[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 112 (Friday, July 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7647-H7654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF ACT, 2003

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 339, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 2859 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2859

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2003, namely:

  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

                            Disaster Relief

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'' for 
     necessary expenses in carrying out the functions of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $983,600,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That this amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2003''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment made in order by the resolution, 
if offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), or his 
designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 20 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the 
bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
question of adopting the Toomey amendment to H.R. 2859 may be subject 
to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I do so to present the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, 
the second supplemental for fiscal year 2003. We have had considerable 
debate already on the bill as we debated the rule. This is a very 
simple, straightforward emergency bill that includes $983.6 million for 
the Disaster Relief Fund, which is now a part of the Department of 
Homeland Security. We know that there are Members that have other 
interests, and the administration has other interests. We had already 
reported from the Committee on Appropriations a supplemental that was 
more far reaching than this, but it appears the proper thing to do now 
is to just present this emergency supplemental strictly for Disaster 
Relief because the Disaster Relief account has a serious problem with 
running out of money. I do not think we need a lot of debate on this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, before I discuss this matter before us, I would like to 
alert Members of the House to the situation we face on the VA-HUD bill. 
There have been approximately 40 amendments offered to that bill. 
Perhaps 10 of them at this point will fall by the wayside, people 
deciding not to offer them. If the others simply take 5 minutes on each 
side and if about a third to a half of them have rollcalls, that will 
take us to probably 7 o'clock tonight. I am sorry. I said that wrong. 
If we have no rollcalls and if we just have 5 minutes of debate on each 
side, it will take us until about 7 o'clock tonight. If there are any 
rollcalls at all, then let us say there are rollcalls on about a third 
of the amendments, that means we would be here until about 9 o'clock 
tonight. And if you have one-third of those amendments where you take 
at least 10 minutes a side, then we are going to be here until about 11 
o'clock.
  I want Members to understand that now, because I know a lot of them 
are assuming that they are going to be able to catch 6 o'clock planes. 
Unless something happens, that is not going to be true. I would urge 
Members to think through whether they are serious in offering these 
amendments. If they are, obviously they have a right to offer them. But 
I think Members need to understand what the realistic time frame is as 
well and would urge Members to take that into consideration if in fact 
they are planning to get out of here on a plane this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, having given that notice, let me simply say that we have 
already made quite clear that we think that this supplemental is 
deficient in a number of areas, especially in the areas of fire 
fighting and in the area of AmeriCorps, but in my view there is no 
sense chewing that cud twice. We have already talked about it on the 
rule.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The one concern I 
have in the Toomey amendment which is yet to be offered, since it was 
not printed in the Record as it was supposed to be, but, anyway, in the 
Toomey amendment, we are going to have an across-the-board cut. One of 
the items that was not exempted was fire fighting. We are already not 
getting the supplemental funding for fire fighting that was promised in 
this bill. Last year they borrowed money from all the accounts to fund 
the fire fighting. That is what we are going to have to wind up doing 
again. But then on top of that, we are going to have to have an across-
the-board cut. I am told this would be 7 or $8 million out of the fire 
fighting funds. I know you can defer it if the President does this and 
that. All I am saying is, I do not think this amendment is very well 
thought out, I do not like across-the-board amendments normally; and so 
I hope that this will at least be thought about as we get into the 
debate on this supplemental.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I agree with the 
gentleman's observation, but it is obvious we are going to be voting on 
the amendment so I think I will withhold my comments on it until we are 
actually at the amending stage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H7648]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to remind 
Members that the Committee on Appropriations reported a supplemental 
appropriations bill that I believe is still in play that would be 
conferenced as part of the legislative branch bill. That bill did 
include the money for fighting the fires. We think that is a very 
important issue. We actually proposed that to the administration and 
they agreed. They agreed to that part of the supplemental. I hope that 
is still in play, and I believe that it will be; but today we are faced 
with the real emergency of a funding emergency for Disaster Relief 
account.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and, of 
course, FEMA falls into his jurisdiction.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this is a stripped-down version 
of the disaster supplemental. It is $983.6 million purely for disaster 
relief activities. It fully funds all the anticipated Federal disaster 
relief activities for the balance of this year. The administration, you 
recollect, had requested $1.55 billion for these activities, but a 
portion of that request was for fiscal year 2004 activities; and 
because we anticipate that we will be able to complete the 2004 
appropriations bill before October 1, it is not necessary to include 
2004 moneys in this 2003 supplemental. All fiscal year 2004 program 
requirements can be accommodated in the regular 2004 bill.
  Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding in the Midwest and South have 
taken their toll on the disaster relief fund. Combined with severe snow 
and ice storms this past winter and the Columbia shuttle recovery 
efforts, this fund will be depleted within the next 2 weeks. As of July 
21, the balance in the disaster relief fund was $89 million. FEMA is 
currently spending at $5.7 million a day; and as expenses for Hurricane 
Claudette come in, obligations will jump to $6.3 million a day. That 
means the fund will be gone on or about August 4.
  FEMA has done all they can to hold expenses down. They have put all 
nonessential projects on hold, including all reconstruction and 
mitigation projects. In total, $400 million in spending is on hold. The 
only activities being supported by FEMA are emergency and essential 
services such as debris removal, individual assistance, shelter, and 
medical care.

