Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to explain to the House that we have reached an agreement, both sides, on the continued debate of this bill, and I would just like to make sure everyone is aware that there will be no further votes this evening. We will take up the VA-HUD bill tomorrow after the conclusion of the debate on the WTO. We have agreement on all amendments, all points of order are protected, we have time for all the amendments, and we will be coming in at 9 a.m. to work on WTO. Once that is concluded, we will work on the VA-HUD. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I have agreed to try to conclude debate on the VA-HUD bill by 9:00 p.m. tomorrow evening.

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

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 of the Chair.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify, this is not a reduction. This is an increase of 15 percent in their budget.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. 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 do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under subsection 302(f) of the Act. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical and clarifying amendment regarding the termination of the Community Builder Fellow program. This amendment simply clarifies language that was included in the bill and in the fiscal year 2000 appropriation that terminates the Community Builder Fellow program. In addition to clarifying language, language is added requiring that any former community builder fellows at HUD be subject to the provisions of the Office of Personnel Management and the Hatch Act. I believe the other side has reviewed this amendment with us, and I believe they are in agreement and that they are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr.Hinchey). Mr. Chairman, OFHEO requested an increase this year and the Committee on Appropriations gave them one. OFHEO's budget has increased from $19.5 million to $22 million, a 15 percent increase over last year's funding level. That is as great an increase as any budget within this bill. The increase is consistent with past increases and based on OFHEO's budget justifications is fair and adequate; but OFHEO wants a 50 percent, 5-0, 50 percent increase in their budget, and they claim the increase is necessary to finalize the risk-based capital standard and to adequately monitor the safety and soundness of the GSEs. But if past performance is any indicator of future action, I suspect OFHEO will not be able to do as they assert. My doubts are well founded, as OFHEO has never met their promises as they relate to risk-based capital standard despite a statutory requirement to do so by April of 1994. I remind you, we are in the year 2000; that is 6 years ago. So they did not keep that commitment. Despite the GSE Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, OFHEO was 5 years late issuing the preliminary rule, 5 years late. We are asked to give them a 50 percent increase in their budget? Their tardiness cannot be blamed on the Committee on Appropriations. Every year since 1994, OFHEO promised this committee that they would get the rule out. Every year, the committee increased funding to the requested level, and every year for 5 years OFHEO has failed to keep their promise. This is just one of the reasons I am not persuaded that OFHEO requires a 50 percent increase in their budget request. We are aware that OFHEO has recommended that they be removed from the appropriations process. They feel their mission is compromised because they must justify their expenditures to this committee; however, until the law is changed, refueling OFHEO's budget is our concern. Let me describe the review this committee conducts on this account. First, the fact that discretionary funds are not needed to pay for the account is none of our concern. We dig much deeper and are far more comprehensive because we take the responsibility seriously. We look at how many staff are currently on board, whether staff will increase, what the staff duties are, the costs of travel and equipment. This review is then coupled with the performance of the agency, which has been abysmal, to see if the staff hours are having the intended results, because OFHEO's request was so out of line with past requests. Rather than dismissing it entirely, we requested OFHEO to provide us with additional documentation to justify the increases. Mr. Chairman, I asked that OFHEO make comparisons between their responsibility to regulate the safety and soundness of the GSEs and the responsibilities of other similarly situated regulators. Mr. Chairman, they never responded to the subcommittee's request. Instead, OFHEO resorted to press releases accusing my subcommittee and me of being ``subject to the maneuverings of the entities'' that OFHEO regulates. Not only is this accusation insulting, but it borders on slander. I certainly have not been approached by Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac about OFHEO's budget, and I am fairly certain that no one on the subcommittee was approached. In fact, those entities make it a habit of never discussing OFHEO's budget with me, with other Members or with our staff. In my opinion, this highly inappropriate accusation was not merely foolish, but it was petulant and naive. Furthermore, this statement and the agency's inability to act in a timely way on risk-based capital rule has forced me to reconsider whether this agency has the credibility and the independence it takes to be an effective regulator. Certainly, we have no intention of rewarding this type of behavior and refusal to comply with the subcommittee requests by getting OFHEO an increase in funds. I urge everyone in this body to vote a resounding no on this amendment. OFHEO does not deserve the attention.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I consider the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) a good friend and someone I admire in this body, and I want to assure the gentleman that there is absolutely nothing personal. We are talking about performance. This is an agency that has failed its mission for 6 consecutive years, and for us to give them a 15 percent increase I think is pretty generous, but not a 50 percent increase.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, as we know of no remaining amendments to title II, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WALSH. Reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will not take all of the time provided. I appreciate the brevity of the statements of the speakers who are advocating for this. We have no objection to this amendment on this side. The committee recommended funding for HOPWA's budget at last year's level; however, like many other accounts in this bill, I had hoped to increase funding for this account but could not, because such a decision would have adversely impacted other accounts. On those grounds, I am prepared to accept the amendment. These funds would normally go to National Science Foundation, those funds are not wasted there either, but this is a priority program; and the additional funds are necessary. I would register for the record, a concern, however, that the formula that HOPWA uses is outdated by many estimates and other programs, including the Ryan White program, which have updated their formula for dispersal of funds; and we would urge HOPWA to consider seriously looking at that. Other than that reservation, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman (Mrs. Kelly) for bringing these important concerns to my attention, and I would like to assure her and other Members that I am well aware of the problems faced by VISN 3, particularly in regards to funding levels. I will continue to work with the gentlewoman and our colleagues, the Senate and the Administration to ensure that VISN 3 is not just disproportionately disadvantaged under the funding levels contained in this bill and ensure that the VA ends their delays on the hepatitis C funding issue. I also want to assure the gentlewoman that I, too, find the delays and unresponsiveness of the VA intolerable. I will continue to make my displeasure clear with the VA officials to ensure that the proper reserve funding is sent both this year and next. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her hard work.