[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 102 (Friday, July 20, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4355-H4367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2216, 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 204 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 204
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 the resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference
report rule for H.R. 2216, the fiscal year 2001 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides
that the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type
of rule that we grant for almost every conference report. Meanwhile,
the underlying bill provides vital relief to our Nation's Armed Forces,
and aid to areas that have been devastated by natural disasters. It
does all this without busting the budget caps by designating pet
projects as emergency spending.
I cannot remember the last time we passed an emergency supplemental
bill through this House without resorting to the ``emergency spending''
gimmick that we use, and the administration deserves credit for holding
the line on this one.
Our military needs our help. Without this bill and without the 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
provide more than $1 billion for the defense health program.
At the same time, we are providing more than $6 billion, largely to
help our military maintain its facilities and its topnotch training and
equipment, and we are helping the military deal with the energy crisis,
they have a problem with that like the rest of us do, by providing $735
million just to deal with rising energy costs in the daily routine they
have.
We are not only taking care of the emergency needs of our military,
though. Several communities in the Midwest have recently been
devastated by floods and tornadoes, so we are giving the Army Corps of
Engineers money to mitigate the damages from these natural disasters.
We are also helping low-income families deal with high heating costs
by adding money to the LIHEAP program. That is the program that helps
them with their energy bills. And we are giving the IRS additional
resources so they can mail out the tax rebate checks this summer. I
know everybody is going to be glad to hear that.
I urge my colleagues to support this normal conference report rule,
and to support the underlying bill. This legislation is a strong step
forward as we work to care for our military personnel and to take care
of all of those who are hurting 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, in this bill, I think it is appropriate to paraphrase
the promise of the President and the Vice President to our military and
say that some help is on the way.
[[Page H4356]]
Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference agreement as far as it goes,
since it provides $5.6 billion for the urgent needs of our Armed
Forces. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, the administration is remiss for not
requesting even more funds early in its term so that the Congress might
truly ensure that help is on the way.
I do have to take just a moment to point out that this conference
agreement provides $735 million to address the Pentagon's rising energy
costs. This allocation is critical, but it also points to the fact that
rising energy costs hit home all over the country, and can in fact
endanger our national security.
That is true even here in Washington, D.C. It is so true that part of
the help that is on the way in this bill is most likely going to the
Vice President to help him pay his own rising energy bills at his
residence.
This conference agreement contains a desperately needed additional
$300 million for LIHEAP for the remainder of the fiscal year to help
those consumers who are facing power cutoffs because they have been
unable to pay for soaring energy costs. I am very happy to support that
additional funding, since I have cosponsored legislation to increase
the funding available for this most valuable program.
But it seems strange to me that the Vice President, who has been
telling Californians to bite the bullet when it comes to their own
soaring energy electricity costs, has to go begging to the United
States Navy to bail him out of his own $186,000 electrical bill.
So some help is indeed on the way. It is on the way in the form of
additional funds for readiness and operations requirements for the
military, to improve substandard housing, and to avoid disruptions in
military health care. It is also on the way for thousands of Americans
who need help paying their energy bills.
I am also encouraged that some help may be on the way to the people
of Houston, who suffered enormous losses after Allison hit in June.
When the House first considered this supplemental, the Committee on
Appropriations had included rescissions in FEMA's budget, an action
many in this body simply could not understand. I am happy to report the
conference committee has eliminated those rescissions so there will be
some funding available in the near term to help families and businesses
get back on their feet. But, of course, this bill does not include the
money that was being sought on an emergency basis specifically for
Houston, and we will deal with that in a later appropriation bill in
the next week or two.
Mr. Speaker, I support this conference agreement, but it is high time
that this body faces up to the fact that there are pressing needs that
must be addressed in this country, and we have squandered the resources
we need to do it.
I believe it is time we provide real help to the military, so that
our dedicated personnel do not have to live in substandard housing and
they do not have to cannibalize equipment in order to make something
work. But we cannot do that if this Congress does not own up to what we
have done by passing a $1.3 trillion tax cut.
