[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1994
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 336 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3759.
{time} 1247
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3759) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, with Mrs.
Kennelly in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher].
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, today we bring to the floor, H.R. 3759, the fiscal
year 1994 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Initially, I
introduced a bill, H.R. 3735, developed in response to the earthquake
that occurred on January 17 in southern California. This bill was
cosponsored by many of the California delegation. Since that time,
estimates for disaster assistance for that terrible event have risen
significantly. In addition to revised earthquake recovery estimates,
the President asked the Congress to consider all other identified
emergency funding needs.
In light of these increased funding requirements, the Committee on
appropriations reported H.R. 3759 to the House that includes funding
for all pending emergency requirements.
It includes $7.77 billion to respond to the southern California
earthquake. It includes $1.2 billion for the Department of Defense to
pay for our unfunded requirements because of our humanitarian
assistance, peacekeeping, and peace enforcing missions around the
world. It includes $435 million for increased recovery costs due to the
Midwest floods of 1993. It also includes $315 million for highway
reconstruction because of the Loma Prieta earthquake that has been
delayed.
Some of the major items in the bill for southern California
earthquake recovery are: $4.7 billion for FEMA disaster relief, $1.35
billion for highway reconstruction, $1.1 billion for SBA disaster
loans, $500 million for unidentified needs, $325 million for housing
programs, $250 million for community development block grants, and $245
million for education programs.
Madam Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations has acted rapidly in
bringing this bill to the floor. The bill has been developed in a
manner similar to other emergency supplemental bills. All funding in
this bill is declared an emergency requirement and is exempt from the
1990 Budget Act allocation restrictions. Emergency requirement
designations in cases like this have always been used. This procedure
was developed for exactly the situation we are in. It responds to our
people. We are doing it right, and we are doing it quickly.
Later on, two amendments will be offered that will propose more than
$7 and $9 billion in rescissions, respectively. The House has already
passed H.R. 3400, which included $2.56 billion of rescissions. That
bill is pending in the Senate. Further rescissions will have a major
impact on the programs funded by discretionary appropriations. We will
discuss these impacts at the proper time. However, attempts to offset
an emergency bill should not be made now and delay assistance.
Rescissions need to be looked at very carefully.
I urge you to reject these first two rescission amendments and let us
continue with our deficit reduction efforts by adding only the
rescissions we have already passed under H.R. 3400. This can be done by
adopting the Fazio amendment.
Madam Chairman, when the President made his request, he asked we move
this bill quickly. I strongly urge adoption of this bill today so that
relief from the devastation from this earthquake will not be
interrupted.
{time} 1250
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I open my remarks by expressing my deep
gratitude to my dear friend from Kentucky, the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, who has, on this bill and all the
other bills that have come before the committee in my 31 years as a
Member of this body exercised the greatest traditions of the House in
fairness and bipartisanship in considering all matters. I thank him
from the very bottom of my heart. He is a credit to all of us in the
House.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3759, providing emergency
assistance to the victims of the California earthquake and other
natural disasters and for humanitarian and direct peacekeeping efforts
in three of the most troubled parts of our globe.
The committee and the House of Representatives have a long history on
a bipartisan basis of helping victims of natural disasters, of doing
what it takes to put people back on their feet. There is also a long
history of providing at least what the administration requests.
The administration is in the field running the relief effort,
together with a lot of Members of the House and State officials and
city officials. Their people are on the ground making the assessments.
And so, by and large, what the administration requests is usually and
historically what Congress has provided.
This bill provides $8.5 billion for disaster relief, of which $7.8
billion is for the Los Angeles earthquake. This is, I think, the most
we have ever provided for any natural disaster in this country. But on
the other hand, my colleagues, the Los Angeles earthquake is the most
costly natural disaster in our Nation's history, surpassing Hurricane
Andrew in 1992 and the Midwest floods in 1993.
FEMA has already processed 230,000 applications for assistance, while
the Los Angeles area struggles to respond not only to individual needs
but to put its infrastructure, roads, schools, and water, back into
working order.
This bill also provides, Madam Chairman, $1.2 billion requested by
the administration to cover the incremental expenses of ongoing
humanitarian assistance in Somalia and Bosnia and to enforce a no-fly
zone in both Iraq and in Bosnia.
Currently, the costs of these operations are unbudgeted and financed
by borrowing from the operating budgets of the services, the funding
for training, for equipment repair, and for operating bases here in the
United States and overseas. Unless we provide these funds, it is the
Nation's readiness that will suffer. And we will move yet another step
closer toward a hollow force.
If we undertake these missions, as a nation, we have got to provide
the resources.
Madam Chairman, the issue that we will spend a lot of time on today,
when we get into amendments, is the extent to which, as these disaster
bills get larger and larger, we try to find places to reduce spending
elsewhere. There are a number of legitimate views expressed by
colleagues as to how to handle emergency spending, and it appears we
are at a point where we need to allow the House to express the will of
its Members.
For purposes of this bill, there are at least three choices as to
spending reductions, skewed somewhat by the rule which allows the last
amendment adopted under the king-of-the-hill procedure to prevail,
regardless of whether it is the most well-supported amendment in the
view of colleagues in the Chamber.
For the long term, a task force recently announced will explore the
options and make recommendations as to how emergency funding will be
handled in the future.
Madam Chairman, at the end of the day, with spending reductions or
without, I hope we will move forward with this bill to provide the
resources for the victims of natural disasters at home and to pay for
the humanitarian efforts of our Armed Forces abroad. I hope that we
will soon come to a new consensus as to how we will provide emergency
appropriations so that we can respond in a timely way, and hopefully a
less contentious way, to events that may occur and will occur in the
future.
{time} 1300
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Smith.]
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Chairman, I support this bill wholeheartedly. The purpose of
government is to help so that people, combined through the instrument
of government, can do what individuals cannot do. This emergency
supplemental bill is as good an example of the reason and the purpose
of government as anything we could have. Government is for the purpose
of permitting people to combine together under a rule of law, not only
to protect ourselves from threats from abroad, but also to help people
from serious threats to their well being at home.
Now we have a debate about triggering the emergency designation in
this bill. It said we should have reserves, instead of having a special
emergency designation. I want to point out that we had a reserve for
SBA disaster loans. From 1977 to 1990, we had reserves for all the
Federal loan accounts in the form of revolving loan funds. Ninety-six
percent of the loans made from SBA's Disaster Loan Fund were being
repaid. Those repayments went back into the SBA Disaster Loan revolving
fund.
However, under the Budget Act of 1990, that revolving loan fund was
eliminated. The balances were put into the general fund of the
Treasury, and at the end of each fiscal year, as repayments of loans
come back in, they are put into the general fund of the Treasury.
Somehow that change in 1990 was supposed to be a way to save money, but
it does not save money.
Under the previous arrangement, Congress at times had to pass
supplementals for additional capital for the Disaster Loan Fund;
however, I think we would be able to take care of most of the
emergencies if we still had that reserve SBA revolving loan fund and
other revolving loan funds accounts.
I hear a lot of Members who now say we should have those revolving
loan fund accounts, who voted for that 1990 Budget Act, because we have
had 43 of these disasters since Hurricane Andrew. We could have taken
care of most of those, except the 1993 Midwest floods and the
California earthquake, with the SBA Disaster Loan Fund. We would still
have needed a special supplemental for Hurricane Andrew, for the 1993
Midwest floods, and for the California earthquake. We are still going
to need an emergency designation from time to time for these kinds of
catastrophic disasters.
Madam Chairman, there is a problem with getting offsets, whenever we
have a big disaster. For example, here we are in the fifth month of the
current fiscal year. At this point, for every reduction in expenditures
of $1, we need to cut $2.
We would have to reduce SBA, for example, at a time when they need
more personnel for this emergency. Also, for example, cutting out all
of the new add-ons we had last year means, for example, that we would
have to cut out the airplane and related equipment provided to the
National Weather Service so they can more accurately locate where
hurricanes are going to land. That would be cut out under these
offsetting amendments. That airplane is the kind of investment we need
to reduce the kinds of expenditures that we must make for some of these
disasters.
I want to point another thing out, Mr. Speaker. Under the crime bill
in the senate, it is proposed that the savings from the 252,000
reduction in personnel be used to fight crime.
If we take that savings to offset this supplemental emergency
appropriation as proposed in these offsetting amendments, then we are
voting against having more money to fight crime. It is not easy to find
offsets for this emergency. We should not try to find offsets on this
kind of emergency supplemental bill.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chairman, the No. 1 priority should be to
provide the aid, not only to the earthquake victims, but to the flood
and hurricane victims. However, most Americans feel that this aid, this
No. 1 priority, should be offset by a lesser priority spending.
The gentleman just spoke about crime being cut. If we keep increasing
the national debt of $4.3 billion, estimated to go over $1 trillion in
the next 5 years, we will not have any money. At $1.3 billion per day
interest, we can provide a lot of crime and education and other things
that we need. The priority should be to reduce that debt and put these
things on budget.
Without these offsets, they do not count on the deficit. It is easy
for the President to say, ``Look what I have done for the deficit,''
and it does not count, but the money still goes on the debt. That is a
priority.
We would like the offsets identified on the House floor. We would
also like, and I think the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] has
asked for, a bipartisan task force to identify future problems we may
have. There may be additional. With the failure of any other these
amendments for offsets, we would ask the committee on rules to grant us
a freestanding bill at a later time, bipartisan, to make these offsets,
because these are important, and the debt is the number one enemy of
this country.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
(Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Ms. DANNER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEVILL. I am delighted to yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Ms. DANNER. Madam Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the gentleman from Alabama, the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water.
Madam Chairman, the Corps of Engineers has denied assistance to
levees damaged during the flooding of the Midwest which did not meet
the corps paperwork requirements but met all other requirements.
However, I am precluded by the rule from offering an amendment to the
bill which would correct this deficiency in the corps program. Mr.
Chairman, to the extent possible, would you assist me in addressing
this issue during the conference committee on this bill?
Mr. BEVILL. Madam Chairman, I can assure the gentlewoman from
Missouri that I will provide whatever assistance I can.
Ms. DANNER. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. BEVILL. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3759 as
reported by the Committee on Appropriations on February 1. This bill,
as we know, provides urgently needed disaster relief to the people of
Southern California. The bill also provides for the continued recovery
from last year's midwestern floods, emergency funding for humanitarian
assistance and peacekeeping activities and emergency funding for the
continuing recovery from the Loma Prieta earthquake.
Chapter IV of the bill includes $70 million, as requested by the
President, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which falls under the
jurisdiction of my Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the
Committee on Appropriations. These funds will be used by the corps to
complete the repairs to the eligible levees within the Upper
Mississippi River Basin that were damaged during the severe flooding
that occurred in the region in 1993.
Last summer, in Public Law 103-75, we appropriated $180 million to
the Corps of Engineers for disaster recovery activities associated with
the Midwest floods. At that time the levees were still partially
covered by water, and since that time the corps has been able to give
us a more accurate estimate of the cost to repair the levees. They have
found that another $70 million will be necessary to complete those
repairs and to put them back in order. If they are not completed and
put back in shape, then, of course, the people are subject to
additional floods in these areas.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill recommended by the
committee.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELDON. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague, the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], for yielding. I
want to thank the committee chairman for his leadership in this
legislation.
Madam Chairman, I rise today because of my concern not only about our
willingness to support those who are the victims of this disaster, but
the process that we are using to fund the support for those
individuals.
As most of my colleagues in this body and the other body know, I have
been on every major disaster in this country over the past 7 years,
from the Loma Prieta earthquake to the wildlands fires in Yellowstone,
the Exxon Valdez, the World Trade Center, and the L.A. fires a few
months ago. I have a real compassion for people who are hurt, and I
want to help them, too.
My question and my concern is not about helping them, it is about why
we are where we are today. One year ago, Madam Chairman, I wrote to the
President of the United States asking him to empower a Presidential
task force on disaster preparedness response, including financing. No
response.
{time} 1310
That letter was signed by my colleague, Rob Andrews.
Over a year ago I introduced legislation to create a select committee
in this body with a sunset provision to look at the whole issue of
disasters, to talk about how we prepare and deal with them, because I
said there was a crisis in the country that no one was listening to.
That was ignored. Finally the Speaker just recently declared that he
was going to acknowledge the request to establish a task force, not
just to look at financing, but the whole issue of disaster preparedness
and response in this country. I say it is about time.
The key concerns that I have relate to what we are talking about in
dollars today. We all know that the cost of responding to this disaster
is going to range between $15 billion and $30 billion. Only $1 billion
is insured. Where is the other $14 billion to $29 billion going to come
from? It is going to come from homeowners, property owners, or the
taxpayers.
Do we know in this body that during a 5-year time period of SBA
guaranteed loans that were supported in response to disasters that $5
billion out of $15 billion went belly-up, and we had to eat that as
taxpayers.
I say to my colleagues we have got to reform the way that we finance
disasters in this country. I applaud the chairman, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Mineta] for his leadership in introducing a natural
disaster bill that will set up a nationwide reinsurance program. It has
been cosponsored by 100 of our colleagues in this body and supported by
most of our State insurance commissioners and most of the industry
groups to reduce the costs for flood insurance, reduce the costs for
earthquake insurance, and spread the risk so that people can afford it,
so that we do not have to come into this body to support massive
supplementals that either raise the deficit up or take money away from
other programs.
We need to have compassion. But most importantly, we need to deal
with these issues up front.
So I urge my colleagues in debating this bill today and in looking to
the future to study seriously the ways we can avoid having to come
before us as we are doing today to fund this through a supplemental. If
we had taken this step a year ago I say we could avoid some of the
costs that we are going to be bearing today.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Madam Chairman, I just want to point out that I do
not know where the gentleman got his figures, but 96 percent of the SBA
disaster loans are being repaid, 96 percent. I do not know where he got
that figure.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON. Madam Chairman, I will insert in the Record an article
from the New York Times which summarizes a study done from 1977 to 1990
that says that one-third of $15 billion in loans went belly-up, and we
had to eat it.
