[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 39 (Thursday, March 22, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1075-H1086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          TORNADO SHELTERS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 93 and rule 
XVIII, 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. 247.

                              {time}  1224


                     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. 247) to amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
to authorize communities to use community development block grant funds 
for construction of tornado-safe shelters in manufactured home parks, 
with Mr. Miller of Florida 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.

[[Page H1076]]

  Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the subcommittee, I appreciate this 
opportunity to express my support for H.R. 247, the Tornado Shelters 
Act. It was introduced by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), our 
colleague.
  This legislation would permit the use of Community Development Block 
Grant funds to construct or enhance tornado shelters in manufactured 
housing communities or for the residents of manufactured housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I will shortly turn the floor over to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), our colleague, so that he may manage the 
bill, but, before I do, I want to make a few points.
  I do not hail from an area of the country that frequently suffers 
outbreaks of tornados. While we have regular bouts of severe weather, 
especially during the summer months, we are far from ``tornado alley'', 
but we certainly appreciate and understand that this is a national 
problem.
  As many of my colleagues know, however, the tornado season just 
started last week and will continue through June for many parts of the 
country.
  I want to stress this, Mr. Chairman, this is truly a matter of life 
or death. We have heard over and over again some of the statistics 
about the numbers of people who have died year after year in tornados. 
In fact, already this year 10 people have died from tornados, and last 
year there were over 40 fatalities.
  So we will continue going on, and I am sure the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and others will document the need, but I want to 
point out that these are killer storms and repeat this issue is a 
matter of life or death.
  As the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) says, in the face of the 
tornado threat, we can do two things. I like the way he said this. We 
can pray and prepare. Pray that it will not happen again, and prepare 
for the next line of twisters.
  That is why we are here today. We are expediting the process of 
responsible congressional action. While the citizens can pray, our 
responsibility as their governmental officials must be to help all 
prepare.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there are different questions of 
interpretation on whether the legislation is needed or not. Frankly, I 
do not understand why there are different interpretations. It seems to 
me that the common-sense legislation will explicitly clear any 
ambiguity in the law and permit the use of these funds to allow 
communities to build and/or improve tornado shelters.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and thank the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the subcommittee, I appreciate the 
opportunity to support H.R. 247--the ``Tornado Shelters Act,'' 
introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus.
  The legislation would permit the use of CDBG (Community Development 
Block Grant) funds to construct or enhance tornado shelters in 
manufactured housing communities or for residents of manufactured 
housing.
  I will shortly turn over the floor to my colleague from Alabama, so 
that he may manage this bill, but before I do that, I wanted to make a 
few points.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not hail from an area of the country that 
frequently suffers outbreaks of tornadoes. While we do have regular 
bouts of severe weather--especially in the summer months--we are far 
from ``Tornado Alley.''
  As many of you may know, however, the tornado season started last 
week and will continue through June.
  This is truly a matter of life or death.
  In this calendar year 2001, already 10 people have died from 
tornadoes.
  In 2000, there were slightly less than 898 tornadoes resulting in 40 
fatalities.
  In 1999, there were over 1,300 reported tornadoes resulting in 94 
fatalities.
  In Camilla, Georgia last year, for example, 12 people died and more 
than 125 manufactured homes were destroyed after a series of pre-season 
tornadoes covered a 10-mile path.
  I am struck by the words of my colleague from Alabama, the site of 
far too many of these killer storms. Mr. Bachus says that in the face 
of the tornado threat we can do two things--pray and prepare. Pray it 
won't happen again, and prepare for the next line of twisters.
  That's why we are here today--expediting the process of responsible 
congressional action. While the citizens can pray, their government 
must help all to prepare. I understand that there are different 
questions of interpretation on whether this legislation is needed or 
not. This common-sense legislation will explicitly clarify and permit 
the use of these funds to allow communities to build or improve tornado 
shelters in manufactured housing communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Bachus) be permitted to control the remainder of the time on this 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the remaining time allocated to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) will be controlled by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial 
Services, for the first time in the consideration of this bill.
  Since there has been no committee deliberations, this is the first 
opportunity the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Financial Services, gets to deliberate on 
the bill.
  Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Housing 
and Community Opportunity. The intent of the bill is quite laudable, to 
make it easier to use CDBG, that is Community Development Block Grant, 
funds to build tornado and storm shelters for the benefit of 
manufactured housing residents.

                              {time}  1230

  With a few perfecting amendments that we will be offering, the final 
bill may well become one that the Democrats can support.
  However, I rise now to talk primarily about what we should be 
discussing today, and that is the severe housing and community 
development cuts proposed under President Bush's budget.
  Since this bill deals with the CDBG program, we ought to be debating 
the fact that this administration's budget cuts $422 million from it 
compared to last year's CDBG bill. It is astounding that, at a time 
when the administration on a daily basis warns us that we may be 
heading into a recession, that they can propose to cut almost a half 
billion dollars in economic development funds.
  It is astounding that, while it touts tax breaks tilted toward 
higher-income Americans, the administration wants to cut CDBG funding, 
which is targeted to families and communities which have participated 
the least in our economic recovery.
  In justifying these cuts, the administration touts the fact that it 
is funding the formula grants at the same level as fiscal 2001 funding. 
The problem with that is that this level is insufficient. In fact, that 
level is $132 million lower than the level that was funded 7 years ago, 
which happened to be the last time Democrats controlled the Congress. 
When one factors in inflation, this amounts to an 18 percent real cut 
in community development monies in real terms under the Republican 
control of the Congress.
  Now, of course the CDBG program is not the only part of the HUD 
budget which is, unfortunately, suffering severe cuts under this 
administration's budget. When one factors out the phantom increases in 
section 8 budget authority, that is the renewal of contracts, the 
renewal of contracts keeps things at a steady level; but whenever it is 
renewed, this administration calls the renewal an increase, even though 
it is the exact same dollar amount as the previous year and the year 
before that. So it is a phantom in increase.
  When one factors that out, one finds that the administration budget 
actually cuts housing and community development programs by $1.3 
billion compared to last year's approved level. When one factors in 
inflation, we find that the HUD budget blueprint cuts housing programs 
by some $2.2 billion, an 8 percent real spending decrease compared to 
last year.