That tax cut has already cost either the military, our education
programs, our energy assistance, or whatever program we want to name,
$116 million. And for what? That is what it costs to send out the
letters saying that the check is in the mail, and then to send the
check in the mail. There is money in this bill to cover those costs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule and to support this
supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2001. We do need to send
help, but we could have done more.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 204,
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2216) making
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Pursuant to House Resolution
204, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Thursday, July 19, 2001, at page H4281).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
General Leave
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2216, and that I may
include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
{time} 0915
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, during the discussion on the rule we had a
pretty good description of what this bill does. But let me say first
that we started out with a ceiling of $6.5 billion. We stayed within
that number in the House, our counterparts in the Senate did as well,
and this conference report stays within the $6.5 billion.
Most of the money is actually for national defense. The bill includes
$5.6 billion to address urgent defense needs that include rising fuel
costs, military health care programs, readiness and operation
requirements, substandard housing for our troops, and disaster
assistance for damage sustained at military installations.
I would like to echo what my friend from Texas said during the
discussion on the rule; that this is more or less a band-aid on our
real needs. And I want to emphasize housing and quality of life. There
are so many needs in military housing that we should be ashamed of the
way we make some of our military personnel live. Some of the facilities
that they live in are just totally unacceptable. This bill takes a
little step towards correcting that problem, but we have a lot more to
do and a long way to go. We were, however, constrained to stay within
the $6.5 billion and so we did that.
I would also add that while this is a supplemental, there are no
emergency designations. We did not declare anything an emergency as a
way to get over and above the $6.5 billion, so there are no emergency
declarations in this bill.
In addition to the funds for the military that I mentioned briefly we
included an additional $92 million for the Coast Guard operational
requirements. The Coast Guard has been falling behind in their
infrastructure, and they do such a tremendous job. When the Coast Guard
goes out for a search and rescue, or when they go out for port
security, or drug interdiction, or the many, many risky missions they
take on, they sometimes are going with equipment that is not up to
date. They also have a spare parts problem and they have an operational
expense problem that we tried to address in this bill too. But like the
other military uniformed services, the Coast Guard needs more money
than this bill provides. It does provide, however, $92 million.
There is $300 million funded for natural disaster assistance,
including relief to communities that were impacted by recent floods and
ice storms in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas, and the Seattle earthquake, and for other natural
disasters.
The President, in his supplemental request, asked for $150 million
for the Low Income Home and Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, a
program that is strongly supported by the Congress. This bill includes
$300 million, double the amount requested by the President, and
bringing the program to the highest level in history.
An additional $100 million is provided for international bilateral
assistance for HIV-AIDS through the child survival and disease program,
and $161 million is provided to implement last year's conference
agreement on title I, education for the disadvantaged.
[[Page H4357]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support this conference
report. It is very timely. Our military services have already spent
well into their fourth quarter funding because of the rising fuel costs
and the additional medical care expenses, and so we really need to
expedite consideration of this bill here and in the other body to get
it to the President.
There is available a one-page table that lists most of the items that
are included in this bill, and that is available for any Member who
would like it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for listening attentively, and I
submit for the Record a chart reflecting the amounts allocated in the
supplemental.
[[Page H4358]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY01.001
[[Page H4359]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY01.002
[[Page H4360]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY01.003
[[Page H4361]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY01.004
[[Page H4362]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY01.005
[[Page H4363]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JY01.006
[[Page H4364]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a far better bill than we had when it
left the House, and it is certainly a far more honest bill than was the
case when it left the House.
The House will recall that at the time of going to conference we
asked the House to consider doing three things in our motion to
instruct. The first was to ask the House to drop the rescission of $389
million in previously appropriated disaster money for FEMA. The
majority at that time declined to support that motion. But this
conference, in fact, did adopt that position, and I think that was the
correct position to take.
We also asked the House at that time to provide additional funding
for the victims of radiation related sickness, because many of them
were in fact the victims of the conduct of their own government. This
is an important issue out west. And while, again, the majority did not
support the motion to recommit, we are happy that in the end they did
provide a recognition that these people are entitled to this
compensation, and I am happy that the matter was addressed in
conference.
We also asked in that motion that the House support direct funding to
enable the Department of Agriculture to deal with the twin threats of
foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease. The conferees there did
provide $5 million of direct funding and they provided support for $30
million in indirect funding. So I think on those three items certainly
this bill is a much better bill than we had when the bill first left
the House.