The article referred to follows:
[From the New York Times, Jan. 21, 1994]
Earthquake Insurance Gains Support
(By Michael Quint)
Federal legislation that would require homeowners in
California and other earthquake-prone areas to buy quake
insurance--and thus reduce the taxpayer funds needed to help
victims without insurance--is gathering support in the wake
of the Southern California earthquake.
A bill before Congress has been cosponsored by nearly 100
legislators, with more expected when Congress reconvenes
later this month, according to Jack Weber, director of the
Natural Disaster Coalition, a group backed by insurance
companies, consumer groups and disaster specialists that
supports the bill.
And John Garamandi, California's insurance commissioner,
this week endorsed the proposed Congressional legislation,
joining the insurance commissioners from 17 other states who
already support the approach.
Hearings on the bill, scheduled for next week, may be
delayed because of the earthquake in Los Angeles, but the
sponsors of the bill say the interest in the legislation will
increase. ``I expect that support will grow stronger when
people see the cost to the Government of not having
arrangements to move the costs of disasters to the private
sector,'' said Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska
who is sponsor of the bill.
Norman Y. Mineta, a Democratic Representative from San
Jose, Calif., said the Clinton Administration seemed to favor
the bill so far, although the Office of Management and Budget
has not analyzed it in detail.
Some conservative legislators, who said they were usually
suspicious of Federal programs, have embraced the disaster
protection bill as a way to lessen the drain on the Federal
budget.
``You have got to have compassion for people who are
suffering from a disaster, but it is not fair to expect
taxpayers in other parts of the country to keep picking up
the tab,'' said Curt Weldon, a Republican from Pennsylvania.
``This bill provides incentives for local governments and
homeowners to protect themselves against the risks they know
exist.''
Some consumer groups have also signaled their support. ``We
have mandated insurance to drive a car and to purchase a
home; this is just one more area where the needs of society
call for insurance,'' said Linda F. Golodner, director of the
National Consumer League in Washington, who said some
homeowners would prefer to do without it.
Because many homeowners in California do not buy insurance
that covers earthquake damage, only a small part of the
losses in Los Angeles are covered by insurance. Although
estimates of the losses range as high as $15 billion to $30
billion, the cost to insurance companies has been estimated
to be as low as $1 billion or slightly more. The difference
will be absorbed by individuals and businesses, or covered by
state and Federal funds.
reduction seen in spending
From 1977 to 1990--a period that does not include such
costly disasters as last year's floods in the Midwest and
Hurricane Andrew in 1992--spending by the Federal Emergency
Management Association totaled $4.9 billion, while other
Federal agencies spent $2.4 billion. About a third of the $15
billion in disaster loans made by the Small Business
Administration and the Farmers Home Administration before
1992 have defaulted, adding another $5 billion in Federal
spending.
Coopers & Lybrand, the accounting firm, in a study prepared
for the Natural Disaster Coalition, estimated that the
disaster protection bill could reduce disaster spending and
reduce the Federal budget deficit by at least $700 million,
and perhaps as much as $7.2 billion, over five years.
The Federal Treasury would also gain if the broader use of
earthquake insurance resulted in fewer casualty loss
deductions on individual tax returns, or if the damage from
earthquakes was reduced by precautions like the adoption of
tougher building codes.
preparedness affected
Robert E. Hoyt, a professor of insurance at the University
of Georgia, said Federal disaster assistance also tended to
reduce the incentive for homeowners, businesses and local
governments to prepare for catastrophes. ``There is nothing
wrong with that if we want society to subsidize people living
in high risk areas,'' he said. ``But the problem with that is
if you insulate people from the full cost of their decisions,
they may not make good decisions.''
He said local governments eager to increase their tax base
by encouraging development were more willing to adopt lax
building codes and skimp on spending for emergency planning
and earthquake-proof roads if they knew that Federal aid
would be provided after a disaster.
The linchpin of the disaster protection bill is a special
fund, created by insurance companies based on how much
business they do in areas that are vulnerable to disasters
like hurricanes and earthquakes, that would be used to keep
the insurers solvent if the losses from a catastrophe are too
large.
expanding basic protection
If the fund proves inadequate, the companies could borrow
from the United States Treasury, but would have to repay the
loans with interest. If the companies want that protection,
as most of the industry does, they would be required to
include coverage for earthquakes, volcanic action and tidal
waves as part of the basic coverage for homeowners across the
country--not as an extra option, as is now the case.
In some states like North Dakota, the cost of the extra
coverage to homeowners would be negligible and they would not
be expected to subsidize Californians, who would pay a higher
price.
Insurance companies estimate that collecting premiums for
earthquake insurance from all the homeowners in California,
rather than the minority who choose to buy the coverage
because they live in particularly risky areas, would allow
them to cut the cost of earthquake coverage to $55 for each
policy, from an average now of $240.
The disaster protection bill calls for 5 percent to 10
percent of homeowners' premiums due to earthquake coverage to
be used for grants to states and local governments for better
enforcement of building codes and other measures that would
reduce the damage and costs of disasters. Governments that
failed to enforce appropriate building codes and develop
emergency plans would not be eligible for the grants, and
could be denied some kinds of Federal disaster relief.
Although California began requiring insurance companies to
offer earthquake insurance in the early 1980's, the
combination of a high price and lack of zeal on the part of
those selling the insurance has left most howneowners and
businesses unprotected from losses due to earthquakes. Only
25 percent of the state's residents buy coverage, though that
rises to about 40 percent in some areas like Los Angeles
where quakes are most frequent and the risks are the
greatest.
coverage `underpriced'
``If people ask for it, we sell earthquake insurance if the
building meets standards, but we don't go out and push it
very aggressively because we think our aggregate exposure to
loss is too high,'' said George Ramsdell, chief underwriter
at Continental Insurance. ``From the simulation studies we
have done, it appears to us that earthquake coverage is
underpriced relative to the potential losses.''
The state insurance department in California is also aware
of the losses that could occur in a big earthquake. After the
quake in San Francisco in 1989 the insurance department
blocked the creation of a state earthquake insurance fund
that would have provided $15,000 of coverage to every
homeowner, with a $1,000 deductible and an annual premium of
$60.
``Our analysis showed that in the event of a really big
quake, the fund would have been bankrupted,'' said Bill
Schulz, a spokesman for the California state insurance
department.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Those are not disaster loans.
Mr. WELDON. These are disaster loans guaranteed through the SBA.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon].
(Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the emergency
supplemental.
If your district has never experienced a massive natural disaster
like the Northridge earthquake, you should consider yourself fortunate.
For my family and me, the earthquake was a unique and terrifying
experience. At 4:31 a.m. on January 17, I stood with my husband and our
11-year-old son under a doorway of our Marina Del Rey home, and heard
the sounds of breaking glass and creaking walls around us.
I spent that day surveying my district, talking to local officials,
and visiting police stations, and was relieved to find that, by and
large, the South Bay escaped with some shattered glass and shattered
nerves. In fact, as part of the LA County emergency response plan, many
of the fire trucks in my district had been sent to Northridge.
Unfortunately, parts of Los Angeles and Ventura were not so lucky.
Beyond the terror of the moment, the destructive power of this
earthquake was unprecedented. Seeing businesses destroyed, homes
condemned, and a lifetime of possessions burned is painful. And yet,
the courage and perseverance of the people of southern California is
staggering. We have all read the stories about strangers coming to each
other's aid and people's heroic determination to rebuild. What
impresses me is the measurable desire to prove that the cumulative
tragedies our area has undergone over the past several years--
recessions, earthquakes, fires, floods, droughts, riots--have not
broken our spirit. Under the inspired leadership of Mayor Riordan,
Police Chief Williams, and Fire Chief Manning, the city faced this
tragedy with courage and determination. Chief Manning put it best in a
briefing at the LA City Hall Operations Center attended by many members
of the California delegation and an A+ team from the
administration who had flown in the day of the quake, when he said,
``the word `hero' is not big enough for these people.''
I experienced some of that heroism in a special way--the largest
domestic facility for Harman International, my husband's company, is
located in Northridge at the very epicenter of the earthquake. It is a
stunning place of almost 1 million square feet which has impressed
every visitor who has ever been there. In recent months those visitors
have included former President Carter and our majority leader Dick
Gephardt. Each of them has characterized it as a state-of-the-art
facility--a model for America. Yet, on that awful morning it was dealt
an awful blow. Massive machines were walking, great racks of material
were tossed about like feathers, and along with collapsed roofs, the
entire facility was under 3 inches of water.
Everybody at Harman, including my husband, moved with incredible
speed and determination to put that facility back together again. It
boggles the mind to imagine how 1,400 people with no prior experience
and, by their own admission, inadequate planning were somehow mobilized
to achieve a miracle. Within 1 week that place was operating fully--
everybody was back to work. To quote Mannette Watts, a line supervisor
in the automated electronics facility: ``When I look at the factory
today, one week after the quake, I say to myself, `It looks so
beautiful. I feel as proud as a first time grandma.'''
The Congress must not respond to this kind of heroism with bickering
about finding budget offsets for these vital recovery funds. As a
deficit hawk who voted for over $400 billion in spending reductions
last year, I see a clear distinction between this sort of spending and
what might be called our operations budget. As the recent declining
deficit figures have demonstrated, the work of fiscal conservatives
like myself is beginning to pay off. But there is a specific exemption
in the Budget Act for emergency supplemental spending, and nobody can
doubt that this is an emergency. The Meyers and Nussle amendments that
the House will consider would pay for the earthquake recovery by
cutting the very programs that are helping Los Angles create an
economic recovery.
Mother nature can move in arbitrary ways, and this mother cannot turn
her back when tragedy strikes. I urge this House to pass the emergency
earthquake funds.
Mr. DIXON. Madam Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
the swift passage of H.R. 3759.
I witnessed first hand the devastation that the Northridge earthquake
had on Los Angeles County. I can report that the pictures many of you
saw on television do not begin to do justice to the physical damage
done to homes, businesses, and the infrastructure of our communities.
Over 60 people are dead; 21,000 homes and apartments are
uninhabitable, and 55,000 other residential structures have been
damaged. Nearly 230,000 people have applied for disaster assistance--31
emergency shelters remain in operation.
I want to express my thanks to President Clinton, First Lady Hillary
Rodham Clinton, and the many members of the Cabinet--Secretary
Cisneros, Secretary Pena, Secretary Ron Brown, Secretary Jesse Brown,
Secretary Shalala, and OMB Director Panetta--for coming the Los
Angeles, for their expressions of support, and for their leadership in
relief efforts.
I also want to thank FEMA Director James Lee Witt and his Agency for
their quick response and their continuing actions to assist the victims
of this disaster. FEMA and its employees have done an extraordinary job
in their relief efforts, and they deserve our praise and commendation.
Thousands of individuals and families must now begin to rebuild their
lives in the aftermath of the earthquake.
The devastation, confusion, pain, and suffering of those affected by
this disaster continues. We must take care in this body not to overlook
that fact--the people of Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties
need Federal help immediately.
Today the House takes the first step in providing that vital
assistance. California is now faced with the staggering costs of this
disaster--the largest in our Nation's history. Estimates of the damage
range between $15 to $30 billion.
The $7.7 billion for emergency assistance of California makes up the
bulk of this emergency package. These funds will help to alleviate the
widespread suffering that many individuals and families now face. They
will also assist in rebuilding the area's infrastructure that is so
vital to the economy of southern California, the State, and the
country.
We have faced two major controversies in bringing this emergency
supplemental to the floor.
Nowhere in the country is the debate on illegal immigration more
complicated and volatile than in my State of California. I would have
preferred that this issue not be made a part of the debate over these
emergency funds. I think that there are far more appropriate vehicles
for a rationale discussion and debate of immigration reform.
However, it was clear to me that this issue could not be avoided. For
that reason, I have worked with my colleagues on the appropriations
committee to include language in H.R. 3759 concerning emergency
assistance to undocumented persons.
Let me make clear--the provisions dealing with undocumented persons
maintain this country's commitment to helping all those in need of
short term emergency assistance in the face of the devastating
conditions which they now face.
The other major controversy surrounding deliberations on this
emergency aid, we face today on the floor. Do we offset the funds
appropriated in this bill by cutting other areas of the budget?
I regret that we face these decisions today. I had hoped, and still
hope, that this emergency relief package would be treated as all those
in the recent past have been treated--off-budget as emergency
expenditures.
I understand the concerns of many of my colleagues. As the country
faces disaster after disaster, it is obvious and prudent that some
thought be given to the way in which we finance future disasters. I
emphasize future.
I do not believe it is prudent, wise, or fair to change the rules of
the game in the midst of our efforts to provide emergency relief.
The speaker is in the process of forming a task force to address the
problems of funding future relief efforts. I believe we should deal
with this issue in a comprehensive manner, not during this emergency
situation.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Myers and
Nussle offset amendments to this bill. We will soon face difficult
decisions over our fiscal year 1995 budget. Many programs will face
cuts and/or elimination. We will have an opportunity to debate and
examine those cuts. We do not have the opportunity to debate and
examine the specific cuts included in either the Myers or the Nussle
amendment.
Many of my colleagues will argue that we must begin today to show how
fiscally responsible we can be. I too believe we should be fiscally
responsible, however, I do not believe that this is an appropriate
vehicle on which to make that statement.
I support my friend and colleague Representative Fazio's efforts to
find a middle ground in this debate. The Fazio amendment recognizes the
concern of members who desire offsets in spending. At the same time it
takes the wise course of including cuts on which the House has already
adequately deliberated.
After surveying the damage, President Clinton states that ``this is a
national problem'' and ``we have a national responsibility.''
It is my fervent hope that Members of Congress will keep in mind that
this is indeed a national problem as we consider this emergency
supplemental appropriations to aid in relief efforts and rebuilding.
The people of the Los Angeles area deserve to be beneficiaries of the
same goodwill and swift emergency relief that the Congress has
demonstrated in the face of the Nation's other recent natural
disasters. I urge the Congress to act expeditiously to ensure that this
is the case.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the able gentleman
from California [Mr. Lewis], a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I wanted to speak on this
bill just following my colleague from Los Angeles, Julian Dixon. I
certainly hope the people of California appreciate the work and the
leadership of Julian Dixon on this matter. He has been extremely
helpful as we have tried to expedite this process.
