Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2003
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Became Public Law No: 108-69.
August 8, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in House
July 24, 2003
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
July 24, 2003
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 339 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2859 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be read by paragraph. Bill is open to amendments.
July 25, 2003 • 3:08 AM
Rule H. Res. 339 passed House.
July 25, 2003 • 12:42 PM
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 339. (consideration: CR H7647-7654, H7713-7715)
July 25, 2003 • 1:05 PM
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2859 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be read by paragraph. Bill is open to amendments.
July 25, 2003 • 1:05 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2859 pending a request that the Chair have authority to postpone roll call votes on the Toomey amendment and on final passage, at the appropriate time. Agreed to without objection.
July 25, 2003 • 1:05 PM
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 339, the House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Toomey amendment.
July 25, 2003 • 1:33 PM
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
July 25, 2003 • 1:58 PM
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Toomey amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Toomey demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the amendment until later in the day.
July 25, 2003 • 1:58 PM
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of the amendment offered by Mr. Toomey which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed, followed by a vote on final passage, if ordered.
July 25, 2003 • 6:24 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 352 - 60 (Roll no. 459).(text: CR H7647)
July 25, 2003 • 6:37 PM
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 352 - 60 (Roll no. 459). (text: CR H7647)
July 25, 2003 • 6:37 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
July 25, 2003 • 6:37 PM
Received in the Senate, read twice.
July 28, 2003
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 8/1/2003 S10844)
July 31, 2003
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
August 1, 2003
Presented to President.
August 7, 2003
Signed by President.
August 8, 2003
Became Public Law No: 108-69.
August 8, 2003
Voting History
2 votes recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.R. 2859 on the floor
DB
JPMCWB
DRO
SJL+18
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.R. 2859 on the floor
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…
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have put us in quite a situation here. We…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have put us in quite a situation here. We all remember the great job that President Clinton and James Lee Witt did in the 1990s by remaking FEMA into the world-class disaster response agency it is today. But earlier this year, the Republicans in the House decided to play games with FEMA's funding levels. They deliberately provided inadequate resources for FEMA in order to meet their arbitrary budget cap. They knew full well that they would have to come back for more FEMA funding; and surprise, surprise, here we are.
We are here to consider a new supplemental appropriations bill that will partially fund FEMA through August and through part of the hurricane season. I am sure almost all of us will vote for this bill, because this funding is so important for FEMA and the families that they help.
But it is important that we discuss the other emergency that is looming, and that is that of AmeriCorp. As many of my colleagues probably know, AmeriCorp is woefully underfunded. Without immediate action, 20,000 AmeriCorp positions will be lost; 20,000 AmeriCorp positions will be lost.
The other body did the right thing, and they added $100 million to AmeriCorp to their version of the supplemental. But on a near party- line vote in the House Committee on Appropriations, the Republican majority killed this funding. This must be another part of the Republican employment plan.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is playing games with the lives of 20,000 AmeriCorp employees. These people are proudly serving their communities and have committed themselves to this important public service program. But without our help, they will be cast aside, at no fault of their own.
After September 11, President Bush issued a challenge to Americans to give back to their communities, right here in this Chamber. He specifically singled out AmeriCorp as one way to give back. Unfortunately, the administration's actions have not matched their rhetoric. While they have talked a good game about the importance of this program, they have done absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure its long-term stability.
Mr. Speaker, these are real people we are talking about. I recently talked to a young woman in Worcester, Massachusetts. She was thrilled just to be accepted into the AmeriCorp program. But then she told me that her hiring depends directly on whether AmeriCorp receives the emergency funding it needs. Her life is on hold while the Republican leadership plays more games and breaks more promises.
Mr. Speaker, all of us support important funding for FEMA, but we cannot and must not turn our backs on the young people across this country who have stepped up to serve their communities. We owe it to them to do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I will call for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will provide us the opportunity to debate the Obey amendment, which will provide important AmeriCorp funding.
Mr. Speaker, this is the only way we can help AmeriCorp. Once again we must take this avenue of defeating the previous question because the Republicans on the Committee on Rules shut us out. Last night they shut us out with regard to increasing veterans funding, and, then, after that, they shut us out with regard to finding ways to help 20,000 AmeriCorp volunteers keep their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for setting the record straight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) how many more speakers he has.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record the letter that was sent to us by 43 Governors, including Governor George Pataki and Governor Jeb Bush, in support of funding for AmeriCorps. I would only say to my colleagues, if Members do not want to listen to President Bush, maybe you might listen to his brother and provide the funding that all these Governors are asking for.
The letter is as follows:
July 21, 2003.
President George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Bush: As strong supporters of America's,
national service programs, we are writing to urge you to help
solve the crisis confronting AmeriCorps. This crisis is felt
most directly by states and localities facing the imminent
closure of hundreds of AmeriCorps programs. We hope you will
do everything possible to ensure that these programs are not
closed or drastically cut, that needed services continue to
be provided by AmeriCorps members, and that we can continue
to tap the idealism and patriotism of so many of our citizens
who want to serve.
Your leadership on national service has helped to boast our
nation's civic spirit and we appreciate that, in your 2004
budget request, you proposed that the number of AmeriCorps
volunteers increase from 50,000 to 75,000. Since your 2002
State of the Union Address, when you called upon Americans to
dedicate two years--or 4,000 hours--of their lives to serving
their country, tens of thousands of Americans have responded
by seeking new opportunities to serve their communities and
their nation. Through AmeriCorps, among many other
initiatives, these citizens have worked to meet critical
needs in education, public safety, health, and homeland
security.
Unfortunately, on June 16th the Corporation for National
and Community Service announced dramatic and unprecedented
cuts of approximately 50 to 90 percent to our states'
AmeriCorps programs and corps member slots. We are very
pleased that, following this announcement and under the
leadership of Senators Bond and Mikulski, Congress acted
quickly to pass the Strengthen AmeriCorps Act, which will
alleviate some of this devastation and correct the
Corporation's management of the National Service Trust. This
legislation is an important first step towards assuring
fiscal accountability, increasing the enrollment of
AmeriCorps members, an ensuring the program's long-term
health.
We recognize that prior ``fixes'' to the Trust have helped
put full AmeriCorps staffing for this year in jeopardy. It is
truly a shame that mismanagement might prevent willing
individuals from serving their communities through
AmeriCorps. To avoid such a situation, we hope that you will
consider approving an appropriation of up to $200M for
AmeriCorps as part of the FY03 supplemental spending bill
currently being debated by Congress. Without an emergency
appropriation, the dramatic decrease in AmeriCorps positions
now being proposed could seriously affect communities and
individuals who rely on AmeriCorps members for help. It is
also likely to damage, if not destroy, the infrastructure of
strong programs, which do not have the resources to sustain a
significant budget cut, even if only for one year.
Organizations that have been built over a decade cannot be
eliminated this year and rebuilt the next.
Finally, we look forward to working with you to see the
goal of 75,000 AmeriCorps volunteers realized in the near
future and salute your overall commitment to bringing
Americans together around the ethic of service. Over the past
ten years, AmeriCorps has become an essential resource for
states and their communities to meet pressing needs, train
future leaders through service, and provide access to life-
changing educational awards for thousands of citizens.
AmeriCorps also greatly leverages private sector dollars for
civic initiatives. With your leadership we can work to assure
that it remains a vital force for good across the country for
years to come.
Sincerely,
Gov. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts; Gov. Frank Murkowski,
Alaska; Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arkansas; Gov. John
Rowland, Connecticut; Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida; Gov.
Edward Rendell, Pennsylvania; Gov. Janet Napolitano,
Arizona; Gov. Gray Davis, California; Gov. Ruth Ann
Minner, Delaware; Gov. Sonny Pedue, Georgia. Gov. Dirk
Kempthorne, Idaho; Gov. Frank O'Bannon, Indiana; Gov.
Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas; Gov. Mike Foster, Louisiana;
Gov. Robert Ehrlich, Maryland; Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota; Gov. Bob Holden, Missouri; Gov. Mike Johanns,
Nebraska; Gov. James McGreevey, New Jersey; Gov. Rod
Blagojevich, Illinois; Gov. Thomas Vilsack, Iowa; Gov.
Paul Patton, Kentucky; Gov. John Baldacci, Maine; Gov.
Jennifer Granholm, Michigan; Gov. Ronnie Musgrove,
Mississippi; Gov. Judy Martz, Montana; Gov. Kenny Guinn,
Nevada; Gov. Bill Richardson, New Mexico; Gov. George
Pataki, New York; Gov. John Hoeven, North Dakota; Gov.
Brad Henry, Oklahoma; Gov. Don Carcieri, Rhode Island;
Gov. Michael Leavitt, Utah; Gov. Mark Warner, Virginia;
Gov. Bob Wise, West Virginia; Gov. Dave Freudenthal,
Wyoming; Gov. Mike Easley, North Carolina; Gov. Bob Taft,
Ohio; Gov. Ted Kulongoski, Oregon; Gov. Phil Bedesen,
Tennessee; Gov. James Douglas, Vermont; Gov. Gary Locke,
Washington; Gov. Jim Doyle, Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 339, I call up the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and ask for its immediate…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 339, I call up the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the Toomey amendment to H.R. 2859 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do so to present the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, the second supplemental for fiscal year 2003. We have had considerable debate already on the bill as we debated the rule. This is a very simple, straightforward emergency bill that includes $983.6 million for the Disaster Relief Fund, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security. We know that there are Members that have other interests, and the administration has other interests. We had already reported from the Committee on Appropriations a supplemental that was more far reaching than this, but it appears the proper thing to do now is to just present this emergency supplemental strictly for Disaster Relief because the Disaster Relief account has a serious problem with running out of money. I do not think we need a lot of debate on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to remind Members that the Committee on Appropriations reported a supplemental appropriations bill that I believe is still in play that would be conferenced as part of the legislative branch bill. That bill did include the money for fighting the fires. We think that is a very important issue. We actually proposed that to the administration and they agreed. They agreed to that part of the supplemental. I hope that is still in play, and I believe that it will be; but today we are faced with the real emergency of a funding emergency for Disaster Relief account.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and, of course, FEMA falls into his jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget that our process on appropriations was so fouled up last year by some insistent demands of certain Members that, yes, we had to do 11 of the 13 bills in February of this year.