[[Page H1077]]

  But we are not talking about that today, because the Republicans do 
not want to. We are talking about something else, without hearings, 
without deliberation.
  The cuts that I have talked about are confirmed by the specifics in 
their budget. The $422 million cut already cited in CDBG, an $859 
million cut for public housing, a $200 million cut in the HOME 
affordable housing formula grant, elimination of the rural housing 
program, a $460 million reduction in section 8 reserves, from 2 months 
to 1, which will result in lowering utilization rates by low-income 
families of section 8 assistance, and higher FHA loan fees for home 
rehab and condo loans and for multifamily housing.
  At a time when this administration is projecting budget surpluses, 
record budget surpluses, we should be reinvesting some of our budget 
surpluses in affordable housing. We should not be cutting funding.
  At a time when Republicans in Congress are about to pass a $2 
trillion tax cut predominantly tilted to our Nation's most affluent, we 
should not ignore the needs of our Nation's homeless as the Bush 
administration's budget blueprint does.
  At a time when we have just begun to make progress over the last few 
years and assisting those of our Nation's families with worst-case 
housing needs, and there are over 5 million such families, this 
administration proposes to cut in half the number of annual incremental 
section 8 vouchers that we have funded over the last few years.
  Should we be considering the bill before us today? After committee 
deliberation, of course. But we have not had that committee 
deliberation. But much more importantly, we ought to be considering 
this Congress' responsibility to those who need shelter; clothe the 
naked and make sure you find shelter for the homeless. We are 
defaulting on that moral, legal responsibility.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
working so hard to bring this legislation to the floor.
  Where I live in southwest Missouri, this is the beginning of the 
tornado season. We have, if you live in one, you know you live in it, a 
thing called a tornado alley which, for whatever reason, year after 
year seems to be the same path that kind of attracts the destruction, 
the disruption, the loss of property and, unfortunately, sometimes the 
loss of life that families have to suffer.
  This is a great addition to the Community Development Block Grant 
program. It is a way that people who live in manufactured housing can 
have the same kind of access to funds that people that live in site-
based housing or in low-income apartments can have right now.
  It is such a good idea that it is amazing we have not done it before. 
I was reading an article in the Kansas City Star this morning; and my 
good friend, Sam Graves from northwest Missouri said, ``Every once in a 
while something is brought to our attention that makes all the sense in 
the world, and you wonder why it has never been done before.''
  Well, we need to get this done. It is a great idea. Obviously, we are 
not going to hear many objections to this bill and objections to when 
we do it. Maybe we ought to go back to the Sam Graves' principle. The 
real question is not why the bill is on the floor today. The real 
question is, why has the bill not been on the floor before? Why have we 
not done it before? Why have we not provided this kind of protection to 
people that live in manufactured housing?
  Really, there are two most dangerous places in the tornado: in one's 
house or trying to get away from one's house in a car. This provides a 
place to go and access to the funds to help provide more safety for 
people who live in these kinds of housing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill today. I look forward to 
its passage.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
and my friend for this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the process by which the 
Tornado Shelters Act has come before us today.
  While I do have some concerns about the underlying legislation, my 
strongest concerns lie in the nature by which this legislation has made 
its way to the floor. It received no consideration in either the 
appropriate subcommittee or through the full committee of jurisdiction. 
It seems to have appeared on the floor, in my opinion, if only as a 
space filler to keep Members here in D.C.
  The committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Financial Services, 
of which I am a member, in a bipartisan manner should have had the 
opportunity to fully review this bill before bringing it to the floor.
  This legislation, from the short notice that I have had to look at 
it, would take important funding from the Community Development Block 
Grant program, a program, to my understanding, that the President wants 
to slash by more than $400 million this year, and could provide funding 
to private enterprises or to enterprises that do not meet the income 
thresholds of the CDBG funding.
  Tornado prevention is a good thing. But should Congress be providing 
funding to private groups, to groups who may not meet the regular 
criteria for CDBG funding? I do not think they should be.
  I do not have an informed answer as of yet, and I have not had the 
time to fully vet this legislation, again, because the committee 
process was waived, as was the possibility of any review by the 
Democratic members of the Committee on Financial Services.
  I have a good relationship with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Oxley), and I understand that there was no evidence that he or the 
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Bachus), the author of this bill, was 
party to bringing this measure to the floor under these dubious 
circumstances.
  But because of those circumstances, this bill should be pulled from 
full consideration and brought back for hearings and mark-up in the 
committee of jurisdiction. This could be a good bill, but this House 
has not yet had the chance to review it properly.
  While we have a President who plans to slash CDBG funds as well as 
cut section 8 vouchers for low- and moderate-income Americans and 
eliminate the Drug Elimination Program which fights the scourge of 
drugs in our Nation's public housing, this body needs to have the 
chance to fully vet this bill, to ensure it is in the best interest of 
all Americans.
  I hope my friends on the Republican side of the aisle will understand 
the discomfort of the minority at this legislation coming to the floor, 
and hope that we can work together to have a chance to review this bill 
in committee.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CROWLEY. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, the rules of the House do not permit us to 
address people who are not present on the floor, so I would just take 
this opportunity to express my best wishes to the absent chairman of 
the full committee. It is not usual for a committee, in my experience, 
to consider a bill in the complete absence of the chairman of the full 
committee. I hope all is well with him.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I get to the merits of this legislation, I want 
to commend the Members who have spoken on the other side and who said 
we are not addressing the merits of this legislation. We are addressing 
the bill. But they have unknowingly let two rabbits out, and I am going 
to chase those rabbits for a minute.
  The first rabbit is this rabbit of immaculate conception; that this 
bill was just beamed down to us from outer space, or that there was an 
immaculate conception, and sometime last week this bill took a form.
  Mr. Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. This 
legislation was introduced in January and referred to the Committee on 
Financial Services and referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity. I requested a hearing on it. But that 
subcommittee has got important work on some complex issues and is 
having hearings. I do not set the agenda for the hearings before that 
committee. I know that one is not scheduled.
  I really had no objection to the bill coming up now or, as I told the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

[[Page H1078]]

Frank), 2 weeks from today would have suited me fine. I told him that. 
I will say this, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking 
member of the full committee, said, even if we get this bill out today, 
it will be September before the Senate takes the bill up. If that is 
the case, although I did tell the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) I have no objection to it being 2 weeks from today, and I 
appreciate his kindness, we have always worked well together, but I 
will tell my colleagues this, if it gets over to the Senate in 
September, the local communities are not even going to have a shot at 
building some of these shelters for the next tornado season. I do not, 
quite frankly, want to get this bill over to the Senate late. I hope 
they take it up before September.
  Now, another rabbit that has been loosed on this body is that there 
has been a cut in Community Development Block Grant funding. The 
overall funding, and only in Washington a $300 million increase is 
considered a cut. It went from $4.8 billion to $5.1 billion.
  Now that, hopefully, we have chased those rabbits out, I would like 
to turn to the merits of the bill. People have said why? Why this bill? 
Is this bill an attempt to divert money from other needed programs that 
communities spend the money on? No.

