Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, known as HOPWA, by $5 million. It is a far cry from what is truly needed, but it represents an important first step towards full funding.

I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for cosponsoring the amendment, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for cosponsoring the amendment and for demonstrating bipartisan support for this amendment and for this program.

I have a lengthy statement, but since the distinguished chairman has indicated he is prepared to accept the amendment, I will say nothing further other than to thank him.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or HOPWA, progam by $5 million. This is a far cry from what is truly needed, but it represents an important first step toward full funding.

I would like to thank Mr. Shays and Mr. Crowley for joining me on this amendment and for demonstrating the bipartisan support for HOPWA.

Mr. Chairman, at any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans living with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. Without assistance, they face almost certain death on the streets.

This is where HOPWA comes in. Through a variety of services, HOPWA helps thousands of people each year put a roof over their heads and create a stable living environment for themselves.

But HOPWA is not just about being compassionate, it's also good public policy. Having stable, decent housing is the key to maintaining strict treatment regimens which have allowed thousands of people with AIDS to resume normal, productive lives.

HOPWA is a locally controlled program that provides communities with the flexibility to address local housing needs. It also supplies a low- cost alternative to acute-care hospital beds, typically paid for by Medicaid, which are often the only available shelter for people living with AIDS. In fact, while an acute-care facility costs Medicaid, on average more than $1,000 a day assistance under HOPWA costs just $55 to $110 a day.

In Fiscal Year 2002 alone, HOPWA funds served over 60,000 people in 74 cities and 34 states across the nation. This is a well-run, far- reaching and successful program.

When I meet with members of the AIDS community, there is one need that is stressed about all others, and that is housing. Finding affordable housing can be extremely difficult for anyone. Throw in the added complications of living with AIDS--paying for expensive medication, the difficulty in holding a steady job, and perhaps facing discrimination--and it becomes nearly impossible. That's why HOPWA fills such a critical void.

But without sufficient funding, thousands of people will continue to be unable to access these critical services. In San Francisco alone, over 4,700 people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA-funded housing. We must do all we can to reduce this backlog.

The housing crisis facing people living with HIV/AIDS exacts an enormous toll on individuals, their families, and communities across the country. HOPWA dollars help lessen this toll. Without proper funding for HOPWA, people with HIV and AIDS will continue to die prematurely in hospital rooms, shelters, and on the streets of our cities. This amendment is a small step toward what is truly necessary, but even this modest increase will mean the difference between life and death for thousands of people. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will upset the normal order of things by first yielding 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for section 8 housing vouchers by $150 million to help low-income families afford safe, decent housing. To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the working capital fund from the management and administration accounts by an equal amount.

The need for housing assistance is staggering. As of January 1, the New York City Housing Authority had 142,000 applicants on its waiting list for section 8. And it gets worse. The section 8 waiting list has been closed to new applicants since December 1994, and there is still 142,000 people waiting, just in New York City. In 1999, a HUD study concluded there were nearly 5 million low-income families who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent or lived in severely substandard housing.

In the last several years, housing prices have continued to skyrocket, and with the stagnant economy and rising unemployment rates the problem is probably even worse and more severe today. We must not ignore the desperate situation facing these families any longer.

I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. More than 2 million American families benefit from section 8 vouchers. For these families, section 8 is a lifeline and enables them to live in decent housing.

Mr. Chairman, why are we planning to undermine the program in this bill by not expanding it?

The fact is, as recently as a few years ago, in fiscal year 2001, we increased the number of vouchers by 79,000. In fiscal year 2002, we increased it by 18,000. Last year we increased it by zero. This budget proposes to increase it by zero.

The amount of money I am proposing to put into this bill will increase a mere 23,000 new vouchers. Waiting lists are in the millions. We can afford the offset. We have already appropriated over $1 billion in the last couple of years to upgrade the computer system. We are proposing $330 million more this year. We are saying, take about half of that, less than half of that, and provide services for people. If it takes HUD a little longer to upgrade its computer system, they will live with that, so 23,000 people will have decent housing.

Mr. Chairman, that is a fair trade, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

July 25, 2003.

To: Members of the House of Representatives.

Re funding for the Housing Choice (``Section 8'') Voucher

Program.

As members of the faith community, we are writing to

express our concern about funding for the Section 8 housing

voucher program. Our organizations serve millions of low-

income individuals and families who, despite their best

efforts, are struggling to meet their basic needs and to

achieve economic stability. To many of those we assist, the

lack of affordable housing presents a considerable obstacle,

and the Section 8 voucher program offers in turn a critical

form of assistance. Through our work, we are witness to the

important role that housing vouchers play in preventing

homelessness, and in helping low-income individuals and

families to make progress towards economic stability.

Congress has for many years expressed a strong commitment

to the Section 8 voucher program, consistently voting to

increase the number of vouchers authorized and to fully fund

all authorized vouchers. This commitment has been important,

as the need for housing assistance has continued to expand.

In most communities, there are long waiting lists for Section

8 vouchers, and it is estimated that only one third of

eligible households receive voucher assistance.

To our disappointment, however, Congress appears to be

retreating from this commitment. In the appropriations law

for 2003, Congress failed, for the first time in recent

memory, to include funding for incremental Section 8

vouchers. This week, the House Appropriations Committee

reported out a VA-HUD appropriations bill for 2004 that

would, by its own estimate, fund only 96 percent of

authorized Section 8 vouchers, and again includes on funding

for incremental vouchers.

Moreover, while we appreciate that the House Appropriations

Committee has made a sincere effort to improve on the

President's budget request for the voucher program, and we

recognize that estimating future voucher costs is difficult,

there is reason to believe that the Committee's estimate is

overly optimistic. Recent analyses performed independently by

the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's

estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too

low. For example, in an analysis of the most recent voucher

cost data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation

in the House bill would be sufficient to renew only 91

percent of authorized vouchers, and is approximately $580

million short of the funding that will be necessary to fully

renew vouchers leased in 2004. A shortfall of this magnitude

would have a destructive impact on thousands of vulnerable

households--85,000 households, by CBPP's estimate--the great

majority of which are working families, elderly, or disabled.