If the Committee on Appropriations would have been permitted to do our work like we have done this year, by the way, we would not have had those kinds of problems where we had to make adjustments in order to cover the balance of the 2003 issues. And I would suggest that what was done was done in agreement with the leadership, it was done in agreement with the President of the United States; and I make no excuse for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's concern. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. Speaker, first let me explain that I agree with everything the gentleman is saying. And I would tell him that just last week when the Committee on Appropriations reported the first supplemental for this particular season, it included a substantial amount of money for fighting fires.
Mr. Speaker, this supplemental is still in play. It has not gone to conference, but it is still in play as part of the legislative branch appropriations bill.
This is a different bill. This one is intended to move smoothly. That is a joke, by the way.
However, that particular bill is stalled, so we are moving this one because this is a real emergency for FEMA. The ability to borrow money to fight the fires is there. They can do that.
However, everybody should be aware that whatever we borrow, we are going to have to pay it back anyway, so we are going to have to make up this money.
My thinking is it would have been smarter to include in this bill the fire
fighting money that is necessary. But it did not happen. I wish it had, but it did not.
We will move this bill and hopefully get to conference quickly on the other bill and take care of the problem at least of paying back the money that they have to borrow.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very important member of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of February's bill, first of all, that was not our fault. We were not permitted to bring the bills in the regular period of time for fiscal year 2003. That was not our fault.
The fact that the numbers were different in February, understand that in February almost half of the fiscal year was gone, and there was not any use funding the early part of the fiscal year because it was already over with.
It is easy for the budget resolution to make assumptions. They can assume that you can find $7 billion, for example, in the plug that was in this 2004 budget resolution. The Committee on Appropriations has to be real. What we write in our bills becomes law. It has to be real. It has to be realistic. That is what we do. We cannot satisfy everybody.
I want to compliment my friend from Pennsylvania for keeping our feet to the fire on spending. He does a really good job. And we try to balance out those who want to spend more and those who want to spend less, just to make sure that we do a responsible job in funding the government and funding essential operations. So I compliment the gentleman. Sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes I do not.
In this case, I must disagree with him. I do so because his amendment would cut money from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, technology for State and local enforcement. It would cut for embassy security, it would cut NIH, Centers for Disease Control, Head Start, special education grants, grants for disadvantaged students. Cuts would also deal with HIV-AIDS and child survival, world hunger programs, aid to Israel, and the list is very long.
Remember, there are only 2 months left in this fiscal year. If this was across-the-board for the whole 12 months, it might not be so bad, but this is only for 2 months left in the fiscal yield.
I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
The answer is the discretionary spending is about one-third of the total government spending. It is amazing to me how some of those who are constantly arguing about discretionary spending vote for the big mandatory programs, the back-door spending. So it is two to one.
Absolutely.
Mr. Speaker, I have not found much success in the proper committee's dealing with that.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield after I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa and ask him to yield to me.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman did not misunderstand my comments. I agree, the gentleman has, as chairman, done more than previous budget chairmen to recognize the problem with mandatory versus discretionary; and I compliment the gentleman for that.
My comment relative to and in response to the question of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) about the two-thirds, one-third is a fact. But again, that was not to be a criticism of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, because I know that you and I have talked, and I know that you understand totally and you agree that if we cannot control mandatory, we are never going to control discretionary.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss this matter before us, I would like to alert Members of the House to the situation we face on the VA-HUD bill. There have been…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I discuss this matter before us, I would like to alert Members of the House to the situation we face on the VA-HUD bill. There have been approximately 40 amendments offered to that bill. Perhaps 10 of them at this point will fall by the wayside, people deciding not to offer them. If the others simply take 5 minutes on each side and if about a third to a half of them have rollcalls, that will take us to probably 7 o'clock tonight. I am sorry. I said that wrong. If we have no rollcalls and if we just have 5 minutes of debate on each side, it will take us until about 7 o'clock tonight. If there are any rollcalls at all, then let us say there are rollcalls on about a third of the amendments, that means we would be here until about 9 o'clock tonight. And if you have one-third of those amendments where you take at least 10 minutes a side, then we are going to be here until about 11 o'clock.
I want Members to understand that now, because I know a lot of them are assuming that they are going to be able to catch 6 o'clock planes. Unless something happens, that is not going to be true. I would urge Members to think through whether they are serious in offering these amendments. If they are, obviously they have a right to offer them. But I think Members need to understand what the realistic time frame is as well and would urge Members to take that into consideration if in fact they are planning to get out of here on a plane this evening.
Mr. Speaker, having given that notice, let me simply say that we have already made quite clear that we think that this supplemental is deficient in a number of areas, especially in the areas of fire fighting and in the area of AmeriCorps, but in my view there is no sense chewing that cud twice. We have already talked about it on the rule.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I agree with the gentleman's observation, but it is obvious we are going to be voting on the amendment so I think I will withhold my comments on it until we are actually at the amending stage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to myself.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that, as I have indicated, we believe that there are a number of other items which should have been included in this supplemental. They were not. The majority determines that; so we have no objection to that which is included in the proposal, and I would certainly intend to vote for it.
I would say with respect to the comments of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, it is my observation that in the world sometimes things change. Events occur, natural disasters occur, matters of a war here and there occur. Things change, except in the world of the Committee on the Budget. So I guess nothing that the Committee on Appropriations does will ever satisfy people who prefer a static world, but I quit worrying about that a long time ago.
I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
I have not.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Let me simply say I am familiar with the gentleman's history on disaster funding. I personally would prefer that there would be no federally financed disaster programs.
I have introduced legislation which would require every State in the Union to buy into a federally run insurance plan so that on an experience-rated basis States would, much as they do with Worker's Compensation, prepay for any expected disaster short of a gargantuan tragedy. We have not been able to get that considered by either party, so we are stuck with what is left.
I am much more concerned with whether this estimate is real than whether it fits within the niceties of the budget resolution, to be frank about it. I do not think that God gives us 2 weeks' notice before we have a hurricane; so we do not have time to send down a proper budget amendment. So I think we do the best we can.
I think the difference between the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from Florida is that the gentleman from Iowa is free to pull numbers out of the air on the Committee on the Budget and describe the world as he and as Committee on the Budget think it ought to exist. But then the Committee on Appropriations and other legislative committees in this place have to implement what happens, and I think it is a whole lot more difficult to implement than it is to pronounce.
So all I would say is, given the limited nature of the recommendations here, I think this is reasonable. I personally believe that this is not going to be enough money in the FEMA account. I think we should have done something on fire fighting. I think we should have done something to prevent 20,000 people from being fired in AmeriCorps, and I recognize we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, I invite any Member of this House on either side of the aisle who is disquieted about this to call my office and indicate their willingness to join me in sponsoring the legislation that I have described that would set up an experience-rated fund into which States would contribute, so that the Feds do not always get hit with the cost of these things.
But absent that kind of legislation being on the books, I think we have no choice but to provide enough money to meet what we know will be unscheduled, irregular natural disasters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, one observation, and then one question.
I do not appreciate having to take lectures from the Committee on the Budget. Let me tell my colleague the sleight of hand that that committee played. They pretended that they provided additional money for veterans. They pretended that they provided additional money for education and for special education in order to get the votes of the moderate Republicans in here for the resolution.
And then, after they pretended, on an account-by-account basis, that they had provided the money, then that same Committee on the Budget provided $7.2 billion in undistributed reductions and assigned those reductions to our committee, without having the guts to spell out what those reductions should be.
And then they squawked when the gentleman from Florida tried to distribute those reductions. That is what is going on here.
The difference is that the gentleman from Florida has to run a real railroad train, it is not an Alice in Wonderland train.
Now, with respect to the amendment at hand, I simply want Members to know how they are going to vote. I mean, the Republicans are running this show, so it is immaterial to me which of your factions wins the argument on that side.
But if this amendment passes, you will be cutting $15 million from the FBI. You will forcing Israel to write a $12 million check back to us because they have already gotten their money. The Drug Enforcement Agency will have to cut $5 million. The Colombian drug initiative, which was just defended in this House this week, you will have to cut $1 million out of that. You will have to cut $15 million out of the Cancer Institute. And you will have to cut $600,000 out of Meals-on- Wheels.
Now, I am not going to debate whether you ought to do any of that stuff; I simply want Members to know what they will be voting on if they vote for the amendment.
I would also simply say that I hope, and I am confident, that this amendment has more to do with concerns about budget than it does a Pennsylvania Senate primary.
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…
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.