I should make some other points. This bill will have broad bipartisan
support, but there are certainly a number of other areas where this
bill should have acted but chose not to.
I also wish that this bill had been passed faster. Certainly the
committees in both Houses moved the bill as quickly as they got it, but
the administration chose to withhold their request of these funds until
after the tax bill was passed. And in my view, one of the reasons they
did that was to hide from the House's view the implications of that tax
bill for some of the critical items in this bill. And I think some of
the inadequacies in this bill were purposely withheld from the House
until after the tax bill was passed so that people's views of those
inadequacies would not get in the way of passing the kind of tax bill
the administration wanted.
I should also say that there are a number of areas where the bill, I
think, should have been improved. In the area of emergency disaster
assistance, for instance, we have had some very severe storms all
across the country, especially in the Midwest. It was strange, I
thought, that this Congress originally tried to eliminate $389 million
in previously appropriated funds to deal with that problem. I welcome
the fact that the Congress essentially decided in the end to restore
that money, but I do believe that there are still other needs to be
met.
And I think it needs to be clearly understood this FEMA budget is
adequate only so long as Mother Nature suspends her normal course of
events in producing heavy storms over the summer period. If we have one
more storm, this budget will clearly be inadequate. And I think the
administration knows it, and I believe that the majority in this House
knows it.
I would also point out that the state of military readiness that will
be enabled by this bill is what is required to meet world conditions
provided that nothing significant happens in the world between now and
the end of the fiscal year. If it does, we are going to need additional
funding mighty quick.
And lastly, I think it is also clear that if we have the usual round
of forest fires in the west, that this bill will be clearly inadequate.
I hope that we get lucky, but I am not convinced that we will.
I am also pleased that the bill did provide clarifying authority to
make certain that the Department of Agriculture understands that they
do have the authority to provide reimbursement to the various private
groups who are helping to carry out the global food initiative.
I also must say, going back to the FEMA issue, I find this bill on
this subject somewhat disingenuous. The administration, in my judgment,
fully recognizes that this account is probably short. Certainly the
FEMA agency itself, in their conversations with me, have indicated that
they expect that in the end they will probably need at least $.5
billion more, and perhaps as much as $1 billion more.
And I would say that I found interesting the St. Paul conversion on
the road to Damascus of the distinguished majority whip. As my
colleagues will recall, he, on three occasions, insisted that we
support the rescission of the funds for FEMA. We welcome the fact that
he has walked away from that position, to the extent that now he is
recognizing that there is probably going to be a need for $1.3 billion
in additional funds for FEMA.
The strangeness in this whole episode is demonstrated by the fact
that while the administration has said in public comment, in
newspapers, that we probably will need more money, they have declined
to ask for that money. This committee has made quite clear, at least
the Democratic majority in the other body has made quite clear, and we
have made quite clear on our side of the aisle in this House that we
would be willing to provide that money if the administration asks for
it. But I guess we will have to play Russian roulette a while longer
before the administration decides what it is actually going to do for
the remainder of the year.
So, in short, this bill has some shortcomings, but I think it is good
that the committee moved as fast as it did to finish action on it. I
think that we will have broad support on both sides of the aisle. I
would urge support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who is chairman
of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take
any significant amount of time, for the work that has been done by our
very fine staff on both sides of the aisle has expedited this process.
I really wanted to rise for just a couple of reasons. First, to bring
to the attention of our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), that the last time we were here on the floor with this bill
he was suffering from laryngitis and it helped us a lot in expediting
the process. I want to congratulate him on the progress he has made
between now and then.
But I really also wanted to point out one other item to him, and that
is that it was not so long ago that it was my privilege to be chairman
of the subcommittee that deals with FEMA funding, and the gentleman may
recall that this Member certainly did not stand by and allow too much
rescission of FEMA funding. Indeed, the challenges of emergencies
across the country are an item that I recognize very clearly.
From there, I believe the work of the committee, relative to the
amount of money in the bill reflecting the problem of the caps we are
dealing with in this budget process, is as far as we can go.
I am very, very pleased with the expression of concern on both sides
of the aisle about the need for more adequate funding for our national
security. Indeed, bear with me, for as we move towards September, I am
certain we are going to be able to have a very healthy discussion about
just how far we should go in connection with making sure the troops are
taken care of and we are prepared for whatever emergencies might be out
there.