We therefore urge you to renew Congress's commitment to

fully fund the Section 8 voucher program. Specifically, we

ask that you increase the Section 8 appropriation

sufficiently to ensure that all authorized vouchers will be

funded, and to make certain that no households using vouchers

in the coming year will be denied funding.

As faith-based organizations, we are committed to

strengthening our communities by assisting those who are the

most vulnerable, and we believe that our work is not simply a

matter of charity, but of responsibility, righteousness, and

justice. We urge you to assist us in our work by renewing

Congress's commitment to fully fund and expand the Section 8

voucher program.

Sincerely,

American Baptist Churches USA.

Call to Renewal.

Catholic Charities USA.

The Episcopal Church, USA.

McAuley Institute.

NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office.

United Jewish Communities.

Volunteers of America.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering, with Congresswoman Velazquez, this amendment to increase funding for Section 8 vouchers by $150 million to help low-income families afford safe, decent housing. To offset this increase, we propose to cut the working capital fund from the management and administration account by the same amount.

The need for housing assistance is staggering. As of January 1, 2003, the New York City Housing Authority had 141,837 applicants on its Section 8 waiting list. And it gets worse. The Section 8 waiting list has been closed to new applicants since December 1994. That is just in New York City.

In 1999, a HUD study concluded that there were nearly 5 million low- income families who paid more than 50 percent of their income for rent or who lived in severely substandard housing. In the last several years housing prices have continued to skyrocket, and with the stagnant Bush economy and rising unemployment rates the problem is probably even more severe today. We must not ignore the desperate situation facing many families or the severity of their needs any longer.

I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based Section 8 vouchers do not achieve their goals. More than 2 million American families benefit from Section 8 vouchers. For these families, Section 8 is more than a contract or a subsidy; it is often the foundation upon which they can build lifelong economic self-sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the private housing market and choose where they want to live, helping them to escape from the cycle of poverty and creating better income mixes throughout our communities. Thanks to Section 8, families are able to afford decent, safe housing. Nothing extravagant and, frankly, sometimes not very nice at all, but much better than the alternative.

Research supports the benefits of Section 8 housing. Section 8 children are much less likely to be involved in violent crime, and they are more likely to stay in school and improve their educational performance. Section 8 families are more than twice as likely to leave welfare, and have success moving into the workforce. Based on these and other findings, the bipartisan, congressionally-chartered Millennial Housing Commission strongly endorsed the voucher program in its May 2002 report, describing the program as ``flexible, cost-effective, and successful in its mission.''

So why are we planning to undermine the program in this bill?

The bill, in its current form, does a terrible disservice to those most in need. Unlike the previous administration which in the year 2000 requested 120,000 incremental Section 8 vouchers, the Bush Administration would prefer to block grant the program and cut its funding. Thankfully, not even the Republicans agreed to such a radical proposal. However, this bill would contribute to the growing backlog of families who can't afford decent, safe and sanitary housing.

I want to quote from a letter from religious organizations throughout the country who write that ``Recent analyses performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggest that the Committee's estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low. . . . CBPP estimates that the Section appropriation . . . is approximately $580 million short of the funding that will be needed to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004.'' That means that 85,000 households will be affected.

Our amendment will allow about 23,500 more families to live in safe, affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We can and should do more. But today, we only ask for a very modest amount.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact hat, and I quote: ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not freemen.'' FDR was right--every family deserves a decent home.

President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable housing to those who could not afford the rents in the private market continued through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush all--to some degree--continued that commitment. And yet today, this bill does not properly fund Section 8 housing vouchers. Families in need will suffer under this bill if we cannot amend it.

We must house our people. Let's continue the legacy of this great nation. Please vote yes on the Nadler-Velazquez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me note and thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for coauthoring this amendment with me. She could not be here on the floor right now, but it is her amendment as well as mine, and I want to express my appreciation to her in public for all the work that she has done on this amendment.

Second, the distinguished chairman said that an outside interest group estimated the costs of the vouchers. The fact of the matter is, and I quote from a letter from some church groups, religious organizations throughout the country who wrote, ``Recent analyses performed independently by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggest the committee's estimate is based on voucher cost assumptions that are too low'' because, in fact, they are a couple of years out of date. ``CBPP estimates that the Section 8 appropriation is approximately $580 million short of the funding that will be needed to fully renew vouchers leased in 2004.''

That means that about 85,000 vouchers will not be paid for, assuming the Congressional Budget Office and the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities are more correct than those of the Department, for which I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt than I would the Department.

This amendment would restore funding for 23,500. Frankly, it is simply unacceptable in a time of rampant homelessness, in a time when in New York City, and I use this as an example because conditions are bad in many places, the waiting list for public housing was closed in 1994 and the waiting list is almost 200,000 since then. You cannot get on the waiting list in the last 9 years.

People are desperate for housing. It is unacceptable to have a budget that purports to increase the number of Section 8 vouchers by zero, and that may very well, if in fact the CBO and the CBPP were correct in saying that HUD estimates of costs are wrong, may very well cut it by 85,000. That is just not acceptable.

So I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. Yes, it will present some difficulties perhaps with computerization. HUD can survive that. But this will enable 23,500 additional households to have decent housing, maybe 23,500 additional kids to be able to learn in school instead of not being able to learn in school because they have no place to do their homework

and no decent place to literally hang their hats.

This is a modest, minimal amendment. It is minimal decency. We should be doing it 10 times larger, but given the constraints of the budget, the constraints of the tax cut, this is the least we can do.

I am sorry, by the way, if it were not for the constraints of the tax cuts and the budget that were forced on this side of the aisle by the other side of the aisle, we would not have to take $150 million away from this computerization program. We would not have to have that offset. We could simply say, in decency, let us help provide more people with decent housing.

