Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to proposals to drill for natural gas within the Finger Lakes National Forest located in Hector, New York between Seneca and Cayuga Lakes. This proposed drilling will have catastrophic effects on wildlife, recreation in the area, and tourism vital to the region's economy. The Finger Lakes National Forest is the smallest national forest in the country and draws 46,000 recreational visitors each year who hunt, fish, camp, and hike on the 16,000-plus acre reserve. Any drilling in national parks, including the proposed drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest which would utilize 130 foot rigs and pipelines, will cause irreparable damage to the landscape and environment. Recently, my office has been flooded with letters from concerned neighbors across Upstate New York. I have referred their correspondence to Dale Bosworth, Chief of the United States Forest Service, to be included as part of the record on this issue. In addition, I have expressed my concern to Congressman Callahan, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. I encourage Mr. Callahan and my fellow Appropriations Committee colleagues to support language recently added to an accompanying Senate Appropriations bill that would ban all oil and natural gas exploration in the forest. Our House Energy and Water Development conferees have the ability to retain the Senate version's language when the spending package is considered in conference later this year. My father, former Rep. William F. Walsh, represented this area in Congress in the 1970's. During that time, he fought hard to ensure this pristine wilderness area would be protected for future generations. In our current attempts to construct a sound and responsible national energy policy, it is my hope that this body recognizes the need for continued environmental stewardship to protect these national treasures for the generations that follow. I urge my fellow members to support my call to ban drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time. I would like to ask him to enter into a brief colloquy with me at this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire about the status of the Botanical Gardens renovation project. It is my understanding that this project, which started in early 1999 with an estimated completion date of September of last year, is still not finished. We are now approaching the 11th month of delay and apparently it will be an additional few months before we can finally open it up again to the public. Is that correct?

Mr. WALSH. I have followed the development and construction of this project with great interest since I was in his position when we started this project. It is my opinion that this project is just another example of poor management by the construction contractor, Clarke Construction. In fact, it appears that Clarke Construction has quite a track record of not bringing in projects on time or on budget. I am told that the General Services Administration, the agency responsible for building Government facilities, has also had problems of delays and cost overruns on projects awarded to Clarke. I am not saying that Clarke Construction should bear all the blame, nor do I suppose is the Architect of the Capitol without fault. In fact, I believe he has too many projects on his plate. But I strongly believe that Clarke Construction as general contractor for the Botanical Gardens has not demanded the level of expertise and management skills required to successfully execute complex projects such as this one. There are quite a number of Clarke Construction sites around the D.C. area. I note these sites are quite active. The Botanical Gardens site has often been lonely or deserted. Clarke Construction may have a disincentive to finish the project compared to private sector sites due to an inadequate penalty clause. Can I inquire of the chairman whether the subcommittee addresses the issue of penalty clauses in this bill.

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for addressing this issue. I appreciate his continued efforts in working with the Architect to bring this project to a conclusion. I hope that future projects will be awarded to companies with better past performance records and experienced management teams. I thank the gentleman for his vigilance in getting this project completed.

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. WALSH

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 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. 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 a 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 suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

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

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his thoughts on this issue, Mr. Chairman. I spoke earlier on the Barcia amendment. I know he feels very strongly, as do I. There is a tremendous, tremendous void out there in our ability to deal with combined sewer overflows, with clean water issues throughout the country. Clearly, the Congress needs to step up and take this issue on head on. We are looking for direction from the authorizing committee. I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman to help to reorder some of the priorities, because this is something that I certainly rely on in my community, and I know the gentleman does. There is broad interest throughout the Congress on this. I thank the gentleman for his interest. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for a colloquy.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her strong support for this program and for her leadership in helping to make the Hudson River fishable, swimmable, and even more beautiful than we found it. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Roemer

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

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for a colloquy.