{time} 0930
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
chairman and the ranking member for their efforts to bring the
conference report before us in a bipartisan manner which will provide
supplemental appropriations to the Department of Defense and address
other critical needs we face in this country.
I am particularly glad to see that the conference report does not
include any rescissions in FEMA's disaster relief account.
[[Page H4365]]
Included in the supplemental is $5 million for the Department of
Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service to guard against
the threat of foreign animal disease, including foot and mouth disease
and mad cow disease. I have expressed serious concerns about this issue
as have other Members about the devastating impact that these diseases
would have on American agriculture should any outbreak occur in this
country.
Because of the concentration of livestock in my home State of North
Carolina, a foot and mouth disease outbreak would be an incredible
catastrophe. An outbreak in eastern North Carolina could require the
destruction of 2.8 million hogs within a mere 20 mile radius. That
number is greater than the amount of animals killed in the entire
country of England.
My State has worked hard and continues to be vigilant to prepare for
an emergency and, most importantly, prevent an outbreak before it
occurs.
Five million dollars was not the amount that the USDA requested, nor
was it the amount that experts in the field felt was adequate. Frankly,
I am disappointed that the full $35 million requested for APHIS for
this effort was not agreed to. But now the decision has been made, and
we must count on the USDA to muster all the resources we can to bolster
animal inspections at U.S. borders and ports, to hire additional
veterinarians for animal health assessments, and to control an outbreak
should it occur.
The conferees have indicated that they expect the Secretary of
Agriculture to use funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation not only
to deal with an emergency after it occurs, but also to work now to
prevent the threat of foreign animal disease.
I just hope they know what they are doing down at USDA because we
cannot afford to wait until a foot and mouth outbreak hits to do
something. The cost would be much more than the $30 million this bill
does not include.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for yielding me this time and for his great work on this
conference report.
I rise in support of the conference report. I am especially grateful
to and I want to commend the work of the conferees for including
additional funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
President's Global Food for Education Initiative, a program inspired
and promoted by former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole, and a
program that can ultimately end hunger amongst the world's children.
These additional funds will allow for the internal transportation and
storage of commodities, moving them closer to the actual sites of use
and distribution for these very important school feeding programs. The
funds will also cover specified administrative costs incurred by the
implementing of private voluntary organizations and agencies.
Allocation of this funding should help resolve difficulties that have
interrupted the implementation of this pilot program since its
inception. It will also ensure that this program truly has an American
face in the field.
This action sends a clear signal to the Secretary of Agriculture that
the Congress believes the Global Food For Education program is
important and that Congress wants to see the Global Food for Education
pilot program done right. Congress cannot evaluate the effectiveness of
a program unless it has been implemented well from the very beginning.
The Congress has now demonstrated it is willing to help facilitate the
success of the program.
As many of my colleagues know, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Emerson) and I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1700, to establish the
Global Food for Education program as a permanent program. Over 70
Members of this House have joined us in this bipartisan effort. This
conference report ensures that the pilot program can now proceed along
a more constructive and productive course.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), and all the other conferees and staff who worked to make these
funds available. I believe they have made an important contribution to
alleviating hunger and increasing education opportunities for millions
of the world's neediest children.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) for his good work on the supplemental. I just wanted to stand up
and say how pleased I am that the supplemental does include an effort
to compensate folks that have been victims of radiation exposure.
Years ago Congress admitted that there was fault and admitted we need
to compensate victims. Yet we have not put up the money. There are
people in my region of the country that have letters from the
Government right now, IOUs saying, ``Well, yeah, you deserve
compensation, but we don't have the money.'' We have come up now with
some money. I am a little disappointed that of the $84 million we were
looking for, only $20 million is in this supplemental and now we have
got to do something about next year's budget as well to accommodate
that, but it is a step in the right direction. We are going to keep
fighting for this. We want to make sure that the people who were
inappropriately exposed to harm, and the government has admitted
culpability, we are going to make sure those people are adequately
compensated. I am pleased that this supplemental takes a step in that
direction.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
agreeing to the Senate position and the administration position with
respect to FEMA and not going forward with the rescission. These moneys
are greatly needed in my district and throughout the greater Houston
area and in 29 other counties in Texas. I think we are going to need
more money before the fiscal year is over. I think the committee stands
ready to deal with that. I just want to commend the chairman and the
ranking member for the hard work they did on that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I would like to take just a few minutes to thank all of those who
were players in reaching the point that we are at today. While it
appears this ended up as a fairly noncontroversial bill, it was not
easy to get here. There were a lot of differences between the House and
the Senate when we initiated the conference. We had a tremendous spirit
of cooperation. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
personally, for working so closely with us as we reached agreement on
the many issues that were outstanding and all of the representatives of
the chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees that were
involved in the issues.
