Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

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

Mr. WALSH. I would be happy to respond to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. Certainly it is not the Committee's intent, nor do I believe this action will have any negative impact on the ability of public housing authorities to fully utilize their vouchers. It is my understanding that less than $46 million of the $1.3 billion in reserve funding was used last year. I assure the gentleman that it is the Committee's intention that any public housing authority which exhausts its funds be given additional funds to ensure that its legitimate needs are met. In fact, I have a letter from the Deputy Secretary which indicates that HUD will continue its long-standing policy to provide any public housing authority that has exhausted its funds for legitimate needs with whatever funding is necessary to ensure that all families currently served retain their assistance

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 60 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and the opponent, myself.

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to address some comments that were made earlier. I have the greatest respect for every Member who has spoken. I think these are heartfelt statements that are being made, but I wanted to just add some additional data to the arguments. The gentleman from Chicago, who represents a very large public housing authority that he spoke about, their budget for drug elimination is approximately $8 million per year. Based on our analysis and HUD's audits, the Chicago Public Housing Authority has right now close to $19 million on hand to provide for future drug elimination programs. We do not say you cannot use existing funds. What we are saying is that, from this bill forward, we are not going to specifically appropriate funds for drug elimination. That means they can use those $19 million. We provided an increase in funds for operating expenses across the board to public housing authorities, an 8 percent increase. In the case of Chicago, that would mean about a $15 million increase. That means they could take half of that operating fund increase and dedicate that for drug elimination if they saw fit for the future. The gentlewoman who is about to speak I believe represents the Cleveland area. The Cuyahoga County Public Housing Authority has about $7.5 million available for drug elimination. They spend about $2.5 million per year. That would provide about 3 years' worth of drug elimination funds; and the operating fund increase for Cuyahoga County would be about $3.5 million per year, which is in excess of what their annual operating expenses are for drug elimination.

Mr. WALSH. I would be happy to. In Cuyahoga County, which encompasses Cleveland, I believe, the public housing authority funding for drug elimination in 1999 was $2.4 million. That will not be spent out until next year. Those are 1999 funds. In 2000, $2.5 million was appropriated. That has not been spent, either. In 2001, another $2.5 million has not been spent. So there is approximately $7.5 million of unexpended funds in the drug elimination program.

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

Mr. WALSH. As of today.

