something that is sadly needed with the threat of anthrax and other deadly substances in our government now. Funds would be cut that are needed to secure Federal buildings to protect workers and the general public from possible terrorist attacks. As much as higher funding for the capital fund would be nice, there are more pressing needs in this bill. This amendment is irresponsible, and I would urge its defeat, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my good friend that I probably, more than any other Member in this body, have great understanding of what public housing funds are for. I grew up in public housing. Nevertheless, this bill is about balancing the priorities that we need in this age of terrorism and threat of terrorism. In this age of immigration reform, I think that these funds need to fully be kept in as they have been appropriated by the committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York if his intention is to withdraw the amendment, as we were led to believe.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. In conclusion, let me just say I strongly oppose this amendment because of its impact on some vital security needs. I would point out to the gentleman and my friends, of the $261 million he diverts over into public housing, 20 percent of it could be used for administrative costs in the current form of the structure that it is used. This money is needed and has been prioritized as such, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers and I will close on this side.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, once again I reiterate the opposition by the committee to this amendment. It is unnecessary and is an unneeded complication. But I would make the final point that already in existing appropriations the problem of the first quarter of next year will be satisfied with $25 million that has been appropriated next year, which will overlap between the 2007 and 2008 cycle, meaning this amendment is not only unnecessary but wouldn't have the impact which is already covered in the bill, in prior bills passed. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that the gentlewoman from Florida has great intentions here, this bill, as we have said, is all about choosing priorities and making some difficult choices. The proposed reduction in HUD S&E funds, combined with the need to absorb a one-half percent increase in the Federal pay raise, will necessitate a further reduction in HUD's staffing level of several hundred full-time equivalent staff positions, making it more difficult for HUD to provide sufficient oversight and risk management in its significant housing and community development program delivery. Regarding the cuts to GSA, I make note that we are at the start of the hurricane season, and these funds that would be cut support the Office of Citizen Services and Communications, the Nation's focal point for information and services offered by the Federal Government. This infrastructure has been a resource in the time of crisis or unexpected events, most recently as a means to provide valuable information to citizens after Hurricane Katrina. Reductions could impact the hours of operation of our call centers for victims of hurricanes this year. These accounts also fund GSA's real and personal property utilization and disposal programs from which we transfer assets no longer needed by the Federal Government to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations, saving millions of dollars. Cutting these funds delays in transferring properties to eligible recipients and delays in generating sales proceeds from disposal actions. The amendment would cut funds for the Office of Governmentwide Policy, which carries out various policy functions assigned by Congress that is separate from GSA's operations. For example, these are the folks who set per diem rates and travel policy for government employees. Mr. Chairman, cutting GSA operating expenses is the surest way to bring the operations of the Federal Government to a grinding halt. And while ``government'' bashing may be popular with many folks, we found out with the devastating hurricane season last year that many citizens want their government to respond to them in times of need. I ask Members to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I recognize noble intentions are at work here, but I am very opposed to increasing this program at the expense of other critical programs, and there are a number of reasons. The committee mark fully funds the amount requested by the administration and fully funds the program that has been in place for the past decade. These funds go to State and local governments to abate lead-based paint in homes that will not be restored through privately funded modernization or resale. Three years ago the Senate began a new demonstration program and added between $50 and $75 million in additional funds. The House has not included these funds in subsequent years, and the Senate has attempted to continue the demonstration program each year. They may well try to do it again. The committee is simply not in a position to absorb a $35 million increase in funding for this demonstration program at the expense of other programs that are being funded at the 2005 level or below. Once again, the proposed reduction in S&E funds, combined with the need to absorb a one-half percent increase in the Federal pay raise, will necessitate a further reduction in HUD's staffing level of several hundred full-time equivalent staff positions, making it more difficult for HUD to provide sufficient oversight and risk management in its significant housing and community development program delivery. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by reiterating my remarks that this is, as Mr. Terry pointed out, a year of very tough budget numbers. But not only that, we need to control our spending here. The committee understands that, but also understands that it needs to meet other priorities. The mark fully funds the amount requested by the administration and fully funds the program that has been in place the past decade. The cuts that are proposed as offsets would be too substantial to absorb in the other programs. It would have a devastating impact. I would urge our colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Point of Order

Mr. SWEENEY. I will make the point order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling on the point of order.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I will make these very quick points: First, that section 108 is an eligible use of economic development funds. And, therefore, there is no reason to have a separate set-aside of funds, as is proposed here in this amendment. In fact, in this bill we have added $1 billion in CDBG funds for the fiscal year. So there will be plenty of opportunities for States to do exactly as the gentlewoman calls for, and we believe that is the best way the program should be run. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me start by saying as a member of the committee I really appreciate the work of the chairman and the ranking member. I know the very difficult choices that had to be made under an extremely tight budget and extremely tough year in making those decisions. And I rise in opposition to this amendment somewhat reluctantly because I agree with some of the prior speakers and the need to look at the priority of water and the needs of water throughout the Nation as a means of expanding United States influence in a very positive way. We do it in this bill; we do it as best we could in fitting in some of the other priorities they have. And why I rise in opposition to this amendment is because of its effect. As has been pointed out already, it cuts everything, but from the designated funds, the earmarked funds. It cuts $250 million that I think will critically imbalance United States relationships in some places. For example, it cuts from some of the African nations that I think desperately need the support that would be given in the MFM fund. And as an Armenian American, I want to point specifically to the effect it would have on Armenia and the fact that it would cut $68 million in assistance, economic and border security assistance to Armenia, which I view in large part is in this bill in order to balance out some of the challenges that fledgling nation has with its neighbors in Turkey and Azerbaijan; and in part, in recognition, which we have failed in this Congress to do as of yet, and in this Nation, to recognize the Armenian genocide of the past century and its impact on that nation's history. And so I want to salute the chairman and the ranking member for trying to find that delicate balance and striking it here in this bill. And while I applaud the sponsor of the amendment and his intentions and hope that we can work in future years to do even more as it relates to providing water, I think the impact of what this bill does in terms of offsetting those funds would have too detrimental an impact. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to object.

Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SWEENEY. Well, the amount for Armenia, as is being explained to me by the chairman, is about 7 percent. So if I said 7 million, then I misspoke out of MFM. But the total impact, as I understand it, of the taking of the 250, about 50 percent would be to lose the 68 million that was intended to be sent to Armenia for the border security.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and would like to say, first, that I understand that simply by having this debate here today, I think we are sending the appropriate message that needs to be sent to Egypt. And I would point out that already in the bill we rescind $200 million in aid to Egypt, and I think that this particular amendment would be much more punitive than is requisite and needed. The United States needs to strive to bring reforms to Egypt. We all agree on that. But this is not tough love. This is going over the top in my estimation, and would cause damage for many years in the future if it were to pass. Reducing U.S. aid to Egypt at this time would also be strategically not a good move for the United States. Egypt has facilitated expeditious transit of hundreds of U.S. warships and thousands of U.S. aircraft through the Suez Canal and Egyptian air space since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi freedom. Egypt has been a close partner. Many of my colleagues before have spoken about that relationship and what it means to the region at such a critical team. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because I think it goes just too far.

Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.