Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, this is as good an idea that has come along in a long time. It has broad support. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is as consistent as Old Faithful regarding fire fighters. The gentleman is their hero; and there are many others in this room who have made this happen. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I have an allocation that would force us to go into HUD that would cut salaries and expenses. Nobody wants to do that. Give us a chance to work with the gentleman as we move towards conference, and I think we probably will have a positive result.

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

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in closing. I have discussed this with my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). We both appreciate not only the sentiment but the leadership that has been provided on this issue. It is a real big issue for the country. But to force us to choose between Superfund and CSOs is just too tough a choice to make. We would urge the gentleman, with all due respect, to withdraw the amendment; and he should continue to work with the authorizing committee and with the Committee on Appropriations to see if we can do a better job of meeting this commitment. It is a question of allocation and choices, and we just cannot justify the choice he is asking us to make. I would ask again that he would withdraw the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. WALSH

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. 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. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the authorizing committee does its job, there is not a problem. We would expect the authorizing committee to do their job. If they do not do their job, then money reverts back to the States.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The President and the Secretary have made increasing homeownership opportunities for low-income families a top priority, one I believe each and every one of us can and should support. My experience as a city council member in Syracuse and city council president was that the strongest neighborhoods are the ones with the highest percentage of homeownership. Anything that we can do to promote homeownership, we should do. The program that the President has asked us to support would provide funds for individuals and families to make a down payment in order to get a mortgage on a property. As most of us know who have bought homes, the hardest part is that initial stretch, to meet those initial monthly mortgage payments the first several years, but also to get that money for the down payment. It is essential to the equation of homeownership. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have made dramatic changes in this country in recent years through welfare reform. Thousands and thousands of families who have been chained to welfare over the years have now benefited by moving from the strictures of welfare into the workplace. The efforts of the Congress and the administration, in both parties, has given them hope, given them the opportunity and pride of being productive citizens. The next critical step to giving Americans the opportunity to really get a piece of the American dream, is homeownership. This is a very critical program. This is the President's major initiative in this bill. So while the Administration request proposed an earmark for this initiative out of the HOME program, we did not do that. Instead, we have provided a $200 million increase over the request for the initiative. I want to make sure Members are aware that the down payment assistance is already authorized as a part of the HOME program. In fact, many States and localities are already using their HOME funds for this purpose. However, given the priority that many of us believe should be placed on homeownership, we have targeted the increase provided over the last year for homeownership as the President requested. While down payment assistance is an authorized HOME activity, targeted funds would require some authorization changes to preserve the prerogatives of the authorization committee on which the gentleman from Massachusetts serves as ranking member by requiring those authorization changes to be made before targeting the funds. Should those changes not be made by next June, which I certainly hope will not be the case, States and localities can use these increased funds for any authorized HOME purpose. The debate over what changes should be made to bolster home ownership is not an issue for this bill. We leave that to the authorizing committee. However, I believe we should support the President and the Secretary in these efforts. Mr. Chairman, if this program is implemented properly, we have the opportunity to help over 100,000 American families move from tenantship, rentership, to ownership. What a marvelous concept that is. What better way to use taxpayers dollars than to help people get their piece of the rock, to fulfill their American dream. Anyone who knows the rights and the responsibilities of home ownership knows there is a special feeling that goes with that.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, my response was that this program is not authorized. We expect it to be authorized. If it is not authorized, the money would revert to the States as the rest of the formula for the HOME program already does.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendments numbered 44, 45 and 46 may be offered at any point during further consideration of the bill.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I believe an agreement has been worked out to the satisfaction of both parties. I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2620 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 210---- One, no amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate. The amendment printed in House Report 107-164. The amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 5, 6, 7, 12, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 46. Two amendments by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and one amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) that I have placed at the desk. One amendment en bloc by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) consisting of the amendments numbered 31, 33, 34 and 35. Two, such amendments shall be debatable as follows: Except as specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes only. The amendments numbered 6, 12, 24, 39 and 42 shall be debatable for 20 minutes each. The amendments numbered 5 and 37 and one amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) shall be debatable only for 30 minutes each. The amendment numbered 46 shall be debatable only for 40 minutes. Such debate shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Three, each such amendment shall be offered only by the Member designated in this request, the Member who caused it to be printed, or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or a designee, each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the whole. Four, all points of order are waived against amendment numbered 25. Five, the amendment printed in House Report 107-164 may amend portions of the bill not yet read.

Mr. WALSH

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 yield back the balance of my time.

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. 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to reiterate that the budget for enforcement is not cut, it is increased. And since the States do the lion's share of the enforcement, they receive the lion's share of the increase. I think the idea is that we want to make sure that the money that is being spent on environmental protection is spent wisely, and we would like to have it in the hands of the individuals and in the hands of the States that are going to do the enforcement. So this is obviously an increase in enforcement. I think if my colleagues support increasing enforcement, they would oppose this amendment.

Mr. WALSH. The gentleman has more time than I do.

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

Mr. WALSH. Then, in that case, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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.