Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, no one else has requested time.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I wish to just clarify one point that has been made by several of the proponents of this amendment, which I think quite clearly is wrong, and that is that this amendment or that the arrangement under the current structure of the bill takes unemployment insurance benefits away. In fact, people will continue to receive their unemployment benefits. So anyone out there who has lost their job, this bill will not take away any of their unemployment benefits. I hope people understand that. In fact, the stimulus package will extend extended unemployment insurance benefits and extend making COBRA payments to all Americans who have lost their jobs since the attack on September 11. Mr. Chairman, I think the debate has been divisive enough, so I would like to try to end on as positive a note as I could. I think the gentleman from California spoke about the integrity of America, the broad-shouldered approach to this disaster on the part of Americans, the sharing spirit of Americans, and I would ask my colleagues from States throughout this Nation to continue that. We need their help. We are in a difficult spot. The legislative process is unwieldy. We cannot always make things work exactly the way we want to. Sometimes we do get tied up in knots. But it is all for the right reasons, Mr. Chairman. It is all to help a city that has been hit and hit hard. As our Governor said, we have been bloodied but we are not bowed. This is a difficult time. This is a difficult bill. But I would ask my colleagues to stay with us just this one more time. We will stand with you to make sure that your constituents, the people in your States that have lost their jobs, get the support that they deserve from the United States, from this government. So Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would ask that we reject this amendment. I think it is a divisive amendment. Let us reject it. Support the bill and move this bill over to the Senate for its consideration.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank Members for this important debate about the future of our State and the great City of New York. The amendment that is being debated today, right now, that the gentleman from California has offered, would take approximately $1.8 billion of the funds that were reallocated in an agreement we reached with the White House, take almost $2 billion out of the Community Development Block Grant program, away from New York, and spread it around to the rest of the country. It does not re-create the national emergency grants that the administration initially provided. This keeps it within the Community Development Block Grant program, but it also takes away the waivers that we had provided for New York so that those waivers would not be available either in New York or the rest of the country. Why is that important? Well, I think it is pretty obvious to all of us that we have a two-front war going on right now, Afghanistan and the United States. In Afghanistan we have been seeing all the battlegrounds as the battle has progressed. In the United States, we all know what the battleground was; it was New York City and the Pentagon. The Pentagon is being rebuilt. We are working on a defense appropriations bill today that provides over $300 billion in the defense budget, and there are further funds within the supplemental to fight the war and to rebuild the Pentagon and to conduct our military action. New York City took a direct hit on September 11. Not only was the World Trade Center destroyed and thousands of people died, but hundreds of thousands of people have been affected in that immediate area. I talked with people in the last number of weeks who still do not have telephone service, who cannot get to their apartments or their businesses by public transportation. There is no one else in the country in that situation right now. What we did was we tried to attach funds that would otherwise have gone to the rest of the country in anticipation of serious unemployment dislocation. The stimulus package that is being discussed in the House and in the Senate deals directly with unemployment issues. We tried to add to this appropriations bill unemployment insurance benefits and COBRA benefits to provide for health care for those workers who were dislocated and lost their health care. It belongs in the stimulus package. That is where the debate has centered, and both the House and the Senate deal with that, with those issues, in the stimulus package. Indeed, these national emergency grants were authorized by that stimulus package bill. So the $1.5 billion or the total amount of funds, the $3 billion, is unauthorized. When we designated, redesignated these funds as community development block grant funds, we also redesignated about a half billion dollars in FEMA funds to provide New York City with $2.5 billion in community development block grant funds. Those funds are the most flexible, the most readily available, and most important dollars that we could send to New York City at this time. Why? Because of the thousands of people who live in those neighborhoods and the thousands of businesses that conduct their business and employ people and put bread on the table, there is no other way to affect those decisions that are being made that the Federal Government can do right now. I think most people understand that CDBG funds are flexible; they can be applied to individual situations, for businesses, for residences; those funds can be used to build public infrastructure, to approve parks, to provide curbs and streets that were destroyed, to build water systems, public utilities. That is why we went after those funds. We have heard today, clearly, that New York City did not get all the funds that were promised and have not received all the funds that were promised. We had to take, I think, dramatic action to show the administration that these funds were needed and they were needed