[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3281-H3291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2216, 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL 
                           APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 171, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 171

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, 
     for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. 
     The amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules may be offered only by a Member designated 
     in the report and only at the appropriate point in the 
     reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall not 
     be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendment 
     printed in part B of the report are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee on the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. During consideration of the bill, as amended, points of 
     order against amendments for failure to comply with clause 
     2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for 
H.R. 2216. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill. It provides for one hour of general debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule provides that an amendment printed in Part A of the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as 
adopted. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the 
bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, 
prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in a 
general appropriations bill.
  The rule provides that the bill will be considered for amendment by 
paragraph. The rule makes in order the amendment printed in part B of 
the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the 
reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject 
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in 
part B of the Committee on Rules report. The rule waives points of 
order during consideration of the bill against amendments for failure 
to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency 
designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill 
containing an emergency designation.
  The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is totally 
open. Members can offer all of the amendments that they want, as long 
as the amendments comply with the regular rules of this House.
  Meanwhile, the underlying bill provides vital relief to our Nation's 
Armed Forces and aid to areas that have been devastated by natural 
disasters; and, unfortunately, we had a lot of that last year.

[[Page H3282]]

  My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who is managing this 
rule for the minority, has always been a strong advocate for the 
military; and I am sure that he appreciates the defense items in this 
bill.
  Without help from Congress, our Nation may fall short on its promise 
to provide adequate health care for our men and women in uniform. So 
today, we will provide an additional $1.4 billion for Department of 
Defense health programs.
  At the same time, we are providing an additional $6.3 billion largely 
to help our military maintain its facilities and its top-notch training 
and equipment. We know we have had a problem with that in the last few 
years. Interestingly, we will also allocate a small amount of funds to 
make the U.S.S. Cole, which was bombed by terrorists in Yemen, 
seaworthy again.
  We are not only taking care of the emergency needs of our military, 
though. Several communities in the Midwest have been devastated by 
floods and tornadoes, so we are giving the Army Corps of Engineers $116 
million to mitigate the damages from these natural disasters.
  I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and to support the 
underlying bill. This legislation is a strong step forward, as we work 
to take care of our military personnel and take care of those who are 
hurting here at home.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to one of the most unfair, bizarre, 
and partisan rules reported by the Committee on Rules in a very long 
time. If the issues were not so serious, this rule would be laughable.
  Let us start with the unfair part. Repeatedly during the Presidential 
campaign last year, then-candidate President Bush told the American 
public, and especially every man and woman in uniform, ``help is on the 
way'' for our military. Many who serve in our armed services as well as 
many others concerned about our national defense believed what 
candidate Bush promised. Many other Republicans ran last fall making 
the same kind of promises. This rule proves those campaign promises 
were made with a wink.
  Last night on a straight party-line vote, the Committee on Rules 
refused to give our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the 
opportunity to offer an amendment that would increase supplemental 
funding for the Department of Defense by $2.7 billion. The gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is a strong advocate for our military but 
he is especially an advocate for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
Marines who serve their Nation and each and every one of us. The $2.7 
billion he included in his amendment is some but certainly not all that 
the Department of Defense desperately needs for readiness and quality 
of life issues.
  If we do not appropriate the funds the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) is seeking, our armed services will not have the resources 
they need for training for the rest of the year, nor will there be 
funds to move forward on improving housing or making other quality of 
life improvements for our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, every single Republican on the Committee on Rules voted 
against the President's promise that help is on the way. Every single 
Democrat on the committee voted in favor of the men and women who serve 
our Nation and to provide them with the help they need to ensure our 
national defense is second to none.
  Now let us examine the bizarre part of the rule. Everyone in this 
country knows what tropical storm Allison did in Houston, in parts of 
Texas and Louisiana and now in Pennsylvania. This storm has left a 
major disaster in its wake. What did the Keystone Cops on the other 
side of the aisle do on this bill and rule? First, the Committee on 
Appropriations cut the money for the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration just after this disaster hit the Gulf Coast and at the 
very beginning of the hurricane and tornado system. They cut the money 
for FEMA. The committee cut $389 million out of the money available for 
the rest of the fiscal year, money that had already been appropriated 
by this Congress just when the extent of the disaster in Houston has 
been preliminarily estimated to total $2 billion and will very likely 
continue to rise.
  And that figure, Mr. Speaker, does not even take into account the 
damage in Louisiana, other areas affected along the Gulf Coast, and 
what will be needed to clean up in Pennsylvania. So the committee cut 
$389 million from FEMA. What did the Committee on Rules do? Their 
solution is even more bizarre than the action taken by the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Last night the Republicans on the Committee on Rules made in order an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) which 
would restore the cuts in FEMA funding, but that comes at a very steep 
price. The House is being offered the chance to restore the $389 
million in FEMA, only if we are willing to make over $1 billion in cuts 
in nondefense discretionary programs in the current year.
  To translate this, that means that we can restore FEMA emergency 
money only if we are willing to cut Head Start, cut funds for 
education, $70 million from the Veterans' Administration medical 
program, cut public safety officers for our schools and neighborhood 
health centers. What have these people been smoking, Mr. Speaker?
  All the Republicans on the Committee on Rules had to do was make in 
order a bipartisan amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones), a Republican; by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), a 
Democrat; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a 
Democrat. Their amendment would simply have restored these funds to 
FEMA, funds which have previously been appropriated by this Congress. 
Just ask the constituents of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones) or the constituents of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) in 
Houston or the people outside of Philadelphia represented by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel). They know firsthand how 
important the Federal Government can be, especially when disaster 
strikes close to home.
  It is beyond me, and many Members of this body as well, why it is 
necessary to cut 2\1/2\ times more out of the budget already approved 
by the Congress in order to restore funds already appropriated by this 
Congress that helps thousands of Americans who have been affected by 
this storm.
  I cannot find a good reason to justify cutting $70 million out of the 
medical services for the Veterans' Administration in order to not make 
cuts in disaster assistance. This move on the part of the Republicans 
on the Committee on Rules is truly one of the most bizarre and mean-
spirited things they have done in a very long time. Let me be very 
clear what we are talking about.
  The Congress appropriated this money for FEMA. That was last year. 
Appropriated this money. And then the Congress, the Committee on 
Appropriations, came in and said we want to cut this money that was 
already appropriated last year, we want to take it away from FEMA so 
they do not have enough money to help the people down in Houston and 
Louisiana and Pennsylvania. The Committee on Rules said we should not 
cut this money, we should not take away the money from FEMA that 
Congress already appropriated, so let us give it back to FEMA but let 
us take it out of Head Start and community police officers and 
veterans' medical care. What a crazy result, Mr. Speaker.
  Finally, let us talk about the partisan nature of this rule. West 
Coast Democrats appeared before the committee to seek permission to 
offer the Inslee-Pelosi amendment that would require the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to impose cost-based pricing for electricity in 
the Western power market. Now on Monday FERC did order some relief for 
electricity customers on the West Coast. But even though their order is 
an improvement over the current pricing mechanism, there are many who 
believe this action will not offer enough relief to consumers and 
businesses on the West Coast as we move into the hottest summer months.