Show 8 more
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…
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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does an excellent job in his work and his subcommittee in dealing with this. I am wondering if he could report to us why it is that…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does an excellent job in his work and his subcommittee in dealing with this. I am wondering if he could report to us why it is that there is a shortfall of resources for FEMA for this year.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. Speaker, is it not true, however, that the President requested back in February an additional $1 billion for FEMA to be made part of the omnibus appropriations bill, and that that $1 billion request was not used for FEMA, but rather for other accounts within the omnibus appropriations bill?
Mr. Speaker, again, the chairman has, if not the toughest job, one the toughest jobs on Capitol Hill, and I do not take anything away from that.
My concern about what we are doing with regard to an emergency supplemental, as the gentleman correctly said when he started, is that an emergency, by definition, and has been by definition since the early 1990s, is something that is unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated. And when the President makes a request for $1 billion in order to fund FEMA accounts for problems that while they maybe have not yet manifested themselves, we know there will be forest fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, windstorms, et cetera.
And I think the concern I have and others may have, is that when it is requested, it is not funded as it is traditionally and unfortunately the case for FEMA, and that money is used for other accounts, that we find ourselves now having to take time on the floor to go and do what should have been done in February.
That money has now been used for other accounts, and that is the concern that I have as the Committee on the Budget chairman, and I know a number of other people have, with regard to the process that we are taking here today.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, let me just report to the ranking member that I have supported all of the appropriations bills on the floor this year.
I understand that, but my point is that the Committee on the Budget tries not to meddle other than when it writes the budget itself, which is our prerogative as a committee to write.
And I would just say, I think the gentleman might acknowledge that a war does not have its own account. FEMA has its own account to anticipate natural disasters, to anticipate emergencies; and as the gentleman knows, this is an unfortunate, but yet somewhat traditional exercise that goes on to underfund FEMA, knowing full well that we have a difficult time saying no to natural disasters, so that those resources can be spread among other accounts.
We can all decide how we are going to vote on this, but I would only encourage the very distinguished ranking member, who I know is concerned about this practice, that we prevent this from occurring in the future.
Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time in this debate to adequately acknowledge what this practice of underfunding FEMA means to the victims. So I hope we all keep that in mind here today, because while this bill is important, it is important that we change the practice of underfunding FEMA intentionally, as we did in February to take $1 billion out of what was requested by OMB and to spread it into all these other little goodies, knowing full well that if FEMA needed the money, we would come back here breathlessly to say, oh, yes, we need a little bit of extra money; and that is exactly what happened. That is exactly what was predicted in February, and that is exactly what happened today.
The traditional definition that we have used for emergencies has always been ``unforeseen, unanticipated, and unpredictable.'' Well, how is it that OMB and the President were able to predict that this was going to happen in February; but for some reason now, the last minute on the last day before the recess, before, as my friend from Washington says, offices are ready to close, the lights are ready to be turned off, people are thrown in the street, and that is typically what happens, as people come breathlessly to the floor with an emergency supplemental, knowing full well in February we needed money and waiting until the last minute to try and jam it through.
We are probably going to jam it through again, and it is only, gosh, I hope my mother is not listening, it is only $1 billion. But we have got a deficit, and I want to see all those deficit hawks, all those Democrats in particular that have been down here on the floor railing about the deficit, to come down here today and remind themselves and their friends about how important it is to not add an additional $1 billion to the deficit.
What the gentleman from Pennsylvania says is let us find the money. If you do not like this offset, fix it in conference. That is the power you have. The chairman knows he can increase the bill in conference. You can also fix this amendment and find a true offset in conference. Let us pay for this disaster.
Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I take this time just to respond to my very distinguished appropriations chairman and subcommittee chairman to report to them that I heard their personal conversations to me about the need to take on mandatory spending and not just fight about discretionary spending. That is why in the budget this year we not only asked for the 1 percent from all of the mandatory spending; the first time that has been done, it was because of the interest of the Committee on Appropriations, in particular, that we took on that task.
No, it did not complete the final version of the budget, because there were not enough people who were gutsy enough to do it. I know the gentleman from Kentucky is. I am, as well.
I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is a fair comment. But to suggest that the Committee on the Budget has not been doing its work with regard to mandatory spending is what troubled me in the gentleman's comments.
The gentleman is right that the proof will be in the final product, but I would just say that the committee has attempted to at least fix this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield.
Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim the time and just report that we have had one successful bill that already has moved to the floor that reduced, for waste, fraud, and abuse, $33 billion in a mandatory program called Medicare. It was part of the bill that was voted on and passed by this House.
So, again, to suggest that nothing has been done is not correct.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this bill, as a member of the committee but also as a veteran. Since 1999, our Congress has provided an almost…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this bill, as a member of the committee but also as a veteran.
Since 1999, our Congress has provided an almost 40 percent increase for VA medical services. We provided in this bill over $200 million in construction to repair and rehabilitate and realign VA facilities, and this bill also fully funds the demand for a National Cemetery Administration.
It is important to point out one key fact, though, that this bill fully funds the projected medical needs for all veterans 50 percent, service-connected disability and above. This bill funds all of the medical needs for all veterans 30 to 40 percent, service-connected. This bill fully funds all of the medical needs for prisoners of war, Purple Heart veterans and service-connected, 10 to 20 percent, service disability veterans.
We fully fund all of the medical needs for veterans with catastrophic problems. We fully fund all of the medical needs for no- and very-low- income veterans and, of course, fully fund the needs for the service- connected World War I, Mexican incident and Gulf War veterans.
Our veteran brothers want to make sure that this government honors, first, its commitment to service-connected veterans, and we want to make sure that our comrades in arms who are wounded and are still suffering have their needs fully met.
As a veteran, I can say that I want service-connected veterans to stand first; but there is another opportunity in this bill, and it will be addressed in an amendment coming up, and that is the chance to share resources with other Federal agencies, particularly the military. We have the chance in this legislation to save several hundred million dollars by sharing facilities between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
For example, in my own congressional District in north Chicago, Illinois, we provide excellent military health care at a naval hospital and excellent veterans health care at a VA center, but those two Federal institutions with separate galleys, separate security forces, separate steam and heating plants, separate medical staffs are 1 mile apart. This kind of geographic collocation happens in many parts of the country and the ability to combine these institutions gives us the opportunity to upgrade medical care, not just for the active duty, but for veterans.
It will happen in northern Illinois. It is happening in Denver. It is happening in New Mexico. It is happening in South Carolina.
So I urge support for this bill. I think this bill moves us forward, especially on the sharing issue, and it is important to note this bill meets all of the medical needs for veterans in categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that calls on the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress on resource sharing agreements for services, programs and facilities the Department undertakes with the Department of Defense.
I understand this amendment has been cleared with the majority and minority.
I yield to the gentleman from New York.
I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia, our distinguished ranking minority member.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a technical amendment that calls on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to submit a report to Congress reporting on resource sharing agreements for services, programs and facilities the department undertakes with the Department of Defense (DoD).
Every American knows that the face of health care has changed dramatically over the past decades. This is no less true for military and veterans' health care. It is clear from all the studies undertaken by the departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs that the integration of health care services--where possible--will enhance the quality of care for the men and women who are serving our country today and those who served blur nation in the past.
My district is home to the North Chicago VA Medical Center and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital. During the last Administration, officials cafe two attempts to close ate North Chicago VA Medical Center. On June 19, 2001 the VA released its Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) study. The CARES study developed four options to impose veterans health care in the Chicago area, each of which recommended the preservation of services offered at North Chicago. The CARES study also recommended increasing the level of cooperative between North Chicago VA and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital, located less than a mile apart.
Integration of the two medical facilities is both practical and also urgent in North Chicago, Illinois, where the Great Lakes Naval training Center Hospital and the North Chicago Veterans Medical center both sit underutilized and in such close proximity. Combining these two facilities in a state of the art, federal health care center will maximize the use of tax payer dollars, enhance the training opportunities for young naval medical corps personnel, and, most importantly, bring the health care we promised them men and women into the twenty first century. By directing the VA to report Congress on the issues facing resource sharing Congress will be able to better understand and utilize resource sharing agreements when moving forward with this cost shaving approach.
I have met with Secretary Principi and Secretary Rumsfeld to discuss enhanced cooperation and health care resources sharing between the DoD and the VA. Both secretaries are committed to providing our men and women in uniform, veterans and retirees with world-class health care in an efficient manner. Both agree that cooperation between the two agencies when possible, will enable the departments to meet the growing needs of active and retired soldiers.
As an officer in the Naval Reserve and fellow veteran, I understand the sacrifices made by the men and women who wore their country's uniform. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I would like to close by thanking Chairman Walsh, ranking member Mollohan, and the staff of the VA-HUD subcommittee for their help with this amendment. I hope to continue working with them on this issue as this bill moves into a conference committee with the other body.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying we do need to fund FEMA properly; but we also need to offset it, as we often have done in…
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying we do need to fund FEMA properly; but we also need to offset it, as we often have done in the past, and that is what this amendment proposes to do.
I want to follow up on the comments of my chairman, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who was exactly right about how we got to this point. I would like to explain that a little bit and make sure that my colleagues understand that for fiscal year 2003 the President requested $1.8 billion for FEMA disaster relief. This is routine annual spending in anticipation of the fact that we know we will have disasters in America.
In October of 2002, the House Committee on Appropriations approved $1.8 billion in committee. In January of this year, the Senate passed an omnibus with only $800 million, $1 billion below the President's level.
