THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display    

[Page: H7929]  GPO's PDF

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

   Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the 2002 VA, HUD and independent agencies conference report and all of its fundings.

   I want to begin by thanking Chairman WALSH who, as usual, has done an excellent job with this legislation. We appreciate his courtesies and the opportunity for input in the bill throughout the process. He has had an especially full plate this year, managing this bill with restricted allocations and at the same time providing leadership in the appropriations process to ensure that New York receives adequate funding to address its emergency needs arising out of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

   I want to begin by thanking the majority staff, Frank Cushing, Tim Peterson, Dena Baron, Jennifer Whitson, Jennifer Miller and Ron Anderson, for their hard work and openness during the development of this conference report. I must make particular note of their generosity in sharing their Capitol office space with the minority staff during the time that Members and staff were prohibited from occupying our office buildings. I also want to thank my excellent staff, Mike Stephens, Michelle Burkett, Angela June Ohm and Gavin Clingham, for their hard work during this process. All staff have really done an excellent job on a very difficult bill.

   Given the resources, Mr. Speaker, that this subcommittee was allocated, we were forced to work together in a constructive manner to reach reasoned compromises. No Member got everything that they wanted, each sacrificed on issues of importance, to us and to our caucuses, but we have produced a conference report worthy of the body's support.

   The bills passed by the House and the Senate were not significantly different in allocation but did contain significant substantive differences. In each case, a middle ground was sought and improvements have been made.

   I want to take a minute to discuss a few of the programmatic numbers in this conference agreement.

   Veterans remain a top priority of the members of this subcommittee. We have provided $21.3 billion for the medical care account. This is $350 million over the President's request, an increase of $1.5 billion over the current year, and almost $50 million over what was in the House bill when it left this body. We also increased the medical and prosthetic research account by $20 million over 2001 funding.

   Important to members of my caucus, we were able to improve the House-passed funding levels for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and provide the Corporation for National and Community Service funding comparable to its fiscal year 2001 funding. The Public Housing Capital Fund was increased $290 million from the House-passed funding level, and we maintained the $250 million increase in the operating fund that was contained in the House bill. Funding to renew all existing Section 8 vouchers is included, as is funding to provide 18,000 new Fair Share vouchers and 7,000 new vouchers reserved for the disabled.

   Within EPA, we restored the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to the funding levels of past years, $1.35 billion, and provided an overall increase of $75 million over this fiscal year, nearly $600 million over the administration's request.

   These improvements have not come at the expense of scientific research. The National Science Foundation will receive an increase of $362 million, an 8.2 percent increase over 2001, an increase that is distributed broadly by research category and includes adequate funds for major new science initiatives.

   For NASA, a 3.5 percent increase is provided. While I continue to have concerns that we are not providing NASA the resources needed to undertake the missions that have been identified for that agency, I would suggest that this minimal increase is a recognition of the budget constraints we face. I believe that we as a Congress should look closely at NASA in the next year and provide additional resources to that agency.

   This conference report is the product of a balancing act, and I believe that we have done a good job ensuring that the needs of each agency are met. I ask for the body's support.

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

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

   Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise, number one, to congratulate Chairman WALSH for having done such a tremendous job in taking a 302(b) allocation that was not nearly as much as these agencies could have used but in providing a bill that really gets the job done. He has done an outstanding job. He could not have had a better partner than the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. MOLLOHAN). They worked together in just a very strong, bipartisan fashion. Their staff support was equally bipartisan, and we produced a good bill. And so I would hope that we would get a very good vote for this conference report.

   In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement to the Members that we are nearing the end of the appropriations process for fiscal year 2002. I think everyone would breathe a deep sigh of relief over that, especially the chairman of the committee.

   Briefly, we have produced two major supplemental bills since we received the details of the President's budget on May 9, which was about 2 months later than we normally get it, but I think we all understand the lateness of the new administration being put in place. But we were 2 months late in actually getting the detailed numbers that we need as appropriators to work these bills. But since that time on May 9, we have produced the two supplementals that were major supplementals through the entire process and to the President.