But we must do this offset. The offset may not be the best thing, but it is a heck of a lot better than 23,500 families not having decent housing.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2861, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the House today H.R. 2861, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for 2004.

Prior to proceeding, Mr. Chairman, in discussing the bill before us, I would like to offer my sincere recognition and thanks to my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for his help in bringing this bill to the floor. He and I have forged a strong relationship over the last 5 years working on this bill. I feel the result reflects most of our shared priorities. We consulted during hearings during the formation of the bill, during markups, and his advice has been remarkable and we would not be here if we had not had it.

I would also like to thank and recognize the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and assistance. My personal thanks to Tim Peterson, the clerk of the subcommittee; Dena Baron; Jennifer Whitson; Jennifer Miller; and Doug Disrud on the majority side, and to Michelle Burkette, Mike Stephens, and Jerry Johnson for the minority.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Gavin Clingham and Angela Ohm on the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Mollohan) personal staff, as well as Ron Anderson and Art Jutton on my personal staff for their assistance in getting this bill to this point in the process.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just sum up briefly the bill. Most of the attention has been focused on the veterans portion, and I will address that at the end. In housing, we have provided an increase of about close to $1 billion to provide for full funding for section 8 housing vouchers. There are no new incremental vouchers, but we have fully funded the existing vouchers that include vouchers that are targeted for housing for people with AIDS. It is also for disabled individuals in our society. So those are dedicated funds, and they will continue to flow.

In the Environmental Protection Agency, we provided approximately $8 billion, and I think we have done a good job in continuing the progress that we have made in protecting the environment; and we do expect several amendments in that area of the bill, some of which we will accept.

In NASA, NASA really is a status quo budget, pending the outcome and the release of the Gehman Commission report. We expect that that report will have profound implications for NASA, and we expect that the administration, once that report is available, will come forward and express their views to us, which may result in additional supplemental expenditures depending on what the report says, but we do await that report.

The National Science Foundation, the Congress is on record as requesting that we double the National Science Foundation in 5 years. We cannot keep that pace, although in the past we have done close to double-digit increases in the past 3 or 4 years in NSF; and I think the subcommittee has shown great leadership in supporting the investment in the new technologies, information technologies and others that this country leads the world in. We will have a 5 percent increase, which I think given our allocation is a remarkable commitment to our scientific community. These are all peer reviewed, non-earmarked funds. So they encourage some of our finest educational institutions across the country and our finest young people.

Lastly, the veterans budget, which has been the focus of most of the discussion so far. Mr. Chairman, we have increased veterans medical care by approximately $1.3 billion over last year. It is about a 6 percent increase in medical care. We have provided about $1 billion increase in the mandatory portion of the bill which is veterans benefits. It is a $2.5 billion increase.

We were asked to provide additional funds to veterans. We were unable to do that, given the allocation that we had. It is an increase, it is a substantial increase, but it is not a record increase similar to what we provided 2 years ago and then again last year. But, in fact, this subcommittee has increased the veterans budget and the medical care side by close to 50 percent in the last 5 years. So since 1998, close to a 50 percent increase in veterans medical care. The difficulty is that the number of customers, the number of patients that we have had at the veterans hospitals has outstripped those increases.

The Congress has tried diligently and this has been the number one priority of the subcommittee to fully fund veterans health care, and we are trying. It is pretty clear by the discussion that Members expect us to provide more, veterans expect us to provide more, veterans service agencies expect us to provide more.

This is not the end of the process. The process continues after this bill is hopefully passed today. We have to go to conference with the Senate. And I pledge to work with the minority, with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), with our Republican leadership, the leadership of the House, and with the Senate to find any way we can to improve the funding for veterans medical care and at the same time looking down the road at things that the Congress can do to improve the situation by making administrative decisions to bring veterans in through the process more quickly, to take some of the pressure off the prescription drug problem by passing a prescription drug benefit for all Americans, by looking at the Medicare subvention issue which would allow veterans to use their Medicare payments to pay for going to the veterans hospital.

There are a number of things we can do. We cannot do them all in this bill, but I do pledge to continue to work to try to improve the situation as we go towards the conference.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JY03.007

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are prepared to accept the amendment. I thank the gentleman for his diligence, and we think this will help the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would strike three provisions in the bill which are legislative in nature, and I have been asked to do this by the relevant authorization committee Chairs, and I would ask for the adoption of the amendment.

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

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

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

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 2004 on July 22 of this year. 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 this act.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment, we think it helps the bill, and we are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds another bureaucratic arm to the Veterans Administration by creating a new assistant secretary. This function, the function of emergency preparedness, is already under the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning. Emergency activities are well planned, managed and executed under the current arrangement.

Another part of this amendment takes money away from regular medical care. We just heard some debate about the cost of medical care and the need for additional funds for medical care. This would take money out of medical care to create these new crisis centers.

I believe the money should be prioritized to treating sick veterans. That is the mission of the Veterans Health Administration, and the focus should remain there.

Emergency response and research centers and activities are already funded under the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense and Health and Human Services, where they rightly belong. I would urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and a combat veteran.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in reluctant opposition to my good friend and colleague and classmate, the gentleman from Florida's amendment. This is a small amount of money, but I think it would be significant either for AmeriCorps or for VA research. There are a lot of really tough choices in this bill. The gentleman from Florida has created for us another. But I would urge that we resist the temptation to move this money from AmeriCorps into veterans. We are talking about a program in AmeriCorps that has had its problems; but I think it is pretty clear, in the discussion that we had in committee and on the floor of the House regarding the supplemental, that there is broad support for AmeriCorps. These are young people who are idealistic, altruistic, energetic. They want to serve their country, too. I think we owe that to them. I think it is something the government should be involved with, in supporting that activity.