                              {time}  1245

  I am going to change mikes, and I am going to tell my colleagues what 
this bill is about.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about this little girl. She was a mobile 
home resident in my district. She was 6 years old when a tornado struck 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama. She survived. She was found some time later, in 
fact so much later that an Associated Press photographer was able to 
get his camera out and take this picture, so she laid on the ground for 
several hours. Her 16-month-old baby brother was not so fortunate. He 
died. Her mother survived and she will raise Whitney and her little 
sister, both of whom stayed in the hospital several days, but they will 
not have the help of Whitney's father who was also killed in this 
tornado.
  This is what remains of their house. Today and until this legislation 
passes, this little girl and her mother or those in the small mobile 
home park, and I will call it a park, there are five mobile homes 
there, they will not have any access to community development block 
grant funds.
  Now if she lived in a rental unit, if she lived in public housing, if 
she lived in a site-built home, she would qualify. But she has been 
discriminated against because she lives in a manufactured home. But as 
we sadly found out when this tornado struck Tuscaloosa, Alabama and 
seriously injured 75 of the citizens that the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Hilliard) and I represent, and the gentleman from Alabama is a 
cosponsor of this legislation, a Democrat, it has bipartisan support, 
Tuscaloosa County wanted to look at the option of using Community 
Development Block Grant money to build shelters. They were told that 
they didn't qualify. Subsequent to that, we have been told that on 
three occasions by the HUD project manager that recommends this and I 
will read what he says. He says that we need clarifying language, it is 
not clear, and they have not allowed this to be eligible.
  One reason is these mobile home parks are built on private land. 
Someone said that, look, they are going to be able to build these 
things on private land. Well, this little girl lived on private land. 
She cannot help that. The county is not going to go out there and 
purchase a 25-by-25 square foot piece of property and locate a shelter. 
It is total madness that we as a government will allow someone in a 
permanent site-built home with a basement and an interior hall, that we 
will allow them money to build a safe room in that home yet, we will 
not allow this family to take advantage of that same fund to hide 
underground when these powerful tornadoes come.
  Let me tell my colleagues, a lot of our citizens, they choose mobile 
homes. They choose manufactured homes. A lot of our senior citizens 
choose them. When we talk about mobile home parks or manufactured 
homes, we are talking about young families, with children, struggling 
to get along. In many cases we are talking about senior citizens and 
handicapped and disabled people, but they are good citizens and they 
deserve better.
  I hope that they will not have to wait past this year for some 
equality out of this body. Now, I do not know why the regulations are 
the way that they are. I do not know why the bureaucrats, whether they 
have made a tangle of that. I do not know why, but I know that it is 
something that we need to address and it is something that we need to 
address today, and we need to do it overwhelmingly.
  Mr. Chairman, I have lost too many people in my district, 32 on April 
8, 1998; and then December 16, 2000, I lost 11. I had over 300 that 
received injuries bad enough to be hospitalized. Let me just say that 
those are bad injuries. I was hit by a tractor-trailer truck and broke 
my collarbone and have five fractured ribs and a fractured sternum as I 
stand up here before my colleagues, and I went to the hospital, but I 
did not stay overnight. I had 300 citizens that were hurt worse than 
that, and let me tell you, I have hurt the last month. So it is not 
just those who were killed, it is this little girl. She will live 
without a father, and she will live without a little brother.
  I do not know whether my colleagues' communities will choose to use 
these monies for this worthy cause or another. There are no mandates in 
this bill, there is just fairness for mobile home residents.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply say to the gentleman from Alabama, who began by saying that our 
complaints about the process were wrong because the bill had been 
introduced in January and referred to the committee, that the committee 
should then have had a hearing. The gentleman is a member of the 
committee. He should have asked for one. We could have had this out 
earlier. The Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity has had 
one hearing. I think we could have found the time.
  So the notion that because the bill was introduced in January, that 
that somehow justifies totally bypassing the process, seems to be 
wrong. And in fairness to the committee, it is not my impression the 
committee was pressed to have a hearing. Again, let us be clear. The 
only reason this bill is on the floor today is because it meets the 
needs of the majority's scheduling concerns so they could keep Members 
in town. It has nothing to do with anything else, and that is an 
improper way to go about things.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Meek), one of the great defenders of the true purposes of the Community 
Development Block Grant program.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have feelings for the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who introduced this bill. I 
represent some of the same kinds of constituents that he represents, 
and each of my colleagues has similar kinds of constituents. But that 
is not what this bill is all about.
  Number one, this bill is about the utilization of Community 
Development Block Grant funds to build shelters. That is what it is 
about. Now, each of us at some time in our life here in the Congress 
has a disaster or we have some problem that there is a sense of urgency 
about it. In my area it is a flood, or it may be a hurricane, but that 
does not mean that I can stretch outside the parameters of things that 
are already statutorily set to receive funds for those things when the 
funds were designed for people in similar straits.
  So I do feel compassion for the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) 
and the constituents he is trying to help. But it does not change the 
fact that each of us has some of these urgent things we need to get 
taken care of. I need to get floods taken care of, I need to get 
hurricane problems taken care of, and they are emergencies, but I 
cannot come and take it out of the CDBG funds in the way that this 
gentleman has described it.
  The gentleman wants to now allow private developers or private 
builders to build a shelter on private property. Remember this, they 
can buy the land, they can acquire it, they can buy it, and after that 
they can place it at the site of the manufactured homes.
  Now, I came from the State legislature. We had a lot of problems with