The disaster that faces the people of California is only a reflection
of the kinds of disasters we have experienced across the country. One
of the great things about serving in this body is that we respond to
the needs of our people regardless of where they might live. I'm
grateful that Chairman Natcher and the others in this body have
recognized that the damage estimates continue to roll in. Your
flexibility in revising the package to reflect that should not go
unappreciated.
I too want to express my great appreciation for the cooperation and
response of government agencies at all levels. The city of Los Angeles
and the mayor have done a fantastic job in cooperating with the State
and Federal agencies, and the State in turn has been on top of this
from the very moment we knew of the disaster. No one that I have heard
in any responsible forum has done anything but give great praise to
FEMA for their immediate response.
There have been 194,765 SBA loan applications that have been
completed. There are 91,000 disaster housing applications that have
been filed. As of Monday there were some 232,051 individuals
registering in person or by phone at disaster assistance centers. The
number of homes, individual homes that have been totally destroyed are
well in excess of 11,000. Some 55,000 homes or apartments, single
family dwellings have been damaged or destroyed in this process.
This horrendous event is a national crisis. But I must say it also
provides a demonstration project of just how well America responds for
its own when we have this kind of challenge and this kind of
circumstance. I think it is very appropriate that the Speaker's task
force move forth quickly with a more comprehensive approach for the
House in dealing with these very difficult policy circumstances.
I would urge the Members to be most cautious as we look at amendments
to be discussed later today on offsets. All of us know that we must
meet the challenge of trying to balance the budget. But to suggest that
the moneys that will go to this specific disaster are going to be
significant in terms of our efforts to balance the budget would almost
be laughable if there was not so much pain involved. It concerns me
that the debate about offsets could in one way or another begin to
divide people and to slow down the process. And if it should get in the
way of expediting the efforts we have here today, then, in turn, it
could create problems on the Senate side. And it occurs to me, Madam
Chairman, that it is very important that we move forward quickly on a
nonpartisan basis. To get involved in a divisive debate about balancing
the budget on the backs of the people who are facing this crisis in
southern California, can only confirm those who assume the worst about
this House. The other body will be considering this matter in their own
fashion. We will then go to conference. The faster we move the better.
And I would urge my colleagues to remember that most of us are
committed to making sure that we do something about our deficit. The
time to beat our chest and pretend we are solving that problem is not
when we are attempting to deal with a crisis now facing the people of
my State.
Again, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time.
{time} 1320
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
Mr. STOKES. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
full committee for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3759, the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994. Chapter VII provides
$5,365,600,000 in emergency funds requested by the administration for
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, and Department of Veterans Affairs to respond to
the southern California earthquake.
The $5.4 billion consists of: $4.5 billion for FEMA's disaster relief
fund; $250 million for HUD's community development grants program; $225
million for HUD's annual contributions account--primarily for rental
housing assistance for an estimated 15,000 dislocated families; $100
million for HUD's flexible subsidy fund to repair federally insured
and/or assisted multifamily housing projects; and $66.6 million for VA
to cover costs associated with the closing of hospital at Sepulveda.
On January 31, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
held meetings with the Acting Director of FEMA, the Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Deputy Secretary
for the Department of Veterans Affairs. At these briefings, the impact
of the earthquake in southern California and the administration's
request for funds to assist in recovery efforts were discussed. It
appears that the magnitude of the damage caused by the earthquake will
not be known until surveys are completed. Although magnitude is not
known, it appears to be the largest disaster in our history. Additional
funds may be required when the full extent of the damage is known.
To enable, FEMA, HUD, and VA to provide assistance at the earliest
possible time, the bill includes the requested amounts for each of the
three agencies. All of the funds in chapter VII are to cover emergency
expenses arising from the recent Los Angeles earthquake.
As requested, all of the funds are being designated by the Congress
as emergency requirements pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985. The President has also designated the
entire amount requested as an emergency requirement. This is an
emergency which requires immediate attention. This is the way we have
handled funding for other recent disasters and it is the way we should
proceed now.
Madam Chairman, I urge Members to support H.R. 3759.
Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOKES. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HOLDEN. We know, Madam Chairman, on the same weekend as the
Earthquake in Los Angeles, there was an earthquake in my district in
Wyomissing, PA, which caused several million dollars in damage to
homes, roads and municipal infrastructure. Governor Casey has already
declared this area a disaster area and has requested assistance from
President Clinton. Assuming the President and FEMA approves the
request, are there sufficient funds to cover eligible activities?
Mr. STOKES. Madam Chairman, in answer to the gentleman's question, at
this time, there is sufficient funding in FEMA's disaster relief fund
for other disasters. Currently $700 million remains unallocated for the
disaster relief fund and available for disaster assistance.
Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for the colloquy.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the able gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Myers], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. MYERS of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Madam Chairman, I rise to address what I think is a problem with what
we are trying to do here. Last month we were all shocked to learn that
there had been another earthquake in southern California, and we were
saddened and further shocked when we began to realize the magnitude,
the thousands of people that were affected, the lives that were lost,
the tremendous loss to property including bridges, highways, buildings.
In true American fashion, we came to their assistance. Churches
started collecting money, individuals sent money to give assistance, we
had help from various government agencies including Federal, State, and
local, rushing to the aid.
Last week, the President sent a request for just a little under $7
billion to give more help to those who were in need. Yes, it is true,
we have done this before. We have always done it this way or usually
have done it this way. Just after the floods in the Midwest last year,
which affected me personally, and I had a lot of friends affected by
the floods in the Midwest, I thought it should be paid for, rush the
aid to them, but pay for it. We were promised by many including, I
understand, the President, who promised we would do something about
paying for it in the future, and the Speaker talked about a task force,
and Leon Panetta, our colleague, the Director of Management and Budget,
said there would be something in place.
This has happened very quickly. But if it is not now that we start
being responsible, when? When are we going to do it?
Now since the President sent his original request, this request for
emergency appropriations has grown by more than 40 percent and is still
growing.
We all recognize the emergency, but as someone else mentioned here,
we have a hemorrhaging national debt which affects every taxpayer in
this country. Our ability to help people in the future, and there will
be future disasters unfortunately, but our ability to affect them in
the future is impacted by irresponsibility if we do not cut spending
someplace else.
So today I say I am going to offer an amendment, thanks to the rule,
that is a responsible amendment. It does not cut any program that is
absolutely essential to our country, and it does not try to cut into
programs that had been provided for in the past in earthquakes or other
national emergencies.
I did notice that Loma Prieta was a disaster 4\1/2\ years ago to a
highway in California. I am not singling out California.
But this is an emergency bill. Who has been driving on that highway?
How did we prepare 4\1/2\ years ago for an earthquake? What has
happened in the 4\1/2\ years? It has never shown up, to my knowledge,
in an appropriation request.
This is just one example that if the back door of the Treasury is
open or the cash register is open, everybody wants to rush in.
I think if not now, when? We hear in this body of a responsibility,
an obligation to the American taxpayer, not only the people of
California, to be responsible.
Today is the day to start doing it.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Carr].
Mr. CARR of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Madam Chairman, I just want to highlight the fact that this bill has
$1.6 billion in it for highway reconstruction, and I think we were all
startled by the visuals coming out of the TV cameras from California
about highways and the Santa Monica Freeway falling down and the other
damage that we saw to the infrastructure of California.
This bill will help repair that and do it in a very quick manner.
The Committee met with the Secretary of Transportation, not in a
formal hearing, but in an extensive briefing about these costs. We are
going to monitor those as we go through the year.
I want to point out as well that the FEMA section contains $315
million for transit. Under our practice, we have FEMA contracting back
to the Federal Transit Administration the obligation for granting out
the $315 million. I want to point out though that there is one area of
concern, and we are asking FEMA not to waive any of the laws that would
govern labor-management relations. Those laws are in place. We see no
need to waive them in an emergency fashion.
The Federal Transit Administration could not waive them, but because
the money is being funneled through FEMA, not directly to the Federal
Transit Administration, there is a worry that FEMA may try to waive the
laws that relate to the relations between labor and management in the
transit area. So we want to urge FEMA not to waive those laws, section
13(c) and section 3(e) of the Federal Transit Act.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARR of Michigan. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Chairman, I appreciate my colleague
yielding.
In the full committee, my colleague raised this point, and, indeed,
amended the bill to see that FEMA got that message. I think it helps to
expedite this process, and I appreciate my colleague's words in that
regard. It is my understanding that the committee has not taken any
action that would impose additional legal or statutory requirements on
FEMA in obligation of funding under this bill.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Madam Chairman, I intend to support the legislation with
grant aid to the victims of the earthquake in California, and I do so
for several reasons.
In 1972 President Nixon personally, during the great disaster that
befell Pennsylvania during the Agnes storm that made the Susquehanna
River rage and there was property damage and lives disrupted for a long
time, President Nixon and the Congress came to the aid of Pennsylvania
then.
That would be reason enough for me to now support the Californians
who back in that era through their Representatives in the Congress
aided Pennsylvania. That is one thing.
But, secondly, I also regard, as a Member of this body, that natural
disasters and national security are the two basic reasons that we serve
in this body. Everything else is second or third, or tertiary, level,
but national security and national disasters must bring about the wide
area of support in the Congress of the United States.
But I am troubled about another thing. I, too, want to see
methodology developed for paying for this disaster as I do for anything
else that comes along. But is it not dumb for us to have to vote for a
measure to cut spending in an area like hurricane prevention measures
or flood-warning measures that might be in one of the amendments that
is going to call for offsets? We have one that the gentleman from Iowa
described about hurricane prevention.
{time} 1330
Should we be dumb enough to cut that kind of spending when we are
talking about natural disasters; that is, preventing future spending of
the type we are going to vote for today? I believe it is possible that
one of those amendments has in it the very Susquehanna River that I
spoke about previously, a reduction in funding for a flood warning
system that we have worked for every year since 1972 to put in place in
order to prevent further damage of the proportions that we suffered in
1972.
So I have to weigh that very carefully. An amendment of the type that
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is offering might be more
attractive, but one that would cut prevention of disaster is simply
dumb.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, I would just say that those of us who have been
touched by disaster, as we were in the Midwest during the flood,
understand that the good Lord has dealt us a pretty tough hand in the
last year. First, the flooding in the Midwest, which many of us thought
would be our greatest natural disaster for many, many years to come;
followed just a few months later by the Los Angeles earthquake.
Madam Chairman, I want to salute the people both in my region of the
country and those across the United States who have faced these
disasters. They have demonstrated the kind of courage, the kind of
sensitivity and compassion for their fellow man which characterizes us
as a Nation.
The President saluted them, and I would join as well.
But I am saddened today to be standing here engaged in the same
debate that we engaged in a few months ago during the Midwest flood. It
is hard to believe that there are people today in southern California
homeless, unable to go to work, perhaps critically injured, wondering
if they are going to get a helping hand, who, if they turn on C-SPAN,
will hear us droning on in congressional debate.
The people in southern California do not need a congressional debate;
they need a helping hand from this Nation, a hand that was extended to
my neighbors in the Midwest, that should be extended to the people of
southern California.
Many have said that we need to look at this problem of financing this
disaster on a long-term basis. I could not agree more.
So that the record is clear, I am happy to have been designated by
the Speaker and majority leader to serve as cochairman of a bipartisan
disaster task force to look at the very questions which bring us to
this debate today. I am honored to be joined by my colleague, the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who is going to cochair this
task force, in an effort to find a solution.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not believe for a moment that if a task
force had been created the day that the flood began in the Midwest,
that they would have a solution today. This is a difficult and
challenging problem, one that will require the very best resources and
spirit of cooperation to find a public policy solution.
For those who think that they can cobble together today some string
of budget cuts and come to this floor and solve the problem, I tell
them, ``You didn't do the job.'' Each and every one of these cut
packages suggested by my friends, when inspected closely, cuts back on
employees and services that are essential to this country and essential
to victims of disasters we now face.
Please, take the long-term view; we need a solution. Do not do it at
the expense of the California earthquake victims or the Midwest flood
victims. We would like to help these people. We do not help them with
protracted debate. We do not help them with uncertainty about their
future.
We help them by taking the situation and this challenge seriously,
working together on a bipartisan basis for a long-term solution.
I implore you, support this assistance bill, join with us on the task
force in finding a real long-term solution to financing future disaster
assistance.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
able gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], a member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
(Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, it is deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would
say; ever since I have been in Congress we have had a repeated disaster
almost every session. Now, I do not know whether it is because I am in
Congress or it just happens that way.
The administration has sent up a $6.6 billion emergency disaster
request to help the victims of the Los Angeles earthquake. It is
appreciated, it is very timely, and it has got to be done. These people
need and deserve assistance right away. These people need not suffer
long because of the debate that we are going to enter into in this
body. The people need assistance right away. But, however, once we
begin this debate, we are getting into this business of how do we pay
for it?
In addition to that, the administration sent up an additional $3.1
billion in spending that has occurred over the last 4 years. Those who
suffered the tragedy of the Loma Prieta earthquake, the Midwest floods,
and the Los Angeles fires also need Federal assistance. They need it
now, and they have been waiting for some time.
At some point Congress has got to find a better way to respond to
natural disasters, a more budget-conscious approach that could save
taxpayers money. Today we will consider a number of those proposals
identified by various sponsors, which clearly encompass the use of
offsets to do it. Can this be done? I think it can be done, and I
suspect that we will do it.
But the most important thing to remember in all these discussions is
that we must get the money to those who are hurting, we must get it to
them right away. Obviously, Congress needs to reform this process of
dealing with disaster aid in the future.
Over the last 5 years, Congress has approved 8 extraordinary spending
bills, totaling $23 billion, plus interest. Spending money in this
manner creates a much larger burden for future generations, as has been
repeated time and time again. I believe a majority of the Members of
the House will vote to adopt this emergency relief with some form of an
offset. Additionally, other Members have suggested that Congress offer
the private insurance groups incentives to include disaster insurance
to cover hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, et cetera, and collect
premiums and spread the risk and bring down the cost.
