Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman rhetorically if he would rather have the Administration use those recaptured funds for Kosovo, like they did last year?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), and then I will close.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge we reject this amendment. The Space Station is ready to go. This 20 percent cut in the program would kill the program, and all the science and good will that goes with the program. It is a very important program. As I mentioned earlier, we have young people all over the world who will participate in this. Seeing their parents and their countries cooperating globally to conduct a major science project is an inspiration. We need to inspire young people today, especially certainly towards idealism and altruism, but also towards math and science, which is what this program is all about. Lastly, to take the funds out of a program that needs the money and put it into a program that is, for all intents and purposes, fully funded is a mistake. So I would strongly urge that we reject this amendment. (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are having this debate on this bill, and I would like to clarify a couple of points. First of all, our staff has checked and, according to HUD's records and their budget office, there are no funds being spent to implement this agreement. The administration has not requested funds for this purpose, and the bill does not include those funds. Consequently, the amendment really has no practical impact on HUD and is, therefore, unnecessary. The problem is, for us, with this bill, it creates real difficulties. It creates a diversion away from the real issues of the bill. Much like the Kyoto debate on report language, we are trying to anticipate what the administration might do when no funds are actually being expended. So I would urge that Members vote against this amendment. It really is not, in my mind, germane to this bill; and for that reason, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

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 H.R. 4635, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I do insist on my point of order. I would like to explain briefly on the merits of the point of order. First of all, the expenditures that are suggested are not offset, and that is, in the parlance around here, offset. The idea is that if we offer expenditure changes within the bill, we have to provide funds to back them up, to transfer funds from one account to another. This amendment does not comply, and it does not provide those funds. There is also additional new authorization in the amendment. As the Chairman knows, this is the Committee on Appropriations. The authorizing committee, the Subcommittee on Housing of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services should pass that legislation on to us and then we appropriate the funds. This has not been accomplished. So for those reasons, I believe this amendment is out of order. On the issue of Section 8 housing vouchers, I would just like to make a couple of points. We have provided $13.275 billion for Section 8 housing vouchers, $4 billion above last year. No matter how much money we provide, the administration wants more. No matter how much money our side is willing to spend on any item, the other side is always ready to spend more. But these expenditures need to be based on reality. Part of the reality here is that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been provided billions of dollars for housing vouchers for poor people, and by the way, the Section 8 program initially was sponsored by people on this side of the aisle. We think it is a good program. As we reduce the amount of public housing, the incremental vouchers take up the slack, people go out and they find an apartment, and the government helps to subsidize the cost of that apartment for people with low incomes. It works pretty well if it is administered properly, but right now, Mr. Chairman, it is not being administered properly. Mr. Chairman, 247,000 vouchers that we appropriated and provided for, that Congress provided for have gone begging; 247,000 American families that need those new commerce are not getting them. My good friend and colleague pointed out that HUD had a study that there are millions of Americans that need these vouchers, and yet, HUD is not complying with the law. They are not providing those individuals those vouchers. That is what we appropriate these funds for. When those funds do not get spent, what has happened in the past is that the administration then comes back and says, ``Aha, we have money laying around that did not get spent, we will use that for other expenditures.'' So they use HUD as a bank to come back and find money and then redistribute it somewhere else, so it looks like they have helped poor people, but, in fact, they have not. The administration has taken that money and used it for defense or for transportation or some other area of expenditure. We do not think that is the right way to proceed. So we funded the section 8 vouchers fully; and we have also said that those funds, if there are any funds laying around at the end that do not get spent, and as history would show, that is what will happen, we said, those funds must also be used for an additional 10,000 vouchers. We think that is what these funds were for. So I would reserve my point of order against the amendment and await the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the concerns of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) are quite valid, and they deserve our attention. I will certainly do my best as this bill goes through the appropriations process.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on the amendments offered by myself be vacated, to the end that the voice vote thereon be taken de novo.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, there is some confusion about exactly how this would come back. If it was in the budget request, then it would be clearly not subject to reprogramming. I will be willing to work with the gentleman as we go down the road on this issue. But, as I said, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. As the gentlewoman from Ohio knows, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) has been a very active advocate for the housing needs of the disabled population, and I have worked very well with him in the past on this issue, and I am pleased to have the participation and support as well of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we had some discussion on this yesterday, about 3\1/2\ hours' or 4 hours' worth; and we tried to make the point over and over that veterans' medical care funds were sacrosanct. We were not going to those precious funds to be used for anything other than what they were intended. So when the gentleman came back with an amendment that talked about using administrative funds, I have no objection to that amendment. We believe the amendment is superfluous. It really accomplishes nothing. The amendment really is not necessary. We made that point again and again, that it is the medical care funds that we were protecting in the bill. Our language specifically denotes medical funds shall not be used. All other funds within the bill are open and available. There was no prohibition, no restrictive language on any of those other 17 areas of funding. So the gentleman's amendment makes administrative funds available for the Justice Department lawsuit. We believe in effect they already are. The practical upshot of this is the Veterans Administration will have to come back to the Congress and ask for a reprogramming of these funds, and I would have no objection to that. So, for those reasons, this side is prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to ask unanimous consent that it may be in order to consider at this time the Ney amendment No. 40, the Gutierrez amendment No. 28, the Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc. I ask further that after disposition of these amendments that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.