[[Page H1079]]

manufactured homes. There were certain guidelines that they could not 
reach and never would reach. But this bill is not about that. This bill 
is to say let us give them money to provide a shelter so that we can 
save some lives. I agree with that. What I do not agree with is why we 
are going to give Federal money to build shelters when that county 
could build them. If the county feels that is as much of an emergency 
as my good Republican colleague said, why could that county not use 
this as one of their priorities?
  We know we have people who are living in manufactured homes; that 
they need better protection; who are in an area where there will be 
tornadoes, there will be floods. Why do we not use our general revenue 
funds? Why should we come to the Federal Government when the entire 
Nation needs this for low- and moderate-income people to provide homes.
  In the face of that, the Republican administration has cut all of the 
funds for our Community Development Block Grant funds. What bothers me 
is that every time there is a need for funds, my Republican colleagues 
run to this little pile of funds and say, okay, we can take it from 
there. This year it is one thing, next week it will be another thing. 
We are constantly decimating those funds.
  I say to my colleagues that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is for a good cause. Had it gone to the committee, 
they could have pointed up some things. Number one, they should have 
said let us look for some more money, let us look for some more funds, 
let us not cut into funds that the President has already cut. We still 
have people who do not have houses, we still have homeless people, we 
still have poor people.
  My colleague would be surprised. I could bring a litany of things to 
him, and he would feel very, very sorry for some of the fates of some 
of these people who are dismally located in slums and decimated areas, 
with flood water, sewage water, everything running into it. Is that an 
emergency that I should say come here quickly pass this bill? No, I 
should not do that. It is not the thing to do, and I do not think we 
should pass this amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to recognize the cosponsors of this bill, and then I want to yield some 
time.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who has already spoken on 
the bill, he was a cosponsor. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Clement), I want to commend him for pushing this bill and the letters 
he has written supporting it. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), 
who lost two residents of manufactured housing in the last few weeks. 
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), by the 
way, told me that the highest recorded wind ever in the United States 
was recorded during a tornado in Oklahoma in the past year or 2. The 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), who submitted a statement 
for the Record, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley). And, 
finally, the colleague who has been with me since the start on this 
legislation, who has been as strong a supporter as anyone, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Alabama, and I 
will not take that much time, but I wanted to commend him over the 
issue that he is bringing to the floor today.
  It is hard to tell in Alabama where tornado alley is not. We have 
vulnerable citizens from north to south; all around us in the south and 
all around us in the country as well. I am not here to get myself 
involved in the procedural dispute here today, but I am here to say we 
need all the help that we can get for residents that live in 
manufactured housing and in the communities that consolidate that kind 
of housing as well.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) is a tough act to follow, my 
colleague from South Florida there, but she knows as well as I do that 
we have vulnerable citizens that live in these communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to engage my colleague from Alabama in a 
dialogue here.
  A number of our colleagues are confused about funding that is 
provided by this particular bill in this particular process. They are 
afraid that we cannot afford this or that it robs other valuable 
programs. This reflects on the CDBG program. Can the gentleman speak to 
the funding?
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. I appreciate the question. This fund has got $5.1 billion 
in it, and that money, a large amount of that money, goes to the States 
and to the local governments; to the communities. Cities and counties 
is what most people would identify with. And those cities and counties 
make the decision over how to spend those funds.
  I do not mandate that they spend a dime on this program. I simply 
make the available funding available for this category. It is already 
available for site-built homes, it is already available for rental 
property, it is already available for public housing. I simply expand 
it to manufactured housing.
  Mr. CLEMENT. There is, then, a process that would be available on the 
local level that would review the cost, who is going to own this 
particular shelter, and have a safety net with regard to money; but the 
money comes from preexisting funds that we have already appropriated?

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BACHUS. It is funds that we appropriate every year for the 
communities to spend as they see fit. We actually restrict them to 
certain categories. I want this to be a category that they can spend 
money on. They may choose not to.
  FEMA suggested that I put a restriction in here that it apply only in 
areas where an F-5 or F-4 tornado had hit. I felt like if it had not 
been an F-5 or F-4 tornado and the community was concerned about it and 
they wanted to spend it here as opposed to another program, they should 
be able to. The gentlewoman from Florida says we have got a lot of 
worthy programs there, but I submit to her that this is one of them. I 
submit to her that hurricane victims would qualify. These are storm 
shelters for high wind.
  Mr. CRAMER. I applaud the gentleman's efforts and certainly want to 
join with him early to make sure we protect the citizens that live in 
this kind of housing. It is time that we do it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Adding upon that, we can use this money to prevent beach 
erosion in New York State. I think we ought to be able to use it to 
stop deaths from tornadoes wherever they may strike.
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to read something that the Birmingham News said about this 
bill. I want to emphasize this. The gentleman from Alabama had asked me 
about this.
  This is what their editorial endorsing the bill says:

       All Bachus wants to do is give local governments the option 
     of applying for Federal community block grants to build 
     shelters in mobile home parks. There is no mandate and there 
     is no cost for mobile home buyers. Indeed, the measure could 
     make manufactured homes more attractive to those who wondered 
     about safety during storms. The fact is, when deadly storms 
     strike Alabama, people in mobile homes are likely to be 
     victims. A 1999 Birmingham News analysis showed that more 
     than 60 percent of the fatalities connected to the most 
     recently occurring tornadoes were mobile home residents.

  Maybe in the next 10 years that will not be the case. But they simply 
deserve the same protection we afford our other citizens. It is simply 
a matter of fairness.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  On February 24 of this year, a tornado devastated a 23-mile-long path 
through Mississippi and killed six people. Just last week we had 
another tornado that came through Tylertown, Mississippi, and killed 
one man who was driving along in his pickup truck.

[[Page H1080]]