The discussion has been somewhat about the fact that they are paid volunteers. What they are paid is minimum wage. They often live in communities outside of their home so they have to pay rent. They have to pay for food. The only way that they can meet their obligations is by getting paid. But clearly they are volunteering their time and that year of their life to serve their country. I think that should be continued and rewarded. The program AmeriCorps is a priority program for this Congress. We have said that time and time again. It is a priority for the President of the United States. He has asked us to increase funding. We have increased funding in the 2004 request. I would urge Members to give this some thought. We are talking about a very difficult choice between veterans health and AmeriCorps, but this money is needed in AmeriCorps.

I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I again urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment. I respectfully disagree. I urge that the House oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the distinguished gentlemen from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my neighbor and colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, I agree. NSF needs to make implementation of the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act a priority.

Mr. Chairman, I concur.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in the Committee on Science.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Vermont for the amendment, and we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have looked at the amendment. We compared it to what EPA's position is. We are very confident that the EPA has made it very clear that it will not use statistical analysis that devalues the lives of older people, that that was the right decision.

The gentleman's language is perfectly acceptable, and I have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We do agree. It is a good amendment, it helps the bill, and this is a worthy goal for the Veterans Administration; and we endorse the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would not slow down HUD's ability to operate; it would slash their annual funding that is required to keep their information technology systems, it would cut it about 67 percent, two-thirds of their ability to manage their information in that department.

The adoption of this amendment would likely bring the department's day-to-day operations to a halt. Public housing authorities would not get paid, grants would not be made, commercial lenders would be unable to process FHA-insured loans.

I share the sponsor's desire to ensure that adequate funding is available for Section 8 renewals, and I believe that the bill does just that. Last year, we instituted major reforms for Section 8 to better estimate actual funding requirements and to end the chronic problems of recapture. This bill continues these reforms.

We have provided $11.6 billion for Section 8 renewals, the full amount necessary to support the projected actual requirement based on the latest verified cost and use data. In addition, we have included another $568 million in Central Fund as a cushion, should actual renewal needs be greater than projected. This means that in total, the bill provides over $12 billion for Section 8 voucher renewals, an $810 million increase over our 2003 bill, and $205 million more than was requested in the budget, 7 percent above the 2003 level.

Last year, there was much discussion and debate over the funding methods that we used, if they would provide adequate funding for 2003. Based on current spending to date, it appears that our new funding methodology is pretty close to the target. In fact, of

the $381 million cushion we provided in Central Fund for 2003, only $99 million is estimated to actually be spent this year, leaving those funds available for 2004, in addition to the $568 million we have included in this bill.

I understand that an outside interest group has provided its own analysis of Section 8 funding requirements, a group that I would note fought the reforms we adopted in 2003. This analysis was not based on HUD data; it was based on unverified information submitted by public housing authorities. It is my understanding that HUD's experts have repeatedly warned this group and others that this information was neither appropriate nor reliable for accurately predicting Section 8 funding needs.

Let me assure my colleagues that this subcommittee will continue to work closely with the experts at HUD to monitor and examine the estimated Section 8 funding needs as we move through the process and verified, reliable data becomes available.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we had to make some really tough choices in this bill. I believe that the $1.3 billion that we provided for the Superfund program given our allocation and the demands of the bill is the right level. This level keeps cleanups going at a steady pace. A cut of $115 million to NASA would severely hamper the operations of NASA, and I think it would send a terrible signal. It would seem like the Congress is bailing out on NASA at a time when they are in a crisis, and we are awaiting the report from the Gehman Commission.

If the gentleman wants to find money somewhere else in the bill, well, at this point I guess it is too late to do that. But NASA is dealing with unknown costs associated with the return to flight following the Columbia accident. We have to await the Gehman Commission report, and this would really send a bad signal.

It would also place in jeopardy many worthwhile space and Earth missions which would improve the understanding of our world, basic knowledge, which we, as humans, strive for. So I would urge Members to support the Superfund budget at $1.3 billion to maintain critical funding at NASA, and reject the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret to anyone in this body, nor to

the Nation's 25 million American veterans and their families, that the health care system is critically underfunded.

The result is that tens of thousands of veterans are being forced to work and one group of veterans is being denied access to VA care altogether. The current funding process for veterans' health care is broken. It simply does not work and, frankly, it never has.

The problem starts out at OMB where they consistently pare down the Department of Veterans Affair's budget requests to accommodate the other priorities of the White House. It moves on to this Capitol where Congress must squeeze the veterans' programs into funding for a myriad of other priorities of ill-advised tax cuts to the Space Station. It ends with veterans waiting in lines, sick and disabled and living with the year-to-year anxiety that comes from wondering if the VA will be there when they ask for help.

In short, Madam Speaker, veterans, the individuals who defended this country in time of war and kept us a free Nation, are forced by a cruel funding process to continue fighting for what is rightfully theirs.

I and 117 of my colleagues so far, some of whom join me today, believe enough is enough. There is no feasible alternative to permanently fix this problem. Only one. And that is mandatory funding of the VA spending, just like Medicare, just like the Department of Defense, TRICARE and just like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the veterans deserve some consideration as the beneficiaries of their plans.

The Nation's veterans organizations strongly agree. The American Legion, AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America and others, including organizations that represent nearly 6 million members, are speaking up across the Nation. They too are saying enough is enough.

That is why I have introduced H.R. 2318, the Assured Funding for the Veterans Health Care Act of 2003. The bill would require the Secretary of Treasury annually to come before Congress to provide funding for the VA's care, based on the number of enrollees in the system and medical inflation.

What could be more appropriate than providing funding for veterans' health care, based on the number who will need it, the demand and the projected cost. Let us be absolutely clear. These projections and the subsequent funding of them should be based on care for all eligible veterans.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans). I want to thank the gentleman for being such an advocate for veterans, but I also want to thank him for introducing this legislation, the Assured Funding for the Veterans Health Care Act of 2003.

