Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment just shows the difficulty of this bill. Certainly the items that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is correct that adequate funds are necessary for section 8 housing and public housing operating funds. But I would remind him that this bill provides almost $1 billion more for section 8 housing vouchers than last year. Let me repeat, we have fully funded section 8 housing renewals for the year 2000. Would he like more? Sure. Would I like more? Sure. But the fact is we had to cut NASA by $1 billion to fully fund section 8 vouchers. Mr. Nadler proposes a further dramatic reduction in NASA, specifically in the Space Station. We have just rejected an amendment that would basically eliminate the Space Station program. This $300 million deduction will do a great deal of damage to a program that is already substantially reduced. NASA has sustained the largest cut in this entire bill outside of AmeriCorps and Selective Service. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Tough choices were made when we put together this bill. But the subcommittee and the full committee weighed all of the items within the bill EPA, NASA, HUD, VA, National Science Foundation, Federal Emergency Management Agency--and we are spread thin. To take $300 million out of NASA when it has already been cut by $1 billion is a deep and cruel cut that I am not sure that they could handle. We have done our level best to provide funds for public housing. We have done our level best to fully fund the section 8 program. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. On this specific amendment, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is asking that the Committee on Appropriations and the Congress of the United States direct the Secretary to spend $838,000 in a specific way. This is a $44 billion bill. Now my colleagues can imagine if we directed the Secretary to spend every parcel of $500 to $500,000 how long this process might take. The fact is, hopefully, ideally, the Secretary has a better idea on how to spend that than Congress does. So this is another legislative rider. And I would suggest that this is micromanaging the Veterans Affairs Department. We have given them an additional $1.7 billion this year for health care. It is the largest increase in history for the Veterans Administration, I remind my colleagues once again. I also remind my colleagues that we have letters of support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars who support this level of funding, as we do from the American Legion who signed on to this level of funding who said it was more than adequate, and that it will provide the medical care that the veterans of our country need and are owed. So for that reason, I insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law, and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill. If I may go on and explain, again, this is another legislative rider that, unless specifically denied during existing law and authorization, the Secretary can implement these expenditures. We have increased in this bill the Veterans Cemetery Administration by $5 billion, equal to the President's request. I would remind my colleagues again that the President requested a freeze in veterans' medical health care. He requested a freeze. In other words, he saw no reason to increase the budget for veterans' medical health. Everyone we have heard on the floor today has said that we need more money for veterans' medical coverage. Everyone agrees, except for the President. The President does not think the veterans should get those additional funds, although recently, approximately a month ago, we did receive a letter from the White House suggesting that yes, now they, too, agree that Congress was right by increasing the funding, the appropriation for veterans' health. We have put an additional $1.7 billion into this bill to provide for those needs. Mr. Chairman, in the discussion, as I have mentioned and as my colleague, the gentleman from California, has also mentioned, the largest increase ever in veterans' medical care has been put in, but it is not on the heels of, as my colleague suggested, the largest decrease in the history of veterans' medical care. In fact, there has been no decrease. I have the budget figures before me. In 1996, which was the first budget that my party as the majority party was responsible for, was $15.7 billion for the Veterans Health Administration. In fiscal year 1997, it was $16.3. In fiscal year 1998, it was $17 billion. In fiscal year 1999, it was $17.3 billion. We are proposing for fiscal year 2000 a $19 billion budget. Those are consistent increases, so there has been no dramatic cut in veterans' health care. Has it gone up rapidly enough? No, it has not. But we are trying to resolve that situation this year by providing the largest increase in the history of veterans' health. So the facts belie the argument. The facts are that this is a substantial increase, and this is the authorized level from the Veterans Affairs committee. It is the authorized level under the budget document. So I insist on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and await the Chair's ruling.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, we have added within this budget, we have plussed up an additional $30 million for general operating expenses. Clearly what the gentleman is requesting is only one-fifth of that amount. So those funds are available at the Secretary's discretion to hire these people. Let us not forget that we have added an additional $1.7 billion to this part of the budget, the largest increase ever. I hope that they can spend it all next year, but I have my doubts that they can spend all this money next year.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order. Mr. Chairman, we have within this bill added funds to hire employees to take care of this backlog. We did it last year, we are doing it this year, and I would submit to my colleague that if the Secretary of the Veterans Administration wants to do this, they can do this. To my knowledge, there is no specific authorization that prevents the Veterans Administration from hiring additional people with existing funds and from moving them around within the department, reassigning them to different tasks. This is purely within their discretion. You do not need an act of Congress to do that. What you need is a secretary who sees things the same way that this Member does, eyeball to eyeball, and let him make that decision. But this is not an action that should be undertaken by the Committee on Appropriations. This is an action that should be taken by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and if I could just briefly explain the opposition? We really are not opposed to this. Unless there is authorization, specific authorization that would preclude this from happening, the Secretary of the Veterans Administration should be able to do this, and I do not know specifically whether or not there is authorization that is specific to this expenditure, but it would seem to me that if this was a priority for the Veterans Administration and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, it should happen. But this is the wrong place to do it, Mr. Chairman, and I respectfully request that the point of order be upheld.