                              {time}  1315

  To date for fiscal 2003 there have been 32 major disasters declared, 
15 emergencies and 18 fire management events. We are at the height of 
the wildfire and hurricane seasons, and an active hurricane season is 
predicted.
  FEMA estimates that they will need about $10 million a day to support 
Federal disaster relief effort for the months of August and September. 
The proposed $983.6 million in this bill assumes that FEMA will fully 
fund these efforts as well as resume work on mitigation, repair and 
reconstruction projects. It also assumes there will be a zero balance 
in the fund on September 30.
  I urge support for this supplemental. It is streamlined. It is 
stripped down to its bare essentials. Without it, FEMA funds will dry 
up August 4, leaving communities and individuals without Federal 
assistance and laying off personnel.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does an excellent job in his 
work and his subcommittee in dealing with this. I am wondering if he 
could report to us why it is that there is a shortfall of resources for 
FEMA for this year.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, unanticipated disasters. There 
is no way obviously to accurately predict what Mother Nature is going 
to do. This is not a huge amount of money, as it goes, for disaster 
relief. It is simply replenishing or allowing that fund to be able to 
exist until we can get through the next 2 months.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, is it not true, however, that the President 
requested back in February an additional $1 billion for FEMA to be made 
part of the omnibus appropriations bill, and that that $1 billion 
request was not used for FEMA, but rather for other accounts within the 
omnibus appropriations bill?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, that is something I will yield 
to the big chairman on. I am not conversant with the details of it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget that our process on appropriations was so 
fouled up last year by some insistent demands of certain Members that, 
yes, we had to do 11 of the 13 bills in February of this year.
  If the Committee on Appropriations would have been permitted to do 
our work like we have done this year, by the way, we would not have had 
those kinds of problems where we had to make adjustments in order to 
cover the balance of the 2003 issues. And I would suggest that what was 
done was done in agreement with the leadership, it was done in 
agreement with the President of the United States; and I make no excuse 
for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, again, the chairman has, if not the toughest 
job, one the toughest jobs on Capitol Hill, and I do not take anything 
away from that.
  My concern about what we are doing with regard to an emergency 
supplemental, as the gentleman correctly said when he started, is that 
an emergency, by definition, and has been by definition since the early 
1990s, is something that is unforeseen, unpredictable, and 
unanticipated. And when the President makes a request for $1 billion in 
order to fund FEMA accounts for problems that while they maybe have not 
yet manifested themselves, we know there will be forest fires, floods, 
hurricanes, tornadoes, windstorms, et cetera.
  And I think the concern I have and others may have, is that when it 
is requested, it is not funded as it is traditionally and unfortunately 
the case for FEMA, and that money is used for other accounts, that we 
find ourselves now having to take time on the floor to go and do what 
should have been done in February.
  That money has now been used for other accounts, and that is the 
concern that I have as the Committee on the Budget chairman, and I know 
a number of other people have, with regard to the process that we are 
taking here today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's 
concern. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that, as I have indicated, we believe 
that there are a number of other items which should have been included 
in this supplemental. They were not. The majority determines that; so 
we have no objection to that which is included in the proposal, and I 
would certainly intend to vote for it.
  I would say with respect to the comments of the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, it is my observation that in 
the world sometimes things change. Events occur, natural disasters 
occur, matters of a war here and there occur. Things change, except in 
the world of the Committee on the Budget. So I guess nothing that the 
Committee on Appropriations does will ever satisfy people who prefer a 
static world, but I quit worrying about that a long time ago.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, let me just report to the ranking member 
that I have supported all of the appropriations bills on the floor this 
year.
  Mr. OBEY. I have not.

[[Page H7649]]