What we are talking about here is simply having mandatory funding for veterans programs so that the vets do not have to come to the Congress year after year after year with hat in hands and ask for what they need. But if this bill that the gentleman has introduced passes, and by the way, I think it has 117 cosponsors at the present time, if it were to pass, there would be a mandatory stream of funding. Veterans would be able to have assurance that what they needed in terms of benefits and health care would be there for them.

I would like to take a minute, if I can, just to put this debate about mandatory funding in context and talk about what is at stake here. We need to put mandatory funding in this budget because right now funding for veterans' benefits is inadequate.

This is what we have seen happen in recent months: There are hundreds of thousands of veterans who are waiting 6 months or more just to get an appointment to see a doctor. Think about that. Would any Member of this House of Representatives tolerate having to be put on a waiting list and to wait 6 months or longer to see a doctor? I think we would not. And I think it is a fair question to ask. Why should those of us who serve in this body have access to health care in a more timely manner than that which is made available to our veterans?

Another problem, veterans about a year and a half ago, had to pay $2 for each prescription they received. The VA increased that copayment from $2 to $7 a prescription. And now the President has requested that that copayment be increased from $7 a prescription up to $15 a prescription.

And one of the most outrageous things that has happened, the VA actually placed a gag order on their health care providers. The VA sent out a memo to all of their network health providers saying, you can no longer market VA services to veterans. In other words, you cannot proactively tell veterans what they are entitled to receive. Think about that. I mean, it is almost unbelievable that the Department that is supposed to be looking out for veterans, protecting veterans, servicing veterans, would actually put out a memo telling their doctors and nurses and social workers that they could not participate in health fairs, that they have could not send out newsletters telling veterans what they are entitled to receive under the laws that have been passed right here in this Chamber, that they could not make public service announcements urging veterans to come in for services. And that gag order is in effect tonight, and it is shameful. And it is in effect because we do not have sufficient funding to pay all the costs of veterans' benefits and veterans' health care.

Then something else that more and more veterans across this country are just becoming aware of, the VA created a new classification for veterans. They have call it Priority 8. And they say those who are in Priority 8 are of higher income. Now, quite frankly, one can make as little in my district as about $24,000 a year and be considered higher income. And so these are called Priority 8 veterans, and they are being told that they can not enroll in the VA health care system at all. Think about that.

These are men and women who have served our country admirably. They have been honorably discharged. Many of them are in great economic and financial need. And because they make about $24-, $25,000 a year, the VA is saying you are high income and so you do not qualify to participate in the VA system.

Does my colleague not think it is fair that the people in this country know that he and I earn about $150,000 a year? I think that is high income. I do not think $24,000 is high income. I think this is really shameful what the VA has done here.

Right now, the House Committee on Appropriations has been considering the fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it does not look good. Despite assurances from the leadership here in the House, in fact, they have held press conferences saying, oh, we are going to treat the veterans in the right way, despite those assurances, Republicans have abandoned their promises; and they are going to increase the cost of prescription drugs for a veteran.

The President asked for this in his budget. At a time when we were getting ready to send our young men and women into harm's way, the President sent a budget to this House, and he asked that veterans be required to pay more money for a prescription drug. In fact, he wanted that copayment to be doubled, more than doubled, from $7 to $15 a prescription; and he also asked that this Congress impose an annual enrollment fee on priority 7 and 8 veterans, an enrollment fee of $250 a year. Then the President asked that the cost of going to see a doctor at a clinic be increased from $15 a visit to $20 a visit, and this House is going along with that request.

Oh, but we were told, do not worry, because we have actually increased funding for veterans health care next year; and we were told it was going to be $3.4 billion, but it looks as if the Congress is reneging on that promise as well, and the increase has been cut about in half, down to $1.4 billion.

These are shameful acts in my judgment, and I want to tell my colleagues that all of the veterans organizations in this country, and I am talking about the American Legion, the VFW, the AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Vets, they are pretty

upset about this. I have a letter which they sent out last Friday, and it is from the National AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars; and they say here: ``The VA-HUD Independent Agencies appropriations bill, which calls for a $1.4 billion increase over last year and approximately the President's request,'' basically this House is doing what the President has requested. These groups say that is wholly inadequate. It is inadequate to provide health care to sick and disabled veterans, and it represents a flagrant disregard of promises made to veterans by this Congress.

``So much for promises,'' they say in their letter. So much for promises. Providing a wholly inadequate $1.4 billion increase calls into question all the press conferences and the news releases touting this Congress' commitment to the men and women who have served this Nation.

So what we are asking for in the gentleman from Illinois' (Mr. Evans) bill is that we make this funding mandatory. Just as other parts of our Federal Government call for mandatory spending, we want veterans to have the assurance that comes with mandatory funding.

These veterans service organizations that I mentioned tell me that this is their number one legislative priority. There are lots of things that veterans need; but nothing is more important to them than having mandatory funding, so that year after year we can know how much money our hospitals are going to get, our outpatient clinics, how much money is going to be there to take care of our aging population of veterans.

I would just close my remarks by reminding my colleagues and others once again that what this Congress is doing represents a following of the directions that came to us from President Bush. He sent his budget over here in January. As my colleague will recall, January was a time when we were preparing for war. Talk is cheap. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) knows that.

But health care costs a lot of money, and it does cost a lot of money to provide needed health care to our veterans; but these are men and women who have paid the price. They have served our country. They have taken the oath. They have served honorably and admirably; and as they chose to do that, to provide the service to their country, promises were made to them, and our country has an obligation to keep those promises; and the best way to keep those promises, I think, is to pass my colleague's legislation, the legislation that he has entitled appropriately Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003.

Every Member of this House should sign on as cosponsors. We have, I think, 117 cosponsors now, thanks to the gentleman's leadership. We ought to have every Member, Democrat and Republican alike, in this House sign on to this act. It is H.R. 2318, and I repeat that just in case there may be some veterans who are listening and who would like to communicate with their Senator and their House Member, H.R. 2318. It is called the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003.

