[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.

                          ____________________