[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H8278-H8287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5212, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR HURRICANE DISASTERS ASSISTANCE ACT, 2005
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 819 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 819
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5212) making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance
relating to storm damage, and for other purposes. The bill
shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, if offered by Representative Hensarling of
Texas or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order or demand for division of
the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 819 is a modified, closed rule that
provides for consideration of H.R. 5212, making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for
additional disaster assistance relating to storm damage and for other
purposes.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
and provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and
controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee
on Appropriations. The rule provides for consideration of the
Hensarling amendment which shall be separately debatable for 20
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, this is my inaugural rule, and I want to begin by
thanking the Speaker for the honor of serving on this distinguished
committee, and what an important rule to begin with, as it impacts the
Sunshine State that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I are
so honored to represent.
Mr. Speaker, on four occasions in a span of 6 weeks, portions of my
home State of Florida have been designated disaster areas.
Additionally, areas in nine other States have been declared disaster
areas due to hurricane-related damage. Between August 13 and September
26, five hurricanes wreaked havoc upon the eastern and Gulf coasts of
the United States. For the first time since 1886, a single State has
been hit by four hurricanes in one season.
The widespread devastation caused by these natural disasters is
breathtaking. Damage was sustained along the entire eastern seaboard
from ravaging winds in the Florida Keys and the Florida panhandle to
tornadoes and mudslides in the Carolinas and severe flooding up the
east coast.
The emergency supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 5212, provides
substantial resources for recovery. This rule brings to the Floor
legislation to help families and farmers and businesses rebuild in the
aftermath of nature's destruction.
The long-range economic effects of these storms will be severe. All
facets of the economy were affected due to power outages, crop losses,
and wind and water damage. It is difficult to comprehend the impact of
these successive storms on Florida's economy. Florida's largest
economic engine is tourism. The land of pristine beaches and world-
class attractions has seen significant hardship for the tourism
industry, while entire communities along the panhandle have been washed
away. Businesses, large and small, are suffering from the aftermath of
these storms. Many remained closed for weeks at a time while they went
without utilities, losing important revenue. Mom-and-pop shops have
fewer beach-goers to serve. Families and businesses now face multiple
insurance deductibles following the damage of multiple storms that hit
the same areas.
Florida's agriculture industry sustained the loss of up to 40 percent
or more of its citrus crop for this season, along with the loss of
trees that provide future harvests. In addition to citrus, the
vegetable, sugar, cattle, timber, dairy, nursery, and other industries
suffered severe losses.
Our infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, was utterly destroyed in some areas.
Bridges, interstate bridges were washed away, cutting off evacuation
routes and isolating communities. Hospitals were forced to close due to
damage. Schools were shut down to serve as shelters. In my county
alone, 13 days of school have been missed. The school year has
essentially begun anew on four separate occasions. Military bases have
been closed following extensive damage to hangars, equipment and
training areas. Traffic lights lay in the middle of intersections.
Daily life came to consist of searching for ice and batteries and
helping neighbors wield a chain saw to remove a tree on top of your
home, business or vehicle.
President Bush has recommended a total of $11 billion in assistance
to the States that have been affected by these storms. The bill
provides for $6.5 billion for disaster recovery efforts for FEMA, which
is in addition to the $2 billion that was appropriated for FEMA earlier
this month. FEMA uses these resources for a variety of disaster relief
activities, including direct assistance to impacted individuals and
families, debris removal, utility and infrastructure repairs, emergency
food and shelter, and mitigation.
Mr. Speaker $1.1 billion for the Department of Defense; $929 million
for
[[Page H8279]]
disaster relief activities of the Small Business Administration; $800
million for the Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief
program for repairs to roads and highways; $600 million in agricultural
assistance to provide needed help to producers suffering crop loss from
these hurricanes; $245 million for the Army Corps of Engineers; $150
million for community development grants; $50 million for the Public
Health and Social Services Emergency Fund to help provide nutritional,
medical and social services to affected elderly individuals; $126
million for NASA; $121 million to repair damage to VA facilities that
support our ever-so-important servicemen and women and the veterans;
$70 million to support the American Red Cross in their mission to
shelter, feed and otherwise support the victims of these storms.
In addition to this enacted and requested emergency funding, Federal
agencies will continue to use existing resources and programs for
response and recovery efforts from all recent hurricanes and storms.
I am proud that our President has followed through with an assistance
package that amounts to more than $12.2 billion in restoration efforts
for damages occurring as a result of Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan
and Jeanne, storms that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I
have come to know by their first name in an all-too-intimate way. I am
deeply grateful to our governor Jeb Bush for his tireless efforts
throughout this period, and I want to applaud the extraordinary efforts
of our chairman, a fellow Floridian of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from Largo (Mr. Young), and all of his team. Their hard
work guarantees that Floridians can recover from the devastation left
by these storms.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to praise the
combined efforts of FEMA, local first responders, local cities and
counties, recovery operations, managers, utility companies, the men and
women and everyday heroes who climb to the top of telephone poles to
restore power while the wind is still out there and the water is still
coming in; people from around the country who rush in with mobile semis
that can feed 10,000 people at a time, giving hope to an entire
community. Storms like this tend to bring out the best in people, Mr.
Speaker, and it is an impressive thing to see the American spirit alive
and well.
{time} 1830
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my
friend, for yielding me the time. I also welcome the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam) to the committee and thank him for taking my place
as the most junior member on the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule
which tosses aside bipartisanship and abdicates this body's role to
independently craft responsible public policy. This closed rule
neglects millions of Americans who are hurting today not only from
hurricanes but also from prolonged drought, flood, and freezes.