Mr. WALSH. For example, New York City receives in the neighborhood of $40 million a year in drug elimination funds. Half of that money is going to pay salaries for police officers. Under the crime bill and the COPS AHEAD bill, New York City has received a half billion dollars to hire police officers. The drug elimination funds were not a supplement to the budget of the New York City Police Department. These funds were supposed to go for public housing authorities. So the fact is, Mr. Chairman, there are lots and lots of dollars in the pipeline for drug elimination. If public housing authorities wish to use their operating fund balance to continue these programs, as my public housing authority in Syracuse has chosen to do, they can. But what we are saying is we are not going to continue to fund this program because the Secretary of HUD, our new Secretary, has asked us to say we want to stick to our core business; we do not want to be in the criminal justice system; let the Justice Department fund this. And they do fund juvenile crime programs into the hundreds of millions of dollars. We think that these funds for the HOME project are far more important and far more in line with the core business of HUD. Let us help Americans to buy homes with these funds.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to oppose my good friend and colleague from New York who does such a great job for our State, but its difficulty is that the cut that has been proposed in the HUD Salaries and Expenses account would force HUD to either cut over 100 staff members in order to provide the 17 percent increase in YouthBuild, or find some other accommodation, which I think would dramatically affect HUD's ability to operate and administer its programs. Last year, the YouthBuild program received a 17 percent increase in the fiscal year 2001 bill, and that increase was maintained in 2002. This is obviously a very difficult choice, but I would ask Members to stay with the subcommittee bill; and, therefore, I would oppose the amendment, which would provide another significant increase to a program that was increased dramatically last year at the expense of HUD's staff. Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is one of many amendments which goes after the President's initiative to provide funds to low-income families to help them to buy homes. As I mentioned earlier, we have about $16 billion in the bill for section 8 housing vouchers, and I think there has been a high demand for those, and it is a popular program. We have provided additional funds for section 8. Some of those funds will be used in pilot programs around the country to help to encourage low-income families who are now renting to utilize those vouchers for homeownership, to make monthly mortgage payments. What the President has proposed, and Secretary Martinez has asked us to support, is providing $200 million nationally so that those individuals would be provided with the funds to make that down payment, that big chunk of money that we all know we have to come up with in order to make the initial mortgage deal. The section 8 housing vouchers hopefully will provide the taxpayer and the owner with a very good investment, a very good return on those section 8 vouchers. So it is an important initiative, and it would be wrong to deny low- income families moving from welfare to work and from tenantship to ownership. Those funds are important. We need to keep those funds where they are. Now, as far as the homeless program where these funds would be provided, let me just state my feeling. I feel very strongly that we need to provide funds to help people who are homeless to find permanent homes. My first action as city council president in Syracuse back in 1987 was to establish a homeless and housing vulnerable task force. It has been working ever since. The need continues, but I think we have done a very good job in central New York in providing homes for the homeless. We have provided over $1 billion in this bill for that purpose nationwide. It is an increase, albeit a slight increase, over last year. So the subcommittee's commitment and support for programs to provide help to the homeless is in place. As I believe the gentleman knows, all fiscal year 2002 renewal costs for Shelter Plus Care programs are fully funded. Mr. Chairman, 2002 is fully funded. The committee has already indicated it would address fiscal year 2003 needs for this program in next year's bill. The committee's action is identical to the way funding for these costs have always been treated with the exception of 2001, and is identical to the way all programs in this bill are treated. This amendment proposes to treat this program differently than every other program in this bill by using fiscal year 2002 funds to forward- fund fiscal 2003 costs. To do this, the gentleman would cut $100 million out of this very important program, and those funds would be divided amongst the States, including New York's, which would get a large proportion of these funds, and also to 594 cities to help provide affordable housing to members of our communities. In addition, it would cause HUD to eliminate over 268 jobs by taking $22 million from salaries and expenses. I believe the real intent behind the gentleman's agreement is to ensure that fiscal year 2003 funding needs for this program do not compete with any other program next year. While I have sympathy for his desire to essentially create an entitlement program, we cannot support this. We oppose it. It makes no sense to cut funds to States and localities and eliminate HUD employees to set aside funding that is not even needed next year for this program. I would therefore urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue before us. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the future.

Mr. WALSH. We do. The Committee on Appropriations shares the gentleman's concern concerning the current lack of oversight for project management within the National Science Foundation. In its March 2000 report to Congress, the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation reported that ``NSF does not have adequate policies and procedures in place to address the complex problems involved in overseeing and administering large infrastructure awards.'' This is why the committee report included language directing NSF to establish project management procedures and accounting systems.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $100 million from the Public Housing Capital Fund in order to increase the HOPE VI program. As has been discussed today, we have already reduced the capital program for public housing. So I do not think it is a good idea to go any further. The bill provides for $573 million in the HOPE VI program which is at the same level as last year. As the gentleman knows, the bill already includes a reduction below last year for capital fund based on the unspent fund problem. There are approximately $7 billion in unspent funds in the capital fund. There has been a lot of discussion and opposition to cutting it further or even cutting it that much. However, we do maintain funding for those public housing authorities which are actually spending their funds. The gentleman's amendment would cut $100 million of the $262 million we have targeted to those high-performing public housing authorities in order to provide a 17 percent increase in HOPE VI. While I appreciate his support for HOPE VI, I must point out that, like the Public Housing Capital Fund, HOPE VI is another account where there are significant amounts of unspent funds. In fact, there are over $3 billion in unspent HOPE VI funds. So while I share the gentleman's support for the program, I cannot support cutting the capital fund further in order to provide a 17 percent increase in the HOPE VI program and, therefore, I urge the rejection of the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the en bloc amendments.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' This amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and, as such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to complete the colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say I thank both gentlemen for their comments, and please be assured we will not allow investments made in the space exploration program to be wasted. Be assured that both the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) to ensure that JPL remains one of the premier space research facilities in the country.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the distinguished subcommittee chair of the authorizing committee.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his diligence on this very important issue in bringing the problem of accessible health care for the veterans of the beautiful area of South Texas that he calls home. The VA and DOD have a great opportunity to do better in this area. I agree that the Naval Hospital in Corpus Christi would be an excellent candidate for this demonstration project, and I would encourage the VA to give this site every consideration when formulating a plan.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)