  Mr. NUSSLE. I understand that, but my point is that the Committee on 
the Budget tries not to meddle other than when it writes the budget 
itself, which is our prerogative as a committee to write.
  And I would just say, I think the gentleman might acknowledge that a 
war does not have its own account. FEMA has its own account to 
anticipate natural disasters, to anticipate emergencies; and as the 
gentleman knows, this is an unfortunate, but yet somewhat traditional 
exercise that goes on to underfund FEMA, knowing full well that we have 
a difficult time saying no to natural disasters, so that those 
resources can be spread among other accounts.
  We can all decide how we are going to vote on this, but I would only 
encourage the very distinguished ranking member, who I know is 
concerned about this practice, that we prevent this from occurring in 
the future.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Let me simply say I am familiar with the gentleman's history on 
disaster funding. I personally would prefer that there would be no 
federally financed disaster programs.
  I have introduced legislation which would require every State in the 
Union to buy into a federally run insurance plan so that on an 
experience-rated basis States would, much as they do with Worker's 
Compensation, prepay for any expected disaster short of a gargantuan 
tragedy. We have not been able to get that considered by either party, 
so we are stuck with what is left.
  I am much more concerned with whether this estimate is real than 
whether it fits within the niceties of the budget resolution, to be 
frank about it. I do not think that God gives us 2 weeks' notice before 
we have a hurricane; so we do not have time to send down a proper 
budget amendment. So I think we do the best we can.
  I think the difference between the gentleman from Iowa and the 
gentleman from Florida is that the gentleman from Iowa is free to pull 
numbers out of the air on the Committee on the Budget and describe the 
world as he and as Committee on the Budget think it ought to exist. But 
then the Committee on Appropriations and other legislative committees 
in this place have to implement what happens, and I think it is a whole 
lot more difficult to implement than it is to pronounce.
  So all I would say is, given the limited nature of the 
recommendations here, I think this is reasonable. I personally believe 
that this is not going to be enough money in the FEMA account. I think 
we should have done something on fire fighting. I think we should have 
done something to prevent 20,000 people from being fired in AmeriCorps, 
and I recognize we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my 
colleagues, I had a chance last night to meet Mike Brown, who is the 
Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, which used to 
be FEMA, and I asked him a couple of questions about this problem.
  First of all, he said they will have to start shutting down offices 
all over the country, I think it was by August 8, if we do not get this 
money. I also asked him can they borrow the money from other accounts? 
No. They do not have a way of doing this like the Forest Service and 
the Department of Interior. The BLM does; they can borrow money from 
other accounts.
  EPR, Emergency Preparedness and Response, does not have that 
authority. So we have to appropriate this money. That is why all of a 
sudden this supplemental reemerged because it became very clear we 
could not, in good conscience, doing our jobs, leave here without 
appropriating the money for FEMA.
  We have got disasters all over this country, as we speak, that 
require this funding. And as I said, I wish we had taken care of fire 
fighting; I wish we had taken care of AmeriCorps. But at least we have 
to take care of this. It would be totally irresponsible, and I hope in 
the other body they will also understand that they have got to pass 
this as well, though I know there is concern over there about this 
coming at the last moment.
  In my mind, this has to be done.
  And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, I invite any Member of this House on 
either side of the aisle who is disquieted about this to call my office 
and indicate their willingness to join me in sponsoring the legislation 
that I have described that would set up an experience-rated fund into 
which States would contribute, so that the Feds do not always get hit 
with the cost of these things.
  But absent that kind of legislation being on the books, I think we 
have no choice but to provide enough money to meet what we know will be 
unscheduled, irregular natural disasters.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today 
because of the fire fighting funds being stricken from this bill.
  This is an enormous problem for those of us from the West. Outside 
the city of Bend, Oregon, a fire burned 600 acres yesterday. This 
morning that fire is up to 4,000 acres; it is burning. The Forest 
Service tells us they will run out of money to fight these fires next 
week. OMB says we can borrow from other accounts; they can get us 
through until the fall.
  Here is what happens year after year after year after year. We get 
through all the paperwork and the environmental process to be able to 
go out to do the healthy forest things that need to be done to thin the 
forests, get out the flammable fuels, do all that work.
  We get into fire season. We have not budgeted for it properly. We 
pull the money out to fight the fires. And what does the Forest Service 
have to do? They borrow from the accounts, and they are ready to do the 
work to make America's forests healthier by doing the thinning, and 
they put the work off for another year. We come back in the fall and 
the winter, we replenish the accounts for the fires, and we do the 
process all over again. We delay what we need to do to fix problem that 
will get us to where we do not have as expensive a fire to fight, 
because it would not be as catastrophic.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could enter into an unscripted colloquy with the 
chairman, my concern is this.
  Do we have any assurance from the Forest Service that they will be 
able to go ahead with these contracts that they are planning to let for 
this summer and the work that they are planning to do, to do forest 
thinning and fuels reduction and categorical exclusion work to make our 
forests healthier and safer, or will any of those funds be pulled back 
to go into fire fighting instead?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first let me explain that I agree 
with everything the gentleman is saying. And I would tell him that just 
last week when the Committee on Appropriations reported the first 
supplemental for this particular season, it included a substantial 
amount of money for fighting fires.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. And we are appreciative of that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this supplemental is still in 
play. It has not gone to conference, but it is still in play as part of 
the legislative branch appropriations bill.
  This is a different bill. This one is intended to move smoothly. That 
is a joke, by the way.
  However, that particular bill is stalled, so we are moving this one 
because this is a real emergency for FEMA. The ability to borrow money 
to fight the fires is there. They can do that.