right now, and they agreed to this. And I think the administration was reticent about this, but they acceded to our desires. The key to this whole thing is putting New York City back together again as quickly as possible. There is no better way to do it than to utilize these funds, these community development block grant funds. If the Congress supports what the gentleman from California wants to do, which basically plays the entire country against New York, it will hurt New York very deeply for a second time. Because right now, people are beginning to understand what this action that we have taken accomplishes: that those businesses who want to stay in New York but need incentives, they need to help put their storefronts back together again, they need to get their communications systems redesigned; they need to buy new communications systems and new point-of-sale equipment for their stores; they need to help their employees to get back on their feet. Quite frankly, I say to my colleagues, this is about putting a neighborhood back together. No American could or should or would want to deny the people of New York, of lower Manhattan, of the neighborhoods of Chinatown and Soho and Chelsea and Battery Park, and that magnificent area which was really one of the real centers of the beginning of this country; that is where the island of Manhattan was first settled. We are trying to put that neighborhood back together. We have taken dramatic action to try to do that. I promise that if this amendment is defeated, and I hope that it will be and I believe that it will be, that I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as I have thus far, to make sure that any workers who have been displaced or suffered a loss of a job because of that attack on September 11 will have the full force and strength of the Federal Government behind them in making sure that their unemployment insurance benefits, their health care benefits, their retraining, is supported by the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, there is one aspect of this that the gentleman has not mentioned. There is $175 million of funds in here that would go towards reflushing the Workers' Compensation Fund. Why is that important? Because hundreds and hundreds of workers have been injured, were injured in the attack and have been injured in the subsequent rubble removal and in the search and rescue processes that took place. This is a dangerous place. There are still toxins in the area from that attack. Those funds, the workers' compensation funds and another $30 million or $40 million for worker retraining to help those workers dramatically and directly affected in New York, in no place have they been affected as they were in New York, to give those people a chance to learn a new job. So I say to my colleagues, I would implore them, please, please do not accept this amendment. Please reject it. New York has suffered enough. This gives us an opportunity to help, to show the people of lower Manhattan and the rest of that magnificent island the concern that the country has for them. Do not play America against New York. I think America is squarely behind New York. This is a divide-and-conquer strategy that the gentleman from California has offered. I strongly urge that we reject it. Stick with the bill as it stands. Let the bill go forward and let us try to work for the rest of the country's benefit as we go forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond quickly. No New Yorker offered an amendment to take funds back from California when the Northridge earthquake hit, and no New Yorker offered an amendment to take back funds when the Mount Saint Helens disaster occurred. I think we have always been forthcoming in our support for the rest of the country. This is our difficult time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I have not done all of the hard work on this bill. There has been a lot of work done by many, including the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who has been so patient with us as we attached the supplemental to this bill. I rise in strong support of the rule and the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill. There has been a good deal of debate about this, but not much about the substance of the DOD appropriation. It is a good bill and it needs to be supported. The supplemental has drawn most of the attention. As all of us know, the President issued a veto threat that if we added more to the bill than the $40 billion, he would veto it. That changed all of the rules when that occurred. The President did say that New York should get half of this money, and I believe we will receive $20 billion plus. Most agree that $20 billion is a floor, not a ceiling. When we negotiated with the White House, there were very few options we had. We had to operate within the existing structure of the bill. What we did was allocated $1.5 billion national emergency grants to the Community Development Block Grant Program. Community development block grant funds are the most flexible funds the Federal Government has. They are the most important funds that we have, the best tools that we have to rebuild the City of New York. CDBG can be used for infrastructure, public utilities, help hospitals, it can be used to help incent businesses to stay there, help residents to stay there, improve the quality of life in that neighborhood. It is the best money we can put in at this point. That is why we settled for that amount. Is it all we wanted? No, it is not. My belief is that the President will keep his commitment and the rest of those funds will flow. I remind my colleagues that 75 percent of the bill here for New York City is FEMA. Many of us go back 10, 15, even 20 years here. Not once has the Federal Government ever withdrawn its commitment to fully fund the FEMA program. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good bill. This is a good rule. New York will benefit from it. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a strong leader in Central New York on the eve of his retirement from public service. Ralph Standbrook has devoted virtually his entire professional life to the betterment of his community and in defense of his nation. On December 11th, Mr. Stanbrook will preside over his final meeting as Chairman of the Cayuga County Legislature in Central New York after a ten-year tenure on that body. Shortly after graduating from Red Creek High School, Ralph Standbrook joined the United States Army, retiring in 1972 at the rank of lieutenant colonel. Chairman Standbrook served his nation in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars and has been decorated with the Agri-Service Award, Conspicuous Service Cross Award, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Combat Infantry Badge, and Senior Parachute Badge. He met his wife of fifty years, Tula, during his service while stationed at Fort Temple, Kentucky. After retiring from the Army, Chairman Standbrook farmed and worked in real estate and construction in Tennessee. In 1983, he returned to his native Central New York to pursue a retirement career as a charter fishing boat captain on Lake Ontario. In 1991, he was elected to the Cayuga County Legislature. He also served as Mayor of the Village of Fair Haven from 1991 until 1994 when he was elected Chairman of the Cayuga County Legislature--a position that has since developed into a full-time position which also oversees the County's executive branch of government. Under Chairman Standbrook's leadership, Cayuga County has prospered. During his watch, Standbrook ushered in major public improvements to the county's Emerson Park and the Sodus Bay breakwater. Standbrook led the effort to purchase significant Lake Ontario-front property, establishing the Sterling Nature Center, and created the Cayuga County Sewer and Water Authority. He has served as a strong steward for the county's watersheds and natural resources and supported the expansion of programs at Cayuga Community College, including the development of its Regional Applications Center. Mr. Speaker, in my twenty-plus years of public service both in local government and here in Washington, it is rare that I have come across a leader with the vision, the integrity, and the drive of Ralph Standbrook. He is indeed one of the best individuals I have ever met in public life and is a true visionary. Ralph Standbrook is a leader who always thinks big. It is my honor to recognize Chairman Ralph Standbrook for his tireless service on behalf of the people of Cayuga County. I thank him for the legacy of progress that he leaves and wish him, his wife Tula, and their entire family much health and happiness throughout his retirement from elected office. Knowing Ralph's drive and concern for community, I am certain he will continue to improve Central New York's quality of life for years to come.

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished dean of the New York Republican delegation. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a very hard-working and distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this issue to my attention. I share his concern for the findings in the New York Department of Health's report which show the high incidence of breast cancer in Rockland County and the East Side of Manhattan. I want to assure my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), that it is the intent of the language included in the conference report for this study to be directed to the New York School of Medicine.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present for consideration of the House the conference report on H.R. 2620, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for 2002. In the interest of time, I will try to be brief. I would like, however, to begin by saying that this is a good bill. I think the fact that we had a unanimous vote on the rule is symbolic of what is to come. Like those presented in each of the past few years, it is very much a solid, bipartisan effort of the House and Senate. In this regard I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), as well as to our very able Senate colleagues, Senators Mikulski and Bond. While we clearly had differences and many difficult decisions on several aspects of the bill as passed by each body, the conference report nevertheless represents a true collaboration of effort and an honest negotiated compromise. Again, I am grateful to my colleagues for their candor, perseverance, and friendship. With the House's indulgence, I would like to take a few minutes to briefly outline the highlights of the proposal. First and foremost, the conference report is within the 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. The bill's discretionary spending is $85.4 billion in new budget authority, which is an increase of just over $2 billion above the budget submission and some $2.9 billion over last year's bill. I would note for the House that this level of discretionary spending includes emergency spending for $1.5 billion for FEMA for disaster relief requirements. We have tried as best we can to spread the proposed increases throughout the bill: discretionary veterans programs overall are increased by over $1.4 billion compared to 2001. This follows on some very substantial increases in the last 2 years, with $1.05 billion of the increase going to medical care and the remainder spread to research, processing veterans' compensation, pension and education claims, operating our national cemeteries, and increasing necessary construction at VA facilities by over $160 million over last year. Housing programs have increased in HUD by over $1.67 billion compared to 2001, with increases in the housing certificate program, public housing operating subsidies, the HOPWA program, HOME investment partnerships, the housing for the elderly and disabled programs, and the disabled program is a significant increase, and the lead hazard reduction program. It is important to note that this proposal also includes some very difficult but I believe extremely important and highly