 A tree fell on him. Thirty more people in my State were injured. One 
of these persons was a 10-year-old boy who was killed during his 
birthday sleepover party at a friend's house. By definition this was a 
small tornado, but, just like the large ones, it caused a lot of 
devastation. Mississippi has the horrible distinction of leading the 
country in average deaths due to tornadoes.
  Were all of these people adequately prepared? No. Unfortunately, the 
answer to this question is 40 percent of all tornado-related fatalities 
occur in manufactured housing. Only 10 percent of the victims are 
permanent home residents. Residents of mobile homes are not able to 
seek the common shelter that many of us take for granted because they 
have no basement.
  This bill creates no Federal mandate. It does not say ``you must 
build these shelters'', but it does provide communities the ability to 
seek funding not previously available to manufactured housing residents 
to construct these shelters. This is a vote that we should make with 
our hearts so that we may give the good people of this country the 
option to protect their children if and when tragedy may strike.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I always like to congratulate those who have seen the 
error of their ways, and the Republican Party is entitled to that on 
several counts in this bill.
  In the first place, the gentleman from Alabama approached me. We 
talked privately and publicly. He said that they have this terrible 
need in Alabama, and the local communities cannot afford to do it. The 
local communities, given the nature of some of the jurisdictions, do 
not have the financial ability to do it, and here is this important 
lifesaving goal.
  This is not a matter of interstate commerce. We are not talking about 
something that transcends State lines. We are talking about providing 
physical protection for residents of vulnerable structures in 
particular localities. It is a very local business. But because the 
local communities either do not want to or cannot easily raise the 
revenues, they come to whom? The Federal Government. This is a request 
that local communities be allowed to use Federal funds collected by 
Federal taxes for local purposes.
  I am all for it. I welcome my Republican colleagues to the 
recognition of the point that in this one country of ours we have an 
obligation to help.
  Some people used to believe in something they called States rights 
and States responsibilities. Some people used to argue against the 
Federal Government. Ronald Reagan, who was inaugurated the year I came 
to Congress, and those were not causally related, said, ``The Federal 
Government is not the answer to our problems. It is the problem.''
  Today we have a Republican recognition that the Federal Government 
must be part of the answer to a problem, that absent Federal revenues, 
local communities cannot make it on their own. I think that is a very 
wise evolution on the part of my conservative friends. I congratulate 
them for it.
  I will point out the gentlewoman from Florida knew this earlier. She 
did not have to be convinced.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. This appears to me, the issue here, and the 
gentleman can clarify this, is not that anyone is against using CDBG 
funds to build a shelter in and around a manufactured home. In my 
estimation, CDBG's money should not be used to buy private land, 
acquire private land by a private owner and build a shelter.
  Mr. FRANK. I would say to the gentlewoman it is not even acquiring 
the private land. What I understand in this bill, and this is the 
question I would have raised if we had had the possibility to do it 
during subcommittee and committee, the question would have been, the 
bill appears to say that public money, Federal money, given to the 
communities, can then by the communities in turn be given to a private 
owner to build a shelter on his or her private land which he or she 
would then own, with no provisions about recapturing anything. That 
does trouble me. That is what we would have addressed.
  We would be all in favor of building the shelters. The question is, 
should you provide the public money, the Federal money, to local 
private owners so they can own it? Should you do that without some 
further restriction?
  I want to get back to the other point about government. It 
illustrates a Republican dilemma. My Republican friends are against 
government in general. They are just in favor of everything government 
does. The government is a bad thing. The Federal Government is a bad 
thing. But Federal funds should go to local communities to build 
shelters.

  Now, I agree with that. The problem is they cannot continuously 
denounce the whole and inflate the parts. It does not work. But this is 
what we have. We have a Republican proposal now to expand the uses of 
Federal funds so that local communities in dealing with local problems 
can have more Federal money. I am all for that. But let us not think 
this only applies when you have a particular problem in your own area.
  There is another area where I want to talk about. I mentioned 
previously to our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, whose father, 
the gentleman from Texas, used to chair this committee back when we 
were allowed to refer to it as the Housing Committee in part. He was a 
great crusader to improve the safety of manufactured housing. Last 
year, we had a debate over improving the safety of manufactured 
housing. Frankly, years ago I thought some people were going to sue the 
distinguished gentleman from San Antonio, the former chairman of the 
Banking Committee, for defamation because he suggested that there was a 
particular danger with manufactured housing as it was then built with 
regard to storms, hurricanes and tornadoes.
  What do we have now? A recognition on the part of my Republican 
friends that manufactured housing is particularly vulnerable to 
tornadoes. Once again, we have known that, and many of us have been 
trying to fight it.
  Yes, the people who live in manufactured housing have been ill-
treated. These are generally people of limited income, though not 
entirely. Many of them are retired people trying to live prudently on a 
reasonable retirement income.
  They deserve much better treatment in a number of ways. They deserve 
better treatment here. They deserve better consumer protections. Many 
of them deserve at the State level better protection against owners who 
simply decide to throw them out and they have no protection. They 
deserve better treatment in getting mortgages, when in the past their 
homes were treated as if they were automobile loans rather than housing 
loans. There is a lot that should be done for them. That includes the 
shelters.
  But there is this issue, as the gentlewoman from Florida raised, does 
it make sense to just give this money to the private owner in a 
relatively unrestricted way? We will address some of that with 
amendments.
  There is one other issue where the Republicans, having learned 
something, deserve credit. I want to again give credit where credit is 
due. In 1993, then President Clinton proposed a countercyclical program 
to deal with what he believed then was a recession. It turns out the 
economy was doing better than he thought. But one of the things he 
proposed was an increase in spending through the Community Development 
Block Grant program. I urge Members and others to go back to the 
Congressional Record of those days and read the denunciation of the 
Community Development Block Grant program as a big slush fund, as pork-
barrel spending. The very aspects of that program which the gentleman 
from Alabama has hailed today were the basis for an attack on that 
program in 1993. The argument from the Republicans was, oh, this is 
terrible, these communities will just do all kinds of things with it, 
unsupervised.
  We now have a recognition of the value of the CDBG program. We have a 
recognition of the value of using Federal funds to do things that 
Thomas Jefferson might have thought were of local concern. The 
Republican Party has gone beyond Thomas Jefferson most of the time in 
terms of what the right function ought to be, but it is an incomplete 
lesson. They cannot continue to advocate increased Federal

[[Page H1081]]

funding for particular programs and then consistently cut Federal 
programs elsewhere.
  The gentleman from Alabama and his colleague, the other gentleman 
from Alabama, correctly pointed out local communities will have the 
choice. They will be able to build the tornado shelters. In many cases, 
that is a good choice. But at present they will be able to do that at 
the cost of doing something about housing or doing something about a 
playground in a low-income area or doing something about other things.
  Why do we force them to give up the one to do the other? If this is a 
new thing they ought to be doing more of, maybe we ought to be 
increasing the funding for it.
  In fact, Community Development Block Grants, unrestricted ones, have 
gone down. The gentleman referred to some increased overall amounts, 
but those increased overall amounts tended to be in terms of some very 
specific projects. Members differed about the value of those specific 
projects. But the specific projects were not available for local 
communities to deal with. As we add to the purposes, we are, I think, 
disserving ourselves if we do not also add to the money.