As all in this body know, my home State of Florida and others
throughout the East have been ravaged over the last month by a series
of hurricanes. It is the first time in more than a century that any
State has been hit by four storms of this magnitude in less than a
month. First there was Charley, and then the others that followed; and
when the last one passed, millions were left literally picking up the
pieces of their homes and lives.
Nineteen States along the eastern seaboard, from Florida to Vermont,
were declared disaster areas. Seaports and airports came to a halt and
the insurance industry is reporting more than $23 billion in claims,
not including the millions of uninsured home owners and renters who
lost everything they had in these storms. For them, their only relief
is Federal Emergency Assistance.
In my district, the after-effects of these storms will be felt for
many years to come. From Ft. Pierce in the north to Pahokee and
Clewiston in the west to Ft. Lauderdale in the south, people are
hurting.
I thank my colleagues for their encouraging words and support during
this trying time. But we need more than consolations, and we need more
than understanding.
The underlying supplemental appropriations bill which the House is
considering today is deeply appreciated, appreciated by all of us in
Florida; but, frankly, it is not enough.
We know that the majority knows that and the President knows that,
but the willingness to deliver for those in distress just is not there
unless a photo op comes along with it. This closed rule blocks my good
friend from Florida (Mr. Boyd) from offering a substitute that would
have provided nearly $2 billion in emergency assistance beyond the
President's shortchanging proposal, to help all communities recover
from the hurricanes.
When I attempted to amend the rule at 7 a.m. this morning, to make
the Boyd amendment in order, the majority defeated it along a straight
party line vote. The underlying legislation mirrors the President's
request and neglects the well-known needs of Florida and her
neighboring States. In contrast, the Boyd substitute provides nearly
$500 million more than the President's request in emergency agriculture
disaster assistance, not only for Florida agriculture, which is
suffering from more than $2.2 billion in losses in just 4 short weeks,
but also for North Carolina and New York.
Citrus and sugar growers, ranchers, nurseries and dairy farmers are
all shortchanged or just plain ignored in the underlying legislation.
In contrast, they are helped under the Boyd amendment which was not
made in order. The Boyd substitute would also increase emergency
funding to the Department of Defense for reimbursements to the National
Guard and facility repairs, beach nourishment, and repairs to VA
hospitals and the Kennedy Space Center.
Most importantly, the Boyd substitute mirrors the bipartisan
agreement that was reached between the outstanding chairman of this
committee and the ranking member of the committee equally outstanding
but was rejected by the President who seemingly has a knack for leading
with a reckless disregard of the obvious.
The rule also blocks the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) from
offering an amendment to help States who are suffering from prolonged
drought. In doing so, Republicans have dug themselves into a hole, and
we are now going to see some true colors shine. Not only are they
blocking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), someone who spent his
entire life fighting for the well-being of farmers and ranchers across
this country, from offering his amendment, but now they are trying to
make in order an inferior amendment that the Committee on Rules never
heard testimony on.
The amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer). Not only does it provide less assistance than the Stenholm
amendment, but it also cuts funding in the Farmland Conservation
Program. The Neugebauer amendment literally robs Peter to pay Paul.
As is done here often, we are refusing to help those most in need. We
have tried the bipartisan approach led by the chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, but the President said, no, thank you. We have tried
the bipartisan approach in the Committee on Rules, but the Republican
leadership said, We are just not interested.
When the Committee on Rules had the opportunity this morning to
reject the President's ``my way or the highway approach,'' it balked
and folded.
I wish I could be more bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, especially on an
issue as critically important to the welfare of all of our constituents
in Florida as well as the Northeast. But they are making it difficult
on the other side to be bipartisan. How is it that we got money to pass
trillions in tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, but we do not
have the money to help Americans recover from natural disasters of all
kind.
Where is the compassion? But better yet, where is the outrage? I urge
my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and do all that we know we can
if we were to pass it to help those most in
[[Page H8280]]
need. My constituents are depending on our vote. Please do not let them
down.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the passion of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and I will remind him that in
addition to the $11 billion that is in this package, the President
delivered $500 million in assistance to citrus, nursery, and fruit
vegetable growers just 2 weeks ago in the aftermath of the first two
storms. And as we gather data from these storms and whatever else the
Atlantic sea may have in store for us, there will be additional
assistance forthcoming.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my young colleague from
Florida for yielding me the time. I want to congratulate him for having
risen to the high level of being a member of the Committee on Rules,
the newest member of the Committee on Rules. And I believe that his
expertise and his talents will show through as he presents these rules
from day to day. I look forward to working with the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam) because in Florida he is a hero, and I think as
Members get to know him as a member of the Committee on Rules, they
will agree.
There is good news and bad news here today. The good news is Florida
has not had a hurricane in the last 10 days. Now, that is a switch
because we have become so accustomed to them. This delegation on a
bipartisan basis has joined together to help the people of Florida
recover from these tragedies.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) mentioned several of the
problems that his part of the State has experienced. The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) has talked about other issues. So I wanted to
mention to the membership that there are two bills today. This bill,
H.R. 5212, is the one that we will call up under this rule. This bill,
H.R. 5227, which I also introduced today, includes everything in H.R.
5212 plus $1.6 billion in additional funding that is required, and that
we, as a delegation, have identified.
I just want you to know that I am going to do everything possible,
everything that I can, to make sure that H.R. 5227 is the bill that
goes to the President's desk and not H.R. 5212 because it is short.