Madam Speaker, I would hope that veterans across this country would recognize the importance of this legislation and would let their representatives know how important it is to them, and perhaps they will just decide to urge them to sign on as cosponsors.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his leadership. I admire him greatly. I was elected to this body for the first time, took office in January of 1993. He and I were both younger men then; but I admired him then for the dedication he had to serve our veterans, and across the years my admiration for him has only grown, and I thank him for introducing this vital legislation. I pledge to him that I will do everything in my power to see that we get as many cosponsors as possible, that we urge the leadership of this House to allow this legislation to move forward; and I thank him for allowing me to participate with him tonight.

Mr. EVANS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks, and at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her charitable remarks. I appreciate working with her and will be engaged with her in fighting these cuts that have been announced by the administration and look forward to working with her in this regard.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 2861, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriation Act for FY 2004; however, I do not agree with the rule regarding amendments that was published and allowed to govern the amendment process. H.R. 2861 provides $25.2 billion for the health care of our war heroes, which is $1.8 billion less than the amount promised under H. Con. Res. 95 introduced by the House Republicans and passed earlier this year. Because the rule precluded a bipartisan amendment that was offered by Reps. Evan and Smith, the $1.8 billion for veterans' health care was effectively reneged on the Republicans' promise--at the expense of the lives of those who fought for us.

In providing $25.2 billion overall for veterans' care, the Republicans congratulate themselves for increasing this budget allocation by $1.4 billion from FY 2003. However, a $1.4 billion increase fails to factor in hospital inflation, growth in the number of veterans' enrolled in the programs, and the new costs associated with must needed infrastructure improvements associated with homeland security.

Last week, I supported H.R. 2318, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2003. That legislation proposed to address shortfalls in the FY 2003 budget appropriations for Veterans' health care. Of our 25 million living veterans, nearly 19 million have served during times of war. There are 19 million stories to tell and 19 million histories to preserve. However, time is of the essence. There are only a few thousand World War I veterans left and they are all more than 100 years old. The average age of our World War II veterans is more than 77 and we are losing 1,500 of them a day. We need to preserve their great legacy now.

Republican tax cuts and the shortfalls to the veterans' health plan will have a negative impact on the veteran community and the veteran- service healthcare facilities of Texas. In the State of Texas, there are approximately 1.721 million veterans. Currently, 3,400 veterans are on the waiting list and due to the war in Iraq we will have new veterans in need of services. The Veterans' Administration Medical Center in the 18th Congressional District of Texas has seen an 18 percent increase in its need for its services this year already. There must be additional funding to meet that need. I am adamantly opposed to any efforts that would reduce the accessibility or the extent of health care to our veterans. The House Republican budget cuts veterans' benefits, including health care and education, by $14.6 billion. The Republican budget cuts veterans programs in order to finance additional tax cuts that we cannot afford. To pay for those tax cuts, we will be leaving thousands of veterans who were disabled during their brave service to this country without the medical services they require-- which is an atrocity and a national embarrassment. At a time when our economy is suffering, the Republican Party wants to take from the poor and disabled to give to the rich.

If H.R. 2861 passes without measures to make up for the $1.8 billion lost in the Committee on Rules, a large economic burden would befall thousands of veterans who will then be forced to bear their medical expenses on their limited incomes. We must renew our

commitment to our nation's veterans who have already given to us.

In Congressional District 18, Harris County alone in 1998, total Veterans Administration patient care costs rose to $240,868,665 and $1,071,793,244 for all of Texas. An extrapolation of this figure with inflationary factors gives but a glimpse of the national shortfall for our veterans. This paints a dismal picture in light of the fact that five of the VA's 22 networks have already projected shortfalls in funding for veterans medical care by the year's end.

In a January 2003 letter, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., Paralyzed Veterans of America and AMVETS, called on President Bush to propose a veteran's medical care appropriation of $24.5 billion. However, the Administration has not heeded this budget advice from our veterans' organizations in any of the appropriations legislation passed thus far.

The Administration's budget emphasizes the need to reduce the huge backlog in claims for benefits submitted by veterans. During the first four months of fiscal year 2002, the number of rating cases awaiting a decision for over 180 days increased from 172,294 to 204,006. Our veterans are waiting for the VA to reduce claims processing time without sacrificing decision-making quality or the shirking of the VA's statutory duty to assist veterans develop their claims.

The budget as drafted in H.R. 2861 needs re-examination of its misguided priorities that will cause us to provide inadequate funding for health care for the men and women who have served our nation in uniform in order to allow tax cuts that will primarily benefit wealthier Americans.

Unfortunately, too often the President is simply unwilling to work with Congress to develop a fair budget. This means veteran's programs consistently fall prey to political considerations that have little to do with veterans. This year, funding lost to the tax cut will have a direct effect upon the amount of funds that remain available for discretionary priorities, like veterans' health care.

Absent protective amendments or other measures would mean there would be no additional funds available to implement the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act to work toward the goal of eliminating chronic homelessness in a decade. Furthermore, the Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) program, a comprehensive planning and evaluation process undertaken by the VA to assess the best use of its physical infrastructure would become a ``de facto'' closure commission with no ability to respond to veterans' needs for primary care, long-term care, and mental health projected by its own models. There would be little money leftover for any of the system's desperately needed construction and improvement projects.

Even more horrifying than the simple health care system problems, the scheduled shortfall for veterans' benefits would carry far-reaching negative implications. The Administration's Budget for 2004 in this bill makes no provision for additional service-connected disability benefits resulting from the present war with Iraq. As we know from the last war in the Persian Gulf, war results in adverse health effects and justifiable claims for service-connected disability compensation. It does acknowledge the expected increase in veteran's claims and an expected worsening of the disabilities of some service-connected veterans. Under these circumstances, cuts in mandatory spending can only be made by cutting benefits to veterans with service-connected disabilities. With a death toll of 153 U.S. Troops since the start of the Iraqi War that is rising on a daily basis, it is incumbent upon our government to plan ahead for expenses that will stem from these deaths--as a courtesy to our fallen heroes at the very least.

