Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would end this debate by suggesting that there is no cut in enforcement. In fact, there is an increase in enforcement. This amendment is a fiction. The funding level for last year was $465 million. This year it is $475 million. The fact of the matter is that the lion's share of the increase will go to the States where the lion's share of the work is done. Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of the environmental inspections are done at the State level; 90 percent of the enforcement actions are taken at the State level. We need to empower the States to do the work. We need to get the money into the hands of the individuals who know our watersheds, our industries, and the sensitive areas of the country that need to be protected. If my colleagues want to cut Federal agencies, HUD, NASA, FEMA, National Science Foundation, this is the amendment to do it. I do not advise that. Those agencies need these funds. This budget for this bill has been developed on a bipartisan basis. We have tried to provide assets where they are needed. We do not need to cut NASA any more. We certainly do not need to cut FEMA any more. We are trying to increase the National Science Foundation budget. We have a terrific administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. She is a tiger for the defense of our national environment. She has shown that through her experience as Governor. I think she will do a marvelous job. She believes that the lion's share of the enforcement belongs at the State level. At the end of the day when this bill is passed, the Environmental Protection Agency will have virtually the same number of people working in enforcement in 2002 as they have in 2001. So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that we reject this amendment and retain this level of funding, this increase in funding over last year.

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

Mr. WALSH. I have not identified that yet. But as soon as I have a better figure on it, I will provide the gentleman with that.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. I appreciate that. Many of our Members are very passionate about this also. But the fact of the matter is, I do not have any additional speakers right now so I will continue to reserve my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure how to help the gentleman out. He has had more speakers than I have. He has expended his time less frugally than I have. I do not intend to use all my time to close.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I intend to use 2 minutes of our remaining time to close. As soon as the gentleman completes, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. I would just remind the gentleman this year's budget is $10 million higher for enforcement in EPA.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, there is no one in this Congress who cares more about the environment than I do. I had the good fortune as a young boy of growing up in the Finger Lakes region of New York State, and my experience showed me that the people that I saw on the streams where I fished, in the woods where I hunted, in the woods where I skied, are State officials, State employees. The States are the ones who do the enforcement work for the Environmental Protection Agency. The State folks know those streams. They know those lakes. They know the conditions and industry surrounding our watersheds. They enforce the laws. I want to make it very clear, there are no cuts in the EPA budget. There are no cuts. The amendment that the gentleman proposes, however, is a cut. It is a cut to HUD, it is a cut to NASA, it is a cut to FEMA, it is a cut to the National Science Foundation. If Members want to cut HUD or NASA, FEMA, the National Science Foundation, support the gentleman's amendment. But what I submit is that the people who do the enforcement day-to-day, who know the conditions, who know the watersheds, who know the lakes and rivers, we are providing them with the additional funds. States conduct more than 95 percent of the environmental inspections and more than 90 percent of the environmental enforcement actions. It is the States that do the lion's share of the work, and it is the States that get the lion's share of this increase. This is an increase in the EPA enforcement budget. As a fact, the fiscal year 2001 enacted budget for enforcement is $465 million. In this budget, according to the President's budget request and what we have committed to, the subcommittee has committed to, the level of funding is $475 million. How Members can arrive at a cut from that, it just defies logic. What we do is we put the money where it is needed and where it is used. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the Federal Government. I work in the Federal Government. I have the greatest respect for the employees who work within the Federal Government. But I want to make sure that the people who have the responsibility to protect my watershed, my drinking water, my neighbor's good health, I want to make sure those people know the system, the environmental systems. I want to make sure that they know the businesses and the business owners. I want to make sure that they know that their neighbors are the ones who are going to benefit from their vigor and activity in enforcing the laws of the land. So let us put the money in the hands of the people who are going to do the enforcement work, and that is the State employees who have traditionally done the lion's share of this work. There is not a cut. I will just restate that, there is no cut in enforcement. This is an increase in enforcement. But if Members want to cut Federal agencies, cut HUD, cut NASA, cut FEMA, cut NSF, support the gentleman's amendment. I would strongly urge that my colleagues not do that. These funds are needed by those agencies, and let us keep the enforcement in the hands of the State. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, one Traficant amendment is printed and the other is not printed yet. It is at the desk. It is his Buy American amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely our understanding of this agreement.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) to close.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALSH. It is my understanding, and we do have some communication on this and I will try to locate it if I can, from public housing directors who say to us, ``We think that Members should know that there is no higher level of drug use or drug abuse in our housing than there is in the neighborhoods around our public housing authorities.'' We have provided billions of dollars to the criminal justice system.

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

Mr. WALSH. If the gentleman would yield further, I would hope that the authorization committee would respect that this is the President's number one priority in housing this year and honor that request by doing the authorization.

Mr. WALSH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we would expect the authorizing committee to get their work done. There is sufficient time in the year.