                              {time}  1315

  Our colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),

[[Page H3283]]

the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and many, many others 
asked for the opportunity for the House to at least debate this issue. 
This supplemental is the only train leaving the station, and it 
represents the only real opportunity the House will have to debate 
equitable, just, and reasonable pricing for electricity. This bill 
represents the only opportunity to debate the issue of refunds for 
overcharges FERC admits were made but for which it will not provide a 
remedy.
  With the most partisan of intent, the Republicans on the Committee on 
Rules rejected these requests made by west coast Democrats seeking to 
find some relief for their constituents. For example, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird) also requested that an amendment be made in 
order that could help local school districts who in the coming months 
may be forced to lay off teachers, cancel purchases of new books or 
computers, shut down after-school programs or cancel arts, music or 
technology classes in order to pay for the rising cost of heating and 
cooling schools. But instead of putting children first, the Republican 
majority on the Committee on Rules refused to make this important 
amendment in order. This is partisan politics at its worst, Mr. 
Speaker. For that reason, I will oppose the previous question on this 
rule.
  It is my intention to oppose the previous question in order to be 
able to offer an amendment to this rule that would make it less 
partisan, less unfair, and certainly a lot less bizarre. The House 
should have the opportunity to debate adding funds for the Department 
of Defense to meet its highest priorities in the remaining month of the 
fiscal year; the House should have an opportunity to restore funds to 
FEMA without cutting Head Start and veterans' medical care; and the 
House should debate the energy issues that are so disastrous to so many 
communities on the west coast.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous 
question and oppose the passage of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do want to remind my colleagues that this is an open rule. It is 
the first I have heard an open rule called bizarre and mean-spirited. 
It does quite honestly provide $5.5 billion for urgent defense needs. 
But I want to remind my colleagues, we are waiting on the Rumsfeld 
report before we do the defense budget; and then we will be dealing 
with the other needs of the military, as well as we are going to be 
doing an energy bill, and that is the appropriate time to deal with the 
energy question that we are facing now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation. Today, I would like to focus on the provisions within this 
bill dealing with nuclear cleanup. As the chairman of the Nuclear 
Cleanup Caucus, I have expressed clear reservations with the 
administration's initial budget request for this program. I am very 
pleased that they now have requested, and the Committee on 
Appropriations has included, $180 million in supplemental funding for 
this vital effort. Specifically, over $50 million of this money will 
provide a necessary bridge at the Hanford site for this fiscal year to 
prevent layoffs. I would hope that our field managers be provided with 
the maximum flexibility to mitigate shortfalls and reduce impacts with 
this money.
  The administration should be commended for including this money in 
their supplemental request. After submitting their initial budget, I 
have had multiple opportunities to meet with Office of Management and 
Budget Director Daniels regarding the legal, contractual, and moral 
obligation the government has to ensure the cleanup program stays on 
schedule throughout this Nation. Recognizing the shortfall in the 
administration's request, the congressional budget resolution provides 
for up to $1 billion in additional money for nuclear cleanup in fiscal 
year 2002. The inclusion of this money in the supplemental is the first 
step in fulfillment of that requirement.
  I would also like to commend the Committee on Appropriations for 
their commitment to environmental cleanup. Throughout this process, the 
Committee on Appropriations, and specifically the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), has worked with me and other caucus members to 
ensure that adequate funding is provided in fiscal year 2002. 
Yesterday's markup of Energy and Water appropriations to me is a great 
step in ensuring that this shortfall is eliminated. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) in the future to ensure that this funding 
is a reality.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because 
it blocks critical amendments which would have helped vulnerable 
Americans with soaring energy bills. My amendment would have provided 
$600 million this year for emergency low-income heating energy 
assistance, a funding increase of $300 million. It would have provided 
$1.4 billion in these emergency low-income energy assistance funds for 
next year. It would have restored $300 million to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, FEMA's, disaster relief fund. These funds are 
critical for Americans who are facing skyrocketing energy bills this 
summer and those communities that have been devastated by Tropical 
Storm Allison.
  Low-income energy funds appropriated for this year have all been 
released. We have 19 States that have exhausted all of their LIHEAP 
funds, or they soon will. This amendment would have provided immediate 
relief for those States that are trying to deal with delinquent energy 
payments and that are preparing for the scorching temperatures this 
summer.
  This past winter, 3.6 million families in nearly half of the United 
States risked having their energy cut off because of outrageous energy 
costs. It really is incredible and it is wrong. Further, the amendment 
would have provided advance funding for later this year, after 
September 30. There will be no Labor-HHS bill at that time. That means 
that people who are going to be struggling with energy costs into the 
winter are going to have to just suck it up because there will not be 
funding there until this body makes a decision to deal with low-income 
energy funds in the future.
  Finally, the amendment would have said to FEMA, we will restore $300 
million of your resources to deal with Tropical Storm Allison. Today, 
the director of FEMA has said that it will take not the $2 billion that 
he thought but now $4 billion to deal with the cleanup and to deal with 
what is happening with mosquitoes following that storm. And what do we 
want to do at this juncture? Instead of making that money available for 
the folks in this Nation, we are rescinding the money, taking back $300 
million, in fact, so that the people of this country, people in the 
South and who are suffering from what happened with Tropical Storm 
Allison are going to be on their own.
  I oppose this rule because it jeopardizes our most vulnerable 
populations. Vote it down.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague 
from Connecticut wanting to offer further amendments to expand LIHEAP, 
which is the low-income heating assistance program. This bill increases 
LIHEAP by $300 million, which is twice what the President requested, 
and the gentlewoman from Connecticut can offer her amendment as long as 
there is an offset. It is an open rule. I think that is a very 
reasonable approach to this problem.
  There has been some criticism that we are not waiving the rules of 
the