  I want to again just return to the procedural point. The gentleman 
from Alabama again noted this bill was introduced in January, he said, 
and, therefore, we on the minority side should not be upset that it 
came to the floor in March. We do not set the hearing schedule. We do 
not set the markup schedule. If it was introduced in January, all the 
more reason to have done something about it.
  By the way, it was introduced in January and substantially rewritten 
last week, probably after consultation with HUD. I think it is a good 
idea to consult with HUD. I think it is a good idea, having filed the 
bill, to talk to HUD about it, but should the committee not have 
something to say about it? This bill was, in fact, revised. That is a 
good thing. The bad thing is leaving the committee out of the revision 
process.
  We will address some of these things in amendments, yes. I think we 
should be providing tornado shelters for people in manufactured 
housing. We should be enhancing their safety. We should be enhancing 
their ability to get mortgages on their homes. We should be increasing 
the consumer protections they have at both the State and the Federal 
level. I am for all those things, and with a couple of changes I would 
enthusiastically support this bill, but I hope that the next time we 
have something like this, instead of introducing it in January and 
waiting 2\1/2\ months and then bringing it to the floor without any 
committee process, we show people that we do care about their concerns 
and we care about their concerns enough to do it in the right way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I believe that was an endorsement of this legislation.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. It is an endorsement of the legislation if the gentleman 
would address, and I have never objected to the legislation, if he 
addresses the issue that I have about giving public money through the 
communities to a private owner who then owns the structure and has 
unrestricted control of it. That is what concerns me.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say this: the 
gentleman from Massachusetts talked about the whole philosophy of 
government, and let me tell you what the people of Tuscaloosa County 
would really like. They would really like to not send their money to 
Washington. Federal taxes are at a peacetime high. They would like to 
keep that money and put it in local government, or they would like to 
keep it in their own pockets and make their own decisions. But over the 
last 40 years we have raised their taxes and the taxes of all our 
citizens so high that they now have to come to Washington and a lot of 
their needs have to be met here because we take so much of their money.
  They would rather not apply for community development block grants. 
They would rather their taxes be cut by that much, and just let them 
make the decisions at the city hall in Tuscaloosa or North Port, or the 
Tuscaloosa County Commission. But, unfortunately, all that money comes 
up here, so it is parceled back.
  Just to add insult to injury, not only do we take their money away 
from them; but then when we send it back, we tell them they cannot use 
it for what they wanted to use it for. Thus, this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, my grandfather told me one time, learn how to take yes 
for an answer. I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for the support of this bill. I think everything that the gentleman 
said, when you talk about allowing a community to have the opportunity 
to make a determination for what is best for their citizens, I think 
everyone in this Chamber would agree with it.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), because 
we do have a unique problem in Alabama. I had an opportunity with the 
Vice President a couple of years ago to go through Tuscaloosa County 
and also through Birmingham when an F-5 tornado came through. It was 
one of the most horrific things I have ever seen in my life.
  When you have a great deal of the population living in clusters where 
there is absolutely no protection now, for us to make a determination 
that a local government should not be able to use these grants as they 
see fit to protect their citizens I think is an abomination of the 
process.
  So I just want to congratulate the author of this bill, offer my 
support for it, and, again, congratulate and thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his continued support.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say I guess this is apparently a temporary bill, because the gentleman 
from Alabama, the author of the bill, said that we needed this because 
Federal taxes were too high, although the rates are not higher than 
they were 20 years ago when Ronald Reagan reduced them. We put them 
part of the way back up.
  But the Republican Party apparently is about to put taxes at what it 
thinks is the appropriate level. In fact, that is why we are doing this 
bill today. We are doing this bill today so they can corral enough 
Republicans to be here and stay in the Committee on Ways and Means and 
vote for another part of the tax cut. That is the reason it is on the 
floor today.
  So the gentleman from Alabama said you need CDBG because Federal 
taxes are too high. So I assume that once they get their tax cut 
through at the level they have decided, if they are able to do it, that 
we will then see the demise of CDBG, because once we have cut taxes 
back to what the Republican Party thinks is the appropriate level, we 
will not need the CDBG program.
  Many of us have long suspected that that was the plan. When we look 
at their approach to the Federal budget, it occurred to us that when 
you enact the level of tax reduction they are talking about, then many 
current Federal programs we will no longer be able to afford.
  So I think what the gentleman has given us is the philosophical 
rationale, first come the tax cuts, then will come the elimination of 
programs such as CDBG.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to wrap up by simply hitting two points. The 
first thing I wanted to make very clear, Mr. Chairman, is that H.R. 247 
creates no new Federal mandates on local governments or on private 
industry, nor does it authorize the expenditure of one dime of taxpayer 
money. It merely permits local communities entirely at their option to 
tap into available Federal funds to build storm-safe shelters for 
residents of manufactured housing. That is all it does. Those are 
existing funds. It gives them the right to use that for what they want 
it for. It is their money; they paid the taxes. I want to give them 
this option.

[[Page H1082]]