Incidentally, for those who are concerned about the extra $1.6
billion, I have offset it. I have offset the entire $1.6 billion so, in
fact, the top number is going to be the same in either bill. But H.R.
5227 covers a lot more of what has been promised to the people of
Florida and neighboring states due to these terrible, terrible
tragedies called Hurricane Charley and Hurricane Frances and Hurricane
Ivan and Hurricane Jeanne and Tropical Storm Bonnie.
Not one section of the entire State of Florida escaped damage from
one of these storms or maybe in some cases three of these storms. And
so the Governor has made promises, the President has made promises to
the people of Florida, and I am going to do everything that I can,
despite any bureaucracy or despite any problems here in the Congress,
to help the President of the United States deliver on his promises.
I will discuss this more in length as we get into the bill itself.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend and a leader in
this fight.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge Members to vote
``no'' on the previous question, and not because I disagree with the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and his eloquent defense of
the need for assistance for Florida. I support that. I do not know of
anyone that does not support that.
But I rise to point out to my colleagues today that there should be
an element of fairness associated with how we respond to the disaster
in Florida.
The President called for crop loss assistance. His emergency
legislation was not offset, what the President asked us to do. But
unfortunately he only asked for victims of 2004 hurricanes and tropical
storms.
Now, again, we all agree that we should help Florida. But, as Senator
Pat Roberts said so eloquently, How on Earth can you provide disaster
assistance to people who have suffered gravely over hurricanes and then
deny assistance to people who have not had any rain for 3 years?
We have other disasters, and what I and 41 of my colleagues joined in
co-sponsoring a bill yesterday have said, let us treat all disasters
fairly. Let us not for the first time in a long time differentiate
between various kinds of disasters. Let us look at the disasters and
let us fund them, as the President asked us to do.
Now, there will be an argument saying that we should offset the
additional agricultural disasters. I ask my friends on both sides of
the aisle who may lean towards that position, why? Why make a
differentiation between a disaster in Nebraska and one in Florida or
Pennsylvania when the farmer has been affected the same way?
To those who suggest that there is an easy offset by reopening the
farm bill which we will hear in just a moment an amendment offered that
reopens the farm bill not by what I say, but what 25 farm organizations
are saying to us tonight and 15 conservation groups are saying for us
to think long and hard before we undo the delicate balance that puts
together the 2002 farm bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest)
and I and many of my colleagues still in this body worked so hard to
put together.
Do not be deceived for one half second that if you get into the
conservation title in paying for this disaster for other farmers, you
are not reopening the farm bill because you are, not by what I say, but
by what 25 farm organizations all around the country are saying. Be
careful before we go there.
Now, to those that suggest there is some fiscal responsibility about
this let me make it very clear. Whatever amount of money the President
of the United States designates for disaster assistance, that is what
we offered in our amendment. Whatever the President said. And if he
says it is going to be less, then we will prorate it out to all farmers
and disasters all over. That is the way we have always done things. We
treat everyone fairly.
The bill before us and the proposed amendment does not treat everyone
fairly.
I ask my colleagues, before you join in a move that reopens the farm
bill, think it out twice because there will be repercussions that will
affect producers, and there is going to be a lot of other needs that we
are going to have to address.
{time} 1845
But once we begin to tear up the coalition that was put together when
we stood on this floor and we made agreements with the conservation
crowd, the environmental groups, we made deals.
This farm bill, the 2002 farm bill, we had a partnership. It was the
greenest farm bill in the history that I have been here, in the history
of this body, and now all of a sudden we have an amendment that is
going to tear that coalition up, and folks are going to stand on this
floor and say it is not going to have any effect on anything.
I urge my colleagues, the 14 of my friends on this side of the aisle
that cosponsored the bill we introduced yesterday, stick with me on
this one. We have got the votes to pass it; and it is my understanding
I am not arguing differently what the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, who made an offer some time last week to deal with this
disaster within committee, and the leadership of the House chose not to
accept it, and I am sorry they did not because we could have avoided a
lot of this problem that we are about to get into.
So, again, in summation, how do we separate a disaster from Nebraska
from a disaster from Pennsylvania from a disaster from Texas? Do not
separate the two. Let us deal with it in one package. Oppose this rule.
Particularly, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the work the gentleman has done in agriculture, and I
appreciate the gentleman's record in matters affecting the budget,
which is why
[[Page H8281]]
I draw to his attention the fact that we have improved upon this rule
and will be providing for additional assistance beyond the Southeast,
beyond the Carolinas, beyond Florida, to assist those affected farmers
and ranchers and fully offset it, which is an important piece of fiscal
responsibility.
What is so sacred, what is so sacrosanct about a farm bill that my
colleague would hold it up so high that he would not use it to help
farmers? Farmers in Florida, farmers in Georgia, farmers in the
Carolinas, perhaps farmers who do not have access to the billions of
dollars that are allocated in the farm bill on an annual basis; but
farmers who have suffered from four separate hurricanes, many farmers
who had the eye of three storms come over their field, pass over their
ranch, we would say to them, we do not want to open the farm bill to
help you because that is for other farmers?
The farm bill, as it is today, has a reserve because it has worked. I
was on the committee. I voted for it. I supported it. It is a good
package, but why would we let that package stand in the way of
assistance to farmers? Is that not what the farm bill is for?