                              {time}  1330

  However, everybody should be aware that whatever we borrow, we are 
going to have to pay it back anyway, so we are going to have to make up 
this money.
  My thinking is it would have been smarter to include in this bill the 
fire

[[Page H7650]]

fighting money that is necessary. But it did not happen. I wish it had, 
but it did not.
  We will move this bill and hopefully get to conference quickly on the 
other bill and take care of the problem at least of paying back the 
money that they have to borrow.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand 
what the gentleman says, and he has been most gracious and wonderful to 
work with on this issue. But the problem is, as we wait, the forests 
burn, the work does not get done, the issue is compounded. This is 
penny wise and pound foolish.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks. The gentleman is absolutely accurate on this 
point. We would almost be better off if we took away the borrowing 
authority, because then they would have to put up the money. We would 
be like FEMA in that situation. Then they would have to put up the 
money, because we could not leave here without taking care of this 
problem.
  Now what we do is let them borrow the money from the Forest Service, 
from BLM, ruin their other programs, put the agency in total chaos, and 
then, on top of that, we do not pay the money back. This is not good.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I admire his legislation and 
will take a close look at it. The State of Oregon for many years has 
done precisely that, buy an insurance policy to help pay for the cost 
of fire fighting. Of course, that cost continues to go up; but we do 
participate in that. So I think it is a good idea to consider.
  So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I rise in great, great frustration 
about where we find ourselves today, especially with the lack of notice 
that these funds were going to be cut out, when we thought they were 
going to be there.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, supplemental appropriation bills 
are too often used to fund expenses that can, on average, be predicted. 
They allow politicians to keep the annual appropriation budgets at a 
level that is less objectionable to fiscal conservatives. In effect it 
is a hoodwinking of taxpayers who think that Congress sticks to its 
budget.
  In my eleven years in this House we never have supplemental 
appropriation bills increase deficit spending and total debt of the 
government.
  A reasonable average of past supplementals should be included in 
annual budgets as a reserve fund that can be used for emergency or 
unexpected necessary spending. To do otherwise is not good spending 
policy.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Democratic motion to provide adequate funding for AmeriCorps, one of 
our Nation's most important volunteer programs.
  I applaud President Bush for his support of community service. It is 
essential to provide volunteers with the means to do so. AmeriCorps has 
been a shining example of the difference volunteers can make in 
communities across the country.
  Because of AmeriCorps, more than 38,000 people of all ages and 
backgrounds are helping to solve problems and strengthen communities 
through 108 national service projects across Missouri. Serving with 
national and community nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups, 
schools, and local agencies, these individuals tutor and mentor 
children, coordinate after-school programs, build homes and community 
gardens, conduct neighborhood patrols, organize local homeland security 
efforts, respond to disasters, and recruit and manage volunteers, to 
name a few of their contributions. These programs reach thousands of 
children, many of whom will be left without mentorship opportunities 
and after school guidance if AmeriCorps is not fully funded.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the $100 million in additional funding for 
AmeriCorps, and it should be provided for in this bill. The National 
and Community Service announced in June that there would be cuts of 50 
to 90 percent to State AmeriCorps budgets and corps member slots. This 
must be remedied so that AmeriCorps and its volunteers can continue 
their selfless contributions to our country.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about a glaring omission from 
this emergency supplemental--funding for AmeriCorps. We must include 
$100 million in funding for AmeriCorps. Without this funding AmeriCorps 
will suffer a nearly 60 percent cut and 20,000 service members will be 
eliminated.
  Cutting AmeriCorps at a time when Americans are facing a stagnant 
economy, the worst unemployment in more than a decade, and deep cuts in 
State and Federal social programs is not just inconsiderate and wrong, 
it is unwise. That's why I have signed a letter along with many of my 
colleagues in Congress calling on the President and the Congressional 
Leadership to push for emergency funding for AmeriCorps. Young people 
who are qualified and willing to serve our communities should not be 
turned away. We should not be trampling on the spirit of service that 
AmeriCorps has inspired in so many of our young people to give back to 
our communities. Since 1994, more than 250,000 men and women have 
served in AmeriCorps, providing needed assistance to millions of 
Americans.
  President Bush has called for expanding AmeriCorps from 50,000 to 
75,000 volunteers. Volunteerism was a major theme of his State of the 
Union address and as recently as April 9, while speaking at a 
Connecticut community center where AmeriCorps volunteers mentor 
students, President Bush said, ``We need to encourage programs to 
expand, to give people an outlet, a chance to participate.'' Words are 
cheap--the efforts of these volunteers are dear.
  Without additional funding the service programs, as well as the 
volunteers and communities that rely on their help, will be devastated. 
The infrastructure of many small programs, which do not have the 
resources to sustain a significant budget cut for even one year, will 
be destroyed.
  The people of central New Jersey will lose if this funding is not 
restored. In Trenton, New Jersey, the Crisis Ministry, the Trenton Soup 
Kitchen, and the ARC (which helps kids and adults with mental 
disabilities) could all face cutbacks in AmeriCorps volunteers. These 
programs provide services that are vital to my district all the time, 
but especially in tough economic times. AmeriCorps is an outstanding 
program with a proven track record of meeting the critical needs of New 
Jersey's communities. We cannot allow it to be downsized. I ask my 
colleagues to include funding for AmeriCorps in the conference 
committee.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to 
raise an issue that I know many of my colleagues have been very 
concerned about, and that is additional funding for AmeriCorps. 
Currently, AmeriCorps is facing a very severe funding crisis. Local 
programs around the country are facing severe cuts.
  Thousands of social service organizations across the country depend 
on AmeriCorps for manpower and service for constituents. If we do 
nothing, many of these programs won't be able to survive or make up the 
difference in funding in another way. This means that fewer meals will 
be delivered to the elderly and fewer children will be mentored. When 
national AmeriCorps officials announced a major cut last month in 
grants for volunteer positions, leaders of hundreds of volunteer 
programs across the country warned they will have to reduce operations 
or shut down. These programs and the people they serve should not be 
made to suffer because of problems in Washington that could be 
addressed by short-term solutions, such as agreeing to $100 million in 
supplemental funding for AmeriCorps.
  While I realize that today's bill is focused only on addressing 
issues facing FEMA, I did want to make sure to note that a majority of 
members of this House signed letters in support of additional funding 
for AmeriCorps. We have heard from the wonderful programs all around 
this country that are doing such important work. I will continue to 
work to see if additional funding can be provided to improve this 
situation which is so critical to so many non-profit programs in all of 
our districts.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). All time for general debate 
has expired.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Toomey