Another suggestion which has gained a certain amount of interest is
that we take a certain percentage of funding from each Federal agency
and create a rainy day fund.
With all this discussion on the subject, I commend to the House
leadership thanks for creating the task force to study the disaster
issue response. The selection of my chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson],
has renewed my faith that Congress has finally come to the realization
that we have got to do it now if we are going to be able to handle this
in the future, because we are not able to continually take it out of
one pocket and put it into another pocket and give the kind of
assistance that people involved in a disaster have to have.
We have to tackle the tough issue like disaster funding at a time
when we are not confronted with a disaster, and in that way a reasoned
approach to this issue will not get sidetracked by the emotions and
passions which erupt time after time when we deal with this disaster
approach.
As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee
on Appropriations, I am going to be directly involved with the
gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Durbin in dispensing these Federal
funds in the future. It is my hope that by the time the next disaster
hits, Congress will have a better way of responding.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to
me.
Madam Chairman, I stand today to support the bill's provision
releasing $200 million for the low-income home energy assistance
program.
Maine's hearts go out to the victims of the great natural tragedy of
the earthquake in California. But there is another natural tragedy gong
on across this Nation, ladies and gentlemen. You do not read about it
in the headlines or dominating the evening news, but it is causing real
suffering, it is causing real hardship, real life-and-death emergencies
in this country. It is called the bitter cold that has gripped much of
this country, including my State of Maine. We have seen the lowest
temperatures ever recorded in my State in the month of January. It has
caused real suffering, real tragedy.
In just the past few weeks, my office has learned, for example, of
the young woman huddled with her young son in her bedroom because it is
the only room in her house that she can heat. She is asking desperately
for help. Or the young man huddled in a sleeping bag, saying that if he
does not get help tonight in his apartment, he will be read about in
the obituary column of tomorrow. People are literally being forced from
their homes so they can get to the safety of a place that is warm.
Madam Chairman, this is real suffering, ladies and gentlemen of the
House, real hardship. It is a real emergency requiring an emergency
response from this Congress.
{time} 1340
While we remember and recognize the tragedy going on in California,
Madam Chairman, let us remember and recognize the tragedy going on in
the State of Maine, and in the Northeast and other areas gripped by
this bitter cold. Let us support the provision in this bill supporting
this very important LIHEAP program. Let us support these people who are
suffering by forces well beyond anyone's control.
Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] for
his support of this program, and I support the committee in its work in
this area.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Grams].
Mr. GRAMS. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, we have spent a lot of time today arguing over how
much aid to provide the victims of the California earthquake and how
best to pay for it.
But I believe we must also consider the types of non financial
assistance which would benefit the people of southern California.
That is why today I am introducing the Depository Institutions
Disaster Relief Act of 1994. This legislation would provide much-needed
regulatory relief for lenders and consumers in those areas affected by
the earthquake--especially those concerned about restructing loans and
avoiding foreclosures because of late payments. It is identical to
legislation which I introduced last year with the chairman of the
Banking Committee to assist the victims of the midwest flooding and
which was signed into law by the President.
I strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor the DIDRA 1994
legislation--and provide additional help to the people of California
without costing the U.S. Treasury a cent.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] for yielding this time to me, and I am
interested in helping the people of California. What I object to is the
caboose on this train because it is a very expensive caboose. It is
$1,200,000,000 additional for the Pentagon. People should understand
this is simply to fund; it has got nothing particularly to do with any
agreements about peacekeeping. It is simply money to give additional
funds for the Pentagon. I understand that they would like it; so would
every other department. The argument is that because they had to go
into Somalia, and Bosnia, and Haiti, they need extra money.
Madam Chairman, to be honest, I thought that is what the budget was
for. I thought we gave the Defense Department a budget so they could
send the Armed Forces places when they are needed. I did not realize
that was basic and anything else they did they get compensated for as
extra piecework.
For instance, this says they need $47.8 million additional because
they sent a boat to Haiti and brought it back. They did not even spend
the night. I do not think they should get $47.8 million per diem if
they did not even spend the night there.
I understand their desire to have more money, but I say, Madam
Chairman, if you give $1.2 billion extra to the Pentagon, you either
add to the deficit or take it away from every other program.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, I rise to applaud the action of the
Appropriations Committee in adopting section 602 of this bill. For the
first time in history, an appropriations bill differentiates between
the aid available to citizens and legal residents on the one hand, and
illegal aliens on the other. This is a major step forward, and a
vindication for those of us who have been working for years under
severe personal attack to exclude illegal aliens from tax-paid
benefits. Ultimately, the principle needs to be that we will help
everyone with their immediate needs in the wake of a disaster, but then
those who are here illegally will be sent home.
That is eventually a principle we should adopt, but under this bill I
am certain that the authors of the compromise, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]
agree with me, that under this bill, that with certain specified
exemptions aimed at short-term emergency needs, illegal aliens will be
excluded from long-term disaster assistance. That section, 602, which
is the compromise, excludes illegal aliens from the section 8 housing
voucher program that provides rental subsidies for up to 18 months.
That section, 602, makes illegal aliens ineligible for small business
loans to rebuild residences and businesses under the SBA program. That
section, 602, the compromise, excludes illegal aliens from receiving,
in response to the earthquake, any further food stamps beyond those
that they have received between the date of the earthquake, which,
after all, was a long time ago now, several weeks ago, and the date of
enactment of this bill.
Madam Chairman, this compromise, this push for a responsible
government in the wake of a disaster, is a major victory for sane
government spending. It is a victory for people who are willing to use
their hearts to reach out to those people in an emergency situation,
even if they are illegal aliens, and help them, but to ensure that the
long-term funds, the limited long-term funds that we have available for
emergency relief in this country, will go instead of to people who are
here illegally from other countries, who may be wonderful people, but
those limited funds should be going to U.S. citizens and legal
residents, people who are part of the great American family that we
love so much that includes people of all ethnic backgrounds and races
and all religions.
So, Madam Chairman, I see this compromise, and I applaud the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Packard] for a compromise that I believe is a step, a major step,
in the right direction during this time of emergency.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Madam Chairman, I well remember back in last year, in
the timeframe of July, August, September, when we worked on the Midwest
floods. As one whose district was inundated by both the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers, we worked very hard, and with the same committee,
to bring about relief for those flood victims. This legislation now is
another disaster, and it is aimed at the people basically of
California, and I strongly support it. I feel that they are entitled to
assistance just as much as others in the past have received, whether
they have been tornado victims, hurricane victims, flood victims, or
earthquake victims, and I think they are entitled to it, and they are
entitled to it now, not next week, next year or any other time.
As a result of that, Madam Chairman, I strongly support the
legislation, and also I want to commend and thank the chairman of the
committee and the members of the committee for also including funds,
additional funds, for our assistance in the Midwest, for our flood
victims, especially for our farmers in the bottom lands, and I would
like to say, Madam Chairman, that I think that this House should
reject, strongly reject, the Penny-Kasich amendment and go on and get
the disaster assistance to the people of California, not clutter it all
up. We should do it just the same way as we have done with other
disaster assistance, and that is to do it cleanly.
So, I rise in strong support of the legislation and in strong
opposition of Penny-Kasich.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very able
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. PACKARD ask and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PACKARD. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the chance to say a few
words.
Madam Chairman, the people of California are hurting. All of us in
this body, and most of the Nation, saw the live pictures CNN broadcast
showing the devastation of the earthquake.
The earthquake in California caused many kinds of heavy damage.
Besides the loss of life, people's homes were destroyed, their
businesses were crippled, their psychological well-being was shaken. I
know that this is an emotional issue.
This is why we must move this bill quickly. I commend all my
colleagues for recognizing that bringing quick assistance to the people
of California is the most important bottom line.
However, the debate in committee about whether illegals should
qualify for long term assistance is also important. I commend by
colleagues on the committee for working with me on a bipartisan basis
to craft acceptable language.
The earthquake relief bill before us is the largest this body has
ever considered. I urge that my colleagues show the same compassion to
the people of California that they have shown to the victims of other
disasters in our Nation. Let's have an honest open debate, but let's
move this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will make it known that the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Natcher] has 3 minutes remaining and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] had 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ridge].
(Mr. RIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RIDGE. Madam Chairman, while our focus today is on the horrible
plight and the tragedy of California, I would like to remind all of my
colleagues of the snow, and ice, and record-setting Arctic temperatures
that have caused serious, life-taking and life-threatening problems
across the entire Nation. With the end of the winter another 6 to 8
long weeks away, millions of low-income seniors and families with young
children remain in grave danger.
Madam Chairman, in 1969 singer Paul Simon wrote ``Bridge Over
Troubled Water,'' a timeless song familiar to us all. This winter, 25
years later, Mother Nature has shaken us, as a nation, off the bridge
and into the troubled water below.
The last year has wrought floods, earthquakes, and an unprecedented
arctic cold. While the focus may be the horrible plight of sunny
California, I believe all of my colleagues are aware that more people
have died over the past few weeks due to freezing temperatures in the
Northeast than due to the disastrous earthquake in California.
Our Government, in an attempt to address both emergency situations,
has responded by providing nearly $7 billion in earthquake assistance
and a suspect $200 million for energy assistance. In my estimation, and
in the estimation of millions of very cold Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers,
and New Englanders, as well as resident of New Jersey, this offering is
tragically inadequate.
The need for Pennsylvanians and the entire Northeast to keep their
families warm and out of danger is at an all-time high. In many cases,
the struggle to stay warm has turned into a struggle to stay alive. Not
only is this relentless weather putting millions of families in danger,
it is rapidly exhausting the funding for the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program [LIHEAP].
The mission of LIHEAP is to provide financial assistance to
unfortunate families who are unable to pay their energy bills. The
weather of late, however, has dramatically increased the demand for
this already suffering program. It is with this in mind I urge the
President to declare an emergency and release the $600 million in
emergency funding made available and designated by Congress as part of
the fiscal 1994 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS
and Education.
Countless individuals have already succumbed to this year's cold and
unforgiving winter. With a lack of additional assistance, citizens of
Pennsylvania, the Nation's second leading recipient of LIHEAP funding,
and the entire Northeast will continue to suffer.
If our Government is going to throw a life-preserver to Americans who
suddenly find themselves in need because of Mother Nature and natural
disasters, its assistance had better be large enough to rescue everyone
in danger.
{time} 1350
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
committee for yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this measure to provide aid to
the victims in California. We, in Louisiana, suffered through Hurricane
Andrew, and we are still recovering. Hurricanes are quite frequent in
our area.
I want to commend the folks in California who are struggling now to
recover from their own natural disaster. I take this moment on the
floor to remind the Members that in the flood plains of this country we
are required to buy flood insurance. It is subsidized by the Federal
Government, but our citizens are making a contribution up front to
cover the cost of the disasters that come their way.
There are bills in this Congress to make it more difficult for our
people to afford that flood insurance. I urge the Members, please, as
they consider this disaster in California, not to buy the argument that
we ought to make it harder for people to buy insurance. If anything, we
ought to help our friends in California buy earthquake insurance. We
ought to consider our friends who live in tornado zones and encourage
them to have wind and damage insurance. We ought to be helping each
other in this country.
Madam Chairman, as this body and this Government rose to help my
friends and neighbors in Louisiana, in St. Andrew, I urge the Members
to help these folks in California.
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], to close the
debate on our side. This is a Member whose district was most heavily
impacted, and he has worked tirelessly on this bill.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me.
Madam Chairman, I would like to give the members a personal
perspective on the devastating 6.6 earthquake that rocked Northridge
and the surrounding area at 4:31 a.m. on January 17. Most of the damage
you saw on TV and read about took place in my district and those of my
neighboring colleagues. I visited and toured the Northridge Meadows
apartment building in the San Fernando Valley where 16 people lost
their lives. I visited hospitals where doctors and nurses worked around
the clock--one treating 385 patients and one treating 350 patients in
the first 24 hours. I heard countless stories of tragedy and heroism.
Two teenage girls showed up at one of the hospitals at 5:30--it was
still dark--and wanted to know what they could do to help. They put
them down in the basement to sort badly needed supplies. Red Cross
workers and volunteers worked countless hours to house, feed, and
otherwise care for elderly and other displaced persons. Federal, State,
county and city employees rallied to help. Utility companies worked to
restore power, gas and water. So much has been done by so many, now it
is our turn to rally and help. We cannot restore the lost lives or many
personal treasures of people, but we can and must help with dollars for
the rebuilding process and I implore my colleagues to do this as
expeditiously as possible.
Mr. NATCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland].
Mr. HOAGLAND. Madam Chairman, as we wrestle with this difficult
decision today, trying to balance the interests of the taxpayers
against the interests of Californians who so desperately need relief, I
think we first need to recall the tremendous progress we have made in
deficit reduction in the last year and a half. Nineteen months ago we
were running a deficit at the rate of $331 billion a year. It is now
expected the deficit for the next fiscal year will be below $200
billion. Many decisions made in this body, on the floor of this House,
were responsible for bringing that deficit down. We can be proud of
that, and we should be proud of that.
We are making more progress in deficit reduction than we had made
since the Truman administration, as the President indicated the other
day during his State of the Union Address. So today let us not forget
what tremendous progress we have made.
Let us also not forget the plight of those Californians. I will not
argue that. I am not from California. Others will deal with that issue
much more effectively than I can. But clearly we have had a disaster of
major proportions and we need to attend to it. I intend to vote for
this supplemental appropriations today because I believe we simply have
got to get those funds out to those people as quickly as we can. I
think we should go ahead as quickly as we can. I think we should go
ahead and invoke our emergency powers to do that.
We are going to be facing terrible cutting decisions in the next
couple of months. The Wall Street Journal reports that the President is
going to bring in a budget next week that is going to abolish or zero
out over 100 Federal agency programs. That is serious, tough medicine.
We are going to have very, very difficult decisions to face in deciding
what to do about that budget, and let us not let those serious
decisions get in the way of getting relief to these people who need it
so desperately.