Is that not why we put all the effort and time and labor into it, to
help people in need, to help farmers who are suffering? Ranchers who
have had their fences devastated, their barns blown to the ground? Row
crop farmers who have seen all of their plastic torn up? Citrus growers
who have seen a sea of brown from Charley and yellow from Frances and
green from Jeanne, where Mother Nature has color-coded the devastation
that is their crop, that is on the ground rotting? We would say to
them, we will not open it up?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my good
friend.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
And let me first congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam)
for being assigned to the Committee on Rules. I am sure in days ahead
we will see a lot of each other as we testify before the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I speak about agriculture disaster assistance. Let me
commend at the outset the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for
introducing a disaster package in the House and for his tireless work
on behalf of American agriculture. No one in this body does more for
farmers than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
We are here today to discuss emergency funding for natural disasters.
Fewer and fewer of us in this House represent rural areas. When natural
disasters impact the people we are privileged to represent, we tend to
band together across party lines to do what is right for those
outstanding Americans, our farmers. This is especially true when it
comes to those from rural areas.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am disappointed that the
Republican leaders in this House have decided to play politics with
America's farmers. Rather than passing a stand-alone, emergency
disaster bill for U.S. producers whose economic well-being has been
turned upside down by extremely dry weather, Republicans have decided
it would be better to slash funding for programs within the 2002 farm
bill.
The gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Stenholm) bill declared that the
drought conditions facing our farmers were an emergency that they
should be paid for, just like any other national emergency, through an
emergency supplemental spending bill. Opening up the 2002 farm bill to
pay for this assistance is wrong-headed and ends up hurting some
farmers to help others. This political theater has no place in the
House, and it does a disservice to the men and women who are in the
fields right now all across our land harvesting the food that we eat.
Over the past several years, Missourians have experienced Mother
Nature's fury. Tornadoes, flooding, and drought have plagued our State.
Widespread drought has had the greatest impact on Missouri farms and on
the rural communities that dot the countryside.
I come from the Show-Me State. It is high time that the Congress
shows all American farmers that we are here to help them when disaster
strikes.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished Chairman of the Committee
on Agriculture, my former chairman and someone who is passionate about
all of America's farmers and ranchers.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and I rise in support of this rule.
I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work,
and I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the opportunity
that we expect to have, the opportunity to put in place a way to
provide the kind of assistance that America's farmers and ranchers need
and deserve all across this country.
For weeks, we have been working on this problem, and we have come
upon a solution, and a solution that will work. It is a solution that
is very, very, very similar to one that this Congress joined together
in a bipartisan fashion, across the aisle, to support just about 18
months ago to help farmers in the 2001-2002 disaster period. That was
to take funds from a program that had funds available, took them off
the back end of it and went ahead and paid it.
Now we find that this program has in it four-and-a-half times as much
money as was in the program when the gentleman from Texas and my
predecessor, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Combest, wrote the farm bill
and put money in for this new program; but after that work was done,
others, apart from those here today, went in and took the cap off that
program.
So, in addition to being able to meet the needs of farmers all across
this country from Florida to Texas to Minnesota, we will have the
opportunity to do the same thing. We will have the opportunity to pay
for it, and we will have the opportunity to have money in that program
in a greater amount than was in the program when we did this the last
time. We will have the opportunity to put a cap on that program because
I think those on the other side of the aisle would agree that the
future of farm programs is very dependent on one program not being
uncapped, not having the opportunity to spend these enormous amounts of
money.
So I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer), who is going to have, if this rule is passed, the
opportunity to offer an amendment to take care of this problem for
every American and end this problem.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us
in the same bipartisan effort that helped America's farmers and
ranchers when we did this in the beginning of 2003 in a very, very
similar circumstance with a very, very similar solution.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair tell us,
please, how much time each side has remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) has 16 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Putnam) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad we are here under these conditions
tonight, because the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) tried to bring
out a bill which would have met all of the problems all of the parts of
the country face. Unfortunately, the gang that cannot shoot straight
has called for other ways to deal with the problem, and so we are
dealing with only half a bill.
I want to make one point: that I speak not as the ranking Democrat on
the Committee on Appropriations, but simply as a Member of Congress
from Wisconsin.
One of the deficiencies with this rule is that it does not allow for
an amendment to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract program. Now, that
program was authorized in the 2002 farm bill. It is currently scheduled
to expire next year, while other commodity programs run through the end
of the farm bill, September of 2007.
In my view, dairy farmers ought to be treated under the milk program
in exactly the same way that farmers of
[[Page H8282]]
other major commodities are treated under the farm bill. If Congress
fails to extend the milk program through to the end of the farm bill,
then dairy farmers across the country will be at a disadvantage when
Congress prepares a new authorization in 2007. That is because, under
existing budget rules, there will be no budget score for milk, and only
the milk price program will appear in the budget baseline. That means
the budget baseline for dairy price safety programs will be deceptively
low, about $800 million below where it needs to be in order to ensure
that dairy farmers are not treated less equitably than they are treated
today.
I do not think this Congress ought to allow that to happen, but
unfortunately, we are not going to be allowed to try to correct the
problem by the rule which is being adopted tonight.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) I notice indicated that the
farm bill ought to be used to help farmers. There is one way the
Committee on Rules could have done it. They could have helped dairy
farmers across the country, but they chose not to do so. I regret that,
which is one of many reasons I will be voting against this rule.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am disappointed that the gentleman will be voting against the rule.
I know his passion for America's farmers, and I know that farmers all
across this land have been affected.
Perhaps it is the Floridian in me, but I would argue that this rule
goes a long way towards those affected by some very substantial and
unforeseen events, and the improvements that have been made would go a
long way towards extending that beyond those areas affected by
hurricanes. After neglecting those areas who have been dealing with a
drought now for years, I know that the reservoirs are going dry.
