[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.''

                          ____________________