defensible changes in policy direction which are represented by reductions in the Public Housing Capital Fund and the Drug Elimination Grant Program. Neither of these programs is serving the best interests of the people they were intended to serve, and it is our job to take whatever steps are necessary to remedy the situation. In the case of capital funds, it meant getting tougher on public housing authorities to spend the dollars intended for the residents of public housing authority. There are literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of code violations and hazards not getting fixed. In the case of the Drug Elimination Grant Program, it meant taking an honest look at whether HUD is the best entity to run this type of program. Based on HUD's track record, we did not believe that it was. Instead, this bill increases funding in the operating fund so that all PHAs will see an increase. They then have the discretion to use those funds as they see fit. The Environmental Protection Agency's funding increases some $586 million over the budget request, and $74 million above last year. This proposal continues to provide a strong research program as well as increased resources for the many State categorical grants, including section 106 water pollution grants, section 103 and 105 air pollution grants, and the new BEACH grant program. The Clean Water SRF program has been funded at $1.35 billion and the Safe Drinking Water SRF has received $850 million. These are substantial commitments. However, they are dwarfed by the need that is out there in combined sewer overflow projects throughout the country. FEMA's operating programs increase by nearly $135 million over the 2001 funding level and we have provided $2.1 billion in emergency and nonemergency dollars for disaster relief. I should also mention that $150 million has been provided for the new firefighter grant program which, as my colleagues can imagine, is a very, very popular and competitive program. NASA's programs will receive a net increase of $508 million over last year, and we have proposed several structural changes in the agency's account structure to provide them greater programmatic flexibility and the committee, better oversight capability. Finally, I am proud to say that we have raised the overall funding for the National Science Foundation by just over $316 million to a total program of $4.789 billion. That is an increase of 8.2 percent compared to last year. Doing a little research myself, 10 years ago that budget was half, so that the National Science Foundation budget has doubled in the past 10 years. The bulk of this increase will go to improve available resources for National Science Foundation's core research programs, bringing the total research program to nearly $3.6 billion, while the remainder would be spread to major research, construction and equipment, education and human resource programs, and salaries and expenses for NSF's capable staff. I would like to add that I personally would have liked to do more here, as I know my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), would. However, to do so only could have been done at the expense of other very important programs found in other agencies throughout the bill. Having said that, given the increase proposed by the administration of 1 percent, we have done a remarkable job. All Members are, of course, aware of the difficulty in putting these bills together, especially with so many diverse and competing interests. Developing the perfect bill is probably impossible. Nevertheless, I believe we have done a tremendous job developing a bill that represents the interests of both the legislative and the executive branch. By the way, I would like to thank the executive branch for allowing us to do our job without a great deal of interference. They have been very cooperative. Their priorities were made. We tried to honor those priorities; in many cases we did. But the relationship this year was excellent. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want once again to thank all my colleagues for allowing us the privilege of presenting this conference report on the fiscal year 2002 appropriations for veterans, housing and independent agencies. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08NO01.006 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 279, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2620) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise us as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would take a few seconds to close and, merely, I would like to thank our staffs, both minority and majority staff, for the remarkable amount of effort they put into this. We had six preconferences prior to conference. They worked very, very hard as did all of the members of the subcommittee. I would especially like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who was very supportive all the way along. There was no partisanship at all in this bill. I submit the bill to the consideration of the House. I urge its adoption.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me this time. She has now helped us guide this bill through the House for the third time, and she does a marvelous job. I would also like to thank her opposite number, my neighbor, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), for the courtesies extended to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), myself, and our subcommittee. Thanks also to Chairman Dreier, who quickly guided us through the Committee on Rules and turned us loose. We think we have a very good bill. There are a number of compromises within the bill, but there are also, I think, some fairly important policy statements that we make. We allocated precious resources to the priorities that were expressed by the House and the Senate, and I will deal more with the details when the bill comes before us. But I would urge all Members to support the rule.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2620, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.