I know that people are frustrated and they are concerned about what
their livelihood will hold because of this drought issue, and frankly,
that is why I think these improvements were put in there. I think it is
a fiscally responsible approach to helping as many of America's farmers
who have been stricken by these disasters as possible, and certainly,
the dairy industry is one that has been impacted. It has been impacted
in Florida when the power was lost for days at a time, and of course,
America's modern agricultural system, if we cannot get power to these
milking parlors, the cows go dry.
That is a legitimate problem, and we worked on a bipartisan basis as
a delegation and, frankly, as a group of people who are concerned about
the future of American agriculture to find ways to solve this disaster
assistance problem.
Just as, 18 months ago, we were able to reach down into section 32
funds, which are traditionally designated for fruit and vegetables and
marketing and nutrition programs, in providing drought assistance to
the Midwest, we are similarly using an account to reach down into and
provide assistance for farmers from Florida and Georgia and the
Carolinas who are desperately in need.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1900
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, my colleague, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want us all to take a deep breath and remind ourselves
of what is taking place here. This country was hit with five major
storms within the last couple of months. All five of those storms made
original landfall in the State of Florida. That is the first time that
has happened in over 100 years. It is catastrophic in Florida and in
other parts of the southeastern United States, actually, outside the
southeastern United States.
We have an excellent emergency management agency in this country, in
FEMA, and we get nothing but good remarks from everybody who has been
hit by these storms about FEMA, and everyone has done a good job of
keeping money in the FEMA pipeline. We have been able to do that under
the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who heads the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I am speaking against this rule that
is being brought to us under the leadership of the Committee on Rules
and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), today. I am
speaking against it because after those five storms that hit America,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) directed their staffs, under the leadership, and went out
and did a lot of work to find out from the State, from the local
governments, from the Federal agencies, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Transportation, all those areas which would be affected
by the storms, what the needs were, what the Federal requirements were,
what those needs were as a result of those storms. That report was
compiled, brought back to Congress and put in the form of a bill and
actually taken down to the White House for their blessing.
During that compilation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
myself, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) visited Pensacola
Naval Air Station, where Ivan hit and completely obliterated Pensacola
Beach and Perdido Key, and did major damage to one of our defense
installations there. The White House turned down the committee request
for the emergency bill and said they would only accept the proposal
that they had brought forward, which was about $2 billion short.
So when the Committee on Rules met yesterday, I went and asked the
Committee on Rules to allow us to introduce as an amendment, the bill
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) held in his hands a few minutes
ago when he made his presentation. I think that bill certainly more
adequately reflects the needs of this Nation in response to these
hurricanes, but I want to tell you the differences in those two bills.
There is $486 million more for agriculture producers and processors,
and that is not just in Florida. There is $486 million in Ag, $455
million for defense, $750 million for transportation. We all saw
pictures of I-10. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will defeat the rule.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed certainly a very close working
relationship with both of these gentlemen from Florida as we have tried
to do everything we can to bring in the appropriate amount of relief
for a State that is hurting. There have been heroic efforts in the
State of Florida bringing the I-10 bridge back on line in a matter of
days and bringing, internally, administrative relief to agriculture and
those issues affected early on.
I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we keep in
mind that this is a process. As we reach the end of this congressional
session, there has been a rush to pull together the adequate, the
accurate and adequate damage numbers, and that is difficult to do. It
is difficult to pull together the data on transportation needs. It is
particularly difficult to pull together the data on agricultural needs
when they are still mounting.
I would say that, 6 months from now, we will still be dealing with
damages that are presenting themselves that came about as a result of
the hurricanes. So for the other side to say that they would reject all
of the relief for lack of marginally additional relief seems a little
bit foolhardy, adding to the fact that we are to be accused of ignoring
the Midwestern States when we have a proposal to do just that, to
expand the relief beyond those hurricane stricken States and take care
of those who have been dealing with drought.
I think we are delivering, in a number of ways, and frankly, from all
of our working relationships with the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, there is a high level of confidence that those issues
will be taken care of in conference and through his additional
legislation that he is filing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
rule. Two weeks ago, heavy rains from hurricane Ivan inundated my
district in
[[Page H8283]]
southwestern Pennsylvania, and many communities across Pennsylvania
experienced disastrous flooding and mudslides.
This was no typical storm, Mr. Speaker. It has been estimated this
was a 100-year rain, perhaps a 500-year rain, one that we will never
see again in western Pennsylvania. And the damage inflicted went far
beyond the federally determined floodplain. It devastated homes and
businesses that were not expected to buy flood insurance.
Several of the worst hit communities were, Etna, Millvale,
Sharpsburg, Carnegie and small communities along the Allegheny River.
As soon as the flooding subsided, I toured the communities affected by
the flooding and met with the owners of many small businesses that had
been damaged.
Jane Moran got walloped by Ivan twice. Her 7-Eleven store in Etna was
severely damaged, and her home nearby was damaged so badly it has been
condemned. Her husband and three sons all had to move into a one-
bedroom apartment with her daughter and boyfriend and, until recently,
were wearing borrowed clothes.
In Millvale, 8 feet of water from Girty's Run flooded many of that
municipality's businesses; 190 of the 230 businesses in Millvale
suffered damage. The flood waters caused $400,000 in damage to Jerry
Kitman's furniture store. His wife Judy's business, Lasting Memories
floral shop, was also completely destroyed.
Ed and Arleen Carr, the owners of Yetters Candy Store, a family
business that had been in operation 75 years, saw all of their
equipment and supplies completely destroyed.
Grant Street Diner and Catering, a family-owned business, was
completely destroyed, and 5,000 pounds of food were ruined.
