Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois for his advocacy in this area. The bill provides $20 million over last year's funding level for VA research, plus $30 million in construction funds specifically for research facility rehabilitation. Because the Senate has provided a higher funding level for VA research in their bill, this account will be an issue in conference; and we will take into account the views and concerns of the gentleman from Illinois and the other Members who have expressed an interest in increasing funding for this important account as we move forward. I thank the gentleman for his willingness to withdraw his amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks and for his leadership on all science issues in the House and for being a strong advocate for science. The subcommittee is acutely aware of the need for vigorous basic research effort in this country, which starts with the work of the National Science Foundation. Too often we overlook the importance of basic research in the sciences and in engineering also because its results are not always immediately applicable to tangible products. Breakthroughs in medical research, on the other hand, are more easily understood. I would like to echo the gentleman from Michigan in saying that we would do well to recognize the diversity of scientific endeavors that contribute to medical advances. I find it telling that the recent very noteworthy success of the human genome project, for example, was built on cutting-edge research in computer science, chemistry and other subjects of the kind supported by NSF. If the resources were available to us, the subcommittee would support an even greater increase in NSF funding than the 9 percent increase over fiscal year 2001 that is in the bill. We feel, nevertheless, that the increase is a strong start in guaranteeing that our Nation remains preeminent in basic research for years to come.

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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am told that this allocation of $1 million was recently in a second or third analysis of the funds available. The Congressional Budget Office found approximately an additional $1 million that had not been spent. The gentleman has proposed that we spend it in veterans' medical care. I cannot think of a better place to put this found money, so we will accept the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised, quite frankly, at this amendment. I fully expected there would be more amendments adding additional funds to the already precious dollars that are in VA medical care, but this amendment would take $16 million out of veterans medical care. This is money that goes toward surgical procedures, towards pharmaceutical drugs, towards nurses and doctors, heat and lights, and running these facilities. To hand over these funds to the Inspector General's office, to me, just does not make good sense. So I strongly oppose the amendment. We have already provided the Inspector General with an increase of $6 million over last year, a 15 percent increase from in their fiscal year 2001 budget. It is also a $4 million increase over this year's budget submission. This amendment would result in close to a 50 percent increase in the budget. I suspect the Inspector General could not handle that much money, they could not put that many people on, and this money is dearly needed for veterans medical care. I would hate to jeopardize the health of our veterans by reducing this already substantial but certainly dear amount of money. So I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

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, will the gentleman yield?

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

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, 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. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the committee shares the gentleman's goal of providing NSF with sufficient resources to adequately manage and safeguard the taxpayer's investment. As he noted, NSF is increasingly involved in the construction of these large complex scientific experiments and facilities. It is also increasingly reliant on detailees and other temporary employees to supplement their Federal workforce. A cadre of experienced Federal project management professionals would certainly improve the institutional memory and accountability within NSF.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just to briefly respond to the gentleman, I thank him for bringing this issue to my attention and to the attention of the committee. This catastrophic loss that occurred to his community, this devastating incident, seriously undermines public safety and economic activity in this city and the region. I know his concern is heartfelt. He has pressed this case before us. I will continue to work with the gentleman from Kansas during the conference to see what assistance we can provide to Hutchinson, Kansas. I thank him for his hard work on behalf of his community.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for his pioneering efforts in developing this very important national program and for his continued efforts to ensure the National Estuary Program remains a strong program to protect our national estuaries for the future. I agree that this program has been successful with developing and maintaining local government, nonprofit, industry, and volunteer support from within the States where these estuaries are located. That is why we have increased funding this year for this program to $20 million, a $2 million increase over last year. I would be glad to work with the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey to assure that this very important program continues to protect and enhance our precious national estuaries. Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We have no objection to the amendment. We support in theory what the administration is trying to do. Both the VA and DOD cannot adequately plan and budget for services when both of these departments do not know the number of people they are serving. However, there are very few details from either VA or DOD, nor have we heard explanations on the effects or restrictions of the proposed policy. So until DOD and the VA can present us with a complete, well-thought-out plan, I support the amendment of the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the idea is to provide each side with 8 minutes to discuss these four amendments en bloc. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and I have discussed this, and I believe he finds it acceptable.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 rule XXI. The rule states in part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' This amendment directly amends existing law, and I would ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) may offer his remaining four amendments to this title en bloc, may debate them for 16 minutes, equally divided, and I retain rights to reserve points of order on this en bloc amendment.

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of the speakers who have commented on HUD funding. I would just like to respond briefly on a couple of points. First of all, we, unlike the Senate, increased Section 8 housing vouchers. We put, I believe, 34,000 new housing vouchers in. Eight thousand of those are specifically for people with disabilities. I think that it is the subcommittee stepping up to the plate and dealing with an issue that we have not fully dealt with in the past. The Senate provided no new Section 8 housing vouchers, so I think the House did an excellent job there. We also increased operating expenses for the public housing authorities across the land by 8 percent. That is a very, very substantial increase. Although we have a reduced amount of funding in the capital budget, I would remind my colleagues, there is $8 billion in the capital expenses pipeline for public housing authorities across the nation. That is $8 billion that is appropriated but unallocated to a specific project, and unspent. We would urge those public housing authorities to move forward and allocate those funds toward a project. Otherwise, they will lose those funds, and we will assign them to public housing authorities that are spending their funds in a timely way. The problem is, we are appropriating these monies and they are not taking care of their housing code violations, they are not taking care of the hazards that people living in public housing have to deal with every day. So it is our responsibility as a Congress to make sure those public housing authorities spend that money. Lastly, the level of funding that we have provided is exactly what the Clinton administration asked for for the past 3 years. So to say that we did not do our job for HUD, Members can say that, but it is tougher to make the case because the facts I think would argue otherwise. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH

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