In January of 2003, the White House issued a statement of administration policy pointing out that this underfunding of FEMA by $1 billion would cause a problem and we would need to go back and address this. But despite that, despite the fact that everybody knew that we were intentionally and consciously underfunding FEMA by about $1 billion, we passed an omnibus at the lower level, $1 billion below the House Committee on Appropriations level, $1 billion below the President's request.
And what happened to the $1 billion? As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget correctly observed, it was used so we could spend more money in other areas and still pretend we were living within the overall discretionary level that we had all sort of agreed upon.
Well, the fact is, this emergency is an emergency that we have created by virtue of the fact that we chose not to fund this one category, and we all knew that low-balling FEMA would not stand. So now, predictably, we are all back to back-fill the hole that we dug for ourselves in February.
As I said before, FEMA needs the money. That is not the issue about this amendment. What we are simply saying is we ought to offset this so that we do not have just a net increase in the total amount of spending. We are just trying to stick to the budget that we agreed to.
So what this amendment does is it says let us take this $984 million and let us offset it with an across-the-board reduction in all discretionary spending programs except defense, homeland security, and veterans programs. That adds up to about five one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total spending for 2003, about three-tenths of 1 percent of the spending in the categories in which we are going to make this tiny cut. It is about 29 cents out of every $100 dollars.
Now, some people will say, well, even that is too much to cut, especially since there are only 2 months left in the fiscal year. So we have gone on to say, okay, we'll leave it to the discretion of the President to decide whether we cannot find that amount of waste, 29 cents out of $100 is too hard to find; and if that is the case, he has all of 2004 to offset any individual accounts he so chooses.
It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, as a very reasonable and very doable amendment. Over the next 2 months, agencies would be asked to come up with 29 cents out of every $100. And if they cannot, they get another 12 months to do it. We have a history of offsetting non-defense supplementals; and I believe with a deficit of $455 billion, here is a way to reduce that deficit. It is what we ought to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that we have 14 months to find these offsets, not just 2.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and remind my colleagues that we have enacted across-the-board spending cuts in 3 of the last 4 fiscal years.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
I would just remind my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations that in addition to the Committee on the Budget, I offered an alternative budget that actually would significantly restrain the growth of mandatory spending. Very specifically, I frequently vote against many mandatory spending programs as well.
But what we are here today to try to do is not cut a dime out of FEMA. What we want to do is just say, let us offset this. It is 29 cents out of $100. It is not for two months, it is over 14 months, and any single individual line item, if the President thinks it is unreasonable to try to find 29 cents out of the $100 because there are only two months left, and no doubt there are many categories in which that would be difficult, there are another whole 12 months, all of fiscal year 2004, to find those offsets.
This is not that hard. Any family can find 29 cents out of $100 in their family budget. Any business can do likewise. We have an obligation to do the same thing for our taxpayers, especially at a time when we are running the kind of deficits that we are.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and when this amendment succeeds, which I hope it will, and I am sure every Blue Dog is going to vote for it, because I hear them all the time talking about how upset they are about the deficit; well, here is an absolute, straightforward way to reduce the deficits. I am looking forward to a lot of votes from that side of the aisle. I am looking forward to the passage of my amendment, and then passage of the underlying supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Chairman, I offer this…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues from Michigan, especially my three good friends and colleagues Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Rogers, all of whom are interested very much in this matter.
We in Michigan are awash in Canadian waste, 180 truckloads a day. EPA can help Michigan citizens control the flow of municipal solid waste from Canada. We have an agreement with the Canadians signed in 1992 that requires the EPA to implement a notice and consent procedure on the flow of trash.
The EPA has spent 11 years shirking its duty. They have determined that they will not implement this safe, simple and internationally recognized agreement.
The amendment is simple. It proposes to take $1 million out of EPA's Office of Media Relations and put the money into the Office of Enforcement, specifically for the enforcement of this bilateral agreement.
I know of no controversy with regard to this amendment. I note that it is a message to EPA bureaucrats to stop stalling and start protecting our citizens in Michigan.
I would note that I would, out of gratitude to my dear friends on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and also the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), I now terminate my remarks at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask all my colleagues to support an amendment I have offered with my good friends and colleagues from Michigan, Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Rogers.
We in Michigan have a bit of a problem, Mr. Speaker. You see, we are awash in Canadian trash. Every single day, 180 truckloads of the stuff cross over the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron and the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit.
Luckily, in 1986 the United States and Canada signed the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, which was amended in 1992 to also govern the transport of municipal waste.
While we are fortunate to have that agreement, the EPA unfortunately had declined to enforce it. They have had 11 years to implement the notice and consent procedure required by the agreement. Eleven years, Mr. Speaker, and incredibly EPA has taken no action!
Meanwhile, Customs officials have told us in no uncertain terms that they consider these trucks ``high risk'' and nearly impossible to inspect. A recent shipment included 50 pounds of marijuana. During the SARS outbreak in Toronto, where much of the garbage comes from, a Michigan State Trooper found a trash can dripping blood.
These truckloads of trash are a nuisance and a danger to Michiganders. In fact, on two separate occasions, innocent citizens were hit by these semi-trucks. Citizens who once lived on quiet country roads now must contend with nearly 200 truckloads of garbage that begin rolling in at six in the morning. Nice summer breezes are a thing of the past for these folks, now houses must be shut up year round in an effort to avoid the stench.
Our amendment, Mr. Speaker, is simple. We take $1 million from EPA's Office of Media
Relations, and put that money into the Office of Enforcement, specifically the enforcement of this Bilateral Agreement.
On Wednesday, July 23, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee heard testimony from EPA. They were able to give us a timeline for when Canada might be done with their regulatory process. Unfortunately, they were unable to give Members of the Subcommittee any idea when EPA might be through their regulatory process. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this bears repeating: U.S. EPA testified as to when Canada might be through their regulatory process, but they were not able to give us any indication of when they might be through their own.
I would note that Article 5.3 of the Bilateral Agreement expressly provides that ``to the extent any implementing regulations are necessary to comply with this Agreement, the Parties will act expeditiously to issue such regulations consistent with domesic law.'' Article 5.3 further and expressly provides that ``pending such issuance, the Parties will make best efforts to provide notification in accordance with this Agreement where current regulatory authority is insufficient.''
Well, by EPA's own admission, this is not being done. They have not used their best efforts and they have not even begun the regulatory process. How long does it take, Mr. Speaker? How long do the citizens of Michigan have to wait?
My fellow colleagues from Michigan, and indeed, all Michiganders, find it outrageous that EPA has shirked its duty and determined that our health and well-being is not worth their time and effort. This amendment tells them to do their job: issue regulations and enforce them. As they move forward with these regulations, we would request that before EPA consents to a shipment, they consider the views of the state and local governments, as well as the impact of the importation of continued public support and adherence to recycling programs, landfill capacity, air emissions from increased vehicular traffic, road deterioration from increased vehicular traffic, and public health and the environment.
I would ask my colleagues to support this common sense amendment to help protect the citizens of Michigan and to force the EPA to do its job.
Again, I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues from Michigan, Mr. Upton, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Rogers for their cosponsorship of this important amendment and their leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. First, let me thank and congratulate Chairman Young, Chairman Walsh, and Members of the Appropriations…
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. First, let me thank and congratulate Chairman Young, Chairman Walsh, and Members of the Appropriations Committee for all of the hard work they have done in crafting this excellent bill. I am especially thankful for the increase of $2.75 million to the Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities, funding this vital program at a total of over $102 million.
These grants are of great importance to America's veterans, providing many veterans with services they would otherwise be unable to receive. There is one such facility in my district I want to talk about, the Illinois Home for Veterans in LaSalle.
Located in my district, this Home provides intermediate and skilled nursing services for veterans, with a total capacity of 120 beds including 18 special needs beds for veterans suffering Alzheimer's Disease or related dementias. As successful as the Home has been, it is in need of new funding to expand its bed capacity.
With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, States already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. The waiting list for admittance to the LaSalle home is as long as 2 to 3 years, with over 250 veterans waiting, many of which will go untreated or under treated due to lack of beds.
Recently, the State of Illinois enacted legislation authorizing an increase in the number of beds in this facility by 80. I have asked the State of Illinois to apply for the 65 percent Federal funding under this grant and to secure its 35 percent share of the matching funds for the LaSalle home to proceed with the construction.
In the past, the State has had problems with Federal funding from the State Home Construction Grant program. Specifically, the State made repairs and improvements to the Home in LaSalle and had not been awarded funding by the Federal Government for these projects through the grant program, or reimbursements from the program had been slow and piecemeal.
In consideration of this, I ask for inclusion into the VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report, priority language which would read, ``The Committee further encourages the Department to work with the State of Illinois as that State applies for a grant to expand the LaSalle facility.''
With so many veterans in need of care, the Illinois Valley can no longer wait to obtain more beds in the veterans home.
Again, let me thank the Appropriations Committee for their hard work, and attention to this important matter.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,
July 18, 2003.
Hon. Rod Blagojevich,
Governor, State of Illinois, Statehouse, Springfield, IL.
Dear Governor Blagojevich, I am pleased to be writing you
in regards to the legislation that you recently signed into
law that will expand the Illinois Home for Veterans in
LaSalle. Congratulations on this accomplishment!
As a result of this landmark legislation, I urge you to
apply for federal funds from the State Home Construction
Grant program, which could reimburse the State for up to 65%
of the cost of the expansions.