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Toomey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. (a) There is hereby rescinded a total of 
     $983,600,000 of the unobligated budget authority provided for 
     fiscal year 2003 for discretionary accounts.
       (b) The rescission made by subsection (a) shall be applied 
     proportionately--
       (1) to each discretionary account described in subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) within each such account, to each program, project, and 
     activity (with programs, projects, and activities as 
     delineated in the appropriation Act or accompanying reports

[[Page H7651]]

     for the relevant fiscal year covering such account, or for 
     accounts not included in appropriation Acts, as delineated in 
     the most recently submitted President's budget).
       (c) The rescission in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     budget authority provided for any of the following:
       (1) The Department of Defense.
       (2) The Department of Homeland Security.
       (3) The Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (d) If the President determines that the full application 
     of the rescission required by subsections (a) and (b) to any 
     program, project, or activity in fiscal year 2003 would be 
     excessive, the President may postpone all or a portion of the 
     rescission for such program, project, or activity, and apply 
     the remaining amount of such rescission to budgetary 
     authority provided for such program, project, or activity for 
     fiscal year 2004.
       (e) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall include in the President's budget submission for fiscal 
     year 2005 a report specifying the reductions made to each 
     program, project, and activity pursuant to this section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will 
control the time in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying we do need to fund FEMA properly; 
but we also need to offset it, as we often have done in the past, and 
that is what this amendment proposes to do.
  I want to follow up on the comments of my chairman, the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, who was exactly right about how we got to 
this point. I would like to explain that a little bit and make sure 
that my colleagues understand that for fiscal year 2003 the President 
requested $1.8 billion for FEMA disaster relief. This is routine annual 
spending in anticipation of the fact that we know we will have 
disasters in America.
  In October of 2002, the House Committee on Appropriations approved 
$1.8 billion in committee. In January of this year, the Senate passed 
an omnibus with only $800 million, $1 billion below the President's 
level.
  In January of 2003, the White House issued a statement of 
administration policy pointing out that this underfunding of FEMA by $1 
billion would cause a problem and we would need to go back and address 
this. But despite that, despite the fact that everybody knew that we 
were intentionally and consciously underfunding FEMA by about $1 
billion, we passed an omnibus at the lower level, $1 billion below the 
House Committee on Appropriations level, $1 billion below the 
President's request.
  And what happened to the $1 billion? As the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget correctly observed, it was used so we could spend more 
money in other areas and still pretend we were living within the 
overall discretionary level that we had all sort of agreed upon.
  Well, the fact is, this emergency is an emergency that we have 
created by virtue of the fact that we chose not to fund this one 
category, and we all knew that low-balling FEMA would not stand. So 
now, predictably, we are all back to back-fill the hole that we dug for 
ourselves in February.
  As I said before, FEMA needs the money. That is not the issue about 
this amendment. What we are simply saying is we ought to offset this so 
that we do not have just a net increase in the total amount of 
spending. We are just trying to stick to the budget that we agreed to.
  So what this amendment does is it says let us take this $984 million 
and let us offset it with an across-the-board reduction in all 
discretionary spending programs except defense, homeland security, and 
veterans programs. That adds up to about five one-hundredths of 1 
percent of the total spending for 2003, about three-tenths of 1 percent 
of the spending in the categories in which we are going to make this 
tiny cut. It is about 29 cents out of every $100 dollars.
  Now, some people will say, well, even that is too much to cut, 
especially since there are only 2 months left in the fiscal year. So we 
have gone on to say, okay, we'll leave it to the discretion of the 
President to decide whether we cannot find that amount of waste, 29 
cents out of $100 is too hard to find; and if that is the case, he has 
all of 2004 to offset any individual accounts he so chooses.
  It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, as a very reasonable and very doable 
amendment. Over the next 2 months, agencies would be asked to come up 
with 29 cents out of every $100. And if they cannot, they get another 
12 months to do it. We have a history of offsetting non-defense 
supplementals; and I believe with a deficit of $455 billion, here is a 
way to reduce that deficit. It is what we ought to do.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very important member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  To my colleagues, several of us on the Committee on Appropriations 
have fought now for many years to try to hold the line on spending and 
have a record there and are in agreement with these efforts to do this. 
But this is not only not workable; it is actually the wrong thing to do 
at the wrong time, and let me explain why.
  OMB, if you have not worked with them since this administration took 
over, ``OMB'' are the three most dreaded letters in Washington, D.C. 
They are about the business of carving and cutting, and rightly so, in 
many directions. But they are not offering offsets, they do not have 
offsets for this spending, and the administration has requested the 
money without offsets because even those carvers at OMB cannot find the 
offsets. You gentlemen know it, and you know that it will not work 
because of that.
  I hope we do not just cede the constitutional responsibility to spend 
money to the executive branch. That is not in our best interests, it is 
not in the constitutional best interest, and I do not want to just say, 
administration, you can start spending money discretionarily or saving 
money discretionarily. That is the power that belongs here in the 
Congress, and that is our responsibility.
  Now, the money you are talking about offsetting in the final 2 months 
of the fiscal year is not from mandatory programs; it is not Social 
Security, Medicare, any of the mandatories. It cannot come from that. 
It cannot come from defense, it cannot come from homeland security. So 
the offsets must come from about 14 percent of the Federal budget, and 
then it is only for one-sixth of the fiscal year. So now you are down 
to a very narrow pool of discretionary funds to take the offsets from. 
And then it does not work out to 29 cents on every $100. It gets into 
specific small accounts, most of which are already obligated, most of 
which are obligated to be spent in the final 2 months of the fiscal 
year.
  So, frankly, it is not a workable solution. Even though I am all for 
offsetting early, you cannot wait until the end of the fiscal year and 
say we are going to have offsets. The money is obligated by the end of 
the fiscal year.
  Once again, the most important thing here is that we have to carry 
out our responsibilities and not just say, White House, you find these 
offsets.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that we have 14 months to 
find these offsets, not just 2.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time in this debate to 
adequately acknowledge what this practice of underfunding FEMA means to 
the victims. So I hope we all keep that in mind here today, because 
while this bill is important, it is important that we change the 
practice of underfunding FEMA intentionally, as we did in February to 
take $1 billion out of what was requested by OMB and to spread it into 
all these other little goodies, knowing full well that if FEMA needed 
the money, we would come back here breathlessly to say, oh, yes, we 
need a little bit of extra money; and that is exactly what happened. 
That is exactly what was predicted in February, and that is exactly 
what happened today.