Finally, let us recall also that the Speaker has commissioned the
majority leader to set up a bipartisan commission to develop long-range
solutions for these problems. My colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska
[Mr. Bereuter] has suggested reform of the National Flood Insurance
Program. We also need to have earthquake insurance imposed on those who
live in earthquake zones so we will not have such government exposure
in the future.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3759,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance, which
include $7.77 billion for disaster relief and $1.1 billion in
additional Small Business Administration [SBA] disaster loans for the
victims of the Los Angeles/Northridge earthquake.
The Los Angeles/Northridge earthquake is the costliest natural
disaster in our Nation's history. As we consider this important
legislation, we still do not know what the full extent of the damage
and cost of the disaster will be. The ongoing aftershocks, some of them
significant earthquakes in their own right, are continuing to add to
the list of injuries and property damage.
We have an obligation to help the the victims of this earthquake
without delay; 57 people have been killed and more than 6,500 people
have been injured, 55,000 homes have been damaged or destroyed, and
21,000 structures have been declared uninhabitable, 230,000 people have
applied for disaster assistance. Jobs have been lost; hospitals,
schools, and businesses have been closed; major thoroughfares have
collapsed; and any regained sense of personal security is under attack
with each new aftershock.
In my own district, residential and commercial areas have been
devastated. Many owners and tenants have no insurance to cover their
losses. St. John's Hospital, which is an important health facility
worth approximately $25 million, has been condemned and closed. This
hospital was the largest single employer in Santa Monica, and its
closing caused an immediate loss of 2,000 jobs at the hospital and
another several hundred ancillary jobs.
Many of the buildings of Santa Monica College, a large community
college serving the Santa Monica Bay region and west Los Angeles,
sustained major structural damage.
UCLA. with a student population in excess of 35,000, is continuing
its seismic inspections. Indications are that older buildings, which
were constructed in 1924 and never retrofitted for earthquake safety,
may have suffered irreparable structural damage. These structures
include the main auditorium, Royce Hall, and one of the two largest
libraries, Powell Library.
A major portion of the Santa Monica Freeway, the major east-west
artery running immediately south of my district, has collapsed and will
not be operational for at least 1 year.
My constituents and all other Californians affected by the earthquake
are anxious to reclaim their lives, restore their livelihoods, and
rebuild their communities. We have a huge task ahead of us, and it will
probably cost more in resources and time then we imagine today.
President Clinton and his administration have provided outstanding
leadership and expeditious assistance during this time of crisis. I
look forward to continuing to work in the spirit of partnership and
cooperation we have experienced from the outset.
Enactment of H.R. 3759 is absolutely critical to the people of my
district and to the State of California. I urge my colleagues to vote
for passage.
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3759,
which provides vital supplemental funding to assist victims of the
recent California earthquake. It also provides additional needed
funding for victims of last year's Midwest floods and critical
assistance to low-income Americans fighting to stay warm during this
bitterly cold winter.
I am pleased to see a reallocation of $200 million to fund the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. LIHEAP urgently needs
more money if it is to help thousands of low-income Americans get
through one of the coldest winters on record. In the city of Chicago
alone, 115,000 households are served by LIHEAP assistance; 50 percent
of those households have an annual income of less than $5,000.
Throughout the State of Illinois, 238,573 households receive LIHEAP
assistance. Almost 37 percent of those households include at least one
child. More than 75 percent are headed by single women, and 50 percent
include an elderly or disabled person. All count on LIHEAP to keep
their homes at a livable temperature in the face of the bitter cold.
Madam Chairman, Americans are calling on us to help them restore
their lives to normal. The supplemental appropriation before us today
represents the last hope for many people whose lives have been torn
apart by nature. I urge strong support for this life-saving measure.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3759. The
American people have a long tradition of responding to tragedy and
disaster with kindness and generosity. And we must continue this
tradition in responding to the terrible damage wrought by the recent
earthquake in Los Angeles.
Fortunately, this bill also seeks to extend American generosity to
the millions of citizens who have been suffering through a severe,
record-breaking winter in the Northern States.
In my district in central Maine, the average temperatures this winter
have been 10 degrees below normal. Northern Maine is experiencing the
coldest winter on record. As the temperatures plunge, the heating bills
soar. And the increased heating costs begin to strain family budgets.
For the poor, it becomes a matter of survival, of food, rent, and
clothing--or heat.
How do our less fortunate citizens cope with these conditions? During
a typical winter, they rely on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program or LIHEAP. But LIHEAP, thanks to repeated cuts since 1985, is
one of the most underfunded programs in the budget, despite being one
of the most essential. Even a normal winter can be harrowing for low-
income citizens thanks to inadequate heating assistance. A winter like
this one qualifies as a disaster.
H.R. 3759 rightly addresses this serious problem in the context of
disaster aid. It gives the President the authority to disburse up to
$200 million for LIHEAP upon declaration of an emergency. Unlike a
similar, existing authority, these funds are not automatically
distributed to every State, but only to those States that have truly
suffered from severe winter cold.
Helping those facing the devastation of the earthquake in Los Angeles
is the right thing to do. Helping those suffering from the
unprecedented cold is the right thing to do. In times of need,
Americans have always done the right thing. I ask my colleagues to join
me in supporting H.R. 3759.
Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the
distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Committee for
bringing this bill so quickly to the floor. Disaster relief is
desperately needed in the regions affected by the quake. About 21,000
homes and apartments are uninhabitable; 55,000 residential structures
have been damaged; and nearly 230,000 people have applied for disaster
assistance. People are moving back into their homes, where they can,
but the cleanup has just begun. I applaud the distinguished gentleman
for their prompt response to this crisis and their attention to detail
in crafting this legislation.
While the damage from the earthquake was the largest in U.S. history,
the fact is that it could have been much larger. Much effort has gone
into our understanding of the hazards posed by earthquakes and the ways
that we can mitigate the damage to buildings and other structures. It
is hard to measure the number of buildings and bridges that could have
fallen down, but remained standing because stricter codes and
reinforcement techniques were implemented. However, many structures
withstood the quake due to reinforcement.
Much of this increased understanding has come from cross-agency
efforts under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
[NEHRP]. Since 1977, this program has sponsored the development of
earthquake-resistant designs and construction methods, model codes,
understanding of the scientific aspects of earthquakes, and education
programs for the public. This long-term effort has contributed to the
earthquake resistance success we have today, all over the United
States.
It is important that we continue to support this program, in times of
emergency as well as calm. So I am very pleased that the Committee on
Appropriations has allocated $15 million to NEHRP efforts in response
to this most recent earthquake. These postearthquake investigations can
reduce the loss of lives and property in future quakes. Through this
forward-looking expenditure, we can learn more and suffer less.
My committee, for its part, is working with the administration to
continue to strengthen NEHRP. To this end, I sent a letter on November
10, 1993, to the President along with eight other members of the
Science Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, both Democrat
and Republican, requesting a high-level review of NEHRP and its
activities. I look forward to the inception of this review.
I am encouraged that our Nation can reap lessons from our suffering
in this earthquake and that these lessons can be applied to reduce our
losses in future quakes. While we can only be saddened, indeed
traumatized, by the results of the Northridge earthquake, we can take
heart in the hope that in the future we may suffer less for what we
have learned.
Ms. SCHENK. Madam Chairman, I understand the concern about increasing
our deficit. I understand the importance of cutting spending. I was one
of a handful of Members who voted for the budget only if more spending
cuts were forthcoming before the end of the first session. I helped
draft and voted for the Penny-Kasich spending cuts amendment which was
narrowly defeated last year. And I stood right here and urged my
colleagues to do the same.
But there is a right way and a wrong way to debate our Government's
spending priorities and I do not believe that this is the time to
debate controversial spending cuts. When we drafted Penny-Kasich we
spent weeks crafting a thoughtful package of cuts. Emergencies by their
very nature preclude this same kind of thoughtfulness.
The people of Los Angeles County need this money for immediate
emergency assistance and to repair roads, sewers, and communication
networks. We are certainly not talking about trying to make people
whole for the personal and financial losses they have suffered.
Like many of my colleagues, I too am concerned about the way our
country deals with emergencies. I do not believe deficit spending is
the best solution but this is not the time to argue about the best way
to deal with natural disasters. This is a time for Members of Congress
to put aside partisan differences and to come together to help the
people of California.
Mr. MINETA. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3759, the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994.
There should be no misunderstanding--the Northridge earthquake is a
national disaster and we must treat it as such--as we have in the
aftermath of the Midwest flooding last year, Hurricane Andrew, and the
Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. We must not lose sight of the fact that
H.R. 3759 responds to the Los Angeles earthquake in the same way that
past efforts, which many of us have supported, have responded to other
national disasters.
Disasters are a national issue. Today, it's California. Before, it
was the Virgin Islands, Florida, Hawaii, and the Midwest. Tomorrow, it
may be your State or your district.
National issues require a national response. H.R. 3759 is premised on
the best of intentions--to meet the needs of our citizens and our
Nation.
Make no mistake about it, the Northridge earthquake inflicted
economic devastation, and I witnessed it first hand.
We all know of the tragically high death and injury totals. The
earthquake left tens of thousands homeless. Lives have been changed
forever. For many, the trauma will never be forgotten. How can we put a
price tag on emotional and psychological stress? How can we put a price
tag on the loss of a loved one--a wife, a single parent, a friend? How
can we forget the TV pictures of the collapsed apartment where so many
died and so many of us shared in the sorrow?
Another kind of destruction with longer term dilemma is the condition
of that region's basic physical foundation; its infrastructure. Roads,
water distribution systems, and power utilities have been affected
severely.
Perhaps the hardest hit facet of the Los Angeles region was its
freeways--we all saw the pictures. In addition, there was tremendous
damage to schools, utilities, and neighborhood streets.
As a result of the earthquake, my concerns have been these: First,
how to provide immediate relief to the victims of the earthquake. My
specific interests have been in my capacity as Chair of the House
Public Works and Transportation Committee. Second, what are the longer
implications for the State--not only in terms of rebuilding the
transportation network in southern California, but in terms of ensuring
that its economy, just now edging out of recession in some places, is
not crippled. And third, any implications for the bay area--whether in
terms of our regional transportation system, earthquake preparedness,
or its economic situation.
H.R. 3759 addresses these concerns. For example, it provides $1.66
billion for emergency relief to repair the damaged highways and
bridges, not only from the Northridge earthquake, but also Oma Prieta.
This is not money that would be added to an already existing slush
fund. The fact is that between the Mississippi floods and the Los
Angeles earthquake we have now completely depleted the emergency relief
fund of the highway program. We have depleted not only all the cash in
the fund but also all it legally permitted borrowing power. That means
that not only can no more commitments be made for on-system highway
repairs in the Mississippi flood areas and in the Los Angeles area, but
no funds could be committed for highway damage in any State if a
disaster were to strike tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize, this is truly an emergency
situation. Some have said that expenditure for this disaster should not
be allowed to proceed unless equal cuts are made in the budget we have
already adopted. But I want to make it absolutely clear that we have
never before required offsetting cuts when making a supplemental
appropriations for a disaster. Never--not for Andrew, not for Iniki,
not for the Midwest floods, not for Hugo, not for Loma Prieta--never.
To now require that we go through that exercise before providing
assistance in this one case would be highly unfair and discriminatory.
The budget we adopt after long and tortuous debate is a planning
document. Disasters cannot be planned and we know that at the time we
adopt the budget. We know that major disasters might happen which would
require us, in the urgency of that situation, to spend additional
dollars on disaster relief. We cannot, when disaster strikes, tell the
people suffering from it that we will be sending aid just as soon as we
redebate and refigure the entire Federal budget--look how long it takes
us to adopt a budget in the first place. It simply is not practical to
say we will rewrite the Federal budget before we aid anyone in a major
disaster. This is exactly the kind of redtape runaround and delay we
have been trying to get away from in disaster relief.
Mr. Chairman, now is the time for leadership on this issue; now is
the time for responsiveness; and now is the time for compassion. If
H.R. 3759 is the most we can do to meet the devastation of the Los
Angeles earthquake, it's the very least we must do. Together, through
H.R. 3759, we can make it happen, and I urge adoption of the bill.
Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the
President's quick and compassionate response to the devastation left by
the Los Angeles/Northridge earthquake. The administration's role was
evident through the immediate relief actions by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and the firsthand support given to the victims by
Secretaries Cisneros and Pena.
As the full extent of the damage to homes, hospitals, businesses, and
highways became more visible, there was little doubt the Nation must
help our fellow citizens in southern California. I support the
desperately needed emergency assistance package detailed in H.R. 3759.
The request by the administration is necessary to repair the far-
reaching devastation of the area's infrastructure.
The bill provides loans for homeowners and small business owners to
rebuild, and rent subsidies for dislocated low-income families. It
includes funds to repair the highway systems that the region so heavily
depends upon. Disaster relief funds will be used to reconstruct public
facilities such as schools, public utility systems, and to support
families requiring temporary housing. The measure also provides help to
the neighborhoods affected by the earthquake through the Community
Development Block Grant Program.
This bill exemplifies the American spirit that so often follows
disasters and tragedies--a compassionate, yet strong, hand to those in
need.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Madam Chairman, I want to commend my friend, the very
able chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Natcher, and the
distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, Mr. McDade, for
bringing this supplemental before the House. The bill will offset some
of the costs and relieve some of the hardships brought upon so many
people in the Los Angeles area by the recent earthquake there. Like so
many other natural disasters, it has caused billions of dollars in
physical damage to thousands of buildings, bridges, schools, homes, and
other structures. It has also brought much pain and suffering to
millions of people throughout southern California. So I will join my
colleagues in support of the bill.
Madam Chairman, I am very disappointed that the administration has
not included in the bill funds to repair all of the damage to one of
the major VA medical centers in Los Angeles. The damage to the
Sepulveda hospital was so severe that all patients had to be moved to
other VA and private hospitals in the area. According to preliminary VA
estimates, it will cost at least $150 million to repair damage to the
main hospital bed tower and surrounding buildings. VA requested these
funds from the White House, but without any explanation to our
committee, full repair costs are not included in this bill. This means
that veterans must go to hospitals further away and I fear that many
will have to look for their care elsewhere.