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I thank you for this opportunity I also thank those of my colleagues who supported my amendment to prohibit any funds from being used for ``buyouts''--financial incentives to encourage retirement-until the National Aeronautics and Space Administrator assures Congress that the loss of that employee will not compromise the safety of future shuttle missions or the International Space Station.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee on VA-HUD appropriations, first of all, for the excellent work they have done. This is a tough legislative appropriations or appropriations bill to manage with several agencies. And I do know that many of us are still struggling to work to ensure greater assistance of veterans, but I believe that this has been a cooperative effort and look forward to supporting this legislation.

I offer a very simple amendment on one of the supporting agencies, NASA. NASA is an agency that gives us great pride, but in the last 6 months we have suffered with the Columbia 7 tragedy. I serve as a member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and have worked over the years as a member of that committee on one question: beyond the question of human space flight is safety, safety, safety.

What this amendment does as we begin to prepare ourselves for Admiral Gehman's report on what happened with the Columbia 7 tragedy and the

loss of life of those brave young men and women, it is to understand that NASA must change its culture and begin to promote safety as an important issue.

I am very gratified that the chairman and ranking member of the committee are concerned about these issues and realize that they will be addressing them as the Gehman report is rendered. We would like to work with you in collaboration. The Committee on Science ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) have worked on this question; we would like to work with you and be prepared to assist in whatever resource is necessary to promote safety.

This amendment says that we should not lose the skills and the expertise of employees that deal with safety as it relates to the international space station and as well the Space Shuttle. We should not lose those employees in terms of any buy-outs that might be pending at this time. All of the expertise we can muster to save lives and promote safe human Space Shuttle flights and safety on the international space station should be our goal as part of this Congress. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I appreciate the consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I have always been a staunch supporter of NASA and its manned and unmanned space exploration missions. However, the Columbia disaster and the loss of seven of my neighbors from Johnson Space Center outside of Houston has opened our eyes to some deep seeded problems at NASA that need to be addressed. NASA needs a new culture of safety and a renewed commitment to the well-being of their spacecraft and crew. I am troubled by the fact that on Tuesday of this week, the Chairman of the Science Committee pushed through legislation, urged by the NSAS Administrator, that will give the NASA Administrator unprecedented flexibility to reorganize the NASA workforce. The bill was about bonuses, and buyouts, designations, and transfers. The bill was rushed through, over protests from the minority, despite the fact that Admiral Gehman and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, will be giving us a detailed report next month regarding the cause of the Columbia-7 disaster, and the technical and workforce changes necessary to prevent further losses.

It was only after hard work and pressure from us Democrats, with great leadership from my colleague from Texas, Ranking Member Hall, and my colleague from Tennessee, Space Subcommittee Ranking Member Gordon, that some common sense safety provisions were added to that workforce bill. But again, safety seemed to be an afterthought, rather than a top priority in NASA policy.

Two more excellent safety provisions offered by Mr. Hall were blocked by the majority in the Science Committee, and I am concerned that due to long delays in putting forth a NASA reauthorization bill, these provisions might not be able to be put into place in time to prevent loss of lives, or the loss of multi-billion dollar spacecraft, so I hope my colleagues can support their insertion here.

My first amendment will prohibit any funds from being used for ``buyouts''--financial incentives to encourage retirement--until the Administrator assures Congress that the loss of that employee will not compromise the safety of future shuttle missions or the International Space Station.

This amendment will help ensure that we do not put management ``flexibility'' before safety. I am concerned by reports that NASA may not have given high enough priority to safety and quality assurance in the past. We will learn more about that from the Gehman report later, however, I understand that in some cases there is only a single safety expert responsible for a given project subsection.

Therefore, I am worried that if we give the Administrator a flexibility offer to encourage experienced people to retire--we could lose critical knowledge and expertise, and compromise missions in the future.

This amendment will not let that happen. It is a smart and unobtrusive provision. I hope my colleagues can support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this Member offers his strong support for H.R. 2861, the Veterans Affairs (VA)/Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Appropriations Act for FY2004. This Member would like to thank the chairman of the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their dedication to crafting this measure.

1. Department of Veterans Administration (VA)

This measure provides $60.7 billion for veterans programs including $27.2 billion for veterans health care. Although H.R. 2861 does not provide veterans funding equal to the levels authorized in the FY2004 congressional budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 95), the funding levels in H.R. 2861 exceed not only FY2003 appropriation levels by 5 percent but also the Administration's budget request. (This Member would remind his colleagues what he reminds his constituents about the congressional budget process--the levels in the budget resolution are a framework as Congress determines actual funding levels. Of course, the actual funding levels are determined through the annual appropriations process.)

Mr. Chairman, it is simply not true that, as often recently alleged by numerous sources, the Federal Government is cutting back on financial support for veterans' health care or that Congress or recent presidents are not supportive of veterans. Each year, Congress sets new records on the amount of appropriations for veterans' health care, not only because of higher health care costs but also due to a huge bulge of WWII and Korean War veterans who are understandably making larger demands for health care because of their age, plus a very large number of Vietnam War and other veterans who require medical care. During 2002, approximately 4.7 million individual veterans received VA medical care. Outpatient visits are increasing rapidly, with 43.8 million visits last year. Both the general VA inpatient caseload and acute care cases are also increasing, with the daily inpatient caseload projected to be over 57,000 and the acute care up 2,700 over last year. Yet thousands of veterans are on waiting lists for medical care, after waiting months for appointments to see medical staff.

Between FY1998 and FY2003, the appropriation has increased 4 percent, an increase nearly six times greater than the average increase of federal domestic programs. The appropriation for VA medical care in fiscal year 2003 jumped to $23.8 billion--$1.1 billion more than the President's request. Each year, the President asks for a far larger increase than in almost any other domestic program, and each year the Congress exceeds that request. In his budget request for FY2004, for example, the President has requested $25.2 billion for VA medical care.