Mr. Speaker, when we have regular appropriations bills on the floor,
often times we hear comments about the tremendous work of the staff and
the mention of the subcommittee staffers, but I want to take just a few
seconds this morning to say we have a tremendous front office staff,
too, managed by Jim Dyer, the clerk of the committee; Dale Oak, who is
here at the table; John Blazey, Therese McAuliffe and John Scofield who
are also here in the Chamber; and Mr. Obey's staff, Scott Lilly. We all
worked together with our counterparts in the Senate and ended up with a
very good, noncontroversial product.
As other Members have said, this does not solve all the problems. It
is not intended to do that. This is a supplemental. The regular bills
are already moving through the House and additional bills will be up
next week. We will have concluded nine bills plus the supplemental in
the House before we adjourn for the August recess. Again, it shows what
we can do when we work together in a bipartisan way. We do have
differences, but we work them out. I am very proud of the way that the
House has functioned on this supplemental.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on a provision in
the Supplemental
[[Page H4366]]
Appropriations bill passed by the Senate which constitutes legislation
in an appropriations bill. The change affects the allocation of Impact
Aid funding for this current fiscal year and affects funding levels for
virtually all school districts receiving Impact Aid funds under the
Basic payments program, with the vast majority losing funds. Changing
the formula in an appropriations bill in the middle of the current
fiscal year, wherein school districts lose funds that they have been
depending on is contrary to good legislative policy.
Currently, school districts with less than 1,000 children, and a per-
pupil expenditure of less than the State average are guaranteed at
least a 40% Learning Opportunity Threshold (LOT) payment. The change
being considered by the conferees would modify the eligibility for the
LOT payment by allowing school districts with less than 1,000 students
to receive a guaranteed LOT payment if their average per-pupil
expenditure is below the State average or below the National average.
This increases the LOT payments.
This formula change causes most districts across the nation that
receive Impact Aid payments under the Basic payments program to lose
funds. Hawaii school districts would receive almost $100,000 less than
they would have under the current formula. This would have a
significant impact on school districts everywhere that have been
counting on these funds since last year. To change the formula now,
with only a few months left in the fiscal year, undermines these
districts' plans and shortchanges schools that rely heavily on these
funds.
The House agreed to this change for future funds when it passed H.R.
1 earlier this year. I do not object to that change, only that it is be
unfair to implement it in this year's funding cycle.
The only way to allow for the formula change for this fiscal year so
as not to hurt other school districts was to come up with the
additional funds needed to cover the cost of this change in formula so
as to hold harmless the funding for all other schools. Regrettably this
Conference Report does not come up with these additional funds. It
states that in this years' up coming appropriations bill these losses
will be offset with added funds.