[[Page H7652]]

  The traditional definition that we have used for emergencies has 
always been ``unforeseen, unanticipated, and unpredictable.'' Well, how 
is it that OMB and the President were able to predict that this was 
going to happen in February; but for some reason now, the last minute 
on the last day before the recess, before, as my friend from Washington 
says, offices are ready to close, the lights are ready to be turned 
off, people are thrown in the street, and that is typically what 
happens, as people come breathlessly to the floor with an emergency 
supplemental, knowing full well in February we needed money and waiting 
until the last minute to try and jam it through.
  We are probably going to jam it through again, and it is only, gosh, 
I hope my mother is not listening, it is only $1 billion. But we have 
got a deficit, and I want to see all those deficit hawks, all those 
Democrats in particular that have been down here on the floor railing 
about the deficit, to come down here today and remind themselves and 
their friends about how important it is to not add an additional $1 
billion to the deficit.
  What the gentleman from Pennsylvania says is let us find the money. 
If you do not like this offset, fix it in conference. That is the power 
you have. The chairman knows he can increase the bill in conference. 
You can also fix this amendment and find a true offset in conference. 
Let us pay for this disaster.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue of February's bill, first of all, that was not 
our fault. We were not permitted to bring the bills in the regular 
period of time for fiscal year 2003. That was not our fault.
  The fact that the numbers were different in February, understand that 
in February almost half of the fiscal year was gone, and there was not 
any use funding the early part of the fiscal year because it was 
already over with.
  It is easy for the budget resolution to make assumptions. They can 
assume that you can find $7 billion, for example, in the plug that was 
in this 2004 budget resolution. The Committee on Appropriations has to 
be real. What we write in our bills becomes law. It has to be real. It 
has to be realistic. That is what we do. We cannot satisfy everybody.
  I want to compliment my friend from Pennsylvania for keeping our feet 
to the fire on spending. He does a really good job. And we try to 
balance out those who want to spend more and those who want to spend 
less, just to make sure that we do a responsible job in funding the 
government and funding essential operations. So I compliment the 
gentleman. Sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes I do not.
  In this case, I must disagree with him. I do so because his amendment 
would cut money from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, technology for 
State and local enforcement. It would cut for embassy security, it 
would cut NIH, Centers for Disease Control, Head Start, special 
education grants, grants for disadvantaged students. Cuts would also 
deal with HIV-AIDS and child survival, world hunger programs, aid to 
Israel, and the list is very long.
  Remember, there are only 2 months left in this fiscal year. If this 
was across-the-board for the whole 12 months, it might not be so bad, 
but this is only for 2 months left in the fiscal yield.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, what 
portion of all Federal spending is actually appropriated by the 
appropriations?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The answer is the discretionary spending is 
about one-third of the total government spending. It is amazing to me 
how some of those who are constantly arguing about discretionary 
spending vote for the big mandatory programs, the back-door spending. 
So it is two to one.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, is that two-thirds of the Federal spending that the mandatory 
accounts account for? Are those accounts adding to the Federal deficit 
even as we speak?