  I want to clarify something else, since I have been sponsoring this 
legislation. What have we done about tornadoes over the last 150 years? 
Interestingly enough, at one time we were an agrarian society; and 80 
years ago, 100 years ago, most of us worked outside, many of us in the 
field. An old-timer recently told me after the Tuscaloosa tornado that 
his grandfather could predict these things. He could tell they were 
coming; he could read the sky, read the signs; and he could tell you 
when a tornado was coming 30 minutes before, and they would all go down 
in that shelter.
  Well, we do not have that luxury today. We are inside, we are not 
outside in the field, we do not know how to read the weather, we do not 
know the signs like our grandfathers and great grandfathers did, but we 
have got something that they never dreamed of having. We have the 
technology of turning on our TV screen and seeing a street map with our 
street on that map and the television station telling us that in 30 
minutes a tornado will be hitting our community, and telling us within 
2 minutes of when it will arrive.
  The next time, next year, not this year, it is too late for this 
year, but next year, when the citizens that the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Riley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) and I represent turn on that 
radio or they turn on that TV and they hear that in 30 minutes a 
tornado will be in the New Bethel community, or the Rock Creek 
community, like the one that hit Rock Creek, that they will be able to 
go down in a shelter near their mobile home or near their manufactured 
home, and they will have a chance to survive this tornado. When they do 
that, when that money is spent by that county or that city, it will be 
the people's money, money they sent to Washington, and they ought to 
ultimately decide how it is spent.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the entire debate on 
this bill in some perspective. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) 
has introduced a very good-faith effort to deal with a real problem. At 
every single Congress, at the beginning of the Congress, especially 
when you have a new administration, you run into a difficulty. You want 
the committee to work; and unfortunately, there is not that much 
legislation that has gone through the committee process, so you try to 
create filler legislation on the floor.
  There is a difficulty, however. Very frequently the leadership will 
bring to the floor exclusively bills that have been principally 
sponsored by Members of their own party. They will not look at all the 
bills that have been principally sponsored by Members of the opposition 
party.
  Secondly, sometimes they go as far as totally bypassing every single 
procedure that is required by the rules of the House, that is, 
subcommittee hearing and markup, full committee hearing and markup, et 
cetera. Sometimes they bypass that in cooperation and consultation with 
the minority; sometimes they just bypass the minority and have no prior 
consultation and concurrence.
  That is what happened here. There was nothing. They needed filler, 
they went to a Republican chiefly sponsored bill and said we have to 
bring something to the floor, let us bring it up, and forget about the 
fact that there was no hearing, forget about the fact there was no 
markup, and forget about the fact that you did not discuss it with the 
Democrats; we will just bring it to the floor.
  That is what we objected to, not all that strenuously. We had one 
motion to adjourn, and that was it, just to make the point. We were 
willing to go on. It was the Republicans that then called for the vote 
on the rule. Why? Because they wanted to delay, because they have got 
committee meetings going on right now, the Committee on Ways and Means, 
for example; and they wanted more filler. So they were the ones that 
engaged in the dilatory tactics on that.
  With respect to this bill, this can be a very good bill, a bill we 
can support. I, for one though, have two, and, depending upon the 
disposition of those two, possibly three amendments. For example, a 
State or locality right now is required to use 70 percent of its CDBG 
funds for the support of activities that benefit persons of low and 
moderate income. That means that States and localities could use 30 
percent for affluents, if they wanted to. Under this bill, the monies 
could be used for a for-profit owner of a manufactured housing 
development for higher-income individuals, or even in resort 
properties.
  So I think we need to deal with that, and I have an amendment that I 
think should be accepted that deals with that, that says it should only 
be used in a neighborhood consisting predominantly of persons of low 
and moderate income.
  Secondly, who are we going to help? Is it just going to be the 
individuals who live within this complex? Is it going to be exclusively 
for them, even though it should be a shelter for the public?
  We could deal with that, and I have an amendment that would deal with 
that. It would say they may not be made available for use on an 
exclusive basis, but shall generally serve the residents of the local 
area.
  If those two amendments are accepted, I would be able to support the 
bill. If they are not, I have a third amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Alabama has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, it was asked, who is this bill 
for? This bill was described as ``filler.'' Well, let me again go back 
to who this bill is for.
  This is, as I said, Whitney, and her little brother, Wesley, Crowder. 
It is too late for Wesley. He is dead. But it is not too late for 
Whitney. I will tell you, I do not think the people that live in my 
district that live in mobile homes consider this legislation as filler. 
In fact, I think they would take offense to the characterization of 
this legislation as filler. To them, it is a matter of life or death.
  Now, there are questions raised about the bill. The bill was 
published in the Congressional Record on Monday. Several speakers have 
said they have not had a chance to read the bill. Well, here is the 
bill. It is one page long. They could read it in about 40 seconds.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tornado Shelters 
Act, H.R. 247, which makes a modest change in the use of existing 
federal block grant money that will help localities all across the 
Nation build tornado shelters in manufactured housing communities.
  Just last week, a tornado hit a small community in my district, 
Yulee, FL. Though the tornado was by all accounts a weak one, 
officially registering an F-0, it reminded all of us in northeast 
Florida just how vulnerable we are to these sort of natural disasters. 
This mild tornado shattered 91 double-paned classroom windows, pulled a 
portable classroom off its concrete block piers, and damaged roof vents 
and computers with rain and mud at the local elementary school. In 
addition, it tore a 12-by-12 foot section of roof from a local church.
  In a nearby county, where an F-1 tornado hit a few hours earlier, 
similar property damage was done to vehicles, buildings, and homes, 
including mobile homes.
  The people of Yulee were relatively fortunate--the damage was 
primarily to crops and property and no lives were lost. But, even that 
kind of damage can be devastating to the individuals affected. It takes 
a lot to rebuild your home and life after a disaster hits.
  This bill merely remedies a quirk in the law. Community Development 
Block Grant money can now be used to construct storm shelters in low-
to-moderate income housing communities and apartment buildings, but it 
cannot be used to build a shelter in a mobile home park. It makes no 
new appropriations and removes no current authority. It merely gives 
communities more flexibility in using existing funds.
  Thus, I rise in support of this commonsense legislation and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 is considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

[[Page H1083]]

                                H.R. 247

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tornado Shelters Act''.

     SEC. 2. CDBG ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

       Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (23) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(24) the construction or improvement of tornado- or 
     storm-safe shelters for manufactured housing parks and 
     residents of other manufactured housing, the acquisition of 
     real property for sites for such shelters, and the provision 
     of assistance (including loans and grants) to nonprofit or 
     for-profit entities (including owners of such parks) for such 
     construction, improvement, or acquisition; and''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank:
       In section 2, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Section 
     105(a)''.
       At the end of section 2, add the following new subsection:
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any 
     amounts otherwise made available for grants under title I of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5301 et seq.), there is authorized to be appropriated for 
     assistance only for activities pursuant to section 105(a)(24) 
     of such Act $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama reserves a point 
of order.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I had consulted with the Parliamentarian.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a general increase in the authorization. 
This is an authorization of $50 million specifically for the purposes 
authorized in the bill. It is a grant of money specific to the 
particular bill.
  The point is one we have already addressed. Many of us agree with the 
gentleman from Alabama that this is an important purpose. With the 
changes that the gentleman from New York talked about, we are very much 
in support of it. I agree and have worked long and hard to protect 
people who live in manufactured housing.