The attached chart shows the state-by-state loss of Impact Aid funds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY '01 BSP FY '01 BSP
State FY 2000 BSP Current Law Watts' Difference
\1\ \2\ Amendment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\3\----------------
Alaska.................................................... $89,910,004 $89,164,106 $89,091,978 $72,128
Alabama................................................... 2,463,310 2,867,836 2,859,886 7,950
Arizona................................................... 118,953,121 126,519,738 126,631,354 (111,616)
Arkansas.................................................. 467,185 525,947 524,489 1,458
California................................................ 53,253,103 56,643,590 56,631,465 12,124
Colorado.................................................. 6,911,529 7,874,176 7,852,348 21,827
Connecticut............................................... 6,970,709 7,257,766 7,237,647 20,119
District of Columbia...................................... 898,704 1,547,479 1,543,189 4,290
Delaware.................................................. 21,415 35,412 35,314 98
Florida................................................... 7,462,980 9,164,756 9,246,586 (81,830)
Georgia................................................... 6,625,676 16,028,092 16,016,290 11,803
Hawaii.................................................... 33,398,384 34,749,647 34,653,320 96,237
Idaho..................................................... 5,138,122 5,508,286 5,503,007 5,208
Illinois.................................................. 10,036,315 14,264,487 14,259,181 5,306
Indiana................................................... 133,848 140,077 139,689 388
Iowa...................................................... 143,159 146,814 146,407 407
Kansas.................................................... 11,629,843 15,315,708 15,294,768 20,940
Kentucky.................................................. 243,553 375,238 374,198 1,040
Louisiana................................................. 5,336,508 5,728,938 5,713,057 15,881
Maine..................................................... 2,092,788 2,273,531 2,270,098 3,432
Maryland.................................................. 5,434,946 6,122,534 6,105,562 16,972
Massachusetts............................................. 1,081,084 1,138,697 1,135,540 3,156
Michigan.................................................. 2,512,546 2,808,050 2,800,266 7,784
Minnesota................................................. 7,606,571 8,028,552 8,019,561 8,991
Mississippi............................................... 2,990,457 3,229,289 3,262,750 (33,461)
Missouri.................................................. 8,705,957 12,524,943 12,517,645 7,298
Montana................................................... 33,901,638 35,431,225 35,431,866 (641)
Nebraska.................................................. 10,226,476 17,977,713 17,976,810 903
Nevada.................................................... 3,297,577 3,687,859 3,677,636 10,223
New Hampshire............................................. 7,249 7,950 7,928 22
New Jersey................................................ 12,791,440 15,144,224 15,127,908 16,316
New Mexico................................................ 68,342,295 71,266,984 71,227,854 39,130
New York.................................................. 11,425,469 15,921,466 15,901,552 19,914
North Carolina............................................ 8,200,211 11,013,626 10,983,096 30,530
North Dakota.............................................. 16,106,955 24,320,620 24,337,479 (16,858)
Ohio...................................................... 2,737,631 2,938,412 2,930,267 8,145
Oklahoma.................................................. 23,070,837 28,226,650 28,613,721 (387,071)
Oregon.................................................... 2,355,978 2,614,186 2,606,939 7,247
Pennsylvania.............................................. 1,295,274 1,298,454 1,294,855 3,599
Puerto Rico............................................... 1,228,440 1,254,809 1,251,330 3,478
Rhode Island.............................................. 2,477,030 2,594,638 2,587,445 7,192
South Carolina............................................ 2,827,810 3,200,759 3,191,887 8,873
South Dakota.............................................. 26,176,631 34,695,348 34,734,158 (38,809)
Tennessee................................................. 1,201,003 1,954,128 1,948,712 5,417
Texas..................................................... 33,439,494 62,696,858 62,718,452 (21,594)
Utah...................................................... 6,494,785 6,753,207 6,734,487 18,720
Vermont................................................... 3,800 5,289 5,274 15
Virgin Island............................................. 208,525 353,231 352,252 979
Virginia.................................................. 25,861,650 34,692,646 34,596,478 96,169
Washington................................................ 31,756,879 42,196,708 42,137,496 59,212
West Virginia............................................. 10,435 11,328 11,297 31
Wisconsin................................................. 9,274,626 9,591,319 9,580,628 10,691
Wyoming................................................... 7,486,643 7,835,190 7,833,170 2,020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $737.2 ($732.6 out) 116.3% LOT.
\2\ $882 ($867,668 out) 113.27% LOT.
\3\ 882 ($867.668 out) 112.96% LOT.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this
legislation. In particular, I am extremely pleased the conferees have
included $20 million in emergency assistance to farmers in the Klamath
River Basin in Oregon and Northern California.
The farmers and communities in this area have been devastated by one
of the most severe droughts to ever hit the Pacific Northwest. While
the federal government doesn't have any control over the weather, at
the very least we should provide emergency aid to alleviate the
situation.
That said, one of the more troubling aspects of this legislation is
that among the $1.8 billion in spending offsets the conferees have
agreed to take away $178 million from dislocated worker-training funds.