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on the point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. And if I might add, Mr. Chairman? The gentleman who offers the amendment is a good and respected member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I would humbly submit that this is where these items should be discussed. These are authorizing issues. What he is proposing, this and several others to follow, are legislative riders. Now we all hear the horror stories about legislative riders. These are not necessarily horror stories, but legislative riders do not belong on appropriation bills. Do they happen? Of course they happen in the course of events. But the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is a very activist committee. Members from all over the country really need to sit down and hash these things out and then come to the Committee on Appropriations and tell us what the committee wants us to do, and they have not done that in this case. An individual Member can have a pet project; they can have a pet policy. Basically the process is for the committee to come to a conclusion, establish priorities, set an agenda, and then bring it to us to help to get the funding, and that is the proper course of events here, Mr. Chairman. So, Mr. Chairman, I would insist on the point of order.

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

Mr. WALSH. My point, Mr. Chairman, is, and I do not mean to argue, but my point is that this is not real money until the President signs that tax cut into law, and I think he would agree that the President has made his position fairly clear on that.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that he would withdraw this amendment. Since that is my understanding, I will insist on the point of order. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change the existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I might add that this is not a real choice. This is anything but a real choice. First of all, this money is not available. I would suspect that the gentleman who proposes the amendment would oppose the tax increase in the first instance and would not vote for it. So to take funds that are out there somewhere in the ether and offer them for veterans health care is pretty disingenuous to the veterans. What we have offered is real money. We have offered to provide $1.7 billion to the veterans to increase the medical care that we have promised them. This is keeping the commitment that we made. The President decided not to keep that commitment and the Congress, I believe, has stood up and offered to make the veterans medical administration whole. So I would insist, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order be taken against this. This is truly, in my view, authorizing on an appropriations bill.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield time to the gentleman for the purpose of discussion. My understanding was that the gentleman was going to withdraw this amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words and speak in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the committee and the subcommittee recommendation already cuts NASA funding more than any other program within this bill, with the exception of AmeriCorps and Selective Service. The committee, while severe in the minds of some, still allows NASA to operate its core programs. This amendment would make it next to impossible for NASA operations to be conducted and it may jeopardize other programs within NASA. The proposal to delete $2 billion of the funding for the International Space Station would effectively cause us to waste an investment of over $20 billion already expended in the program at a time when we are so close to making real progress on assembly and utilization of the on-orbit facilities. The figure of $100 billion has been mentioned a couple of times. But, in fact, the General Accounting Office, as recently as August of 1999 suggested the total shuttle costs, including assembly, development, and all the science and research that have gone into this and the operation, GAO's estimate is $53 billion, not $100 billion. And so, almost all the major components of this station have been manufactured. I recently visited Kennedy Space Center and witnessed as they had all of these different parts and pieces brought together, parts that were assembled all over the world, Italy, Russia, U.S., Canada, and so forth, testing them out; and now the really exciting aspect of this project begins, the aspect of this project that young people all over the country are focusing on at space camp and in schools and colleges around the country where they are glued to what is about to happen as we start sending these parts and pieces up into space, assemble them within the telescopic eye of everyone on Earth. Everyone has an opportunity to participate and be excited in this program. And so the corner has been turned. It has been difficult and expensive to get to this point, but now we begin the assembly. But we have arrived at this point and it would be tragic if we are not to go forward and see the process through to its successful conclusion. A tremendous investment has been made and we should not waste it. Much has been said about keeping commitments, especially keeping commitments to veterans. We have done that, Mr. Chairman. We have, as I said, increased the veterans medical health care budget by an amount of $1.7 billion, the largest increase in the history of veterans medical health care; and we are proud of that commitment that the subcommittee bill has made. But we need to keep our other commitments, too, within this bill. Given the budgetary constraints that we have had, it has been difficult, but we have accomplished that. We need to keep the commitments made to our partners here. I urge that the Committee of the Whole reject this amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

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

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

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I hate to take any of the valuable time of the Member because I know he has been waiting, but I would like to suggest that I look forward to working with him as we go through this process to try to find a way to meet the needs of a very important department in our Federal Government, and that is NASA. I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman regarding the funding of NASA, and I urge him to work with us as we go along.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). Mr. Chairman, in the discussion about Selective Service, a good deal has been said about the fact that military enlistment is dropping and, therefore, the need for Selective Service is greater. But the fact is in the economy we currently have in a country where there is relatively low unemployment and high paying job opportunities, young men do not want to go in the military service because of the low pay and low standard of living that has been associated with the military in the recent past. That is something that Selective Service does not address, but it is something that the Congress is addressing and should address in terms of making sure the members of the military are well paid for the dangerous job that they do. This is a matter of funds. We have a very difficult allocation, and we are talking about providing, or, if we honor the gentleman's request here, we would have to come up with $25 million basically for a mothballed program that is not delivering at the current time any services to us. At a time when we have such difficult budget constraints, it does not make sense to mothball a program that we can deal with in the eventuality that there is the need to find people to serve our country. The Congress spent months debating whether or not to go into Kosovo, and there would have been more than adequate time to go out and find the additional men, and we have not discussed women in the sense of Selective Service, but go out certainly to find men and women to provide service in defense of the country in a situation like that or any other. So I think this is the time in our history when we should use these funds to take care of the needs of the people of the country and stop paying to mothball this program.