As you may know, in the past, the State of Illinois had
expressed concerns about the State Home Construction Grant
program. Specifically, the State had made repairs and/or
improvements to the home in LaSalle and
had not been awarded funding by the federal government for
these projects through the grant program. Last July, after
working with the Ryan Administration and the VA, the State
was paid $7.3 million as a reimbursement for renovations/
improvements made to State veterans' homes. The State is no
longer due any reimbursement funds from this program.
Included in legislation enacted in the 106th Congress were
changes for the requirements needed for submitting an
application. After submitting the application, the VA will
assign it a priority (if it approves the application), and
the State will then have 180 days to meet all necessary
requirements, including proof of the 35 percent matching
funds. With the new law that you have just signed that
guarantees the State has the matching funds for the project,
the expansion will likely be placed high on the priority list
for FY2004 funding. The application deadline for submitting
projects for FY2004 is August 15, 2003. Due to the budget
problems that the State is now having, I strongly urge you to
apply for federal funds through the State Home Construction
Grant program.
As you may know, I offered amendments to the VA, Housing
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
appropriations bills in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 to
increase the funding for veterans' state grants, which are
used by the Manteno and LaSalle facilities for construction
or addition of new beds or facilities. In FT2002 and FY2003,
Congress fully funded the State Home Construction Grant
Program, and President Bush has indicated that he will fully
fund it in upcoming fiscal years. Our success with fully
funding this program increases the chance that the state
could be reimbursed for the LaSalle expansion project.
I am optimistic that funding for the LaSalle expansion
would be awarded soon since this would most likely be
designated by the VA as a Priority One project.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Jack Dusik on my staff.
Thank you for your support of the expansion.
Sincerely,
Jerry Weller,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. It is the medical care amendment. I have two, Mr. Chairman, and this would be the first one. Since they are very similar, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
It is the medical care amendment. I have two, Mr. Chairman, and this would be the first one.
Since they are very similar, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc with the time allotted. We could dispose of both of them at the same time.
Never mind, do them one at a time.
The amendment would seek to add $1.8 billion to the medical care budget.
I offered two amendments last night, Mr. Chairman, or asked that two be made in order at the Committee on Rules, and I submitted 50 copies of each to the Committee on Rules, so there should be at least one copy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, despite significant and sustained efforts by Secretary Principi and the VA to boost effectiveness and efficiencies in the VA health care delivery; despite enhanced DOD-VA sharing of resources, individual facilities, administration, and pharmaceuticals; despite improved collections from individual veterans' insurance companies, and as a matter of fact my committee passed legislation that will boost that even further, and collections are up 70 percent since fiscal year 2001; despite an ongoing crackdown of waste, fraud, and abuse by the VA, and I point out that PL 107-103, one of my bills, goes after fugitive felons and we expect to glean about $209 million per year by recapturing those dollars; despite all of this and increases in the VA health care funding over the past few years, there remains what President Bush's 15-member task force calls a serious mismatch between need and resources.
After 2 years of vigorous investigation and analysis, President Bush's task force, and I would invite every Member to read the Bush task force report, it was co-chaired by Dr. Gail Wilensky and John Paul Hammersmith, the former ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and before then by Congressman Solomon, who has regrettably passed away, but was an outstanding man and lawmaker, and he was co- chair before passing away. This task force found, and I quote, ``that funding provided through the authorization in the appropriations process for VA health care
delivery has not kept pace with demand.''
There are reasons for it, of course. Since 1996, we have seen some 600 new outpatient clinics created. So there are feeder points. Our men and women, either in their wheelchairs or by their feet, are walking into VA health care facilities and getting the kind of care they need; we have seen a 70 percent increase in unique users, new patients since 1996.
The Bush task force pointed out, and I think it needs to be underscored, that there is a significant core underfunding. And you have to read this report because it talks about doing everything humanly possible, realizing every synergy, every efficiency; but when all is said and done, there is still this significant shortfall that needs to be breached by appropriated dollars.
And, of course, one of the outcomes of not having sufficient money is that many of our veterans wait unconscionably long periods in order to get the care they need. The task force found a snapshot in January: 236,000 veterans waiting 6 months or longer to get a first visit or a follow-up visit to their doctor.
An individual can get awfully sick and awfully diseased waiting that long to get health care. And I would respectfully submit that our veterans get sicker and more diseased by that inattention. We can close that gap by providing the proper amount of money.
Let me just say to my colleagues, as well, that last night I went to the Committee on Rules, joined by my good friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the two ranking members of the full committee and the Subcommittee on Health, and asked that this amendment be made in order to add back $1.8 billion.
What are we talking about? That is the number that was in the House- and Senate-passed congressional budget resolution, $27 billion for medical care, so that we meet the needs of our veterans for fiscal year 2004. Sadly, we were turned down.
What is the predictable outcome? I would respectfully submit it will be an awful outcome if we do not provide these resources. The VA has given us an indication, a blueprint, if you will, of 1.2 million veterans being disenrolled. 1.2 million, every State of the Union, men and women currently enrolled will no longer be enrolled. Five thousand nursing home beds for the spinal cord injury patients and others who have very highly skilled needs will be idled, will be done away with if we do not add back this $1.8 billion.
This is a very significant need, I would say to my colleagues, especially at a time when we are at war in Iraq. The war is over, but we have deployments and people are still getting injured and even killed. We need, in a bipartisan way, to step up to the plate and provide this necessary money.
And I would say to my colleagues with regret and with respect for the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, that I will be voting ``no'' on final passage of this bill, and, hopefully, we will go back to committee, get this funding problem solved there and do this right.
I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 2861, VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. As a member of the Subcommittee that oversees the VA, HUD appropriations, we are all in agreement that this…
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 2861, VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. As a member of the Subcommittee that oversees the VA, HUD appropriations, we are all in agreement that this bill leaves a lot to be desired. However, I applaud the Chair, Mr. James T. Walsh and the Ranking Member, Mr. Alan B. Mollohan for their leadership in moving this measure to the floor for a vote.
I also want to thank Mr. Obey for his leadership in the Appropriation process and for raising so many concerns that we all have regarding funding cuts in programs in this bill and in other areas. He has so poignantly made it clear to all parties involved that ``the tax cuts fostered by the Bush administration are swallowing up a huge share of the available money.''
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill because of my deep concerns for the veterans in the 2nd District of Georgia and across the country, the needy and poor that live in substandard housing, and for all those who are affected by the downturn of the economy. I concur with some of my colleagues that some of the programs are woefully under-funded. However, I believe we must pass this bill to avoid any further delays in stimulating the economy. This bill provides $137,500,000 for economic development initiatives.
We began the 108th Congress at FY02 funding levels. Many of the FY03 Appropriations bills were not passed until February of this year. We must not bog down this process any further. My constituents and others around the country are hurting. We must move this bill through the House in hopes of working out some of the major differences in Conference.
H.R. 2861 provides for $90 billion in discretionary funds for the Veterans Affairs and, the Housing and Urban Development departments and other independent agencies for fiscal 2004. This bill also includes $27.2 billion in fiscal 2004, an increase of $1.4 billion. The largest component of the VA total is $15.8 billion ``for medical services for veterans with service-connected health needs.''
Further, H.R. 2861 provides funding in fiscal 2004 for NASA in the amount of $15.5 billion; $5.6 billion for the National Science Foundation, a $329 million increase over fiscal 2003; $8 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, which is $375 million above the President's request but $74 million below 2003; $37 billion for HUD, which is $942 million above last year and $98 million over the President's request; $480 million for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which is $96 million above last year and $118 million below the President's request. This funding level will be able to sustain 55,000 volunteers, and increase of 5,000 and $60 million for the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
I also applaud both Mr. Walsh and Mr. Mollohan for recognizing the need to maintain the HOPE VI program. The allocation of $50,000,000 is not nearly enough to meet the needs of many of the severely distressed public housing facilities in my district and others alike. However, the committee has recognized the need to continue the program and went on record as willing to work with HUD in order to improve the overall performance and operation of the program.
The Committee's recommendation to zero out the Samaritan Housing Initiative, that provides assistance to the homeless community, was very alarming to many of the advocates in the housing community. Again, I am hopeful this issue will be addressed at the Conference level.
The Committee has made a valiant attempt to increase the funding for the National
Science Foundation (NSF). The Committee allocated $5,639,070,000 to NSF to enhance its national policy on science, and to support basic research for research and education.
Further, H.R. 2861 provides for other allocations such as:
One VA Enterprise Architecture in the Veterans Administration budget, public Housing Operating Fund, HOPWA, Rural Housing and Economic Development; Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities; Community Development Fund, CDBG; Community Development Block Grant-Formula grants; Habitat for Humanity capacity building; Historically Black Colleges and Universities; Brownfield Redevelopment; HOME Program; HOME/CHDO Technical Assistance; Homeless Program; Housing for the Disabled; Rental Housing Assistance; Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; Community Development Financial Institutions; Corporation for National and Community Service; STAG--State and Tribal Assistance Grants; Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP); HBCU- UP and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
Finally, H.R. 2861 provides for the establishment of a new provision in the Veterans' Budget to establish a $250 enrollment fee for priority 7 and 8 veterans (those veterans who are not service connected or not impoverished). This level is nearly identical to the annual enrollment fee charged to TRICARE retirees. This new provision increases the co- pay on prescription drugs from $7 to $15 for a 30-day supply of pharmaceuticals prescribed for non-service connected conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I have some real concerns about the ability of some veterans to pay the $250 enrollment fee and the increased fees for co- pay on prescription drugs, I am also hopeful that further consideration will be given to this issue at the Conference Committee level.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the most productive and cost-effective investments our government can make. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a…
Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the most productive and cost-effective investments our government
can make. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their community and their country, which will prove invaluable for the rest of their lives.
