Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the ranking member of the authorizing committee has risen to offer an amendment, and we had had prior discussion, and I would suggest that remaining in regular order, I believe it would be the gentleman's opportunity to offer his amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I continue to reserve my point of order. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the same amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin offered in the full committee. It was considered out of order in the full committee, and he is without question on message. He stays on message. I recognize that. I congratulate him for that, but I think the message is wrong. The message should be that the President had an agenda to bring to the Congress. He brought it to the Congress. We had debate on whether or not the American taxpayer was paying too much money. The debate was resolved by Congress. The House and Senate voted to cut the tax rates that individual taxpayers pay. The people who pay the most money got the largest tax cut, the people who pay the least amount of taxes got the least tax cut, and those who do not pay taxes did not get any tax cut. I think that is pretty logical, and people can understand that. Mr. Chairman, what we are charged with doing today is the Congress's primary role, which is creating a budget and spending taxpayers' money. We have an allocation. It is the allocation provided to us by the budget resolution and the Committee on the Budget in consultation with the Committee on Appropriations which handed down our allocation, and we have to live with that. That is our allocation. Mr. Chairman, we have provided funds for almost every one of the areas that the gentleman would otherwise supplement funds, and we think that the funding is right. I will close by saying I think this is the right formula for spending in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, page 20 through line 25, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close the debate, and I will honor the gentleman's agreement that I will yield as soon as he does. Mr. Chairman, this is a phony choice. We do not have additional funds available to us to spend, and we cannot in the process of creating this legislation amend any existing legislation, and that is what the gentleman has asked us to do. The debate over tax cuts is over. In fact, the check is in the mail. These funds are not available to us to spend. We have an allocation. It is a substantial amount of money. The subcommittee has met for hundreds of hours in hearings and in planning to develop this bill, as a subcommittee and full committee. The bill passed the full committee on a voice vote. I think it has strong support within the Committee and within the Congress; and, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would reserve my point of order and ask Members to continue to support this bill as it stands after having made the choices that we have made.

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

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 opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to oppose my good friend and colleague from New York who does such a great job for our State, but its difficulty is that the cut that has been proposed in the HUD Salaries and Expenses account would force HUD to either cut over 100 staff members in order to provide the 17 percent increase in YouthBuild, or find some other accommodation, which I think would dramatically affect HUD's ability to operate and administer its programs. Last year, the YouthBuild program received a 17 percent increase in the fiscal year 2001 bill, and that increase was maintained in 2002. This is obviously a very difficult choice, but I would ask Members to stay with the subcommittee bill; and, therefore, I would oppose the amendment, which would provide another significant increase to a program that was increased dramatically last year at the expense of HUD's staff. Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment.

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, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is one of many amendments which goes after the President's initiative to provide funds to low-income families to help them to buy homes. As I mentioned earlier, we have about $16 billion in the bill for section 8 housing vouchers, and I think there has been a high demand for those, and it is a popular program. We have provided additional funds for section 8. Some of those funds will be used in pilot programs around the country to help to encourage low-income families who are now renting to utilize those vouchers for homeownership, to make monthly mortgage payments. What the President has proposed, and Secretary Martinez has asked us to support, is providing $200 million nationally so that those individuals would be provided with the funds to make that down payment, that big chunk of money that we all know we have to come up with in order to make the initial mortgage deal. The section 8 housing vouchers hopefully will provide the taxpayer and the owner with a very good investment, a very good return on those section 8 vouchers. So it is an important initiative, and it would be wrong to deny low- income families moving from welfare to work and from tenantship to ownership. Those funds are important. We need to keep those funds where they are. Now, as far as the homeless program where these funds would be provided, let me just state my feeling. I feel very strongly that we need to provide funds to help people who are homeless to find permanent homes. My first action as city council president in Syracuse back in 1987 was to establish a homeless and housing vulnerable task force. It has been working ever since. The need continues, but I think we have done a very good job in central New York in providing homes for the homeless. We have provided over $1 billion in this bill for that purpose nationwide. It is an increase, albeit a slight increase, over last year. So the subcommittee's commitment and support for programs to provide help to the homeless is in place. As I believe the gentleman knows, all fiscal year 2002 renewal costs for Shelter Plus Care programs are fully funded. Mr. Chairman, 2002 is fully funded. The committee has already indicated it would address fiscal year 2003 needs for this program in next year's bill. The committee's action is identical to the way funding for these costs have always been treated with the exception of 2001, and is identical to the way all programs in this bill are treated. This amendment proposes to treat this program differently than every other program in this bill by using fiscal year 2002 funds to forward- fund fiscal 2003 costs. To do this, the gentleman would cut $100 million out of this very important program, and those funds would be divided amongst the States, including New York's, which would get a large proportion of these funds, and also to 594 cities to help provide affordable housing to members of our communities. In addition, it would cause HUD to eliminate over 268 jobs by taking $22 million from salaries and expenses. I believe the real intent behind the gentleman's agreement is to ensure that fiscal year 2003 funding needs for this program do not compete with any other program next year. While I have sympathy for his desire to essentially create an entitlement program, we cannot support this. We oppose it. It makes no sense to cut funds to States and localities and eliminate HUD employees to set aside funding that is not even needed next year for this program. I would therefore urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 50 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and myself, the opponent.