This bill contain $45.6 million to repair some of the damage to the
buildings at Sepulveda. These funds will be used to repair broken water
and sewer lines and other utilities in the surrounding buildings as
well as cleanup costs. But patients will not be able to move back into
the main hospital. On Tuesday, Secretary Jesse Brown acknowledged that
funds in this bill are insufficient to fully restore the facility. When
pressed, he suggested that additional funds might be available through
the $500 million discretionary amounts contained in the bill. I do not
hold out much hope that this is a viable option. Given the commitment
to repair other public facilities, I am disappointed that the Secretary
could not assure us that funds will be provided.
I regret the administration did not place a higher priority on
restoring the Sepulveda VA Medical Center. By not including all of the
funds necessary to restore the facility, veterans will have to wait
months, and maybe years, before being able to obtain their health care
where they live.
I will ask our Hospitals and Health Care Subcommittee to take
immediate steps to authorize all of the funds necessary to repair or
replace the hospital when the committee meets to mark up its
authorization bill in April or early May. I will work closely with my
distinguished colleague, the Honorable Don Edwards, the ranking member
of our committee; the Honorable Maxine Waters, and the Honorable Bob
Filner, members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and our other
California Members to get the hospital back to normal as quickly as
possible.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1994.
Hon. William H. Natcher,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As your Committee takes up the
earthquake supplemental appropriation bill, I wanted to share
my concern over the Administration's failure to request
construction funds to repair the incapacitated VA Medical
Center at Sepulveda, California. Like so many earthquake-
damaged structures in the Los Angeles area, the full extent
of structural damage to this important facility has not yet
been determined. The extent of that damage is sufficiently
grave, however, to have compelled officials to shut the
facility down. Surely the sudden loss of a 350 bed public
hospital that provides for the medical, surgical,
psychiatric, and rehabilitative needs of the area's veterans
is a disaster requiring an appropriate Federal emergency
response.
Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the VA's best estimate of
the costs of replacing the severely damaged main hospital
building and repairing other badly damaged support facilities
would exceed $170 million. Although VA officials have not yet
briefed us on the specific damage findings they have compiled
to date, I wanted to alert you that the obvious need for very
major construction work at this facility represents a
substantial cost which has inexplicably not been included in
the Administration's request.
Sincerely,
G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery,
Chairman.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I stand ready to assist in the final
passage of this earthquake disaster assistance package. I know what
disasters are all about. All six of the counties in the 16th
Congressional District of Illinois were under water last summer. I
especially appreciate the willingness of the Appropriations Committee
to add $750 million to complete the job with previous disasters,
including the Midwest floods.
Madam Chairman, this legislation once again only shows the necessity
to prioritize Federal spending. I applaud the bipartisan spirit among
those who came up with the spending cut amendments, especially those
from the freshman class.
Last year, I voted 151 times to cut $127 billion in lower priority
Federal spending. A mere fraction of that amount could have paid not
only for this bill but previous disaster assistance packages. It's
time, Madam Chairman, to go forward with your pledge to find ways to
pay for future emergency relief packages. I am willing to work with you
and the administration in a cooperative, bipartisan spirit toward that
end.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3759
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, to provide emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, namely:
CHAPTER I
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
watershed and flood prevention operations
For an additional amount for ``Watershed and flood
prevention operations'' to repair damage to the waterways and
watersheds resulting from the Midwest floods and California
fires of 1993 and other natural disasters, $340,500,000, to
remain available until September 30, 1995: Provided, That
such amount is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended: Provided further, That if the Secretary determines
that the cost of land and levee restoration exceeds the fair
market value of an affected cropland, the Secretary may use
sufficient amounts from funds provided under this heading to
accept bids from willing sellers to enroll such cropland
inundated by the Midwest floods of 1993 in any of the
affected States in the Wetlands Reserve Program, authorized
by subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837).
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
emergency conservation program
For an additional amount for ``Emergency conservation
program'' for expenses resulting from the Midwest floods and
California fires of 1993 and other natural disasters,
$25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1995:
Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
Commodity Credit Corporation
Funds made available in Public Law 103-75 for the Commodity
Credit Corporation shall be available to fund the costs of
replanting, reseeding, or repairing damage to commercial
trees and seedlings, including orchard and nursery inventory.
CHAPTER II
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
RELATED AGENCY
Small Business Administration
disaster loans program account
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and
other disasters, $309,750,000, to remain available until
expended, of which up to $55,000,000 may be transferred to
and merged with the appropriations for ``Salaries and
expenses'' for associated administrative expenses: Provided,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
administrative provision
Section 24 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 651) is
amended in subsection (a) by striking the period at the end
thereof and by inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``,
and shall give priority to a proposal to restore an area
determined to be a major disaster by the President on a date
not more than three years prior to the fiscal year for which
the application is made.''.
CHAPTER III
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$6,600,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Military Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$19,400,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $18,400,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $420,100,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $104,800,000: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $560,100,000: Provided, That the entire amount
is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $21,600,000: Provided, That the entire amount
is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Army'', $20,300,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 1996: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Other Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$200,000, to remain available for obligation until September
30, 1996: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'', $26,800,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 1996: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CHAPTER III
Sec. 301. Notwithstanding sections 607 and 630 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2357 and 22 U.S.C.
2390), reimbursements received from the United Nations for
expenses of the Department of Defense charged to the
appropriations provided by this Act shall be deposited to the
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.
Sec. 302. During the current fiscal year, the Department of
Defense is authorized to incur obligations for purposes
specified in Section 2350j(c) of Title 10, United States Code
in anticipation of receipt of contributions under that
section: Provided, That, upon receipt, such contributions
shall be credited to the appropriation or fund which incurred
such obligations.
Sec. 303. Funds appropriated in this chapter shall only be
obligated and expended to fund the incremental and associated
costs of the Department of Defense incurred in connection
with the ongoing United States operations relating to
Somalia; the ongoing United States humanitarian airdrops,
hospital operations, and enforcement of the no-fly zone
relating to Bosnia; the ongoing United States operations
relating to Southwest Asia; and the ongoing United States
operations supporting the maritime interception operations
relating to Haiti.
CHAPTER IV
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
For an additional amount for ``Flood control and coastal
emergencies'', $70,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
CHAPTER V
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
low-income home energy assistance
Of the amounts provided under this heading in Public Law
103-112 and designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, subject to the terms and conditions specified in
Public Law 103-112, $200,000,000, if designated by the
President as an emergency, may be allotted by the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services, as she
determines is appropriate, to any one or more of the
jurisdictions funded under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1981, to meet emergency needs.
The second paragraph under this heading in Public Law 102-
394 is amended as follows: strike ``June 30, 1994'' and
insert ``September 30, 1994''.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
impact aid
For carrying out disaster assistance activities resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and
other disasters as authorized under section 7 of Public Law
81-874, $165,000,000, to remain available through September
30, 1995: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
student financial assistance
For an additional amount for ``Student financial
assistance'' for payment of awards made under title IV, part
A, subpart 1 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
$80,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 1995:
Provided, That notwithstanding sections 442(e) and 462(j) of
such Act, the Secretary may reallocate, for use in award year
1994-1995 only, any excess funds returned to the Secretary of
Education under the Federal Work-Study or Federal Perkins
Loan programs from award year 1993-1994 to assist individuals
who suffered financial harm from the January 1994 earthquake
in Southern California and other disasters: Provided further,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
CHAPTER VI
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Federal-Aid Highways
emergency relief program
(highway trust fund)
For the Emergency Fund authorized by 23 U.S.C. 125 to cover
expenses arising from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California and other disasters, $950,000,000; and in addition
$400,000,000, which shall be available only to the extent an
official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress, all to be
derived from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided
further, That the limitation on obligations per State in 23
U.S.C. 125(b) shall not apply to projects relating to such
earthquake: Provided further, That notwithstanding 23 U.S.C.
120(e), the Federal share for any project on the Federal-aid
highway system related to such earthquake shall be 100
percent for the costs incurred in the 180 day period
beginning on the date of the earthquake.
In addition, for emergency expenses resulting from the Loma
Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989, as authorized by 23
U.S.C. 125, $315,000,000, to be derived from the Highway
Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such amount is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
CHAPTER VII
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California,
$21,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which not
to exceed $802,000 is available for transfer to General
Operating Expenses, the Guaranty and Indemnity Program
Account, and the Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program
Account: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
construction, major projects
For an additional amount for ``Construction, major
projects'' for emergency expenses resulting from the January
1994 earthquake in Southern California and other disasters,
$45,600,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as may be necessary may be transferred to the
``Medical care'' and ``Construction, minor projects''
accounts: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Housing Programs
annual contributions for assisted housing
For an additional amount under this head, $225,000,000, to
remain available until December 31, 1995, of which
$200,000,000 shall be for rental assistance under the section
8 existing housing certificate program (42 U.S.C. 1437f) and
the housing voucher program under section 8(o) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), and
$25,000,000 shall be for the modernization of existing public
housing projects pursuant to section 14 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437l): Provided, That these
funds shall be used first to replenish amounts used from the
headquarters reserve established pursuant by section
213(d)(4)(A) of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended, for assistance to victims of the January
1994 earthquake in Southern California: Provided further,
That any amounts remaining after the headquarters reserve has
been replenished shall be available under such programs for
additional assistance to victims of the earthquake referred
to above: Provided further, That in administering these
funds, the Secretary may waive or specify alternative
requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation
that the Secretary administers in connection with the
obligation by the Secretary or any use by the recipient of
these funds, except for the requirements relating to fair
housing and nondiscrimination, the environment, and labor
standards, upon finding that such waiver is required to
facilitate the obligation and use of such funds and would not
be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute or
regulation: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
flexible subsidy fund
For emergency assistance to owners of eligible multifamily
housing projects damaged by the January 1994 earthquake in
Southern California who are either insured or formerly
insured under the National Housing Act, as amended, or
otherwise eligible for assistance under section 201(c) of the
Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1a), in the program of assistance
for troubled multifamily housing projects under the Housing
and Community Development Amendments of 1978, as amended,
$100,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1995:
Provided, That assistance to an owner of a multifamily
housing project assisted, but not insured under the National
Housing Act, may be made if the project owner and the
mortgagee have provided or agreed to provide assistance to
the project in a manner as determined by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development: Provided further, That
assistance is for the repair of damage or the recovery of
losses directly attributable to the Southern California
earthquake of 1994: Provided further, That in administering
these funds, the Secretary may waive, or specify alternative
requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation
that the Secretary administers in connection with the
obligation by the Secretary or any use by the recipient of
these funds, except for statutory requirements relating to
fair housing and nondiscrimination, the environment, and
labor standards, upon finding that such waiver is required to
facilitate the obligation and use of such funds, and would
not be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the statute
or regulation: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant
to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Community Planning and Development
community development grants
For an additional amount for ``Community development
grants'', as authorized under title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, for emergency expenses
resulting from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California, $250,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 1996 for all activities eligible under such title I
except those activities reimbursable by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) or available through the Small
Business Administration (SBA): Provided, That from this
amount, the Secretary may transfer up to $50,000,000 to the
``HOME investment partnerships program'', as authorized under
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act, as amended (Public Law 101-625), to remain available
until expended, as an additional amount for such emergency
expenses for all activities eligible under such title II
except activities reimbursable by FEMA or available through
SBA: Provided further, That the recipients of amounts under
this appropriation, including the foregoing transfer (if
any), shall use such amounts first to replenish amounts
previously obligated under their Community Development Block
Grant or HOME programs, respectively, in connection with the
Southern California earthquake of January 1994: Provided
further, That in administering these funds, the Secretary may
waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision
of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers
in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or any use
by the recipient of these funds, except for statutory
requirements relating to fair housing and nondiscrimination,
the environment, and labor standards, upon finding that such
waiver is required to facilitate the obligation and use of
such funds, and would not be inconsistent with the overall
purpose of the statute or regulation: Provided further, That
the entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Federal Emergency Management Agency
disaster relief
For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'' for the
January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and other
disasters, $4,709,000,000 to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
emergency management planning and assistance
For an additional amount for ``Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance'', to carry out activities under the
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) $15,000,000, to remain available until
expended, to study the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California in order to enhance seismic safety throughout the
United States: Provided, That the entire amount is designated
by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
CHAPTER VIII
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
Unanticipated Needs
For an additional amount for emergency expenses resulting
from the January 1994 earthquake in Southern California and
other disasters, $500,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That these funds may be transferred to
any authorized Federal governmental activity to meet the
requirements of such disasters: Provided further, That the
entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an
official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided further,
That the entire amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
CHAPTER IX
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
prohibition of benefits for individuals not lawfully within the united
states
Sec. 602. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide any benefit or assistance to any
individual in the United States when it is known to a Federal
entity or official to which the funds are made available
that--
(1) the individual is not lawfully within the United
States; and
(2) The direct Federal assistance or benefit to be provided
is other than search and rescue; emergency medical care;
emergency mass care; emergency shelter; clearance of roads
and construction of temporary bridges necessary to the
performance of emergency tasks and essential community
services; warning of further risks or hazards; dissemination
of public information and assistance regarding health and
safety measures; the provision of food, water, medicine and
other essential needs, including movement of supplies or
persons; and reduction of immediate threats to life, property
and public health and safety.
Sec. 603. (a) Study by Comptroller General.--The
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a
study regarding Federal laws, unfunded Federal mandates, and
other Federal regulatory requirements, that may prevent or
impair the ability of State and local authorities to rebuild
expeditiously the areas devastated by the January 1994
earthquake in Southern California. In conducting the study,
the Comptroller General shall consult with State and local
officials of California.
(b) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Congress a report setting forth findings and
recommendations as a result of the study conducted under
subsection (a). The report shall include--
(1) an identification of the specific Federal laws,
unfunded Federal mandates, and other Federal regulatory
requirements, referred to in subsection (a);
(2) an analysis of the manner in which such laws, mandates,
and other requirements may prevent or impair the ability of
State and local authorities to rebuild expeditiously the
areas devastated by the January 1994 earthquake in Southern
California; and
(3) recommended forms of, and appropriate time periods for,
relief from such laws, mandates, and other requirements.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 1994''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment is in order except the amendments printed
in House Report 103-416 or pursuant to the order of the House of today.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report,
by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not
be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question.