National service benefits both the recipient and the giver. Volunteers not only address an immediate need, they lead and teach through example, and through that example, they learn the value of serving and helping others. We need to harness the energy and commitment of those anxious to contribute to their country, not deny them the opportunity to serve.
As an eighth grader, I vividly remember President John Kennedy's call to service when he created the Peace Corps in 1961. He said, ``Life in the Peace Corps will not be easy, but if the life is not easy, it will be rich and satisfying.''
As a former Peace Corps volunteer, and I want to emphasize I had the name ``volunteer,'' I can attest to the positive effect the Peace Corps has on the lives of people around the world.
Peace Corps volunteers are not high-paid consultants. Just like AmeriCorps volunteers, they are hands-on workers in the trenches who live in the communities they serve. Just like the Peace Corps, the challenges are great for those working in domestic service programs, but the rewards are immeasurable. I believe I would not be a Member of Congress today were it not for my experience in the Peace Corps. And I particularly believe I am a better person because of this service. I think the same thing applies to those who serve in AmeriCorps.
Both Democrats and Republicans should speak loudly and passionately in support of all service programs. And we must not stop until citizen service truly becomes a universal opportunity and a common expectation. I want to say parenthetically, in most cases, AmeriCorps volunteers in my communities are young men and women who have no resources whatsoever to serve their community or their country if it were not for AmeriCorps.
As most of you know, AmeriCorps--the most recognizable domestic service program--is experiencing significant challenges this year, and there is danger that countless programs across the country will receive little or no funding. Without question, there have been mistakes and mismanagements by the Corporation for National and Community Service. This summer, however, a series of steps have been taken to help put AmeriCorps on a sound financial footing. Earlier this month, we passed, and the President signed, the Strengthening AmeriCorps Program Act to correct the financial accounting problems. Additionally, the President has named David Eisner, AOL/Time Warner executive, as his nominee to head the Corporation. With these reforms in place, we ought to fulfill our commitment to the thousands of young people who have answered the President's call to service. I believe we must to do that, but not in this legislation.
We are in a war against terrorism, and national service is a vital part of winning that war. AmeriCorps and other service programs are the right prescription during these times because the best antidote to terror and hate in society are acts of kindness and service. If we are truly to expand service opportunities, we must find a way to work with those who see national service so differently.
Recently, I read an op-ed by former Majority Leader Dick Armey stating that programs like AmeriCorps robs the American taxpayer. I could not disagree more, but I know this notion is shared by too many of my colleagues. As a Peace Corps volunteer, I was paid a minimum wage to live, and I was given a small stipend. I have failed to understand why some of my colleagues would object to people earning a degree while serving their community. Isn't that preferable to just being given a grant. I do not understand why we would not be eager and thrilled to have more people participate in community service, particularly those with the least amount of resources.
The current accounting problems at the Corporation offer an opportunity to work together and ensure all service programs are transparent and accountable.
I believe that has to happen, but not in the vehicle we see here today. We need to reauthorize national service. We need to find a way to prevent further mistakes and mismanagement. It will not happen on this legislation. It needs to happen with men and women in this Congress working together. And I believe that there are commitments on both sides of the aisle and in the White House to do that.
The current accounting problems of the Corporation offer an opportunity to work together and in doing so, we will remember that a life of service connects us to generations of Americans who we will never know but whose service and sacrifice enable us to live in freedom. It also connects us to future generations of Americans who will inherit a world be built on the legacy of service we leave them.
Increasing and expanding opportunities to serve will not be easy, but in the words of President Kennedy, the effort will be ``rich and satisfying.'' I hope this Chamber will reauthorize national service. I hope we will find the funds necessary to make sure this program continues unabated, and I believe we will.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The one concern I have in the Toomey amendment which is yet to be offered, since it was not printed in the Record as it was…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The one concern I have in the Toomey amendment which is yet to be offered, since it was not printed in the Record as it was supposed to be, but, anyway, in the Toomey amendment, we are going to have an across-the-board cut. One of the items that was not exempted was fire fighting. We are already not getting the supplemental funding for fire fighting that was promised in this bill. Last year they borrowed money from all the accounts to fund the fire fighting. That is what we are going to have to wind up doing again. But then on top of that, we are going to have to have an across- the-board cut. I am told this would be 7 or $8 million out of the fire fighting funds. I know you can defer it if the President does this and that. All I am saying is, I do not think this amendment is very well thought out, I do not like across-the-board amendments normally; and so I hope that this will at least be thought about as we get into the debate on this supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleagues, I had a chance last night to meet Mike Brown, who is the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, which used to be FEMA, and I asked him a couple of questions about this problem.
First of all, he said they will have to start shutting down offices all over the country, I think it was by August 8, if we do not get this money. I also asked him can they borrow the money from other accounts? No. They do not have a way of doing this like the Forest Service and the Department of Interior. The BLM does; they can borrow money from other accounts.
EPR, Emergency Preparedness and Response, does not have that authority. So we have to appropriate this money. That is why all of a sudden this supplemental reemerged because it became very clear we could not, in good conscience, doing our jobs, leave here without appropriating the money for FEMA.
We have got disasters all over this country, as we speak, that require this funding. And as I said, I wish we had taken care of fire fighting; I wish we had taken care of AmeriCorps. But at least we have to take care of this. It would be totally irresponsible, and I hope in the other body they will also understand that they have got to pass this as well, though I know there is concern over there about this coming at the last moment.
In my mind, this has to be done.
And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman is absolutely accurate on this point. We would almost be better off if we took away the borrowing authority, because then they would have to put up the money. We would be like FEMA in that situation. Then they would have to put up the money, because we could not leave here without taking care of this problem.
Now what we do is let them borrow the money from the Forest Service, from BLM, ruin their other programs, put the agency in total chaos, and then, on top of that, we do not pay the money back. This is not good.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I want to associate myself with his remarks and the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
I must say, I worry about the Interior Appropriations, an across-the- board cut like this, especially since it would affect forest fire fighting. It would also affect forest health. Those would both be cut. And all of the other accounts would be cut at a time when we are going to have to borrow money from those accounts to fight the fires of this year, because we do not have enough money in the budget to do that.
So I would say to everyone here, I think that the prudent thing to do, since we do not know all of the consequences of the amendment, and we know that a number of them are bad, and it is the last two months of the year, is to defeat the Toomey amendment and pass the supplemental.
The President of the United States happens to be the person, by the way, who is asking for this money, and he did not ask that it be offset. And this OMB has been as tough on spending as any in modern history.
So they want it as an emergency. They do not want to see their programs cut any further.
So I think, with the risk to fire fighting across this country, we should defeat the Toomey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. After passing sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republican majority in this House is once…
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. After passing sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republican majority in this House is once again telling the American people that not enough money is available to adequately fund programs for our Nation's veterans and poor.
Consider, for example, that this appropriations bill provides $25.2 billion for veterans' health care--$1.8 billion less than was promised in the Republican budget resolution passed earlier this year. While Republicans may assert that $25.2 billion is a $1.4 billion increase over fiscal year 2003 levels, the truth is that this modest ``increase'' does not keep pace with hospital inflation or the growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled.
The bill will only exacerbate the crisis in veterans' medical care. In fact, in a recently released report, the American Legion concluded that an average of 200,000 veterans must routinely wait 6 months or more for an appointment at the Veterans Administration's hospitals. Sadly, some veterans die before they even see their doctor. It is shameful that this Congress is turning its back on the same veterans that fought for the safety of this nation. I will continue to fight to fulfill our obligation to those who have served our country so well.
Just as this bill shortchanges America's veterans, it also fails thousands of poor Americans that rely on Federal housing assistance. The VA-HUD Appropriations bill provides funding for the ``Section 8'' housing choice voucher program. The voucher program enables low-income families with children, the elderly, and the disabled to rent apartments in the private market. It makes up the difference between what low-income people can afford to pay for housing and what private rents are, and is a critical source of support for more than 2 million families. Without vouchers, many of these families would be stuck in overcrowded or unsafe housing, or even worse, wind up homeless.
While the bill before us today improves upon the President's inadequate request for this program, it still falls short of the amount needed to continue all vouchers in use, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and outside experts. Specifically, the House bill uses data on voucher costs that date as far back as April 2001. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, housing costs in most parts of the country have been steadily rising since then, and it is unrealistic to ignore those market trends in setting HUD's budget for the year.
If the shortfall in this bill is not addressed, 85,000 families will not have the funding for their vouchers renewed. This kind of cut would be unprecedented in the history of the voucher program. In fact, what we should be talking about today is how to make more vouchers available to families, not fewer. Only a fraction of eligible households receive vouchers, and most people face a several-year wait for a voucher.
And last but not least, I will be opposing the fiscal year 2004 VA- HUD Appropriations bill because it makes rash and unwise cuts in the AmeriCorps program, a program that embodies the spirit of altruism and service that has made our nation great.
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush introduced the Freedom Corps program to further encourage volunteerism across our nation, asserting that ``we need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison, and we need more talented teachers in troubled schools.'' At that time, the President announced his goal for the Freedom Corps to ``expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers.'' In providing 20 percent less than the President's request, the House fails to heed the President's call for national service. Indeed, this bill will limit new enrollment in AmeriCorps to 55,000. The House, once again, is falling short of its responsibility to support all those Americans who so desperately need our help.