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Absolutely.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Has the Committee on the Budget done anything 
about mandatory spending?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have not found much success in 
the proper committee's dealing with that.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? Would the 
gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will yield after I yield to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey.)
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, one observation, and then one question.
  I do not appreciate having to take lectures from the Committee on the 
Budget. Let me tell my colleague the sleight of hand that that 
committee played. They pretended that they provided additional money 
for veterans. They pretended that they provided additional money for 
education and for special education in order to get the votes of the 
moderate Republicans in here for the resolution.
  And then, after they pretended, on an account-by-account basis, that 
they had provided the money, then that same Committee on the Budget 
provided $7.2 billion in undistributed reductions and assigned those 
reductions to our committee, without having the guts to spell out what 
those reductions should be.
  And then they squawked when the gentleman from Florida tried to 
distribute those reductions. That is what is going on here.
  The difference is that the gentleman from Florida has to run a real 
railroad train, it is not an Alice in Wonderland train.
  Now, with respect to the amendment at hand, I simply want Members to 
know how they are going to vote. I mean, the Republicans are running 
this show, so it is immaterial to me which of your factions wins the 
argument on that side.
  But if this amendment passes, you will be cutting $15 million from 
the FBI. You will forcing Israel to write a $12 million check back to 
us because they have already gotten their money. The Drug Enforcement 
Agency will have to cut $5 million. The Colombian drug initiative, 
which was just defended in this House this week, you will have to cut 
$1 million out of that. You will have to cut $15 million out of the 
Cancer Institute. And you will have to cut $600,000 out of Meals-on-
Wheels.
  Now, I am not going to debate whether you ought to do any of that 
stuff; I simply want Members to know what they will be voting on if 
they vote for the amendment.
  I would also simply say that I hope, and I am confident, that this 
amendment has more to do with concerns about budget than it does a 
Pennsylvania Senate primary.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence) and remind my colleagues that we have enacted 
across-the-board spending cuts in 3 of the last 4 fiscal years.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor in the reality of representing a 
district, 10 counties of which are, at this hour, recognized as Federal 
disaster areas. The flood of 2003 saw the waters of the Wabash River 
and the St. Mary's River rise and devastate families and homes in much 
of the eastern Indiana district that I represent.
  But there is another rising tide that I am here to support the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) on as he seeks this 
amendment's passage, and that is the rising tide of red ink that is 
engulfing the American taxpayer, and a modest effort today that we 
attempt to stem.
  The Federal deficit today stands at $455 billion, and I would offer 
humbly, with deep respect for the gentleman from Florida and his 
outstanding leadership of this Committee on Appropriations, that now is 
not the time to add another $1 billion, another new massive player to 
that deficit.
  Two important points, I think, in this discussion. We have heard from 
the Committee on the Budget chairman, and I would not enter that debate

[[Page H7653]]