Mr. Speaker, I say this to you because these people are the
embodiment of the American Dream. They worked hard and invested every
penny in their businesses and they need help now. President Bush was in
my district on September 23, and he told these people, we understand
the Federal Government has an obligation to help, and we will.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we need your help, and what we do not need are
loans. That is all that are available to these businesses right now.
These mom-and-pop shops are already loaned up to their eyeballs, and
they do not need another loan. What they need is a grant.
Last night, we went to the Committee on Rules and asked for a one-
time grant of up to $250,000 for these small businesses in these areas
that were not in Federal flood zones and, through no fault of their
own, find their businesses gone. If we do not give these businesses
grants, they are not coming back, and the communities they sit in are
not coming back.
What do we tell these folks? Do we tell them we have $20 billion to
rebuild schools and businesses and infrastructure in Iraq, but when it
comes to American taxpayers they have to take loans? Mr. Speaker, we
can do better than that. We have supported all disaster relief for
Florida, for our friends on the west coast that have fires and
earthquakes. People in Pennsylvania need some help. Mom-and-pop
businesses are the backbone of this country, and they are asking for
our help tonight.
I ask that we defeat this rule so that we can go back to the drawing
board and put an amendment in there that will allow grants to small
businesses so that we can restore these people's businesses and the
American dream. I ask all my colleagues to support defeating this rule.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a tireless advocate for disaster relief and for
drought relief.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
My colleagues, this is what the drought map looked like the early
part of the summer. Unfortunately, that is about what the drought map
has looked like for 5 years. There have been minor changes here and
there, but many climatologists have said this is a 500-year drought. It
is not one that is every 30 or 40, but a 500-year drought. In many
cases, it has been worse than what we encountered in the 1930s.
So what we find now is that almost all of the reservoirs in this part
of the country are down to 15, 20, 25 percent full, and many will be
empty next year. So irrigators as well as dry land people are paying
the price.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a monumental problem and a 1-year drought
is bad, but when you have 5 years, the amount of crop insurance you can
buy goes down each year. So as a result, crop insurance does not do it.
People have lost equity each year now for 5 years, and ranchers have
not had pastures. Therefore, they have had to sell their breeding
herds, and as a result, many of them are in pretty desperate shape.
So it seems that nobody likes drought relief. Many people say that it
is not a natural disaster. But it is as much a natural disaster as any
other. You cannot stop it. You cannot predict it. It is like a
hurricane, a flood or whatever.
I would prefer that we do not have any offsets. I have great
admiration for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the way he
has tried to approach this. But I have made enough phone calls and done
enough talking around here to realize this is the only way we are going
to get it done.
So we greatly appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Neugebauer) has made an effort here. The chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture has done a good job here, and so we do have a possibility
now to get $3 billion out of the conservation and security program.
It appears to me this is the only workable solution we have. It may
not be the perfect, but it is the workable, and therefore, I recommend
that we support this rule, and we support this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both gentlemen from Texas for
their work in this regard as well as the chairman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I have such high regard for my preceding speaker, the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). He has done a great deal to advance the
cause of disaster response from this Congress. But I believe he is
incorrect in concluding that, what is before us in the so-called
Neugebauer amendment or nothing.
If rural Republicans would hang with the Democratic Members of this
chamber, we would, in bipartisan fashion, reject any other approach
that did not have the Senate-type approach upon giving disaster relief
without cannibalizing the farm bill. We could do it. We could do it. We
do not need that many. If rural Members would stand up for their
farmers and reject this cockeyed notion we ought to cannibalize the
farm bill to get help to farmers now, we could, in bipartisan fashion,
pass exactly what the Senate passed.
That is why the Committee on Rules did not make it in order. They
know we would win. It would sure be nice to have a democracy actually
have a chance in the House once in a while. This Senate passed a
disaster response. Why are we not at least allowed a vote as to whether
this might be the will of what the House would work? Instead, they have
advanced a very different proposal. While it does offer desperately-
needed disaster relief to farmers, it takes the wrong approach.
We would not even be here without the work of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture.
By introducing his legislation, by getting 40-some other sponsors of
both parties behind it, he forced an issue that has created the need of
the majority to put forward this response, but the shape of their
response is most regrettable. It requires dollar-for-dollar reduction
out of the farm bill, taking down that conservation program.
And if my colleagues do not think that the smell of politics is not
swirling around this chamber right now, after virtually being nowhere
to be seen on this disaster issue, they drum up the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the opponent of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), and have him sponsor this ill-advised alternative.
I am kind of surprised the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) took
them up on their little offer. It is opposed by virtually every
agriculture
[[Page H8284]]
coalition: American Corn Growers, American Farm Bureau, National Cotton
Council. You see, they understand that it is just wrong for farmers to
have to give up their farm bill, give up the protection that the farm
bill offers in order to get the disaster response they need.
I thought the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) offered an
interesting rhetorical question: Why not use the farm bill to help
farmers? Well, why should we have to reduce the farm bill's ability to
help farmers in order to have it as an offset for this disaster bill?
In the farm bill, we are coming in so far under what was projected;
there is plenty of budget savings there. It was projected to have cost
us $50 billion by now.
{time} 1915
But because of the price-support nature of the thing, it has only
cost us $35 billion.
There is savings in the farm bill without cannibalizing the farm
bill. Reject this bill. Let us vote on the Senate approach.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman will have the opportunity to vote for $600 million in
agricultural assistance, and the gentleman will have an opportunity to
vote for drought relief.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), an outstanding new
Member of the House of Representatives.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition to this
proposed rule. I begin by saying that I fully support the emergency
spending that is contained in H.R. 5212. The people of Florida and
throughout the Southeast deserve the assistance contained in that bill.