We can do much better than the bill before us today. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2861.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
(Mr. Hastings of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 339 is a modified closed rule waiving all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 2859, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2003. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides for a consideration of an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), or his designee, which shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2859 was introduced by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and provides $983.6 million in emergency supplemental funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for fiscal year 2003. This emergency appropriation is necessary to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund to make certain Federal resources available for the current fiscal year to meet the needs of Americans affected by tornadoes, floods, forest fires or other national disasters. The administration has informed Congress that without supplemental funds it is estimated that the Disaster Relief Fund would soon be exhausted. Additional funds are needed to respond to emergencies created by extreme weather and deadly wildfires.
Our Nation was struck by a record 562 tornadoes, Mr. Speaker, in May alone. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecasters predict an above average season for tropical storms and for flooding, with Hurricane Claudette already striking the Gulf Coast of Texas.
The summer fire season is also fully upon the Western United States. The National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho reported yesterday that there are currently 45 large fires burning in 12 western States. Three of these fires are burning in my State of Washington. The largest of the fires in Washington State is the Farewell Creek fire burning in the arid north central portion of the State. This fire has grown so large that it could burn, Mr. Speaker, for 3 months and not be fully extinguished until the first heavy rainfall or snowfall this winter.
The emergency appropriation included in H.R. 2859 will make certain that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security have the funding and resources needed to meet the needs of Americans affected by these tornadoes, floods, wildfires and other national disasters. H.R. 2859 was introduced by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to allow for prompt consideration by the House of Representatives and by the Congress. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule, H. Res. 339, and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
I am prepared to yield back after we go through the amendment process.
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise to say that I think the supplemental appropriations bill makes an irreversible mistake by letting one of our Nation's preeminent…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise to say that I think the supplemental appropriations bill makes an irreversible mistake by letting one of our Nation's preeminent volunteer programs die.
AmeriCorp helps thousands each year, and now it is our turn to help them. AmeriCorp members dedicated thousands of hours, providing health care, tutoring, food and public safety services to some of our neediest citizens. We must resolve the accounting crisis that put them in danger in the first place, but we need not destroy the program in the process.
At a time of record unemployment and rising poverty, it is foolish to deny our AmeriCorp volunteers the opportunity to serve. These are Americans who have not asked what their Nation can do for them; they have asked what they can do for our Nation. And the answer they are getting back is basically, nothing.
In Rochester, this funding crisis means a loss of over 100 AmeriCorp volunteers by the end of August. Each year the members much the Rochester, New York, AmeriCorp and other volunteers contribute over 150,000 hours of service to our community. Their services reach over 10,000 children and young people.
Volunteers help to revitalize communities in countless ways. They mentor youth, they build affordable housing for families, they teach computer skills to people of all ages, they clean the parks and the streams that have been polluted, and they run the after-school programs.
The value of even one AmeriCorp participant is simply staggering. A single AmeriCorp volunteer can create a reading program to help dozens, even hundreds, of students at a school. AmeriCorp has made thousands of American cities and towns safer and cleaner and better places to live.
In Buffalo, the AmeriCorp volunteers increased the capacity of 225 small community and faith-based organizations. One example is the Response to Love Center on Buffalo's east side, which was founded by Sister Johnice.
She told me when heavy snow paralyzed the city last winter, she worked with AmeriCorp volunteers packing thousands of food bags, delivering heavy packages of food to the homebound that she could never have managed on her own. ``I saw AmeriCorp volunteers walk miles,'' she said, for a prescription for a new mother after having a baby. I looked at the workers shuffling snow for hours so the emergency vehicles could move, and I witnessed faith and love in action.''
It is not only our community as a whole that benefits from AmeriCorp. In return for serving our community, the volunteer members receive an education award of up to $4,725 to help pay for college or pay back student loans. What a cheap price we pay for all that help.
Today, more than 13,000 New York residents have qualified for those awards. Now, when the State budget crunches are hitting and we expect college tuition to rise, it is not the time to make it more difficult for people who have public service in mind to be disallowed their education benefits.
Social programs are being cut to ribbons in the United States, Mr. Speaker, as the deficits mount on all the levels of government; and we should not close AmeriCorp, which gives so much for so little.
If I might be allowed a personal note, I am so proud of my granddaughter, who graduated last year from Wake Forest, and was so pleased to be accepted into the Teach for America program. Unfortunately, as AmeriCorp dies, so does Teach for America; and that child, who was so excited about that program, waits now in some limbo again to start her future, hoping that somehow some miracle will happen and that program, which will mean so much to so many children, will be saved.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want the record to reflect that it is not correct that AmeriCorps volunteers make $30,000. They have a small stipend to pay for their living expenses and $5,000 on their college loans. That is it. It is a bargain.
Mr. Speaker, this is a stripped-down version of the disaster supplemental. It is $983.6 million purely for disaster relief activities. It fully funds all the anticipated Federal disaster relief…
Mr. Speaker, this is a stripped-down version of the disaster supplemental. It is $983.6 million purely for disaster relief activities. It fully funds all the anticipated Federal disaster relief activities for the balance of this year. The administration, you recollect, had requested $1.55 billion for these activities, but a portion of that request was for fiscal year 2004 activities; and because we anticipate that we will be able to complete the 2004 appropriations bill before October 1, it is not necessary to include 2004 moneys in this 2003 supplemental. All fiscal year 2004 program requirements can be accommodated in the regular 2004 bill.
Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding in the Midwest and South have taken their toll on the disaster relief fund. Combined with severe snow and ice storms this past winter and the Columbia shuttle recovery efforts, this fund will be depleted within the next 2 weeks. As of July 21, the balance in the disaster relief fund was $89 million. FEMA is currently spending at $5.7 million a day; and as expenses for Hurricane Claudette come in, obligations will jump to $6.3 million a day. That means the fund will be gone on or about August 4.
FEMA has done all they can to hold expenses down. They have put all nonessential projects on hold, including all reconstruction and mitigation projects. In total, $400 million in spending is on hold. The only activities being supported by FEMA are emergency and essential services such as debris removal, individual assistance, shelter, and medical care.
To date for fiscal 2003 there have been 32 major disasters declared, 15 emergencies and 18 fire management events. We are at the height of the wildfire and hurricane seasons, and an active hurricane season is predicted.
FEMA estimates that they will need about $10 million a day to support Federal disaster relief effort for the months of August and September. The proposed $983.6 million in this bill assumes that FEMA will fully fund these efforts as well as resume work on mitigation, repair and reconstruction projects. It also assumes there will be a zero balance in the fund on September 30.
I urge support for this supplemental. It is streamlined. It is stripped down to its bare essentials. Without it, FEMA funds will dry up August 4, leaving communities and individuals without Federal assistance and laying off personnel.
I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. Speaker, unanticipated disasters. There is no way obviously to accurately predict what Mother Nature is going to do. This is not a huge amount of money, as it goes, for disaster relief. It is simply replenishing or allowing that fund to be able to exist until we can get through the next 2 months.
Mr. Speaker, that is something I will yield to the big chairman on. I am not conversant with the details of it.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, what portion of all Federal spending is actually appropriated by the appropriations?
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, is that two-thirds of the Federal spending that the mandatory accounts account for? Are those accounts adding to the Federal deficit even as we speak?
Has the Committee on the Budget done anything about mandatory spending?
Mr. Speaker, assuming, and the gentleman is correct about its being in the budget as a request, but where is the reconciliation bill that makes that happen?
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a stripped-down supplemental appropriations bill that contains funding for FEMA disaster relief. As a representative from a State that benefits from this…
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a stripped-down supplemental appropriations bill that contains funding for FEMA disaster relief.
As a representative from a State that benefits from this funding, I have no problem with including FEMA funding in an emergency supplemental, but I do have a problem with what is omitted from this bill.
I am concerned about what we are failing to do for AmeriCorps and all of the faith-based and community-based groups who depend on AmeriCorps participants.
The Senate supplemental appropriations bill which was completed 2 weeks ago contains $100 million for AmeriCorps, the amount needed to sustain 50,000 AmeriCorps participants this year. This funding has strong bipartisan support, in the Senate if not in the House. It was sustained on a 71-21 vote in the other body. Without this funding, AmeriCorps will see its numbers reduced by something like 40 percent, a drastic reduction to around 30,000 participants.
Why has it taken so long for the House to act? The Committee on Appropriations did not even consider the supplemental until this past Monday, with no intention of actually bringing it to the floor. And where has the President been? The President spoke in this Chamber, urging us to increase AmeriCorps enrollment to 75,000 participants. But, up to now, he has hardly lifted a finger to maintain even the current enrollment of 50,000 participants.
Now we have a bill before us, at the last minute, just before the House recesses for 5 weeks, leaving the Senate with the option of either passing our version or passing nothing until at least September. And our version, the House version, omits AmeriCorps. It was defeated on a party-line vote in the Committee on Appropriations this week. Our only resource now is to defeat the previous question and add the $100 million to the bill on the House floor today.
Failing to provide this funding will deny hundreds of faith-based and community-based organizations around the country the AmeriCorps positions they depend on. We are talking about groups like Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, hundreds of home-grown programs in the districts of everyone here that make a difference every day.
A letter was sent Monday to the House leadership from 43 of our Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, in support of this AmeriCorps funding, and it articulates very well what is at stake.