[[Page H3284]]

House which are long established here to deal with the problem of 
electricity and energy in this country.
  On Monday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission passed an order 
that extended their price mitigation and price monitoring program in 
California and across the West. I think that is a wonderful step and 
will probably ensure that consumers in California and the West are 
going to be paying reasonable prices for electricity in the West. In 
fact, in the other body, Senator Feinstein of California, who 
coauthored the bill on price caps, said yesterday that the FERC action 
was a giant step forward and they do not intend to move forward and 
press this issue. It is only a small number of folks in the House that 
seem to be wanting to move in that direction. The reality is, in the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce for about a 2-week period, we 
struggled privately and in a bipartisan way with the issue of what we 
can do to reduce the cost and the price of electricity in California 
and the West.
  Through that process, I think a lot of us came to realize just how 
badly we could mess this up if we try to go back to a system of setting 
prices at the Federal level from the Congress. FERC has a lot more 
flexibility, a lot more expertise and latitude than we do in this body. 
We should not set price caps in legislation. Trying to solve the 
problem with price caps is going to make the supply problem even worse 
and prolong the crisis. It would probably deny electricity to 
California because States like New Mexico would not sell on the spot 
market to California if they were going to be forced to sell below 
their own cost. As a result, we would see more blackouts, more problems 
in the State of California, a lack of investment in the real problem, 
which is a shortage of supply and California's failure to build for the 
future.
  Price caps never produced another kilowatt of electricity. It is 
unreasonable when we are going to be facing major energy legislation in 
this Congress, sometime in the next 6 weeks, to ask to put this price 
cap measure on something completely unrelated and to ask us as a House 
to waive the longstanding rules of the House to make this up today 
rather than the context of what we really should be doing, which is a 
long-term, balanced approach to national energy policy, an approach 
that includes conservation, that includes increased supply, that fixes 
our aging infrastructure, and that includes government reform.
  I look forward to that debate and to bringing that comprehensive bill 
to the floor of the House. But today is not the day. I do not think we 
should be willing to waive the longstanding rules of the House to take 
this up in a mishmash fashion.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to oppose the 
previous question and rule so that we can give people immediate relief 
with their energy needs. Today, we have an opportunity to do something 
to help millions of Americans. We should vote to put temporary caps on 
wholesale electric prices in the western United States and take a 
commonsense step to give consumers substantial help with low-income 
energy assistance.
  Unfortunately, the Republican majority has been unwilling to take 
real action on this critical issue. They continue to ignore people's 
real needs and today will not even let us take a vote on one of the 
most compelling problems facing America.
  In San Francisco last month, one small business owner lost between 
$3,000 and $4,000 in 1 hour during a rolling blackout. This bill does 
nothing for him. Thousands of people are on life support machines on 
the west coast. This bill does nothing for them. Millions of people are 
paying through the nose for a commodity that is like air and water in 
their lives. This bill does nothing for them. A large percentage of 
small businesses in the San Diego area are at or near bankruptcy. This 
bill does nothing for them. Thousands of families in California and the 
west coast have seen their residential energy prices go up twice, three 
times, five times, in some cases 10 times. This bill does nothing for 
them.
  We have an emergency in our country. Yet the Republican leadership 
treats it as if it does not exist. We are glad that Federal regulators 
are finally listening and moving in the right direction. But their 
recent order is still a day late and a dollar short. It lets generators 
continue to make record profits and does nothing to help those affected 
by overcharges recover their losses. It opens the door to market 
manipulation and does nothing to stop the blackouts that are 
threatening people even this week.

                              {time}  1330

  So the time has come for sensible steps that will actually do 
something for people. We have been regulating utilities for decades, 
including wholesale electric prices; and we have one of the best power 
systems in the world. All we say is that we need temporary relief to 
this historic model so we can stabilize the market and give people real 
relief. We recognize this is not a long-term answer to the problem. In 
California, the Governor has permitted 16 new plants to bring in new 
supply. Four of them will be online this summer. Help is on the way, 
but help is needed now. This is a financial emergency. We need to 
address this emergency in this bill. It is unreasonable to bring a 
supplemental appropriation out on this floor and not even allow the 
minority the right to debate and vote on such a measure.
  I urge Members to vote against the previous question and vote against 
the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, under the President's leadership, the country is 
beginning to focus on the need to take firm steps to enhance our energy 
security. The President is putting people over politics. I wish the 
minority would do the same.
  Across the Nation, we are seeing the predictable consequences of 
allowing regulatory red tape and government intrusions to constrain our 
ability to produce the energy that we need.
  Mr. Speaker, our energy security sustains our quality of life. The 
amendments offered by the minority threaten our freedom and our energy 
security, and that is why they should be rejected and not allowed in 
this rule. We need to solve the shortage of energy with a broad and a 
balanced plan. We need to encourage initiatives to reduce demand by 
conserving energy. We need to encourage the introduction of new 
technology that will allow us to accomplish more with the energy that 
we use. But there should be no confusion about the unmistakable need to 
expand the diversity of supply and to increase the production of 
energy.
  Unfortunately, the electricity crisis in California offers an object 
lesson in the danger of allowing political half measures to be 
substituted for a successful market-based solution. We are talking 
about price caps.
  Today, politicians in California are demanding additional government 
regulation as the pathway to relief from the consequences of earlier 
government regulation. Let us be clear about this. In every place 
government price controls have been tried, those price controls have 
failed to achieve the results that their supporters have promised. They 
failed when Republican Presidents used them; they failed when Democrat 
Presidents used them. All government price controls can offer 
California is the specter of longer and more frequent blackouts.
  The electricity marketplace in California, as we all know, is 
severely dysfunctional. The people of California are suffering today 
because the demand of electricity exceeds the available supply. Until 
that fundamental imbalance is resolved, their problems will continue. 
It happened because politicians in California place so much red tape 
and regulation on the energy sector that energy suppliers could not 
build the power plants needed to supply California's energy-hungry 
economy. That is the fundamental problem in California.
  Government price controls cannot work because all they do is prolong 
and exacerbate the problem. California