                              {time}  1330

  The problem is that absent this amendment and subsequent action, we 
would hope, by the Committee on Appropriations, communities will be 
faced with a choice. They can accommodate this particular authority to 
build the shelters only by reducing activities in which they are 
currently engaged. Indeed, this would set aside $50 million only for 
these activities so that this particular level of activity would be in 
some ways protected. It is a lifesaving activity. If we believe that 
there is a very broad activity, then it seems to me incumbent upon us 
to fund it fully and not put communities to the choice.
  It is one thing when we are creating a brand new program; it is 
another when we are funding an already existing program. With existing 
programs in many areas, there tend to be existing funding patterns. So 
that if a new purpose is now allowed to them to take advantage of this 
new purpose, they may face the need to defund some other purpose, 
because their money has tended to be committed. That is not true in 
every area, but I do think in ongoing programs we are aware that there 
is very often a set of expectations that people have, such as these 
groups have been funded, et cetera.
  I do not think we ought to say to the local communities, okay, you 
must, if you are going to take advantage of this, stop doing something 
you are now doing; I think instead we ought to say, here is additional 
money for that purpose, and that is what this amendment does. This 
amendment authorizes additional money for this important purpose. It 
would seem to me odd if we were to talk about how important this 
lifesaving function is and not be prepared to provide communities with 
the money to make sure that they were taking advantage of it without 
them having to make the kind of difficult choices that they would 
otherwise have to make.
  I say this in particular because what many of us have found is, and 
again, I admire the gentleman's desire to protect people in 
manufactured housing; not coming from an area where tornadoes have been 
a problem, this particular aspect had not been one that is foremost in 
my mind, but I think they deserve protection; but what we found is that 
in some areas, people who live in manufactured housing are not fully 
respected in the political process. They are sometimes seen as a small 
minority, sometimes are seen as isolated within the community, and the 
danger here is that if we simply submit this into the regular Community 
Development Block Grant process, in communities where there is an 
ongoing set of claimants, the chances that the people who live in 
manufactured housing will be able to get the full benefit of this may 
not be great.
  So the virtue of this amendment is that it makes sure that in those 
areas where there is vulnerable manufactured housing, there is a very 
high chance that the people will get the benefit of the program and 
they will not be put in a political conflict with other claimants in 
that community, and it addresses the issue raised by the gentlewoman 
from Florida who is not now with us and who has been a great champion 
of this; namely, making sure that as we increase the purposes for which 
CDBG is put, we do not dilute the pot. I would hope this is a case that 
will be a precedent that would say, as we add to the functions of CDBG, 
we should add to the money that is available to perform them.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I withdraw my point of order 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman withdraws his 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. USE OF AMERICAN PRODUCTS.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It 
     is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds 
     made available for the activities authorized under the 
     amendment made by this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available for the activities authorized under the 
     amendment made by this Act, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development, to the greatest extent practicable, shall 
     provide to such entity a notice describing the statement made 
     in subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the last quarter trade deficit was $119 
billion. Three months. That is about $40 billion a month.
  I agree wholeheartedly with the amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and with the debate that has come from both 
the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
LaFalce). I think this is a good bill, and we should consider their 
concerns.
  But one thing is for sure, and that is when we do have a disaster, I 
think everybody should try to at least purchase and price American 
goods and services before they purchase foreign-made goods. It is a 
very simple, straightforward amendment. I think the arguments that are 
being made from this side on this bill are noteworthy and should be 
taken into consideration.

[[Page H1084]]

  Mr. Chairman, I ask for approval of my amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. La Falce

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. LaFALCE:
       In the new paragraph (24) proposed to be inserted by 
     section 2(3) of the bill, insert before ``; and'' the 
     following: ``, except that a shelter assisted with amounts 
     made available pursuant to this paragraph shall be located in 
     a neighborhood consisting predominantly of persons of low and 
     moderate income''.

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment to the bill 
designed to conform it to the purpose of CDBG.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 247 allows for-profit entities to gain access to 
CDBG funds for the construction, improvement or acquisition of tornado 
or storm-safe shelters for manufactured housing. In general, one might 
assume that the residents of manufactured housing or of a manufactured 
housing park would be low- and moderate-income. However, that is not 
always the case, and H.R. 247 does not require this.
  Now, allowing for-profit entities to use CDBG funds is not without 
precedent, although it is certainly not the norm. For example, we do 
allow for-profits to use CDBG funds to carry out economic development 
activity. However, we condition such use on targeting language; that 
is, they are only eligible to use funds if the activity benefits low- 
and moderate-income persons.
  So my amendment would simply track this type of amendment for the new 
eligible use we would authorize by this bill simply requiring that the 
tornado or storm shelter be located in a neighborhood consisting 
predominantly of persons of low- and moderate-income.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge its acceptance and adoption.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. La Falce

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. LaFalce:
       In the new paragraph (24) proposed to be inserted by 
     section 2(3) of the bill, insert before ``; and'' the 
     following: ``, except that a shelter assisted with amounts 
     made available pursuant to this paragraph may not be made 
     available exclusively for use of the residents of a 
     particular manufactured housing park or of other manufactured 
     housing, but shall generally serve the residents of the area 
     in which it is located''.

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, this is a perfecting amendment to the bill 
designed to conform it to the purpose of CDBG.
  The primary bill, H.R. 247, allows for-profit entities to gain access 
to CDBG funds for the construction, improvement or acquisition of 
tornado or storm-safe shelters for manufactured housing. But, the way 
the bill is drafted, it would seem possible for the shelters to be used 
exclusively for the residents of the manufacturing housing development 
of the for-profit entity. It cannot and should not be the case that 
these for-profits can use these public funds just to serve their paying 
residents.
  The facilities should be, if built with public monies, available to 
the general public. On a practical level, I do not see how we can 
demand less. If there is a tornado, it is unimaginable that individuals 
who find themselves in the approximate vicinity of the onset of a huge 
storm and have nowhere else to go should be turned away and put at 
physical risk. Certainly we should not be using public funds to 
sanction such an action.
  So my amendment simply states that the shelters constructed under 
this bill may not be made available exclusively for the use of the 
residents of a particular manufactured housing park or of other 
manufactured housing, but shall generally serve the residents of the 
area in which it is located.
  I would assume this change is unobjectionable; I would assume this 
amendment would be supported. If this amendment is supported, as the 
last one, I will support the bill and allow the bill to pass by voice 
vote, so if there is any recorded vote, it would have to be the members 
of the majority who are asking for it, perhaps for purposes of whipping 
their members on some bill coming up next week, not because we are 
desirous of it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  As with the previous amendment, it is my understanding that only low-
income and moderate-income families would qualify under the existing 
law, but to clarify it further and to clarify with this amendment the 
additional wording, I welcome that as the intent of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396, 
noes 0, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               AYES--396

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo

[[Page H1085]]


     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Ackerman
     Armey
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Brown (FL)
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Diaz-Balart
     Fletcher
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (WA)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     Moakley
     Morella
     Payne
     Portman
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Scarborough
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Watts (OK)
     Wolf

                              {time}  1403

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote No. 60, on the Traficant amendment. Had I been here, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Are there any other 
amendments? If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore 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. 247) 
to amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to authorize 
communities to use community development block grant funds for 
construction of tornado-safe shelters in manufactured home parks, 
pursuant to House Resolution 93, he reported the bill back to the House 
with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8(c) of rule XX, the 
Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
on the question of the Speaker's approval of the Journal, which will 
occur immediately after this vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 401, 
noes 6, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 61]

                               AYES--401

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson

[[Page H1086]]


     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--6

     Collins
     Duncan
     Flake
     Paul
     Shadegg
     Stump

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Ackerman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Brown (FL)
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cunningham
     Diaz-Balart
     Fletcher
     Gordon
     Goss
     Hastings (WA)
     Hoeffel
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Lantos
     Moakley
     Portman
     Rothman
     Scarborough
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Toomey
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1420

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on rollcall vote 61, final 
passage for H.R. 247. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote No. 61, on passage of H.R. 247. Had I been here, I would 
have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________