Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). (Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Is the gentlewoman prepared to withdraw the amendments?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendments.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, this is as good an idea that has come along in a long time. It has broad support. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is as consistent as Old Faithful regarding fire fighters. The gentleman is their hero; and there are many others in this room who have made this happen. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I have an allocation that would force us to go into HUD that would cut salaries and expenses. Nobody wants to do that. Give us a chance to work with the gentleman as we move towards conference, and I think we probably will have a positive result.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, after having consulted with my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), we agree this is a constructive amendment, that it is a positive idea, that it helps the bill, and we accept it. We urge its adoption.

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in closing. I have discussed this with my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). We both appreciate not only the sentiment but the leadership that has been provided on this issue. It is a real big issue for the country. But to force us to choose between Superfund and CSOs is just too tough a choice to make. We would urge the gentleman, with all due respect, to withdraw the amendment; and he should continue to work with the authorizing committee and with the Committee on Appropriations to see if we can do a better job of meeting this commitment. It is a question of allocation and choices, and we just cannot justify the choice he is asking us to make. I would ask again that he would withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia). We have worked very, very closely with him on a number of issues within this bill. I know he is deeply concerned about water quality in the Great Lakes and about the quality of drinking water in his own community. These are things that he has worked very hard on and cares deeply about. But what he is asking us to do is to choose which way, almost equivalent to asking us which way would we like to die, would we rather be hung or burned to death. This is a tough choice. The Superfund program is terribly important, and it is very, very strongly supported by Members. We all know the combined sewer overflow problem this Nation has is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. We cannot take from one and give to the other either way. We have funds set aside for Superfund. There is not enough money, but we have done the best we could. There is money set aside for combined sewer overflows through the Clean Water grants and special grants, close to $1.5 billion. It is not enough. There is more need out there. We all understand that. But we cannot take from Superfund $150 million, or $140 million. If we did, it would dramatically reduce the pace of Superfund clean-ups across the country. Every aspect of the Superfund program, but particularly the cleanup or Response program, would be impacted, and none of the agency's Superfund goals would be met, so the program would suffer dramatically. Funding to State programs would be reduced; communities would wait longer for their sites to be addressed. I know there are a number of Members who feel very strongly about Superfund issues. Superfund sites do a lot of damage to the land, air and water. We have to make these projects a priority. We would lose 50 to 100 ongoing cleanup projects which would be slowed or stopped. The EPA would be unable to start toxic waste clean-ups at dozens of Superfund sites. Construction and completion would fall by one-third. Up to 150 potential sites identified by States would not be evaluated for their potential risks to human health and the environment. So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just a note of clarification; I misspoke. The funding comes out of the Environmental Programs and Management Fund, which is EPA's fund and goes into the State Travel Assistance Grant. The gentleman understood clearly that I was in sport of his amendment. I am in support of it. We accept it.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. The gentlewoman's amendment will maintain current funding levels for EPA's pesticide reregistration and tolerance assessment programs and is acceptable to the committee. Collection of $20 million in maintenance fees will ensure that reregistrations and tolerance reassessments are completed in a timely manner with appropriate scientific analysis, ensuring that our farmers have the tools they need, and that human health is protected.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just state that the Administration is strongly opposed to this amendment. There are a number of special interest groups who have contacted Members on this amendment, but the Administration is clearly in opposition. This is a very complicated issue that not a lot of Members have spent a lot of time with. Let me just try to make it as clear as I can. The intent of this amendment is to kill the premium increase. There was a lot of discussion about this earlier in the year, about attaching additional appropriations to the supplemental; the industry was lobbying for more money, no premiums; more money, no premiums. The intent of this amendment is to kill that premium increase. We want this program to be successful, but we want it to pay as it goes. If it is going to pay as it goes, we have to increase the premium. If Members support this amendment, it will kill that premium increase and if that is the case, we go to conference looking for $230 million in additional outlays and allocation. Do not put us in that position, I would say to my colleagues. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, let me read from the bill report language: ``The committee stands behind the commitments Congress made in the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, Public Law 106-117, to provide veterans with additional long-term care and emergency care services.'' The subcommittee stands behind the authorizing committee and the commitments that it made. ``The committee urges the administration to include full funding for the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act in its fiscal year 2003 budget request.'' In this year's bill, the 2002 bill, the President's budget fully supports the provisions of the Millennium Health Care Act. In addition to the President's budget request, we added another $1 billion, building on our commitment, providing a $4 billion increase over the last 3 years in health care. Mr. Speaker, there is $51 billion in this bill for veterans. Clearly, clearly that expresses the priorities of this body. Last year, we provided the President's request plus $1.3 billion for VA medical care, fully funding the provisions of the Millennium Health Care Act. However, the VA could not spend all that money. Over $300 million provided in fiscal year 2001 was not spent on Millennium Health Care Act activities. On our subcommittee, in fact, the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), questioned the VA Secretary extensively on this subject; and the Secretary testified that $548 million estimated in the budget was adequate to meet the Millennium Health Care mandates. The Secretary and the Under Secretary for Health testified that a number of provisions that are already implemented, and a number are delayed in the final notice in rule process. There are a number of reasons for this delay, primarily because VA and OMB have not been able to promulgate and vet the rules in a timely manner. Some of the delay is simply the rule process, it is long and complicated. Some of the delay is due to the new administration carefully reviewing the rules before publication and notice. Regardless, the VA is not able to spend the money we have already provided because they cannot. So, to add additional money to this bill begs the question of what is the purpose of this motion to recommit. Clearly the motion to recommit would send the bill back to committee; in effect it would kill the bill. Now, we want to pass this bill. We worked very hard on it. My ranking member and I have tried to do this in a bipartisan way. There are lots of Member requests in this bill. The priorities of the Members are clearly expressed in this bill. We provided $400 million more for construction for veterans hospitals as a direct response to the Members. We think this is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge support of this. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively arcane amendment. I do not suspect there are even 10 Members in the Congress who have a full grasp of what is going on here. We are governed by the Budget Act. We are governed by credit reform. We cannot make changes in those rules. What we have to do is respond to the program. What we traditionally do to respond to the needs in the program is appropriate additional funds. This program should be pay-as-you-go. I want to be clear: if this amendment were to pass and this language is added to this bill, we would have to go to conference and find another $230 million for an offset to fund the program. Now, you have seen the choices we have had so far. There is not a good choice that we have seen in the 3 days we have been working on this bill. But I submit we will have to come back in conference, we will have to come back and look for additional funds to come up with $230 million. There are only so many places you can go. You can go to the Veterans Administration, you can go to NASA, you can go to HUD, you can go to National Science Foundation, you can go to FEMA, but those are not good choices. I would urge the House to stick with the committee bill, to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Please do not put us in a position where we have to go out and find an additional $230 million in an already tight allocation. Reject the gentleman's amendment and let us go forward to conference with the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.