The reason for my strong opposition to the rule is simple. It does not
treat all disasters equally, and thereby it does not treat all
deserving Americans equally.
The recent hurricanes are catastrophic weather events. They certainly
do constitute emergencies, and the losses sustained should be
compensated as such. However, droughts are catastrophic weather events
as well, as my distinguished colleague from Nebraska pointed out. The
only difference being, they are not as visually striking. They ease in
gradually over the course of weeks and months and even years. They do
not have names. They do not rip roofs off the buildings. They do not
make good TV and, therefore, breaking-news coverage. None of the major
news networks has sent reporters to Faith, South Dakota, to cover the
ongoing drought.
But that does not make drought any less devastating both financially
and emotionally for the people that are affected. I oppose the
Neugebauer amendment to this rule because it helps suffering farmers by
raiding farm programs, programs that may not be favored by some but
programs that as negotiated in 2002 are an important part of our
national farm policy. The Neugebauer amendment would rob Peter to pay
Paul, and I oppose it.
This rule should be rejected so that we can offer a fair amendment to
the legislation, the proposal by my distinguished colleague from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) that enjoys bipartisan support. I have cosponsored this
legislation because I believe that it takes the correct approach, the
fair approach. It would treat all weather-related disasters equally. I
urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and to support the Stenholm
alternative.
Beyond these prepared comments, I must say that those in South Dakota
whose livelihoods depend in large measure on the weather, that are
involved in farming and ranching, are sick and tired of politics being
played with this important issue. They deserve better. They deserve
equal treatment. They deserve emergency disaster assistance.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, really what we are here tonight about is
farmers and ranchers. The farmers and ranchers do not want us to have
to be here tonight. They did not ask for these droughts. They did not
ask for these disasters. But, in fact, they experienced them just like
the people in Florida did, and it affects farming and ranching families
all across America.
Several of my colleagues have gotten up and spoken about the
tremendous impact it has had on those families and those economies.
What we are talking about tonight is about doing something in this
House for those farmers and ranchers. I rise today in support of the
rule because it is going to help them. This is not something that is
new, that was invented this evening. This is something that was done
for the 2001 and 2002 disaster relief program, and it was taken out of
this very same program in the 2003 bill. So we are not reinventing the
wheel. We are trying to come up tonight in this House and say to the
American families that make their living in farming and ranching across
America, We care about you. We are trying to help you just like we did
in 2001 and 2002.
One of the reasons that I introduced a new risk management crop
insurance tool was to take our farm families away from having to depend
on the will of the United States Congress when they have these kinds of
disasters because currently a lot of our risk management tools, our
crop insurance products, are not adequate to cover these losses, and so
they have to come back to this Congress and say, Would you please help
us.
What we need to do is to help them tonight and pass this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). When my colleague from Florida was
speaking, he tried to get his attention. I do not know whether he
wanted to have a colloquy or whether he wanted to make a statement.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the gentleman from
Florida a simple question. When we are talking about offsets, the
President did not request offsets. The bill before us today, the
President's request, did not require offsets for the Florida disasters.
I just think making a differentiation between disasters in Nebraska and
South Dakota and Texas from those disasters in Florida, which I concur
are very serious and should be addressed, but it really makes no real
sense for us to set a precedent of deciding some disasters are worse
than others.
You were making that point. I just wanted to say, we are not arguing
that point. We are saying a disaster is a disaster, and the President
in his request to this body did not require offsets of the disasters
which you are defending and supporting, which I concur with you. What I
do not understand is why the leadership on your side has suddenly
decided we want a separate rule for other disasters. That makes no
sense.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
express my support both for the rule and for the basic bill, H.R. 5212.
Since the early weeks of August, Florida has been ravaged by an
unprecedented four hurricanes. I represent northern Polk County, and
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) represents southern Polk
County. He has some cities in his district that have been hit by all
four storms, whether they came in from the east coast or the west
coast. Those areas were the most hard hit. My constituents were harmed,
too, but nowhere near the harm that occurred, certainly in the
panhandle and in the area of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Hurricanes Charley, Ivan, Frances, and Jeanne greeted the Sunshine
State with a voracity and viciousness that has brought destruction and
despair to nearly every resident. The aftermath of these storms has
left Floridians very weary. Floridians face a very dire situation.
There is much damage to be repaired and the road to normalcy seems long
and tiring. We must answer the needs of Florida and other States hit by
the hurricanes and provide the necessary relief. We should not forget
our commitment to our constituents. Today, by voting for the rule and
for H.R. 5212, Congress has that opportunity to bring a little light
back to the Sunshine State.
This resolution provides for the assistance that these States,
including
[[Page H8285]]
Florida, need. The Florida delegation and I have worked very closely to
ensure that the trials and tribulations of Florida's residents are
known by the rest of the Nation and that they are not forgotten in the
bubble of the Beltway. Through a special order, my distinguished
colleagues and I have worked to ensure that the needs of Florida are
known and that residents' pleas for assistance are heard, respected,
and, yes, answered.