   We have also concluded all of our work on the Interior appropriations bill, the Military Construction appropriations bill, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, and today we will conclude our business on the VA-HUD bill that is before us.

   Also today we received unanimous consent to take up the appropriations bill for Agriculture, to file it by midnight tomorrow night; we will complete the conference on Commerce, Justice and State later today; we appointed the conferees for the District of Columbia appropriations bill; and we appointed the conferees for the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill. We hope to conclude those conferences by the middle of next week and hopefully will be on the floor before or by Friday of next week.

   I might say, Mr. Speaker, that part of the slowdown here also has been that the other body, while its appropriations committee had reported out most of its bills, the other body held appropriations bills for a long time and did not pass them. And so we cannot go to conference on an appropriations bill until the other body passes it as well. But while the committee did pass out its bills, the full Senate did not take them up.

   We still have to do the Transportation conference, and there is one issue that is delaying us there, and that has to do with a difference of opinion between several Members of the other body and the President of the United States on the issue of trucks entering the United States from a foreign land. That has to be resolved yet, but we think that will happen also by the end of next week.

   The major outstanding issue, having said all of this is the Defense bill. It has yet to be done in the Committee and in the House, but I believe we will also have it through the House by Friday of next week. I do not think we will be able to have it conferenced by Friday of next week. The Defense bill itself has been completed for over a week, but we are using it as a vehicle to deal with last $20 billion of the second supplemental we did.

   This gets a little confusing and complicated, but on the $40 billion supplemental that we passed in the days after the terrorist attacks, if Members recall, we required that the last $20 billion of that Act actually go through the appropriations process once the President decided how he would like to use that $20 billion to respond to the terrorist attack of September 11. So while the Defense bill has been completed for about 10 days, we have been

[Page: H7931]  GPO's PDF

   Again, Mr. Speaker, because of the good work of members of the Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle and the support that we received by both sides of the aisle on our appropriations bills this year, again I say, we can breathe a sigh of relief. We are reaching the end of that process for fiscal year 2002.

   Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. BONIOR), the minority whip.

   Mr. BONIOR. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, first of all, congratulations to my colleague from West Virginia and my colleague from New York for the job that they did on the bill. Today is a historic day for public health and safety and it is a great day for the environment. Today, after a decade-long battle, we are finally lowering the level of arsenic in our drinking water . The United States will finally join the rest of the developed world in cleaning up its drinking water .

[Time: 12:30]

   Arsenic is a toxic poison that can cause lung cancer, bladder cancer, skin cancer; and according to the National Academy of Sciences, the threat to our children and pregnant women and anyone who drinks this carcinogen is even greater than we had originally thought. Arsenic simply has no place in our drinking water .

   I am very pleased that the VA-HUD conference report includes language that I offered on this floor to cut the level of arsenic by 80 percent without any further delay. EPA now cannot drag its feet any longer. We need to get to 10 parts per billion immediately. Not next year, not next month, but now. EPA should never have blocked this ruling in the first place. In fact, based on the science, we should actually go lower than 10 parts per billion to adequately protect the public health.

   Because of the actions we are taking here today, millions of Americans will be drinking cleaner water . This is a serious problem in my home State of Michigan. There are only four other States that have a higher exposure to arsenic in the entire Nation. According to the EPA, we have 367,000 Michigan residents in 176 communities who may be drinking water containing arsenic in amounts higher than 10 parts per billion. We are finally taking action to protect those people.

   I want to thank those who helped bring this victory about, including those cosponsors of my original amendment in the House: the gentleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KILDEE). Senator Boxer in the other body led the fight. My good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL), was a steadfast supporter to get the strongest possible language that we could get in conference.

   I also want to thank again my friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. MOLLOHAN), and the appropriations staff for all the assistance and help that they put in. This was a bipartisan victory. We had many supporters on the other side of the aisle as well.