[[Page H3285]]

must begin building the capacity it needs to create the additional 
electricity that its markets demand. That is the only way out. Price 
controls will not create an additional, not one additional, megawatt of 
electricity. What they will do is discourage the construction of new 
power plants and dissuade electricity generators from investing in the 
improvements and advancements that will actually increase the supply of 
electricity in California.
  Government price controls fly in the face of the most basic laws of 
economics. They swim against supply and demand. Members should reject 
that siren song of price caps. Remember this, government price controls 
will mean more blackouts. I urge the adoption of this rule and reject 
the opposition.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has 
actually made some very interesting points, points that ought to be 
debated on the floor. What the Committee on Rules is doing is saying, 
no, we are not going to let the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) speak 
at length about his points, or people that believe the way he does; and 
we are not going to let people from California, the west coast, speak 
on the other side. They will not even permit this debate to occur; and 
that is why we object to this rule, and that is why we are going to 
fight the previous question.
  I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) ought to have lots of 
time to make his arguments, and I think people on the other side ought 
to have an equal amount of time. Their rule would prevent that from 
happening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule considering the 
supplemental appropriation bill that is before us. Although many of my 
colleagues are upset because the rule does not permit various 
amendments as it relates to the energy crisis or disaster relief, my 
reason for opposing the rule is quite simple. It does not permit an 
amendment that would allow us to do more for our American men and women 
in uniform. This is a serious matter.
  At the outset, I want to note that the $5.6 billion included in the 
bill for the Defense Department by the Committee on Appropriations, 
which is recommended by the OMB, is helpful but not adequate to address 
acute funding shortfalls that all the military services are 
experiencing.
  I proposed an amendment to the bill to increase funding for the 
Department by $2.7 billion. That amendment has not been made in order 
by the rule and protected against points of order, and that is a shame.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret to anyone that the armed services are 
called on to perform a myriad of missions all around the world, many of 
them on short notice. Whether it is defending against adversaries like 
Saddam Hussein or protecting our allies in Korea, or building a 
democracy in the Balkans, our military does a wonderful job, a great 
job, of protecting our national security interests. We owe it to our 
servicemen and women to ensure that they are trained and ready to 
perform those missions, that they have the best equipment we can 
provide and have adequate compensation and quality of life for their 
families.
  The roofs are leaking on the family housing. The spare-parts bins are 
empty. The training is being curtailed, and unfortunately this 
supplemental bill as reported does not go far enough in meeting these 
goals, and follows the OMB recommendations. My amendment would add 
$2.74 billion to the bill all for additional defense appropriations. Of 
this total, the vast majority, about $2 billion, would be for operation 
and maintenance for flying hours and spare parts and real property 
maintenance and depot maintenance and uniforms, the unglamorous nuts 
and bolts, essentials that really make our military work. Another $400 
million would fund military personnel and priorities, subsistence 
allowances, housing allowances, to keep our service members off food 
stamps, to pay for unbudgeted National Guard and Reserve personnel 
costs.
  My amendment would also add about $300 million for high-priority 
procurement costs. For example, I would add $65 million to replace the 
EP-3 that is being cut to pieces on Hainan Island, China, and $49 
million in additional funds to expedite the repair of the U.S.S. Cole.
  Finally, my amendment would appropriate additional funds for 
ammunition. I oppose this rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and 
I rise in support of the previous question and also will be rising in 
support of the supplemental appropriations bill.
  There are 435 of us in this Chamber and if each one of us were to 
write our own version of this supplemental, there would probably be 435 
different versions; and we cannot have that. In our process, that is 
not the way it works. So the Committee on Appropriations, in an effort 
to allow Members to make a major contribution to the final product, the 
Committee on Appropriations asks for an open rule. I have never asked 
the Committee on Rules to give me a closed rule on any appropriations 
bill.
  This is an open rule, meaning that any Member who has an amendment 
that is germane to the bill, that is an appropriations item, that they 
will be able to offer that amendment.
  We would possibly agree with some; possibly we will not agree with 
some. We will make that determination once the debate takes place.
  As an announcement to our Members, I wanted to tell them that 
although we were late getting our numbers, specific numbers, from the 
administration, we are still well under way. This is the first 
appropriations bill of the season. However, if we look at it 
technically, it is the last appropriations because of the fiscal year 
2001 season because it is a fiscal year 2001 supplemental. For the 
benefit of the Members, the Committee on Appropriations has reported 
out this supplemental, plus three other of the major appropriations 
bills for fiscal year 2002. The fourth appropriations bill has already 
been reported by the subcommittee, and next week there will be four 
additional subcommittee markups. I say this so that Members will know 
that the Committee on Appropriations is moving expeditiously, despite 
the fact that we got off to a very, very late start.
  I listened with interest to what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) said on the amendment that he would offer, and I cannot 
disagree with him. There is a large list of shortfalls in our military 
services. There are many things that they need that we are not 
providing. We are anticipating a very substantial budget amendment from 
the President sometime within the next couple of weeks that will 
address many of the issues that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) raises. Those of us who work with national 
defense issues every day of our legislative lives are concerned that 
there are tremendous shortfalls in the needs of our national defense 
establishment, shortfalls in the needs of quality-of-life issues for 
our men and women who serve in uniform, and we are going to address 
those.
  The bill that we provide today has certain budgetary constraints. The 
budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 sets certain budgetary 
restraints. The $6.5 billion presented by this bill is the top line in 
those budgetary constraints. There is not much we can do about that. So 
we present a bill with the best advice and consent that we could have 
from the appropriations members to use that $6.5 billion in a cost-
effective way.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) for giving me this opportunity, and I do hope that we can 
expedite consideration of the previous question, the rule and get right 
to the bill. This could be a long day.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked the Committee on Rules for a rather simple 
amendment that would have allowed for the