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 rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is instructive because it shows how difficult it is to find additional funds in this to reorder the priorities in this bill. The amendment would cut $200 million from funds that the President has asked us to provide to help low-income families to become homeowners. Now we spend approximately $16 billion on Section 8 vouchers. We are actually looking at a program that will allow individuals to use those Section 8 housing vouchers to purchase a home. It is a pilot program. We believe that the American dream still exists, and the President has said not only should we try this pilot program with Section 8 vouchers for mortgages but we should provide $200 million to low-income families to help to make the initial down payment, that big chunk of money that we all know is necessary to plunk down before you can make a deal with a bank on the mortgage. I cannot think of a better way, Mr. Chairman, to help families to move from welfare to work and from renting to owning. This is the President's major initiative in this bill, and I think we should honor it. What the gentleman does is he proposes to take all of that money, all $200 million, and spend it in other areas of the bill. What he has proposed is to provide 34,000 additional Section 8 housing vouchers, and some 10,000 of those would go to disabilities. I would submit that imitation is the highest form of flattery. That is exactly what we did in the bill. He is just doubling it. But the problem with that is, while we have done our very best to provide new vouchers to help families in need of housing, we continue to see those funds go unused. None of the funds we provided for new housing vouchers in fiscal year 1999 or 2000 was actually used, and it is likely that this will be the case again this year, since HUD has not yet awarded the new vouchers that have been provided. At the same time, public housing authorities continue to fail to use the vouchers they already have. On average, PHAs are providing fulfillment of only 93 percent of the vouchers that have been allocated. Consequently, huge amounts of money continue to go unspent. Last year, HUD recaptured over $1 billion in unused voucher funds, money that would have funded 171,000 vouchers. So I cannot support, Mr. Chairman, taking these funds that will help poor families to buy their home, to get a piece of the rock, to get a piece of the American dream, to deny them that, by putting it into a program that HUD cannot possibly spend the money for. What I urge is that we reject this amendment. I submit for the Record a letter that I received in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee from the Enterprise Foundation, the National Council of State Housing Agencies, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Community Development Association supporting the HOME program and that $200 million presidential earmark. July 26, 2001. Hon. James T. Walsh, Chairman, Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, HUD, and Independent Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned representatives of state and local governments and non-profit community development organizations thank you for increasing FY 2002 funding for the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program to $2 billion in H.R. 2620, the FY 2002 VA/HUD appropriations bill. We strongly urge you to reject any House floor amendments to reduce HOME funding. As you clearly recognize, HOME is one of the most important tools states and local governments have to respond flexibly to their unique and diverse affordable housing needs. HOME has consistently exceeded congressional expectations by assisting families with incomes below the HOME limits, leveraging significant public and private housing funds, and sparking innovative solutions to a wide array of housing challenges. HOME's success in answering the nation's housing needs is limited by a single factor--inadequate funding. Though Congress authorized HOME at $2 billion when it created the program in 1990, Congress has never appropriated that amount. A HOME appropriation of $2 billion for the upcoming fiscal year is barely enough to compensate for the loss of purchasing power HOME has suffered since Congress first funded it nearly a decade ago. We agree that a number of federal housing programs need more funding. HOME is one of the most deserving among them. Please insist on at least $2 billion in HOME funds in FY 2002. Sincerely, The Council of State Community Development Agencies. The Enterprise Foundation. The Local Initiatives Support Corporation. The National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies. The National Council of State Housing Agencies. The National League of Cities. The National Association of Counties. The National Community Development Association. Mr. Chairman, I urge that Members reject the amendment.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the distinguished subcommittee chair of the authorizing committee.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for joining me in this debate and a general discussion of the bill. As I said before, I think we have a good bill. I suspect that if we had $150 billion to spend, someone would stand up and say we just need more money. Last year, we provided a record increase in veterans medical care, the most ever in the history of this country in one year and we still had amendments asking for more money. I think we have done a pretty good job of providing the resources that we need. I would remind my colleagues that back in the years of the Reagan tax cut, there was a very substantial tax cut but there was an agreement that they would cut taxes and that they would also commensurately cut spending. The tax cuts occurred, the spending cuts did not. Therefore, we wound up with very substantial budget deficits. I think that what we have done thus far this year is the right thing to do. We have had growing surpluses, we were collecting more money than the government needed to operate, and if the money was left there, it would have been spent. So the President proposed a tax cut that was supported by both the House, and the Senate, in very large numbers, and signed by the President. It is now law and the money is being mailed out to the taxpayers who were overpaying. So we have to now take care of the spending part, which is really what this bill is about. It is spending priorities. We have close to $110 billion in this bill. Some of it is at our discretion, about $85 billion. I think we have done the best we could. I think we have met the priorities of the country. We have increased veterans medical care by $4 billion in the last 3 years, if this bill passes. We have provided for the protection of the environment. We have provided for emergency relief, disaster relief for emergency victims, and we have provided for the housing of our Nation. I think we have made some difficult choices, but we have made wise choices. And I think that the people who pay the taxes would accept the fact that we have done our level best. So I submit to my colleagues in closing the debate with my feeling that we have done the very best that we could.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair advise us as to how much time is remaining in general debate?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. WALSH

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