With the concurrence of the minority leader, amendment No. 2 printed
in part 1 of the report may be offered in a modified form that is
germane to its printed form.
If more than one of the amendments printed in part 2 of the report is
adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally
adopted.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 103-416.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
Page 5, strike line 3 and all that follows through page 8,
line 10.
Page 8, line 11, strike ``302'' and insert ``301''.
Page 8, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 9,
line 2.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I will begin by yielding
myself 90 seconds.
Madam Chairman, on January 31, according to a letter we just
received, the President suddenly decided he needed a supplemental
appropriation of $1.2 billion. I think there is some coincidence with
the fact that there was a supplemental emergency then going forward.
Someone probably suggested that to him. They are not stupid. They said,
``We can get $1.2 billion right on to the earthquake,'' so they sent it
in.
It includes, for instance, a request for $478 million to compensate
them for all the money we have spent on Haiti.
Madam Chairman, we have simply got a request here from the Defense
Department and their allies in the House, who are entitled to do this,
to increase the budget for the year. It lists Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq,
and Haiti. That is every operation they engaged in. If we adopt the
bill as it now is and defeat my amendment, we are accepting the
precedent that the military budget is simply for maintenance, and that
any time the military actually has to be called into action, no matter
how small, as unfortunately it was in Haiti, they get extra money.
It will either add to the deficit, and the National Taxpayer's Union
supports this amendment, or it will come at the expense of other
programs and perhaps both.
It makes a mockery of the fiscal discipline we have begun to subject
ourselves to, to simply say that because there was an earthquake in
California, we will give the military an additional $1.2 billion. Could
they use it? No doubt. Could HUD use it? Could HHS use it? No doubt.
But we should not give it to any at this time.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
ask for time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
One of the things that I have been saying for the last year is that the
Defense Department is funded at the bare minimum to maintain
operational readiness and any additional humanitarian or peace
enforcing operations must be funded by supplemental appropriations. In
fact, operational readiness could be declining even now.
The President has agreed with that proposition and has requested this
supplemental appropriations. I believe that we are now seeing a
reduction in readiness all over the country. I have come to the
conclusion it would be very difficult for the U.S. forces to be
projected forward in a one-front war on a timely basis, let alone a
two-front war.
There is no way I can see that we can continue to operate effectively
and do humanitarian and peace enforcing operations without additional
funding. One of the things that we got an agreement from the White
House on last year in our bill was that whenever there is an overseas
humanitarian or peace enforcing operation beyond the normal operations
of the military we would get a supplemental appropriations. The defense
budget has been reduced severely for the past years and additional
missions require additional funding.
The President would come to the Congress, consult with the Congress,
tell us the cost of the operation, where he is going to get the money,
and send up a supplemental. I think it is essential to the national
security of this country that those supplementals always be sent up in
a timely fashion.
To address Haiti alone, the funds provided in this supplemental are
not only to cover the expenses of sending a ship to Haiti and not
landing but to enforce the embargo itself. We have an average of six
warships standing offshore and we have aircraft flying surveillance
missions involving a significant number of military personnel. This
costs a lot of money
The other thing is the Bosnia operation. Involved in the Bosnia
operation, we have almost 9,000 troops. I don't think anyone can argue
about the tragedy involved in Bosnia. I have been against military
involvement in Bosnia because I don't think a military solution can be
imposed on Bosnia. I think that it has to be something they work out
politically.
But what we must do is contain the fighting. They must understand if
it goes beyond the Bosnian borders the United States and NATO will be
involved. By putting troops in Macedonia and with our presence in the
Adriatic and the humanitarian flights we are flying to support the
United Nations, I think that statement is very clear. As a matter of
fact, when I was in Europe, we got compliments from the foreign
countries about the policy of restraint that the United States has been
operating under in Bosnia.
In Somalia, I was opposed to the deployment in the first place. My
original disagreement with the deployment to Somalia was that we could
not impose a military solution on the people of Somalia, thus we should
not get involved. If we got involved we would kill a lot of Somalians,
and that is exactly what has happened. We are leaving because we could
not impose a military solution. But it was a very expensive operation
and an unfortunate operation in many ways.
If we had gotten out in January of last year when we stabilized the
situation, I would have said that I was wrong. One of the problems we
have in these foreign deployments is the problem we run into with the
United Nations to operate and command a situation under hostile
conditions.
We have recommended to the White House that they consult with
Congress before they allow the United States U.N. representative to
vote for a resolution which would imply that the United States supports
a particular operation and is willing to commit ground forces.
We also said U.S. forces under no circumstances should be under U.N.
command in hostile situations because of the United Nations lack of
experience. I think there are circumstances where the United Nations
can run an observer type operation, such as Macedonia. For instance,
the commander in Macedonia originally opposed United States forces
going into Macedonia in a observer type operation. After he saw our
troops operating, he realized the tremendous assets that we brought to
his force. He now compliments the actions of the U.S. forces.
I have to say this: I am absolutely amazed at the diversity of
missions that the U.S. individual service people are involved in, and
the quality of that force. Nevertheless, we are still on the edge of a
hollow force. It is important to defeat this amendment, because I am
concerned we are on the verge of a hollow force. Every deployment is a
cause for concern and takes funds away from depot maintenance, real
property maintenance, and the readiness of our troops back at home.
So I would urge the Members to vote against the Frank amendment. It
is well intended. I understand the gentleman's priorities. But I think
would be a real mistake and a disservice to our national security to
pass this amendment.
I urge Members to defeat this amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, to demonstrate that
support for this amendment is not necessarily limited to people who
endorse all of my priorities, I now yield 5 minutes of my remaining
time to dispose of as he wishes to my collaborator, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is yielded 5 minutes
by the gentleman from Massachusetts to control as he wishes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am
happy to cosponsor this amendment with the gentleman, because I feel
this is the wrong place to put this $1.2 billion.
This is an earthquake disaster relief bill designed to help the
people who are going through a terrible ordeal in California. At the
last minute this $1.2 billion was stuck into this bill for military
operations in various parts of the world.
Now, I have great admiration for Mr. Murtha. I support almost
everything the gentleman says about defense. I am one of the strongest
defense advocates and supporters in the House of Representatives. This
is the wrong place to be doing this.
In addition to that, there should be a full and thorough debate on
these moneys being spent in these areas. Some people may believe we
should spend more money in Somalia, some people may believe we should
spend more money in Bosnia, some people believe we should spend more
money in Haiti, and some people believe we should spend more money
imposing the Iraq no-fly zone. But many people have differences of
opinion on some of these issues, and they should have a full and
thorough debate, and it should take place in another vehicle besides
this particular piece of legislation.
Then another reason why we should be scrutinizing this very closely
and taking this $1.2 billion out and passing the Frank-Burton amendment
is because we have a tremendous deficit. The national debt is almost
$4.5 trillion. It is projected to get over $6 trillion in the next 4 to
5 years, and maybe as high as $7 trillion. We should take every
opportunity to economize and cut spending wherever possible.
While I am a strong supporter of defense and support the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, almost 99 percent of the time on defense
issues, I strongly believe this is the wrong place to be doing this. I
urge my colleagues to support and pass this amendment, and then let's
look at this at another time and another vehicle, if necessary.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Hamburg.
{time} 1410
Mr. HAMBURG. Madam Chairman, as a Representative from northern
California whose district suffered some of the ill-effects of the Loma
Prieta earthquake, I have tremendous concern, tremendous sympathy for
the people in Northridge and the surrounding area for what they have
gone through. I am fully in support of this emergency supplemental.
But I want to stand with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank], and I want to stand with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton] and say that these expenditures, this additional $1.2 billion
on top of a defense budget that is already $265 billion, that these
issues need to be discussed in the proper forum. They should not be
tacked on to this supplemental.
When I was running for Congress, one of the issues that came up most
often with my constituents is, why do these bills go through Congress
where they start with one subject and pretty soon they are on to this
and this and this. That is Christmas treeing. This is Christmas treeing
of a bill that is extremely important.
I believe we diminish the suffering of those people in southern
California, who are living on the ground, living in tents, needing
immediate attention from this Congress and this administration, when we
add to it things that really are extraneous to the purpose of the bill.
So while I have tremendous respect for the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], I believe that in this case
we need a different forum to discuss the issue, and we should move
forward with the bill with the Frank amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, 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. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
I would like to read two quotes. One is from Mr. Shalikashvili and
Les Aspin, former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
The Department is borrowing from depot maintenance,
operating support and training funds to sustain these
contingency operations. If you do not approve the
Supplemental request, the Department will have to reduce
these operations with predictable consequences for military
readiness.
That is from the Defense Department.
The President says,
The Administration strongly opposes the Frank amendment
which would strike funding that is essential to support the
ongoing humanitarian, peacekeeping and peace enforcing
operations for Somalia, Bosnia, Southwest Asia and Haiti.
Ongoing military contingency operations are not budgeted in
advance. Consequently, the Department of Defense has been
borrowing from core maintenance and support resources to fund
these operations. Restoring these funds is essential to
maintaining the readiness of our forces.
When I first went on the Subcommittee on Defense with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] in 1979, America, by its own military
leadership's self-recognition had a hollow force. Today we are on the
verge of having that hollow military back again.
In fact, if Members talk to some of our military leaders, they say it
is already there. We are starting to delay key maintenance projects. We
are not maintaining our equipment as well. We are having a difficult
time with retention. We are having a harder time recruiting people.
We have been cutting defense spending since 1985, and the President
of the United States, the other night, said it is time to stop.
What I am asking my colleagues to do today in the House of
Representatives is to honor Bill Clinton's request of this Congress,
and that is to stop cutting defense spending. This is what this is all
about.
If we do not replace this $1.2 billion, we are going to cut further
into readiness, training, all of the things that we have to have to
have a competent, qualified military. All the money that we spent in
the 1980's to build up our readiness and training will go for naught.
This is the first test of whether we are for this policy, the
President's policy, but we are not going to cut defense any further or
not. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] wants us to eat out
of the budget of the services, when there is no funding there for these
peacekeeping operations, very minimal. He wants them to take it out of
their hide, and they just simply cannot take it out of their hide any
further.
I urge this House to defeat this amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30
seconds.
First of all, I agree with much of what my colleague from Washington
just said, and I support him, as I support the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] about 95 percent of the time on defense
issues. And I am not for any further cuts in defense. I think that
would be a tragic mistake, because we must have our readiness at a top
level.
But the fact of the matter is, this is a disaster relief bill for the
people who are suffering in California. And the issues of Haiti and
Bosnia and Iraq and Somalia should be debated under a separate bill. It
should not be in this particular piece of legislation.
If they will bring a piece of legislation, another supplemental to
the floor, where we can discuss this in a separate forum, I probably
will support most of these additional spending requirements for the
Department of Defense. But I say one more time, this is not the vehicle
and this is not the time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
The gentleman is familiar with the procedure of the House. We do not
have that many vehicles. What we are doing is feeding hundreds of
thousands of people all around the world, and the U.S. Armed Forces are
sucking up the cost of this great humanitarian effort.
The gentleman can pick and choose as he will as to which vehicle he
wants to argue this thing on, but we have got to address this issue.
This is not a minor issue.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, let me just say that we have
been around here a long time. The gentleman and I have been here for
about 10 or 11 years. The fact of the matter is, there will be more
appropriation bills. There will be more supplemental bills. We all know
that.
If it is necessary to spend this money, and I believe some of this
money is necessary because we must have an adequate defense posture,
then I will support it. But this is not the vehicle and this is not the
time.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume, to reinforce what was just said about the procedure.
Understand that every one of the items mentioned in this letter from
the President, Southwest Asia, that is Iraq, Haiti, Bosnia, and
Somalia, was underway when we did the budget last year. There is
nothing unforeseen here.
What this says is, they do not like the results of the House and
Senate budget procedure so they will use this emergency supplemental to
reopen the issue.
The gentleman from Washington says we are asking them to eat these
contingencies. These were part of the budget request last year.
Everything on here was known when Congress voted the budget in
September. We did not vote the budget 12 years ago. We voted a budget
in September.
They decided, as does every Department down there, that they did not
get enough. So they use this opportunity to get more.
It is so urgent, by the way, that the administration asked for it,
accordingly to their own letter, on January 31. That was Monday. What
was happening Monday? The earthquake supplemental was coming up.
This is seizing an opportunity. They saw the train going. They jumped
on.
The fact is, however, very clearly, there is nothing on here that
they are asking to be reimbursed for that was not fully known and
underway when the budget went through. This is simply a way to bust
open the budget and, when they go first, invite every other Department
to come afterward.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I was in Bosnia 2 weeks ago. The airdrops
are working. They are bringing supplies to help the people. I met with
our U.S. military MASH medical unit in Zagreb, Croatia and they are
making a difference.
I only have 1 minute, so let me quickly say that this amendment will
be the worst thing that we could possibly do to our military forces and
to the world, to tell them that funds for humanitarian assistance and
peace-keeping are shut off.
There was a man named Adolf Hitler that wrote a book in the 1930's,
``Mein Kampf,'' and we did not translate the book until 1940. The
Russian politician, Zhirinovsky, has also written a book, and we have
not yet translated it.
What is taking place in Russia today is unbelievable. A vote for the
Frank amendment would signal to the Zhirinovskys of the world that they
can proceed with their plans to wreak havoc because the United States
won't be involved.
Last, I would say, go see the movie ``Schindler's List,'' which
depicts the horrors of the Holocaust of World World II. There is a
``Schindler's List'' taking place today in Bosnia and a vote for the
Frank amendment, I think, only allows this tragedy to continue. A vote
against it, I think, would be in the best interest of the United States
and freedom around the world.