[[Page H3286]]

House to vote on whether or not to strike the rescission in the 
supplemental of $389 million from the FEMA disaster account. Now, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee just spoke, and I know he 
worked very hard on putting this bill together, and he talked about the 
budgetary constraints.
  I appreciate that fact, but we have to remember some of the budgetary 
constraints in this bill are self-imposed by the committee because the 
committee added $273 million in spending in the defense accounts that 
was not requested by the administration. It added $469 million in 
nondefense accounts that was not requested by the administration, and 
then it found the impetus to declare $388 million in spending emergency 
but in order to meet the constraints it took the money that the 
Congress had appropriated and been signed into law for emergency relief 
and rescinded it and then it says, well, that money is not needed; we 
are not going to need it. If we need it, we will get it later.

                              {time}  1345

  But that is not a real savings. Mathematically, you know we are going 
to spend that money. But the fact is, FEMA does not have sufficient 
money. The storm in Harris County is now estimated to cost $4 billion. 
FEMA has already put out a couple of hundred million dollars, and they 
expect to put out another $130 million in the next 30 days.
  There are storms happening all over the country. The district of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just got hit yesterday with a 
storm. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a Republican, was 
there asking for the same waiver, because FEMA is still paying for 
Hurricane Floyd that happened 2 years ago.
  Now we are playing budget politics with FEMA money. Fifty thousand 
people in Harris County have either been displaced from their homes or 
are having to replace their homes. FEMA is estimating that the number 
of claims is going to rise to 90,000, and the three major hospitals and 
the largest medical center in the world are effectively shut down. The 
estimated damage to the Texas Medical Center alone will probably equal 
$2 billion.
  Yet the committee thought it would make sense to cut at least a 
quarter and ultimately really a third of the available FEMA money in 
the current fiscal year in order to pay for additional spending on 
other projects that the White House did not even ask for. Here is a 
letter from the White House. They agree. They say they are puzzled. 
They are puzzled by the action taken by the committee.
  I know the committee worked very hard. In fact, when the committee 
did this, Allison had not even occurred yet. But it has occurred now, 
and we can very simply fix this matter. You were able to declare 
sufficient funding for projects you thought were important emergencies. 
Do it for another 39 million, but put back the money that the Congress 
voted on, that the President signed into law, so it can be spent on 
disaster assistance, because I assure you we will be back. It will take 
more. This is like the California earthquake in 1992 and 1993.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and 
defeat the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. The Emergency 
Supplemental is a paradox in its truest of forms. While donning the 
mask of emergency relief, this bill actually rescinds funding from 
FEMA's Disaster Recovery Fund in order to finance new and often 
unrequested projects.
  Mr. Speaker, in the wake of Tropical Storm Allison, more than 50,000 
Texans from Harris County, are either in temporary housing or working 
to make their homes livable again. With preliminary damage assessments 
totaling $4.88 billion in Harris County alone, now is not the time to 
rescind $389 million from FEMA's Disaster Recovery Fund. According to 
FEMA's latest estimates, the amount of Disaster Recovery Funds 
necessary to assist the state of Texas total $1.98 billion. And that 
cost will certainly rise. This legislation is setting all of us up for 
another messy supplemental down the road. We are just 19 days into 
hurricane season, a recision of nearly one-third of FEMA's available 
assistance funding is unconscionable.
  This measure has not garnered the support of the Administration. In 
fact, OMB Director Daniels said, ``this action would preclude prompt 
assistance'' for future disasters. The Disaster Recovery Fund is 
appropriated for the specific purpose of assisting local communities in 
the event of unforeseen disasters. The authors of this bill felt this 
account to be money burning a hole in their pockets. The Disaster 
Recovery Fund is not a savings account for new projects. This money is 
critical to the recovery process of hard-working taxpayers in the wake 
of natural disasters.
  To impede or delay FEMA aid in favor of new spending is a desertion 
of our duty in this body. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
rule because it fails to protect the amendment I offered and a similar 
proposal offered by my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Jones. 
Furthermore, it protects an amendment that inexplicably, calls for 
offsetting previously appropriated disaster funds.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is an 
amendment being offered to replace the FEMA money in this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from North Carolina that the 
peculiar amendment that the Committee on Rules made in order to restore 
the FEMA money takes it out of Head Start and takes it out of Community 
Policing. We are saying that is a legitimate emergency. There is no 
reason to do that in the bizarre and peculiar way in which they have 
put the money back in.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that this emergency supplemental 
bill coming up when it did right on the heels of the storm damage and 
flooding to Houston, it would have provided an opportunity for this 
Congress to speak very clearly to the people in that area that their 
contract with our country is one that, in time of distress or natural 
disaster, we are there for them. Instead, we are sending the exact 
opposite message, a message of no confidence, by reducing the funding 
in FEMA.
  As a person who represents an area beset by earthquakes, I know how 
important the message from Washington is in the recovery. As a 
grandmother of grandchildren in Houston seeing the onset of mosquitos 
following the flood, I know personally the need for the increased 
funding in the emergency bill, and am bewildered, again from my own 
experience representing an area that is disaster-prone, that this 
committee would not rise to the occasion.
  So I rise in opposition to the rule on the supplemental 
appropriations bill because it misses opportunities on many scores. All 
we were asking for was a legitimate debate on spending priorities that 
are of an emergency nature for this Congress to address.
  We have missed the opportunity because of this rule to have the 
chance to stabilize the electricity markets in the western United 
States. We have missed the opportunity to discuss the Eshoo amendment 
to ensure refunds for electricity charges in the western regions that 
were not just and reasonable. In fact, there are about $8.9 billion in 
refunds. We have missed the opportunity to ensure that the DeLauro 
amendment would be discussed, which would increase the LIHEAP funding 
so it would be available to low income families throughout the summer 
and fall. Finally, we have missed the opportunity to provide the 
leadership required for this country in the fight to treat AIDS and 
prevent new infections globally.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule because it is a 
gag rule on discussion of issues of an emergency nature.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Coast Guard is 
included in the supplemental budget, but I am very concerned about the 
direction of the 2002 Coast Guard budget. If there are no changes, it 
is predictable that we will be standing here again this time next year, 
hat in hand, advocating for the Coast Guard, just as happened last 
year, when we painted ourselves into the same corner requiring $655 
million in supplemental Coast Guard funding.

