Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

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 rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise actually in support of the gentlewoman's amendment and am prepared to accept it for our bill. This is a good idea. It is a little tough on the Environmental Protection Agency because it will have to find these funds out of existing appropriated funds but, at the same time, it shows that the Congress considers this issue a very high priority. I know members of the subcommittee, including the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), has spoken long and strong in favor of doing a better, more aggressive job on leaking underground storage tanks, and especially with this issue of MTBE, which pollutes our drinking water. This amendment would also provide funds to orphaned sites where the owner cannot be located or otherwise cannot be identified. Mr. Chairman, this is a serious problem. Communities all over the country worry about this issue and suffer from this issue, and we need to do a vigilant job in protecting our groundwater supplies which, once they are polluted, can be next to impossible to abate the problem. So I support the gentlewoman's amendment and am prepared to accept it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment would designate $25 million of the funds for FEMA emergency management planning and assistance to be used for predisaster mitigation activities. For the past 4 years FEMA had had a program to raise the awareness within communities of the need to prepare for disasters. This program was called Project Impact and it made strides towards helping communities become better informed of how to prepare and respond to natural disasters. While this budget does not continue Project Impact, in our hearings earlier this year the Director of FEMA expressed his desire to develop a full-fledged predisaster mitigation program building on the success that Project Impact has had in raising the level of awareness within all communities. I know that if such a program were developed and implemented after careful thought and deliberation, it would save money and lives. The biggest concern I have with the amendment is that it offers no way to pay for the program. The amendment designates $25 million of the $404 million in this account for the predisaster program. What programs currently funded in this account would the gentlewoman have us decrease? Would the gentlewoman suggest a reduction in the budget for the Firefighter Assistance Grants? They are funded in this bill at $100 million. We have had debate on the floor today that Members believe there is substantially more need and there is great demand. We had $3 billion in requests for those $100 million for fire fighters. Surely we cannot go there. Should we reduce the allowance for salaries or grants to State and local emergency management officials? We are already asking FEMA to take a reduction in their salaries for fiscal year 2002. A further cut of this magnitude would make this agency very difficult, if not impossible, to manage. Should we reduce the allowance for updating floodplain maps? There is currently a backlog in the number of maps which need to be updated, and it is estimated that it will cost over $700 million to address this backlog. This bill contains a modest start to addressing this backlog. I know the gentlewoman is aware that flooding causes more damage nationwide than any other type of natural disaster, so I do not think she would want us to stop this effort in order to fund a public awareness campaign. This bill is full of difficult choices, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes programs have to be canceled to make room for other more worthy programs. The budget request made such a decision with regard to predisaster mitigation, but with the ultimate goal of developing a more robust and focused program with well-defined and prioritized objectives. I think we ought to wait for such a program to be proposed and carefully considered in the context of all of FEMA's programs. For this reason I oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it also. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 thank the gentlewoman for continuing to yield. I think in this bill, we have really made an effort to make sure that Historically Black Colleges, Hispanic Serving Institutions and other minority programs are part of the focus of the National Science Foundation. I think there has been some criticism, and it is somewhat due, that the larger, better established research institutions around the country, the colleges, have benefited substantially. Certainly the country has benefited from that research, also. But there has been a tradition on this subcommittee, beginning with Chairman Lou Stokes, to make sure that some of these resources are provided, that we encourage those institutions that I mentioned to expand their research capacity. I know the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has been a strong and consistent voice for these, also. We will always do that, and we would always welcome the gentlewoman's input as to whether or not we are meeting the goals that we have set.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just briefly, the subcommittee has done its level best to provide additional section 8 housing vouchers. In fact, we have 34,000 new section 8 vouchers in the bill. As we have discussed earlier, this is a very tight allocation. There are really very few other places to go within the bill to move money from one account to another. Since this increase certainly is well intended but there is no offset provided, I would obviously continue to reserve my point of order. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2002 on July 26, 2001, House Report 107-165. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee allocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has time reserved. I think we best allow her to close before I insist on my point of order.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment. I do seek to control the time.

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 continue to reserve my point of order.

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, this AmeriCorps, similar to how the program has been handled in the last several years, the House has come into this bill without funding for AmeriCorps. It has been resolved in conference each time with funding being provided. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that that is the way that this issue will be resolved again this year. The President has spoken in support of AmeriCorps. There are many advocates for the program within the House and in the Senate. The language that the gentlewoman deals with in the bill would strike language that deals with the elimination or the phasing-out of the AmeriCorps program. I do not think that that is necessary within the bill because of recent history, the fact that AmeriCorps is ultimately funded in conference. So, assuming that that will happen, there is no need for that language. I think it is a positive amendment, it has no deleterious effect on the bill, and, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey and his colleagues from New Jersey who have led this fight to provide additional funds. This is a brand new program. It was authorized just last year, called the Beach Act. It is very popular legislation, it is important legislation, and it is clear that the subcommittee considered it a priority. It was authorized at a $2 million level. We added $5 million to raise funding to $7 million, and this amendment would add another $3 million, bringing a brand new program a fivefold increase in its first year. That is a pretty good test of the popularity and the importance of the program. The funds, however, will have to come out of the Environmental Protection Agency's State Travel Assistance Grants. Those are very competitive funds. There is strong support and demand on those funds by Members for projects within their districts. So this will put somewhat of a hardship not only on EPA, but also on some of the Members' projects. But this is, we think, an acceptable amendment and we are prepared to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, will the gentleman yield?

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

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support on this. Please vote no on the motion to recommit and let us move the bill forward.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we do not make money on this program, a program that benefits only for-profit developers to build moderate- and high-income housing, not low-income housing. In fact, the taxpayer through, this appropriation bill, has repeatedly subsidized this program. In fact, last year, we subsidized the program to the tune of over $80 million. Even that was not sufficient to satisfy the industry's demands, and the program has been shut down since that time. To put it in perspective, the amount of money the gentleman now says we are, quote, ``making off this program next year'' is less than $3 million compared to the $80 million it cost the taxpayer in fiscal year 2001. Making money in the sense that the gentleman explains it is nothing more than somebody's estimate about a series of economic factors that may or may not occur over a period of time. Lord knows, we have seen OMB and CBO make bad estimates, not to mention the Members of our own committees. So I think it is a little disingenuous for the gentleman to argue that we have been using this program to pay for other things when in fact it is just not generating funds. As a practical matter, this amendment would have little impact on the amount of the premium increase charged. In fact, HUD estimates that this amendment would increase the premium by a mere two one-hundredths of 1 percent. I believe the real intent behind the gentleman's amendment is to try to somehow stop these premiums from going forward. There is broad opposition among the special interest groups to stop this premium increase. But in order to make this program work and in order to prevent further appropriations against this bill, FHA needs to go forward with this premium increase. We have seen the kinds of hellacious decisions that we have had to make, the trade-offs that we have had to make throughout this bill. If this premium increase does not go forward, we could be back here next year trying to find an additional $230 million somewhere in this bill to offset the cost of this program. Mr. Chairman, the choice is relatively simple. Do we continue to allow the program to remain shut down, or do we allow the premiums to go into effect? I think we should allow the premiums to go into effect and let the program run. If we adopt this amendment, at a minimum we would delay the restart of the program, because HUD would have to reissue new rules to change their premium for what amounts to less than two one-hundredths of 1 percent of an increase. We would also be giving a break to a single group of for-profit developers, including nonprofit developers. These are all nonprofit developers. I believe it is inequitable and it sets a terrible precedent that causes further delays in the restart of the (d)(4) program. I would urge this amendment be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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