I strongly urge Members to vote down this amendment. It would not be
good for our Nation's defense nor good for world peace.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to announce that the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 6 minutes remaining, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] has 5 minutes remaining, and the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I strongly support the Frank amendment
because I think military spending should be subject to the same rules
as other parts of the budget. I have voted for every major spending
discipline proposal offered in this Congress, including the Penny-
Kasich amendment and the line-item veto. I voted for these proposals
because I believe that we must get spending under control and set
priorities. I would suggest that if those who voted with me on those
proposals want to make an exception for defense, they will have no
credibility when arguing against exceptions for urban aid, disasters,
unemployment insurance, or any other program someone with different
priorities labels ``vital.''
The national defense must always be a priority, but it should have to
live under the same constraints as other priorities. We're being asked
to accept cuts in mass transit, low-income energy assistance, and a
wide range of programs that help the poor. Then we're supposed to turn
around and vote to add to the deficit so the military can have more
money for operating costs. Of course the military feels it needs more
money. So does every other department. Everyone is going to have to
tighten their belts, and the military is no different.
Today's debate is disturbingly similar to the debate we had over last
year's supplemental spending bill. We were told that the Pentagon
needed to cover unexpected defense costs incurred for operations in
Somalia and Iraq. I cannot understand why the Pentagon is unable to pay
for these programs out of existing operations and maintenance accounts,
especially since some of these operations have been going on for 3
years. The deployment of U.S. forces for combat and peacekeeping
operations should reduce the need for normal peacetime training
exercises. Forces rotated into the Middle East or Africa do not need
the training time required in peacetime, because they are getting the
flying hours and days underway normally accumulated during training in
real world operations. Experience in live combat and peacekeeping
operations should raise readiness, not lower it. These operations are
worthwhile, but we cannot circumvent the budget process every time the
Department of Defense decides it wants more money.
{time} 1420
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman
for yielding to me. I would say to my esteemed colleague, the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], as he knows, I have the utmost respect
for him, but I think the allusion to ``Schindler's List'' was, while
seeming to many like a stretch, very pertinent and valid in that there
is an ongoing genocide going on in Bosnia. The gentleman may or may not
agree with that, and he probably does.
Our only participation so far is in the humanitarian airlift and
support requirements. President Clinton, when he stood here the other
night with his few comments about foreign policy, alluded proudly to
the most extensive ongoing humanitarian airlift in history. Probably 10
to 20 percent of the basic rations in Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and
elsewhere, are getting through. We must continue to be involved at
least as much as we are.
As to my good friend, the gentleman from California, Dan Hamburg, one
of the best talents in the new class, a man I am in awe of, and I
support the California money, for him to say this is a DOD Christmas
tree I think is a problem, when I would note that it was not much of a
Christmas in Bosnia, and the winter goes on.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds
to respond to the gentleman from Indiana.
Madam Chairman, the gentleman is completely wrong for one reason.
Nothing in this amendment would interfere one iota with our ability to
carry on our activity in Bosnia. This is not an amendment that requires
us to stop what we are doing in Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, or Iraq. When
the budget was passed, we were doing these things.
What this says is that the Department of Defense does not get extra
money. This is less than one-tenth of 1 percent. According to them,
they wanted $276 million for Bosnia. This is simply not about Bosnia,
it is about the Department of Defense living within its budget.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. It is about Bosnia. I refer to the gentleman on that.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It will not stop them from doing what
they are doing with Bosnia.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Let me restate one thing, Madam Chairman. I do not believe we should
cut the Department of Defense any further. We have cut it too far
already. I believe we should keep a strong national defense, but this
is the vehicle for this.
In addition to that, they are putting all of these issues, all of
these countries, and all of these problems in one big bag, and saying,
``Take it or leave it.'' Some of these things I agree with. Some of
these expenditures I agree with. Others I think are totally unnecessary
and a waste of taxpayers' money.
That is why it should come down here in a separate appropriations
bill, in a separate vehicle, so we could debate these things
independently and cut out the waste. If we did it that way, we would
save the taxpayers money and still deal with most of these problems.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
so-called Frank amendment to delete $1.2 billion in deficit spending
for the Pentagon. Once again, Congress seems intent on fueling our
constituents' anger over totally unnecessary deficit spending.
The underlying bill was designed to provide vital relief to the
victims of the tragic earthquake which struck California, but this bill
was not designed to fund military operations which have been going on
for up to 3 years. To include this spending makes a mockery of the word
``emergency'', and demeans the suffering of the quake victims.
The Pentagon has $265 billion a year to spend. It is about time they
learned to budget for ongoing operations.
If the Pentagon really needs another $1.2 billion for its budget, at
least we should follow normal procedure and properly consider it in the
appropriations process this year. We should not sneak it through as an
emergency supplemental.
The American people support true compassionate emergency aid for the
victims of disaster in California, but they will not and should not
support this kind of hidden defense spending. I urge adoption of the
so-called Frank amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I am pleased to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chairman, I rise in mixed emotions, because the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. McCloskey] I think have good points. I do not think it should be
funded in this way. However, if we do not fund it, I feel that the
military did not ask to go to Somalia. It did not ask to go to Haiti,
but it has expenses. Historically, those expenses are passed on to DOD.
We took a $50 billion cut in the 102d Congress, with an additional
$127 billion in this administration. The President says no more cuts. I
am in three different committees, and in every committee they are still
trying to cut defense. Those cuts are putting us below a hollow force.
I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] that it
should not be funded in this way. However, if we do not, the military,
I know this House, will not get it in the future, and the military will
take the heat.
(Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McDADE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and my good friend, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton]. The funds that are in this supplemental are
needed right now, because, as we speak, the operations in Somalia,
Yugoslavia, and Iraq have forced the military services to divert
hundreds of millions of dollars from other accounts, those very
accounts which support the readiness and the quality of life of our
young men and women in the field: money for flying hours, money for
training hours, money for steaming hours, all being tapped and drawn
down to support the operations that the President has put us into in
other lands.
Let me just give one example. The Army in Europe, as we speak, is
short $300 million in operating accounts, which without relief means
training cutbacks of 25 percent. What does that mean to our young men
and women who are in harm's way? In means, first of all, threats to
their lives and their limbs. Helicopters crash, airplanes crash, when
they do not have flying proficiency. Their ability to respond to any
kind of an emergency is eroded and destroyed.
The U.S. Air Force is $600 million short, which, if left unaddressed,
is going to mean cuts in flying hours and training exercises.
Likewise, as has been alluded to by my dear friends, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], chairman of our subcommittee, and the
gentleman from the Pacific Northwest [Mr. Dicks], all the services are
deferring needed maintenance on both equipment and on property.
The bottom line is that all of these operations have so far been run
by the Department out of its own hide, at the same time that the
administration is pulling down the necessary funding and manpower,
which we have seen shrink in dramatic proportions in a very short
period of time.
I want to remind my colleagues that we are about $30 billion in
expenditures for the security of this Nation less than we were just 2
years ago, $30 billion less, and the same for the force structure. It
is down 25 percent from where it was during Desert Storm.
We all know that the administration plans to increase these cuts and
keep them going at levels that many of us believe to be wholly
inadequate to funding a security system through our Department of
Defense that will meet the security of our Nation, while at the same
time preserving the fabric of our armed services.
Let us remember this. We just saw the new nominee for Secretary of
Defense testify at his confirmation hearings. His estimate was that
they are $20 billion short from meeting the bottom-up review
requirements over the next 5 years. My own estimate of that number,
shared by many others in the Chamber, as I look around me, is that the
figure is at least $33 billion and probably higher. We are, under the
best of circumstances, heading for a train wreck in the Department of
Defense.
Madam Chairman, I think we all understand that. But if we want to
take a sure path to disaster, then what we do is lay on additional
missions for the military and make them pay for it out of what was
budgeted for their normal operational activity, for exercises and
training, in training and flying and steaming, and then refuse to
replenish those accounts. If you want to return to a hollow force, then
that's the recipe.
I submit to my colleagues that a vote for this amendment is a vote
for a hollow Army, a hollow Navy, a hollow military. I hope it will be
defeated.
{time} 1430
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
time.
Madam Chairman, I find myself in a very difficult position because I
support most of what has been said by the opponents of this amendment.
I believe we have cut defense too far. I believe we need to make sure
we have adequate military preparedness. But once again, this is not the
vehicle for that.
In addition to that, if the President wants additional money for
these operations around the world, all he has to do is to ask us and
send up a supplemental appropriation. I am sure it would get to the
floor in a short period of time and we would be able to debate each and
every one of these operations. As I said before, some of the operations
I think are absolutely essential, and we should be funding them. Others
I think are a waste of taxpayers' money. But when we lump them all
together, we take it or leave it, and as a result we waste money. I
submit, bring another bill back here that splits it out so that we can
look at each one of these operations and cut out the waste. If we do
that I will support most of it.
Support the Burton-Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Chairman, when I left California and my city of
Los Angeles, as one of the representatives of Los Angeles I came here
to try and get emergency relief and aid to all of the people who needed
assistance as a result of this particular earthquake. I came here
prepared to vote today for a package that would do exactly that, help
the people in need.
We also added a chance to help some of the folks that were damaged
and were hurt as a result of the floods, and there is some money in
there for people who are still hurting from Hugo.
But now we find we are being asked to provide welfare for the biggest
queen in this Nation, $1.2 billion for a military defense budget that
does not need it. And I must tell Members it makes it difficult for
someone from Los Angeles to say that there is a very good chance that
this Member will not be able to support emergency relief aid for all of
the people who need it because we are bloating a package, we are
bloating a package here with things that are unnecessary. And I must
tell Members that when we talk about depriving individuals in Los
Angeles of aid that is needed as result of an emergency, individuals
that many people may not consider fully entitled to such aid, I think
we can do nothing more than say that if some people who are humanly
affected by this particular earthquake, if they cannot get the aid,
then how can we support $1.2 billion going to the military defense
budget which is already overbloated?
So I would tell my colleagues to please think very carefully about
the bill, but please support the Burton-Frank amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, first I want to reiterate that this has nothing to do
with ending operations in Bosnia. The administration's letter does not
say that. It says we will continue Bosnia, but we would then not be
able to do other things. The only person who said anything derogatory
about the operation in Bosnia today was my friend from Pennsylvania who
said he thought it was a mistake to get too involved. Nothing in this
amendment is going to cut out any involvement.
I apologize, but the gentleman says he said only Somalia. I thought
he said Bosnia as well. But we can check it later. But no one here is
trying to interfere with the operation in Bosnia.
As a matter of fact, every one of these operations, Bosnia, Iraq,
Somalia, and Haiti was going on when we voted the defense budget. There
is nothing here that is an emergency in the sense that it came up after
the fact. When we voted the defense budget, these things were before
us.
The gentleman from Washington said do not cut. This is not a cut.
This is an effort to prevent an add-on. Nothing before the Congress
today cuts the defense budget. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
seeking to add to the budget that we adopted.
Then we have the procedural question. Members have said, and I
respect the integrity of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham], who was very open about it, he does not like the procedure
but he thinks defense needs more money. He is right. He thought they
did last time, he simply did not like the budget process.
But Members who vote against this amendment will have a hard time in
the future saying we do not like this situation where we use one bill
as leverage for another, we do not like these add-ons, because we have
an unanticipated earthquake in California and it is being used as a
vehicle to raise the defense budget for operations which were ongoing
the last time we voted for the defense budget.
And then we get to the question of where we are with discipline. We
have begun to see a reduction in the deficit. Now do we send the signal
that OK, the heat is off and any department that has felt that the caps
that we imposed were too rigid is now entitled on a supplemental here,
or there, we all know the niches, maybe a continuing resolution, get
whatever piece of legislation that is necessary, and if we start this,
Members can imagine what they will do on the other side. So what they
are saying is nobody will any longer be considered bound by the budget.
We have a budget that we adopted. It left every department dissatisfied
and insufficiently funded in many respects. Now for no new purpose, but
for purposes all of which were ongoing at the time of the budget, we
are being told let us use this appropriation, let us use the need for
earthquake relief as a chance to reopen the budget.
We will be dealing with the President's budget soon, and many will be
asked in HUD, in HHS, in Labor, and in Transportation and the
Environment to take some severe restrictions. We set a very bad example
if we say just before we begin considering the President's budget that
oh, that is not such a problem. We can get around those things.
If the Defense Department gets $1.2 billion simply for issues that
had previously been before us when we did the budget, then we are
inviting every other department to do the same thing. I hope we will
show that we are staying on the track of budget restraint and
legitimate procedure and vote for the amendment that is supported by
the National Taxpayers Union and other groups, and myself, and the
gentleman from Indiana.
The Chairman. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 260, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 8]
AYES--158
Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Archer
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bonilla
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Cantwell
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Conyers
Coppersmith
Cox
Coyne
Crapo
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (CA)
Ehlers
English
Evans
Ewing
Fawell
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Green
Hamburg
Hancock
Herger
Hoekstra
Hoke
Huffington
Inglis
Inslee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kennedy
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klug
Kreidler
LaRocco
Lazio
Leach
Maloney
Mann
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Mica
Minge
Mink
Morella
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Ridge
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Sanders
Santorum
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Smith (MI)
Snowe
Stenholm
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Synar
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (WY)
Towns
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Washington
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--260
Ackerman
Andrews (NJ)
Applegate
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barlow
Bartlett
Bateman
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Carr
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Condit
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Cunningham
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
DeLauro
Derrick
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (TX)
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Everett
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Fish
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frost
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodling
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inhofe
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Manton
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meek
Meyers
Michel
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Natcher
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pickle
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Rahall
Ravenel
Reed
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Scott
Sharp
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stokes
Stump
Sundquist
Swift
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Weldon
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--20
Andrews (TX)
Bentley
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Crane
Hastings
Hilliard
Lehman
Lewis (FL)
Markey
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Murphy
Pomeroy
Reynolds
Shepherd
Smith (OR)
Stark
Underwood (GU)
Whitten
(1504)
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon
against.
Mr. BLUTE, and Mr. HAYES, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. STRICKLAND, KIM, PALLONE, ROHRABACHER, TOWNS, OLVER,
GOODLATTE and INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Studds) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Kennelly, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3759)
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________