[[Page H3287]]

  Now, everyone knows that budget constraints have been so severe and 
chronic that the Coast Guard can barely keep its fleet in the water and 
its planes in the air. By the way, the Coast Guard operates the second 
oldest major naval fleet in the world, 39th out of 40. That is 
shameful.
  We reduce operational funding while cutting back on capital 
investment; we short-change housing, health coverage and retirement. 
Then we wonder why retention and training suffer. We admire the 
rescues, such as depicted in the movie ``Perfect Storm,'' but divert 
assets away from the core mission of saving lives. And, remember, the 
Coast Guard saves 5,000 lives each and every year.
  The 2002 authorization bill passed by this House just 2 weeks ago 
responded to these challenges by boosting the Coast Guard's operating 
budget for next year by $300 million. That promise stands unfulfilled 
thus far in the appropriations process. The funding bill approved since 
by the Subcommittee on Appropriations cut that $300 million, as well as 
an additional $60 million to embark on a program of replacing aging 
Coast Guard cutters that, on the average, are 27 years old.
  The consequences are real, Mr. Speaker. Just this week came reports 
that the Coast Guard recalled port security forces that were sent 
overseas to protect U.S. naval units after the Destroyer Cole was 
attacked. Why? Because we cannot afford it any more.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on 
Monday ruled that they are not going to offer any true relief to 
California. What they said was that they were going to engage in a 
faith-based energy policy. They would pray for consumers in California 
and across the West, but they really would not do anything for them.
  In the TV game show, the weakest link gets kicked off the show. But 
on Monday, the Republican-controlled FERC decided that the weakest link 
gets to set the prices for the entire western electricity market. This 
FERC order perpetuates the nonsense of having the least efficient 
generator of electricity set the benchmark price for all of the other 
generators.
  This is a formula for allowing energy generators to continue to tip 
consumers across the West upside down and to shake money out of their 
pockets. While saying we are going to mitigate the size of the 
windfall, it does not in any way deal with the fact that a windfall 
will be enjoyed by these energy producers of historic size. Instead, 
they should have imposed a cost of service time-out on California and 
the West.
  That is why the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) wanted to bring amendments out here on the 
floor to deal with the pricing issues, to deal with the refunds for 
overcharges. But they have been denied. That is why, in a larger sense, 
Congresswoman DeLauro wanted to bring out a LIHEAP amendment of an 
additional $600 million for emergency funding and $1.2 billion for the 
year 2002. We should reject this proposal.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), and he is my good friend, we work together on privacy issues 
and telecommunications issues, this is one we agree to disagree on.
  The great State of California has buy-cap authority today. If the 
Governor of California thinks that electricity prices are too high, 
since the State is buying all the wholesale power, all he has got to do 
is pick up the phone and call the gentleman who is negotiating these 
contracts, I do not know if it is on a day-to-day basis, but it is 
generally a man named David Freeman, a very smart individual, and say 
do not pay more than $100 a megawatt, or more than $50, or more than 
$200, whatever it is. The Governor of California has buy-cap authority 
right now.
  What has happened? What has happened is in the last 6 months, as 
California began to grapple with the fact that they are a part of the 
real world, they cannot suspend economic laws, they have begun to 
negotiate contracts, and long-term contracts from 1 year to 5 years to 
10 years, some of those contracts are becoming public and they are 
finding out they are paying above market prices.
  Now, I do not think the political leadership in the great State of 
California started out to pay above market prices. I think just the 
opposite. But it is fundamental; if you try to pick a political price 
for any commodity, and, almost by definition, you are going to pick the 
wrong price, because markets change. Every time we have tried price 
caps on any commodity in this country for any length of time, the only 
certainty has been it has led to shortages, disruptions, it has led to 
unequal distribution of that commodity.
  So I think the Committee on Rules was eminently fair. This is a 
spending supplemental. It is not a policy supplemental. We should not 
have extraneous amendments on items like price caps that do not make 
sense in the real world, and I hope we vote for the rule.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding. I want my colleagues to know that the gentleman who chairs 
the subcommittee, the appropriate subcommittee in this policy arena, 
has been more than cooperative with those of us from California worried 
about the challenges that we face in the West. Indeed, he spent hours 
and hours trying to examine where in the Federal law we might make 
changes that would improve that condition.
  Finally he came to the conclusion that, outside of the FERC taking a 
temporary action to try to help California, that literally the 
flexibility was available already. The reality, as the chairman has 
said, is that over months now, and indeed years now, California has 
been headed towards a crisis that finally we are bearing the fruit of. 
I want the chairman to know how much we appreciate his cooperation, his 
efforts to help us. I want the body to know I very much appreciate the 
gentleman's efforts to try to cooperate with us, and in turn he has 
essentially sent the message, you have the flexibility at home; solve 
the problem at home where it started in the first place.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank 
the gentleman.
  Briefly, the recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday 
was unanimous, three Republicans, two Democrats; the old commissioners, 
the new commissioners. It is a price mitigation strategy that lets the 
market work, but it does not let any particular supplier manipulate the 
market.
  The partial version of this that was put in back in April has been 
working. This version, which goes 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, will 
help California and the West Coast this summer.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the Eighth 
District of Texas. We have had many homes and businesses destroyed in 
Tropical Storm Allison. Let me tell the Members, the last thing people 
in Houston need are politicians trying to score points off our misery. 
That is exactly what we have heard here today.
  I am 100 percent certain, and FEMA is 100 percent certain, that there 
is today and will continue to be sufficient funding within our Federal 
aid and FEMA to ensure disaster aid to victims of Tropical Storm 
Allison. My colleagues in Congress who are using scare tactics to 
needlessly heap even more misery onto the families and businesses 
harmed by Allison ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  The only debate is whether Congress will fund future FEMA 
emergencies, future FEMA emergencies out of this

