Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and I yield myself such time as I may consume. However, I am not in opposition. We have considered this and we have discussed this with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) the ranking member. We believe this is a friendly amendment, it is a proper use of funds, and we think it is a good allocation of funds. For that reason, I have no objection to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his strong advocacy for this critical ecosystem in upstate New York. As a Member who has worked closely with him on a number of issues, I understand the importance of the acid rain programs not only to the Adirondacks but to the entire Eastern Seaboard. As the gentleman knows, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies has consistently supported funding for acid rain monitoring programs and would agree that a funding floor may be appropriate to ensure they can continue to operate in the long term. I would most certainly work with my colleague from New York to develop language that ensures the continued funding of these important environmental programs.

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), also a fellow New York Yankee fan, to engage in a colloquy with me.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his distinguished service on the Committee on Rules. I want to thank him for bringing this to our attention, as well as the other gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), who is a fighter and an advocate for JPL. My goal has always been to invest the resources of the Nation wisely. While this means getting the most out of every dollar we spend, it does not mean being penny-wise and pound-foolish. There is no other organization in the world that possesses the knowledge and the capabilities of JPL for deep space exploration. We must fully utilize the talents of the men and women of JPL in order to succeed. The recent difficulties in the Mars program have taught us all the dangers of dividing important capabilities between lab and outside contractors. I wish to assure the gentleman that I will not accept any proposal to transfer these functions away from JPL.

Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concerns; and I think it might be possible to find a solution in the conference, and I will certainly bring the gentleman's concern to the attention of the conferees.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).

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 2001 on June 20, 2000 (House Report 106-683). 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. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I do reserve the point of order. I just wanted to explain that both of these gentleman are right. We should appropriate these funds through the proper, through the normal appropriations process, and we do need to have funds in the pipeline available. The reason that we did not appropriate additional emergency funds in this bill is because there are currently $2 billion in the pipeline. The money is there. It is available. If this year continues to proceed as it has, those funds will be available through the fall into the spring. Will we do another emergency supplemental in the spring? I would suspect we will. We seem to do one every year. But the fact of the matter is we did not appropriate additional funds because we have money in the pipeline to deal with an emergency. So that basically is the reason that I would reserve the point of order.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

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

Mr. WALSH. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As I read the proposed amendment, it strengthens the committee position that ensures the administration will not implement the Kyoto protocol without prior congressional consent. This was a key element in the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed by the Senate in July of 1997. This congressional consent involves the Senate in its constitutional role regarding treaties and involves both Houses in approving and implementing legislation, regulation, programs and initiatives. The amendment clarifies that activities authorized under current law and funded by Congress will proceed.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctantly opposed to the Saxton amendment. The gentleman has shown through proven leadership throughout his years in the Congress a dedication to, certainly the New Jersey shoreline and the estuaries all over the country, which as we know are the most productive areas of our waters in terms of wildlife and fish life. While I am sympathetic to the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), I would have to say that the estuary program is fully funded at the President's request level. In fact, we have taken great pains to fully fund this program every year. For fiscal year 2001, the program would receive almost $17 million, a slight decrease from last year's level of $18 million, an increase over the 1999 level of $16.5 million. In addition to this general estuary program, we also fund through EPA's specific estuary-related programs for wetlands, including South Florida Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, Pacific Northwest, and Lake Champlain. Together these programs total over $63 million for each of year 2000 and 2001. The Saxton amendment would nearly triple what we now have provided for this program. In addition, the Saxton amendment would take funds, important funds from NASA and we have already taken $55 million out of NASA in the production of this bill through the amendments. This cut would further reduce their ability to adequately operate programs, so I would urge a no vote on the Saxton amendment.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will work on the assumption that there is some misunderstanding, as opposed to the direct attempt to confuse. I really believe that. I think there is just some misunderstanding here. It has been said twice now that there is no money in this budget for new incremental vouchers. I will read from the bill, page 23 of the bill, that says, ``Provided further, that of the total amount provided under this heading, up to $60 million shall be made available for incremental vouchers under Section 8 of the Act on a fair share basis to those public housing authorities that have 97 percent occupancy rate.'' Mr. Chairman, that translates into over 14,000 new, I would emphasize new, Section 8 housing vouchers. So I understand that we have disagreements over priorities, but we really have to deal on the floor on the basis of fact. The facts are that we have provided $60 million for new incremental vouchers to the tune of 14,000. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my colleague and neighbor to the east. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last world. I thank the gentleman for his hard work in this area. We share his concerns regarding veterans and their ability to know all their benefits and that their dependents are entitled to that. This legislation is before the authorizing committee. We would urge them to consider it in a timely manner. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the amendment. Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Hostettler