between chairmen, as unwise as that might be, but it is accurate to say 
that the dollars that are being asked for today are not in the budget 
resolution that we passed narrowly on this floor.
  Number two, in defense of the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the House Members gathered here on both sides of the 
aisle, the money that we are considering today was in the House bill. 
We did our work, it seems to me important to say today; the House 
Committee on Appropriations met the President's request for FEMA, and 
somewhere in the midst of the conference committee, it was lost.
  As people across the 10 counties of my eastern Indiana district 
struggle against the weight of the flood of 2003, I think we ought to 
try and do two things at once today: pass the Toomey amendment; speed 
much-needed relief by the end of this day to make sure FEMA has the 
resources it needs, but speed relief to the American taxpayer who 
earnestly desires that we confront the rising tide of red ink in 
Washington.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time. I want to associate myself with his remarks and the remarks of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  I must say, I worry about the Interior Appropriations, an across-the-
board cut like this, especially since it would affect forest fire 
fighting. It would also affect forest health. Those would both be cut. 
And all of the other accounts would be cut at a time when we are going 
to have to borrow money from those accounts to fight the fires of this 
year, because we do not have enough money in the budget to do that.
  So I would say to everyone here, I think that the prudent thing to 
do, since we do not know all of the consequences of the amendment, and 
we know that a number of them are bad, and it is the last two months of 
the year, is to defeat the Toomey amendment and pass the supplemental.
  The President of the United States happens to be the person, by the 
way, who is asking for this money, and he did not ask that it be 
offset. And this OMB has been as tough on spending as any in modern 
history.
  So they want it as an emergency. They do not want to see their 
programs cut any further.
  So I think, with the risk to fire fighting across this country, we 
should defeat the Toomey amendment.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I take this time just to respond to my very 
distinguished appropriations chairman and subcommittee chairman to 
report to them that I heard their personal conversations to me about 
the need to take on mandatory spending and not just fight about 
discretionary spending. That is why in the budget this year we not only 
asked for the 1 percent from all of the mandatory spending; the first 
time that has been done, it was because of the interest of the 
Committee on Appropriations, in particular, that we took on that task.
  No, it did not complete the final version of the budget, because 
there were not enough people who were gutsy enough to do it. I know the 
gentleman from Kentucky is. I am, as well.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, assuming, and the gentleman is 
correct about its being in the budget as a request, but where is the 
reconciliation bill that makes that happen?
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is a fair comment. 
But to suggest that the Committee on the Budget has not been doing its 
work with regard to mandatory spending is what troubled me in the 
gentleman's comments.
  The gentleman is right that the proof will be in the final product, 
but I would just say that the committee has attempted to at least fix 
this problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Iowa and ask him to yield to me.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman did not 
misunderstand my comments. I agree, the gentleman has, as chairman, 
done more than previous budget chairmen to recognize the problem with 
mandatory versus discretionary; and I compliment the gentleman for 
that.
  My comment relative to and in response to the question of the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) about the two-thirds, one-third is 
a fact. But again, that was not to be a criticism of the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, because I know that you and I have talked, 
and I know that you understand totally and you agree that if we cannot 
control mandatory, we are never going to control discretionary.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim the time and just report 
that we have had one successful bill that already has moved to the 
floor that reduced, for waste, fraud, and abuse, $33 billion in a 
mandatory program called Medicare. It was part of the bill that was 
voted on and passed by this House.
  So, again, to suggest that nothing has been done is not correct.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  I would just remind my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations 
that in addition to the Committee on the Budget, I offered an 
alternative budget that actually would significantly restrain the 
growth of mandatory spending. Very specifically, I frequently vote 
against many mandatory spending programs as well.
  But what we are here today to try to do is not cut a dime out of 
FEMA. What we want to do is just say, let us offset this. It is 29 
cents out of $100. It is not for two months, it is over 14 months, and 
any single individual line item, if the President thinks it is 
unreasonable to try to find 29 cents out of the $100 because there are 
only two months left, and no doubt there are many categories in which 
that would be difficult, there are another whole 12 months, all of 
fiscal year 2004, to find those offsets.
  This is not that hard. Any family can find 29 cents out of $100 in 
their family budget. Any business can do likewise. We have an 
obligation to do the same thing for our taxpayers, especially at a time 
when we are running the kind of deficits that we are.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and 
when this amendment succeeds, which I hope it will, and I am sure every 
Blue Dog is going to vote for it, because I hear them all the time 
talking about how upset they are about the deficit; well, here is an 
absolute, straightforward way to reduce the deficits. I am looking 
forward to a lot of votes from that side of the aisle. I am looking 
forward to the passage of my amendment, and then passage of the 
underlying supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  As a fiscal conservative I certainly can appreciate the spirit of 
what this amendment seeks to accomplish. But as a member of the House I 
cannot support the abrogation of our constitutional ``power of the 
purse'' responsibilities to the executive branch.
  The funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in this 
supplemental is precisely the level to meet the unexpected--and 
emergency--disaster expenses the Bush Administration has said it 
requires.
  The amendment before the House stipulates that the executive branch 
make unspecified cuts to unspecified programs. Funds could be cut from 
the FBI, DEA, FEMA, Special Education, NASA, transportation and other 
projects that this House has already acted upon. It is the 
responsibility of the legislative branch to make these types of funding 
decisions not the executive branch.
  Early on in my tenure I had the chance to support a recission bill 
that pared back billions in previously appropriated funding. So my 
dispute with this amendment is much more about process than substance.

[[Page H7654]]

  This underlying bill is fiscally responsible. It is important to note 
that it is almost $1 billion below the original amount requested by the 
President. If we are serious about fiscal responsibility, we should 
identify specific programs for specific reductions. This amendment 
shirks the difficult choices in favor of an easy vote.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment and pass the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Toomey 
amendment.
  Just before I came here for this series of votes, we were meeting 
with the FBI. The FBI needs additional resources because they have 
taken personnel out of crime fighting and drug fighting and are now 
putting them in with regard to homeland security. They need more 
people. Then they have taken people off the streets that are working on 
drugs. So this would not be good for the FBI, aside from the homeland 
security.
  Lastly, across-the-board cuts never work. The best way to do 
something, if there is a particular program that you want to cut, you 
go after it. But across the board, to make the FBI take that cut now, 
and DEA, would not be good for the country, not good for crime, and not 
good for the fight against drugs.
  So on that, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Toomey amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the House 
earlier today, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) are postponed.

                          ____________________