[[Page H3288]]

bill now, or within the FEMA budget that will be taken up in a few 
short weeks. I believe that playing petty politics when people's lives 
have been destroyed is absolutely despicable.
  My advice to my friends on the other side is to knock it off. Let us 
work together for the sake of our State and communities. Let us stop 
pointing fingers. Let us join hands, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
to help those in our Houston region, the Texas Medical Center, our 
families, and our businesses that desperately need help today, and to 
knock off the politics and stop trying to score points off their 
misery.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the previous speaker was confused. Perhaps he 
did not realize that this supplemental bill has money in it for this 
fiscal year. We are talking about the fiscal year that is currently in 
process, fiscal year 2001, and it is the money that the Republicans 
sought to strip from this bill. They now have a bizarre scheme to back 
the money back in, but are taking it out of other domestic programs, 
like Head Start and community policing.
  We are just saying, do the right thing, the rational thing: just 
permit the money to be restored. It is an emergency. Do not take it out 
of other programs.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, no one is playing politics with this. This 
is the White House position, and they are Republicans. On the other 
side, the junior Senator from our home State, who is a Republican, is 
talking about adding money to FEMA, not taking money out.
  All we are saying is, strike the rescission. The fact is, the 
committee is the one that added money above what the White House 
requested. They are using the FEMA money to pay for it.
  My colleague knows, even from today's Houston Chronicle, FEMA has 
already spent about $400 million. FEMA tells us that of the $1.6 
billion in the account, there is only about $1.1 billion left. If we 
have this rescission, that takes the amount of money available down to 
$700 million. That means the amount of money FEMA has to just do what 
they are doing right now is going to be reduced. FEMA is going to need 
money to move quickly while they are still paying for North Carolina, 
while they are still paying for other things.
  There is no politics in this. If politics is standing up for one's 
constituents to get what they need to get back on their feet, than I am 
guilty of those kinds of politics, and so is Mr. Bush in the White 
House, because we are of the same position.
  The fact is, we are not pointing fingers at anybody. All we are 
saying, make in order an amendment so it is not subject to a point of 
order. They can find the money elsewhere. They made this designation 
before the storm occurred.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Let me state the facts directly from FEMA, those 
on the ground and working:
  ``FEMA's disaster account has sufficient funding to ensure disaster 
aid to those victims of Tropical Storm Allison flooding. FEMA assures 
those in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, fighting to recover now, that FEMA 
stands ready and able to help them.''
  This issue deals with affecting future response efforts and our 
ability to help them.
  The fact of the matter is, the gentleman and I are friends, but the 
gentleman is playing politics at a time when our community simply 
cannot afford it. We need to work together.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quickly address a subject in 
support of this rule that has arisen on the floor regarding California.
  Our committee, led by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), did a 
marvelous job of producing a set of solutions that could help the 
California problem out that included both demand reduction and supply 
increases, getting the QS back on, getting the Governor and the 
President to make some administrative decisions that have helped 
California, I think, a great deal.
  One of the recommendations we made in that bill and passed on to the 
FERC was the recommendations to do price mitigation on a 24-hour basis 
7 days a week. Unanimously, Democrats and Republicans have now endorsed 
that proposal. It is now the order of the FERC. Senator Feinstein has 
said with this order in place she is not even asking for the price 
control bill that she originally sponsored on the Senate side.
  This notion of putting price controls into this debate is absolutely 
ludicrous. The reason California got in trouble was because California 
had price caps at the retail level, and attempted price caps at the 
wholesale level. Those price caps did something very remarkable. Those 
price caps reduced conservation in California by 8 percent, encouraged 
excessive demand, a 6 percent growth, the highest in the Nation, and 
put California in a shortage position where it did not have enough 
power plants to supply the needs of that economy.
  This price mitigation plan now adopted by the FERC, as recommended by 
our committee, together with 17 Members of the Republican California 
delegation, a plan first suggested to us by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose), is now in place and will serve to make sure that 
price spikes do not occur in those periods of time when California is 
really short.
  This has been a rough and tumble negotiated process, but we have 
produced a solution that does in fact help order that market without 
doing what California did incorrectly, without putting hard price caps 
in place that do nothing but shorten supply, increase demand, and 
dampen the need for conservation.
  Since the price caps on rates have been lifted in California, guess 
what, conservation has increased 13 percent. Now that the Governor has 
authorized the construction of new plants in California, put old plants 
back online, put QS back on, there is less of a danger of blackouts; it 
is not solved yet, but there is much less of a danger of blackouts.
  In short, the work done by the subcommittee led by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), with the help and counsel of the California Members 
of the Republican party and with the President and the FERC now 
following in a bipartisan fashion the adoption of the price mitigation 
plan, we are well on our way, at least, to beginning to settle the 
California problem that unfortunately the policymakers in California 
put the people of California through.
  Let me say something else: California is 12 percent of this Nation's 
economy. We could not afford not to help. California needs to have a 
good supply of energy. It needs to have prices people can afford. It 
needs to have a market that is reasonable, like the rest of America, 
where supply meets demand; where conservation is encouraged, not 
dampened or weakened; and where new supplies are always brought on 
board when there is a real and honest demand for those supplies.
  Silicon Valley cannot afford to go dark. America cannot afford to 
have this new economy darken because we have not solved those problems.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the 
courageous work he has done. I want to thank the FERC for making I 
think a very wise decision in this price mitigation plan. I want to 
thank all of the Members who agree with me that this issue ought to be 
put to bed.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the previous question.
  There is an amendment to the rule that would have been offered if the 
previous question is defeated.
  The amendment would allow for the consideration of two very important 
amendments to the supplemental.
  The first is the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton). The Skelton amendment would add $2.7 million to the 
Department of Defense so in the last 3 months of the fiscal year the 
Armed Forces are not forced to cut back on training and operations and 
maintenance because of the shortfall in funds.
  The second is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington

[[Page H3289]]

(Mr. Inslee) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). This 
amendment would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
impose cost-of-service-based rates on electricity in the West.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce said, 
that this is not about policy. We have done some good things, along 
with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), and we do appreciate 
very much their hard work.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the FY 2001 Supplemental Appropriations 
bill should be an opportunity for Congress to address some important 
funding shortfalls facing our country. Instead, we are seeing self-
fulfilling prophecy played out that is the direct result of the 
misguided Republican strategy to disconnect spending for tax policy. 
The $389 million FEMA disaster relief cut in the FY 2001 Supplemental 
Appropriations bill is the first manifestation of what's wrong with the 
Republican budget strategy.
  Today's rule limits debate on the bill and prevents important 
Democratic alternatives from being brought to the floor, rather than 
having an open debate on the trade-offs that Congress has made to cut 
taxes and limit spending. We are prevented from voting on amendments 
aimed at restoring funding to assist the thousands of people needing 
disaster relief, ensuring that low-income families have access to 
affordable energy and heating, or addressing the energy crisis that is 
crippling the West Coast.
  The FEMA cut, in particular, could not come at a more inopportune 
time. Earlier this month we witnessed an example of the type of 
destructive results that may be a result of global climate change. We 
are seeing an increase in both frequency and intensity of extreme 
weather incidents. The devastating efforts of Tropical Storm Allison on 
Texas, Louisiana, and Florida killed almost 60 people, dumped 3 feet of 
rain in 6 days, and damaged 20,000 homes. Just today, FEMA director Joe 
Albaugh stated that the damage from Tropical Storm Allison may be as 
high as $4 billion to deal with clean-up and related health threats 
associated with storm damage.
  Today's Supplemental Appropriations bill illustrates how we in 
Congress have put ourselves into a tax cut and budget box. The cuts to 
FEMA's disaster relief program are one of the most egregious aspects of 
our shortsighted tax and budget policy. For these reasons, I urge 
Members to vote against the previous question and oppose the rule.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for 
the supplemental appropriations bill because the Rules Committee failed 
to protect several key amendments--including the Inslee/Pelosi 
amendment and the Eshoo amendment--and have prevented us from acting on 
California's emergency needs today.
  There is the mistaken belief by some that the recent action by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has solved California's 
energy concerns.
  But the FERC decision falls far short of what is needed in 
California. For example, because FERC based the price caps on the most 
inefficient operators, Californians will continue to pay high energy 
costs.
  Further, FERC does not address the price gouging that has already 
taken place. Therefore, it has no provisions for the $6 billion in 
potential illegal overcharges that have been referred to FERC for 
action.
  These two concerns would have been appropriate for the House to 
consider today, but the Rules Committee has prevented us from taking up 
two key amendments that would have addressed them.
  Essentially, the Republican leadership has decided that the big 
electric generators can continue to make windfall profits at the 
expense of business and residential customers across California.
  The impact of this price gouging on the jobs and lives of my 
constituents has already taken a toll.
  L.A. Dye & Print Works Incorporated, one of southern California's 
largest textile firms, employing 700 people, closed its doors at the 
end of April. There natural gas costs had soared from about $120,000 
per month to over $600,000 per month--that's five times higher than 
their costs at the start of 2000.
  Some have argued that this crisis is one of California's making, but 
California has stepped forward vigorously to meet this challenge.
  We were one of the most energy efficient states--now we've cut energy 
use by 11 percent during this crisis to become the most energy 
efficient state in the union.
  We've acted to bring additional generating capacity on line as 
quickly as possible, and 16 major power plants with a generation 
capacity of over 10,000 megawatts have received siting approval.
  Ten of these power plants are currently under construction, and four 
are scheduled to be on line this summer.
  But we have immediate problems because as many as 30 days of rolling 
black-outs have been predicted for this summer.
  The impact of black-outs will be severe on families suffering through 
California's 100+ degree days without air-conditioning.
  The impact will also be severe on the senior citizens who have 
medications that need refrigeration.
  Our businesses and manufacturers face unpredictable electricity 
shortages, requiring them to shut down operations during black-outs and 
send workers home.
  And let's not a forget a black-out's impact on our public safety 
officials--our police officers, fire fighters and emergency medical 
personnel--as they try to cope with a community whose stoplights are 
suddenly out of order, or whose emergency communications system is 
inoperative.
  We are facing an emergency in California, and that is why we wanted 
the House to consider emergency provisions today during consideration 
of the supplemental appropriations bill.
  This emergency in California is quickly spilling over to other 
western states and eventually will make its way to states across this 
nation.
  As the 5th largest economy in the world, California's energy crisis 
is having an enormous detrimental impact on the nation's economy.
  Unfortunately, we have heard the message from the Republican 
leadership to the 33 million citizens in California and Americans 
across this country loud and clear.
  That message is: we won't discuss your emergency, we don't care about 
its impact on California and the nation, and therefore we will not 
support relief for your businesses and citizens.
  By preventing amendments affecting millions of Americans from even 
being debated and voted on, the leadership of the House of 
Representatives turns their back on every American they have sworn to 
serve.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed immediately by a 5-
minute vote, if ordered, on adoption of the resolution, and a 5-minute 
vote on the motion to suspend the rules debated earlier today.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 205, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 169]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis

[[Page H3290]]


     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cox
     Dooley
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Houghton
       

                              {time}  1433

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, LANGEVIN, BACA, DAVIS of Illinois, 
BERRY, RUSH, TAYLOR of Mississippi, and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PORTMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 205, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--223

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--205

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conyers
     Cox
     Eshoo
     Houghton
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1444

  So the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page H3291]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________