I will close by quoting from this letter: ``Without an emergency appropriation,'' the Governors say, ``the dramatic decrease in AmeriCorps positions now being proposed could seriously affect communities and individuals who rely on AmeriCorps members for help. It is also likely to damage, if not destroy, the infrastructure of strong programs which do not have the resources to sustain a significant budget cut, even if only for 1 year. Organizations that have been built over a decade cannot be eliminated this year and rebuilt the next.''
These faith-based and community-based groups, who are doing good works in our communities with just a little help from their Federal Government, depend on AmeriCorps participants, and right now they are depending on us to come through for them. September will be too late. Fiscal year 04 will be too late. Let us include the AmeriCorps emergency funding in this supplemental appropriation. Vote against the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. I am pleased that the House is taking quick action to address the critical shortfalls facing the Director of Emergency Preparedness and…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
I am pleased that the House is taking quick action to address the critical shortfalls facing the Director of Emergency Preparedness and Response, the entity we used to know as FEMA. In fact, I was speaking with the new Under Secretary, Mike Brown, just last night, who informed me that EPR will have to close regional offices within 2 weeks if funding is not approved. So I strongly support the approval of this money.
However, there are other important programs that will have to start closing down in August if funds are not approved immediately.
As was mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York, Teach for America, there are 2,700 people in this country who were signed up for Teach for America. They would be trained in August and start working in September. So obviously if we do not appropriate the money now, we appropriate the money in September, it is going to completely disrupt this program, which has been so important for helping kids in school who need special training and special help.
These young people all across this country who think that they are going
to have a contract are not going to have one because we have failed to act here in the House of Representatives. We tried to offer this amendment in committee to add $100 million for this important program, and on a straight party-line vote it was voted down.
We certainly can do this now if we can defeat the previous question. We can add this $100 million and take care of FEMA, take care of AmeriCorp and send the bill to the Senate. Frankly, as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Interior, I am worried about the money for forest fires. Again, we are not putting up the money for the forest fires either.
Now we use the old adage, well, we can borrow the money and then pay it back. But they have not paid back the money from the last year that they have borrowed. I was pleased that the administration requested, I think, $289 million, maybe it was $320 when you add BLM and Forest Service together; but that money is not in here.
I just had a conversation with the distinguished chairman in the other body on the interior appropriations, and he is very concerned about the fact that we do not have the forest fire money in here as well.
So I understand that the problem with FEMA is very urgent, but these other issues are also important. So I wish we could do a broader supplemental and deal with them. I hope that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to have an amendment that will deal with the problem of AmeriCorp. I just hate to see, if we are going to solve this thing in September anyway, why screw up the entire program and not get it done now when we have an opportunity to.
There are 224 Members of the House who have signed a letter, a majority, Democrats and Republicans, in favor of adding the $100 million. I am told the President now has changed his mind and he is in favor of it. So if everybody wants to do it, why not do it?
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today because of the fire fighting funds being stricken from this bill. This is an enormous problem for those of us from the West. Outside the city of Bend,…
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today because of the fire fighting funds being stricken from this bill.
This is an enormous problem for those of us from the West. Outside the city of Bend, Oregon, a fire burned 600 acres yesterday. This morning that fire is up to 4,000 acres; it is burning. The Forest Service tells us they will run out of money to fight these fires next week. OMB says we can borrow from other accounts; they can get us through until the fall.
Here is what happens year after year after year after year. We get through all the paperwork and the environmental process to be able to go out to do the healthy forest things that need to be done to thin the forests, get out the flammable fuels, do all that work.
We get into fire season. We have not budgeted for it properly. We pull the money out to fight the fires. And what does the Forest Service have to do? They borrow from the accounts, and they are ready to do the work to make America's forests healthier by doing the thinning, and they put the work off for another year. We come back in the fall and the winter, we replenish the accounts for the fires, and we do the process all over again. We delay what we need to do to fix problem that will get us to where we do not have as expensive a fire to fight, because it would not be as catastrophic.
Mr. Speaker, if I could enter into an unscripted colloquy with the chairman, my concern is this.
Do we have any assurance from the Forest Service that they will be able to go ahead with these contracts that they are planning to let for this summer and the work that they are planning to do, to do forest thinning and fuels reduction and categorical exclusion work to make our forests healthier and safer, or will any of those funds be pulled back to go into fire fighting instead?
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
And we are appreciative of that.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman says, and he has been most gracious and wonderful to work with on this issue. But the problem is, as we wait, the forests burn, the work does not get done, the issue is compounded. This is penny wise and pound foolish.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I admire his legislation and will take a close look at it. The State of Oregon for many years has done precisely that, buy an insurance policy to help pay for the cost of fire fighting. Of course, that cost continues to go up; but we do participate in that. So I think it is a good idea to consider.
So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I rise in great, great frustration about where we find ourselves today, especially with the lack of notice that these funds were going to be cut out, when we thought they were going to be there.
Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment in today's bill that would ban using funds in the supplemental to support FEMA's Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. The…
Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment in today's bill that would ban using funds in the supplemental to support FEMA's Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. The amendments were born out of my frustration in dealing with FEMA which, up to now, had an excellent working relationship with my office and many other congressional offices.
The problems relate to the very serious floodings in part of my district in May of this year. More than $100 million in damage resulted from floods. FEMA's recommended denial of Michigan Governor Granholm's request for a Federal major disaster declaration that would permit Federal aid to the hard-pressed local governments, businesses, and individuals affected.
My district is rural, mostly low income, and these 4 counties just cannot bear this kind of financial hardship and economic burden without our help.
My frustration with FEMA is not with the men and women who actually do the work for the agency in the Region 5 office. In fact, FEMA responded with impressive speed immediately after the disaster to put people on the ground and to investigate, even before a formal disaster request was made. My frustration is the runaround I received from the Washington office since the decision in June not to declare a major disaster.
For the first time in my 11 years in Congress, I was forced to file a Freedom of Information request to receive the factual information I needed to represent my constituents. When I asked for the reasons for their decisions and the copies of correspondence related to the decision process, FEMA refused to give me this basic information. In fact, they refused to even voluntarily tell me whether the decision to deny disaster relief was made in FEMA in Chicago, or FEMA at headquarters here in Washington.
FEMA headquarters even refused to have a meeting with me, our two State U.S. Senators, the Governor's representative, and the Under Secretary responsible for emergency aid to discuss this issue.
In order to properly appeal the decision, the Governor's office should have had the information they needed and any documentation we needed to make the appeal. Congressional liaison offices are there to facilitate the needs of Members' offices, not throw up roadblocks.
I realize my amendment was not made in order, but I wanted to bring to the attention of the House this situation. There is no reason for not giving me the information I need to respond to my constituents when they ask me whether the refusal for disaster aid is political. There is no reason to refuse to have a meeting with top-level FEMA officials, a Member of Congress, two U.S. Senators, and representatives from the Governor's office.
I hope that speaking out on the floor will make our point, and I am here to do so.
Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition of the rule for the VA/HUD Appropriations bill that shortchanges health care for our nation's veterans. The bill is $2.1 billion below the GOP House Budget…
Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition of the rule for the VA/HUD Appropriations bill that shortchanges health care for our nation's veterans. The bill is $2.1 billion below the GOP House Budget Resolution and $3.3 billion below the veterans' consensus budget.
The Rules Committee created a rule for the VA/HUD bill that does not allow two amendments. The first seeks to add $1.8 billion for veterans' health care, in order to fulfill the promise of the Republican budget. The second blocks an amendment by Representative Edwards of Texas to increase veterans' spending for VA medical by $2.2 billion--to meet the funding promises in the GOP budget resolution, taking into account the costs of offsetting the enrollment fees and drug co-payments from the President's budget.
As it stands now, the VA/HUD bill provides $25.2 billion for veterans' health care--$1.8 billion less than was promised in the budget resolution House Republicans passed earlier this year (H. Con. Res. 95). Its increase from last year is $1.4 billion, which does not keep pace with hospital inflation or the growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled. It is plain to me that the VA-HUD Appropriations bill will not meet veterans' needs.
My question is: when does the hypocrisy stop? When will Republicans realize that they can't pay lip-service to men and women who have shed blood on the battlefield for the very freedoms they enjoy? Since his inauguration, President Bush has championed the cause of the veteran, and along with the House Majority, he has continually failed to put his money where his mouth is. We are fighting two wars under his Administration, creating thousands of new veterans--soldiers looking to come home and start their life with the help of the government they just defended. That same government has said, ``Thanks for your sacrifice; sorry we can't do the same.'' No matter how many aircraft carriers you land on, Mr. President, that does not shrink waiting lines at VA clinics!
The Republican Party has provided a terrific show for veterans this year. Initially, the President's budget requests underfund the VA, and the House Budget Resolution approves funding levels below that of the President's. Then, the Appropriations Committee allocates $1.8 billion less than the House Budget Resolution, and the Rules Committee approves a rule that bars amendments seeking to fill those funding gaps. All the while, they spin patriotism and ``support the troops'' rhetoric to further their political agenda.
This show has gone on long enough, and I think it is time this circus and its elephants left town.
Bill Text
5 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2859 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]
H.R.2859
One Hundred Eighth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the seventh day of January, two thousand and three
An Act
Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2003.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums
are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, namely:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
Disaster Relief
For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'' for necessary
expenses in carrying out the functions of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.),
$983,600,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That this
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2003''.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.