With layoffs and unemployment increasingly in headlines across the
United States--and rising electricity costs threatening to further
swell the ranks of dislocated workers--the decision to slash available
funding to dislocated workers just doesn't make any sense.
The underlying intent of block grants are to give states flexibility
in how they spend federal funds. Crisis don't happen overnight, and it
is unrealistic to expect states to expend or obligate all of their
funds upon the beginning of the program year. In fact, Congress
recognized this in the Workforce Investment Act, which explicitly gives
individual states three years to expend their unobligated funds--the
first year they are appropriated and the two subsequent years.
As such, I bitterly oppose the decision to take funding away from
Oregon and other states before they have had the chance to fully
implement their employment programs. Currently, I am working with my
colleagues Representative Mike Capuano from Massachusetts and
Representative Jack Quinn from New York to ensure that the Workforce
Investment Act receives it's full funding in fiscal year 2002, and
invite every member of the House to join us.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will support this conference
report, because while it is not perfect it is a great improvement over
the bill as originally passed by the House last month.
The House bill did include some very good things. It provided for an
additional $100 million for essential environmental restoration and
waste management at Savannah River, Hanford, and other sites in the DOE
complex and for acquisition of additional containers for shipping
wastes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
These are important for Colorado, because our ability to have the
Rocky Flats site cleaned up and closed by 2006 depends on the ability
of other sites in the complex to play their roles in that process. So,
I was--and remain--very appreciative that the appropriations committee
has responded to these needs. Similarly, the House bill's additional
$300 million for low-income home energy assistance will enable that
important program to provide much needed assistance this year, even if
it will not meet all needs.
But for me all the good things in the bill were outweighed by one
glaring omission--the total absence of any funds to pay already-
approved claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or
``RECA.''
RECA provides for payments to individuals who contracted certain
cancers and other serious diseases because of exposure to radiation
released during above-ground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of
their exposure to radiation during employment in underground uranium
mines. Some of my constituents are covered by RECA, as are hundreds of
other Coloradans and residents of New Mexico and other states.
Last year, the Congress amended RECA to cover more people and to make
other important modifications. I supported those changes. But there was
one needed change that was not made--we did not make the payments
automatic. Unless and until we make that change, the RECA payments can
only be made when Congress appropriates money for that purpose.
And the undeniable fact is that we in the Congress have not
appropriated enough money to pay everyone who is entitled to be paid
under RECA. As a result, people who should be getting checks are
instead getting letters from the Justice Department.
Those letters--IOUs, you could call them--say that payments must
await further appropriations. What they mean is that we in the Congress
have failed to meet a solemn obligation. We failed to meet it when we
passed the regular appropriations bill for the Justice Department--and
as the bill passed the House originally, it again failed to meet that
obligation.
So, I am very glad that the conference report provides for $84
million for paying these claims. I understand that the way that has
been scored could mean that not all that amount will be paid before
October. I hope that the Administration will do all that is needed to
assure that payments are made as soon as possible, because these people
have already waited too long as it is.
Of course, this conference report is only a stopgap resolution of the
bigger problem with RECA. We need to do more.
We should change the law so that future RECA payments will not depend
on annual appropriations, but instead will be paid automatically in the
way that we now have provided for payments under the new compensation
program for certain nuclear-weapons workers made sick by exposure to
radiation, beryllium, and other hazards. I have joined in sponsoring
legislation to make that change. But, meanwhile, I urge approval of the
conference report.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
[[Page H4367]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 375,
nays 30, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 256]
YEAS--375
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--30
Armey
Barrett
Barton
Chabot
Conyers
DeFazio
Duncan
Ehlers
Flake
Frank
Hoekstra
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lee
Paul
Petri
Roemer
Royce
Sanders
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (MI)
Stark
Stupak
Tancredo
Upton
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Barcia
Blumenauer
Brown (FL)
Burton
Crane
DeLay
Dreier
Ehrlich
Engel
Fattah
Filner
Gordon
Graves
Hulshof
Istook
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
McCrery
McKinney
Miller (FL)
Moore
Oberstar
Skelton
Spence
Thomas
Traficant
Young (AK)
{time} 1010
Mr. STARK and Mr. KUCINICH changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 2001, due to a family
commitment, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 256. Had I been
here I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 256, I was carrying out
official duties in my District and missed this vote. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________