Mr. Chairman, the health care needs of military veterans must be met to the fullest extent possible, and this Member is committed to continuing to see that veterans receive the benefits they deserve with the resources available. Veterans fought to protect our freedom and way of life. As they served this nation in a time of need, the Federal Government must remember them in their time of need. The people of the U.S. owe veterans a great deal and should keep the promises made to them. Voting for H.R. 2861 is an important step in keeping those promises.

2. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Economic

Development Initiative

This Member is pleased and appreciative that $450,000 is appropriated in this bill as a HUD Economic Development Initiative (EDI) for Falls City, Nebraska. This appropriation, which could be used for economic development and job creation, represents a continuation of my efforts for Falls City. In the FY2003 appropriations bill, $526,500 was earmarked as a CDBG EDI for the renovation of a Falls City business industry incubator building which is necessary for job creation.

Falls City is a community in extreme Southeast Nebraska, an area of the state with serious economic needs. For example, 51 percent of Falls City's population is categorized as either low or low-moderate income. Moreover, continuing a forty-year trend, the population of the City again has declined by 3.2 percent from 1990 to 2000. In addition, in July of 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture designated Richardson County, of which Falls City is the county seat, as a county in severe economic distress. As a result, this funding request for infrastructure is needed to help maintain the economic viability of Falls City.

This is the largest community and employment center in a four-county region that needs economic stimulation: very recent job losses have accentuated the problems; and this community and area really needs the help.

3. Missouri River Sanitary Sewer Connection Between Nebraska and Iowa--

$400,000

This Member greatly appreciates the inclusion in the bill of $400,000 toward the construction of a sanitary sewer connection across the Missouri River which is the boundary between Nebraska and Iowa. This new connector is a very immediate need for the community of South Sioux City, Nebraska, and a much more cost-effective approach than adding to a separate sewage treatment program in this Nebraska suburb of Sioux City, Iowa.

The existing connection is 40 years old and early last year, the trunk sewer carrying sewage between South Sioux City to the treatment plant in Sioux City, Iowa, broke, For several weeks, about 1.6 million gallons of raw sewage each day was dumped into the Missouri River. The sewer connector was eventually replaced, but the incident highlighted the need for a second connector. The new trunk line connector proposed is to be located south of the city. It would provide a more direct link to the regional sewage treatment plant in Sioux City.

Since the original sewer pipe was installed in the early 1960s, South Sioux City's population has increased more than 60 percent. Also, the community's industrial base (with difficult treatment requirements) continues to grow, which places an additional burden on the sewer system. In an effort to meet the growing needs for an improved sewer system, the city's residents have seen significant rate increases over the past several years, including a 27 percent jump in 2001 and a 37 percent jump in 2002. It is now clear that Federal assistance is necessary to assist this municipality meet this unusual and expensive infrastructure project.

4. Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program

This Member commends the support for the Section 184, American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program. An amount of $5.3 million is appropriated for FY2004 for the Section 184 program which, it is estimated, would guarantee up to $197.2 million in commercial loans for Indian families who would otherwise be unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of Indian reservation land. As the author of the Section 184 program, this Member strongly supports this innovative program.

This Member is particularly supportive of this funding level in light of the Administration's inadequate request of $1 million for the Section 184 loan guarantee program for FY2004 . Unfortunately, the Administration's request for FY2004 is projected to only guarantee up to $27.5 million of commercial home lands for American Indians.

The Administration's inadequate request for the Section 184 program is also inconsistent with the Indian Lands Title Report Commission which was authorized into law in year 2000. In some parts of the country and on some Indian reservations, the Section 184 program is bringing results, while on others it is stymied. This can be attributed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) apparent inability to oversee and track the leases and the rights in trust-held land which continues to inhibit mortgage loans on American Indian reservations.

To help solve this problem, the Indian Lands Title Report Commission was authorized to study the system of the BIA for maintaining land ownership records, title documents, and title status reports. Subsequently, Congress or the Executive Branch will be able to use the findings from this one-year commission to eliminate any BIA/HUD national or regional problems or barriers remaining to the use of Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program on American Indian reservations.

5. Rural Housing Efforts by HUD

This Member also would note his disappointment with the fact that the $25 million which is appropriated for the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in the Department of Housing and Urban Development in this appropriations bill. This Member testified earlier this year and also last year before the Veterans, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, that HUD should not be the source of funding rural housing and rural economic development projects. Although this Member has been and remains a strong and long-term advocate of rural housing and rural development during my tenure in the House, he believes that we need to avoid inappropriate duplication in the efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and economic development. This Member supports the full funding (and even larger funding) of rural housing and economic development programs through the Rural Development offices of the United States Department of Agriculture. This is the agency that has the real interest and expertise to make such programs work in the more rural parts of non-metropolitan America; HUD doesn't.

6. AmeriCorps Funding

This Member is concerned about AmeriCorps funding. The bill provides a 25-percent increase in funds over FY2003. Indeed, including the $64 million in the first supplemental appropriation passed in April, there is still a slight increase over last year. However, this amount is still inadequate to deal with the results of the bad management decisions that have occurred possibly since the very beginning of the program.

As a long-time AmeriCorps supporter and one of 19 original Republican cosponsors which created this program in 1993, this Member is disappointed to say that the administrative incompetence at the national level of AmeriCorps is largely responsible for creating the current situation. For example, it is amazing and totally unacceptable that AmeriCorps could not even provide an accurate count of the number of participants when asked. Instead, a very faulty and under-estimated count was provided to the Congress which then was used to establish what seemed a reasonable employee cap of 50,000 participants. A basic requirement of proper program administration, at least, is to know the number of people employed by the organization. Another problem is that the AmeriCorps drop-out rate was grossly over-estimated in allocating sufficient educational trust funds.

Real reforms must happen in this program that provides such excellent opportunities for thousands of people around the United States. This Member is hopeful that significant improvements can be made in a reauthorization bill before the end of the year.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to vote in support of this important bill.