   The report language accompanying the arsenic standard raises a concern that we all share, and that is what that impact will be on small communities. The science is clear. No community would want to expose their citizens to higher levels of arsenic. But these communities need financial help to meet the new standard, not exemptions and waivers from the law. That is why authorizing legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN) and I and others introduced would double the amount of funds available to help meet this new standard.

   When it comes to getting poison out of our drinking water , no community should be left behind. Next year, we need to step up to the plate and help these small water systems with additional resources.

   This is one of the most important environmental and public health victories to come out of this Congress. It is a tremendous step forward in making sure that our drinking water is as clean and safe as it can be. I applaud and thank my colleagues for their support on this important measure.

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN), the distinguished dean of the New York Republican delegation.

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

   Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

   As my colleague is aware, the New York State Department of Health recently released its findings from its Cancer Surveillance Improvement Initiative. That report showed that Rockland County and the East Side of Manhattan have among the highest breast cancer incidents in our State .

   Specifically, the report shows that a majority of these two areas are characterized by elevated incidence and are 15 to 50 percent higher than the State average for breast cancer incidence.

   In response to that alarming finding, I have been working with my colleague from Manhattan, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. MALONEY), to secure funding from the EPA for the NYU School of Medicine to conduct an assessment to determine if the observed excess incidence of breast cancer in my area of Rockland County and in the East Side of Manhattan, the area of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. MALONEY), are associated with air pollution and electromagnetic radiation generated from the local power plants.

   I am gratified the VA-HUD appropriations conference report contains $500,000 for Rockland County, New York, for an assessment of environmental hazards in Rockland County and the East Side of Manhattan. It is my intention and that of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. MALONEY) that this money be allocated to the NYU School of Medicine for this important study.

   Therefore, I am asking our good chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH), to clarify this is the intent of this proposal.

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

   Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

   Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this issue to my attention. I share his concern for the findings in the New York Department of Health's report which show the high incidence of breast cancer in Rockland County and the East Side of Manhattan.

   I want to assure my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. MALONEY), that it is the intent of the language included in the conference report for this study to be directed to the New York School of Medicine.

   Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank our good friend, the gentleman from New York (Chairman WALSH), for his support.

   Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

   Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH) for his strong efforts in working with me to secure funding for this very, very important project. One in seven women die of breast cancer, and we have a huge incidence in our two respective districts.

   I also especially thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman WALSH), who worked very hard with us in the VA-HUD bill, along with the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. MOLLOHAN); and we appreciate very, very much their support. I believe we will save lives eventually.

   Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. MEEK), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.

   Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

   Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to serve on the subcommittee on VA, HUD and independent agencies.

   The gentleman from New York (Chairman WALSH) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. MOLLOHAN), have done the work of a dynamic duo. First of all,

[Page: H7932]  GPO's PDF

   I have been in the majority, and I have been in the minority. I have seen many talented and skilled leaders in this body on both sides of the aisle, and I always praise them. But I have rarely seen the kind of effective bipartisan leadership that these two Members had. They are serious about their responsibilities. They want to make government work, and they want to make it work well. They could not please all of us. I am never always fully pleased. But they are serious about it, and we do have a very good committee, and they are always willing to listen and they want to help. They are problem solvers, and we are fortunate to have them. We had many constraints on this subcommittee, but they were able to overcome most of them.

   I would like to thank on the majority side Frank Cushing, Tim Peterson, Dena Baron, Jennifer Miller and Jennifer Whitson; and on the Democratic side, Mike Stephens and Michelle Burkett. They showed confidence, they showed experience; and the help and good cheer is greatly appreciated.

   This does a lot of good, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes as Members we want things, and sometimes our reach exceeds our grasp. But, as Tennyson said, after all, what is heaven for?

   It funds the Federal urban empowerment zones, which assist our oldest, poorest neighborhoods. It increases veterans health care, environmental protection, our space program and FEMA.

   This conference report should be fully endorsed by the Congress. I fully support it. All Members should. It increases the funding for the National Science Foundation's Historically Black Colleges Undergraduate Program from $17 million in the House-passed bill to $28 million in the conference report. It will have a lot to do with science education in historically black colleges and universities.

<<<

>>>

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display