Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for communicating this matter to me and to the subcommittee and will look into the claim of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the attendant report language. Amendment Offered by Mr. Edwards

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say that this is an amendment that does not do what the author would like it to do. Very simply, the author would like to strike language contained in the committee report, not in the bill but in the report, dealing with direction to the EPA on dredging and in enforcing certain arsenic regulations. Although he and others will allege that this language somehow reaches in and cancels report language, certainly no reasonable interpretation would come to that conclusion. Specifically, the language refers to limitations in this Act on funds made available in this Act. I would say to the gentleman that there is no limitation in the Act on any of the above-mentioned issues. There is in particular no limitation of funds in the Act on any of these issues. Moreover, there is not even a limitation of funds on either of the issues contained in the report language. Despite the author's best intentions to somehow link what he would hope to accomplish with this language, it plainly and simply cannot and does not do what he would like it to do. I would like to shift now from a technical interpretation of the amendment to specific comments on the issues that the gentleman objects to. I will confine my comments to the issue of dredging. This is a very controversial issue. The EPA itself, up until just recently, had rejected the option of dredging because of the resultant pollution downstream from the dredging site. As we all know, when we stir up mud in the river, it travels down the current. When there are toxins in the mud in the river, they travel with the current, so other parts of these rivers would be affected as that dredging began to occur. The EPA was opposed to dredging for many, many years. Now there has been a change of heart and they want to proceed. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that the toxins that are in our bodies of water need to be dealt with. They need to be dealt with in the safest, most effective ways. We do not want our fish and our wildlife and our vegetative growth and our fellow human beings poisoned by these toxins. But there is much to sit and debate about the best way to deal with this. What the report language in this bill suggests is that the National Academy of Sciences will come out with a study sometime in September. At that point, the EPA will receive some direction in their decision-making from the National Academy of Sciences report, and they will then incorporate that into their operating plan. Once they have accomplished that, they can proceed, so we want them to get the benefit of the good science and then incorporate that into their plan, and make a good decision and go forward. I would just state lastly that this is the last time that this issue will be dealt with in this bill because the body of knowledge will be available for informed decision-making by the end of this year, so this is the last time we will deal with this in this bill. I would urge rejection of this amendment. Let us make sure we have good science before we proceed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have the amendment here in front of me, and I think it needs to be commented on that we have increased veterans' medical care almost $1.4 billion this year. We increased veterans' medical care a $1.7 billion last year. Those are record level increases in veterans' medical care, and they were properly appropriated for. These additional funds, the $500 million included in he amendment, are not offset. There is no source of these funds available to us. In addition, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) provides an additional $35 million for medical and prosthetic research. We just, last night, added $30 million back into that category for research, which was properly offset. The presenter of the amendment looked into the budget, found some additional funds, we agreed there is a proper use of those funds, and a higher priority went to research. I just would restate that I think we have done our job. We have done it well within the available funds. If additional funds become available later on in the process, we will look at prioritizing those also, but I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her amendment. I thank her for her strong advocacy for the mentally ill. She has always worked extremely hard and with real dedication to this issue to ensure that medical and social services are reached by those in need, especially our veterans. I know of no objection to this amendment, and for that reason, I would accept the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and will certainly continue to work with him on this issue. The gentleman from California has made very clear to me the chronic problems his community faces as a result of the problems of Mexican sewage flows, and he has made clear his desire to lift the cap in order to help provide the appropriate levels of treatment to do so. While we share his interest in resolving this issue, we remain concerned with the preferred proposal which EPA has chosen by which to provide secondary treatment which we believe would not be adequate to protect the public health. We therefore believe it would be unwise to raise the cap at this time. As is stated in the report, however, the committee will be continuing to examine progress on this issue, including the potential for secondary facilities to be sited in Mexico. We anticipate revisiting this important issue of secondary treatment at a later time.

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his statement and I thank him also for his strong environmental leadership in Southern California. He is noted throughout this House for his clear thinking. The gentleman is also correct that while the intentions of this amendment are quite clear, because the effect of the amendment would alter existing law, it would be in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would reluctantly be forced to bring a point of order against the amendment which would be sustained.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. Specifically, this language says that, and I quote, ``exceptions are provided for voluntary agreements,'' and therefore I can assure him that this language will not affect the specific project he is concerned with, the site he called 56/57. Furthermore, nothing in this report language should be construed as preventing or discouraging a prompt settlement between the EPA and the paper companies along the Fox River for cleanup of the PCBs.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, that is correct.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, at this time I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green). Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 90, line 16, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order. 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 21, 2000, House Report 106-686. 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. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the point that I was trying to make was, there should be an outcry today also. As then, there should be now.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).