In the early weeks after the initial hurricanes came ashore, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) certainly stepped forward, and we
worked to provide a $2 billion supplemental appropriation. Once again,
we are grateful to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for this
additional appropriation which will help to get on the road to
recovery, not just for Florida but for other States affected by the
hurricanes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Disasters know no boundaries, and they certainly know no political
affiliation. But what we have created here is a system that pits
disaster against disaster and States against States and that just is
not right.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule that will make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) that would add language to the bill to provide
nationwide crop loss disaster assistance for weather-related losses for
the last two crop years. This would help our Nation's farmers who have
been hit so hard by not only hurricanes but by terrible droughts in the
West and Midwest and by freezing weather in the North.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no''
on the previous question. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from
taking up the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. However, a
``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering the Stenholm
amendment and providing the help that is desperately needed by our
farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic. We cannot provide
the assistance we need to provide here tonight when by a minuscule
comparison of funds, this is just a little more than 1 percent of what
we are spending in Baghdad.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Putnam
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Putnam:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
5212) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for additional
disaster assistance relating to storm damage, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall
be in order except the amendment printed in the report or the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and the
amendment numbered 2 for printing in the Congressional Record
pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. Each such amendment may
be offered by the Member designated in the report as the
Member who submitted it for printing in the Congressional
Record, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. STENHOLM. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. STENHOLM. Am I to understand that we now have an amendment to the
rule that we were considering and does this amendment also provide for
1 hour of debate as to the nature of the amendment?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida is currently pending. The gentleman from Florida is entitled to
1 hour of debate.
Mr. STENHOLM. The gentleman from Florida is entitled to 1 hour of
debate and anyone who might be in opposition is entitled to no time for
discussion of the amendment?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida remains the
manager of the amendment and will be recognized for debate on his
motion but may move the previous question.
Mr. STENHOLM. Further requesting or asking for a parliamentary
inquiry so that I and my colleagues might further understand this most
unusual procedure that we are going through tonight. I do not recall a
situation like this. There is 1 hour of debate, but it is controlled by
the majority who have the right to offer an amendment to the rule under
the rule that we were just debating?
{time} 1930
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The manager of the resolution
may do so.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the majority should so choose to move
the previous question on it without further discussion, they have every
right to do so?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for his explanation.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as one can tell, I drew a hot one from my inaugural
first rule. But I cannot think of a better group of colleagues to work
on this with than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings); the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd); and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), certainly our senior delegation member.
This Emergency Supplemental Appropriation is so vitally important to
rebuilding the infrastructure, the economies, and the communities of
the hurricane-damaged areas throughout the Southeast, and now, with the
amendment, those communities of the Midwest and far West who have
suffered so greatly under the drought. I urge my colleagues to support
this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 819--Rule on H.R. 5212 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act for FY05
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5212) making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance
relating to storm damage, and for other purposes. The bill
shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) the amendment
printed in Section 2 of the resolution, if offered by
Representative Stenholm of Texas or his designee, which shall
be in order without intervention of any point of order or
demand for division of the question, shall be considered as
read, and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2.
[[Page H8286]]
The amendment referred to in the resolution is as follows:
Amendment to H.R. __
Supplemental Appropriations Bill Offered by Mr. Stenholm
Add at the appropriate place the following new title:
TITLE __
SEC. __. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Additional coverage.--The term ``additional coverage''
has the meaning given the term in section 502(b) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)).
(2) Insurable commodity.--The term ``insurable commodity''
means an agricultural commodity (excluding livestock) for
which the producers on a farm are eligible to obtain a policy
or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
(3) Noninsurable commodity.--The term ``noninsurable
commodity'' means an eligible crop for which the producers on
a farm are eligible to obtain assistance under section 196 of
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333).
(b) Emergency Financial Assistance.--Notwithstanding
section 508(b)(7) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1508(b)(7)), the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in
this title as the ``Secretary'') shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make emergency financial assistance authorized under this
section available to producers on a farm that have incurred
qualifying crop or quality losses for the 2003 or 2004 crop
(as elected by a producer), but not both, due to damaging
weather or related condition, as determined by the Secretary.
(c) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance
available under this section in the same manner as provided
under section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55), including
using the same loss thresholds for the quantity and quality
losses as were used in administering that section.
(d) Reduction in Payments.--The amount of assistance that a
producer would otherwise receive for a qualifying crop or
quality loss under this section shall be reduced by the
amount of assistance that the producer receives under the
crop loss assistance program announced by the Secretary on
August 27, 2004.
(e) Ineligibility for Assistance.--Except as provided in
subsection (f), the producers on a farm shall not be eligible
for assistance under this section with respect to losses to
an insurable commodity or noninsurable commodity if the
producers on the farm--
(1) in the case of an insurable commodity, did not obtain a
policy or plan of insurance for the insurable commodity under
the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for
the crop incurring the losses; and
(2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, did not file
the required paperwork, and pay the administrative fee by the
applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable
commodity under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) for the
crop incurring the losses.
(f) Contract Waiver.--The Secretary may waive subsection
(e) with respect to the producers on a farm if the producers
enter into a contract with the Secretary under which the
producers agree--
(1) in the case of an insurable commodity, to obtain a
policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance
Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) providing additional coverage for
the insurable commodity for each of the next 2 crops; and
(2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, to file the
required paperwork and pay the administrative fee by the
applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable
commodity for each of the next 2 crops under section 196 of
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 7333).
(g) Effect of Violation.--In the event of the violation of
a contract under subsection (f) by a producer, the producer
shall reimburse the Secretary for the full amount of the
assistance provided to the producer under this section.
SEC. __. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are
necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make and administer payments for livestock losses to
producers for 2003 or 2004 losses (as elected by a producer),
but not both, in a county that has received an emergency
designation by the President or the Secretary after January
1, 2003, of which an amount determined by the Secretary shall
be made available for the American Indian livestock program
under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).
(b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance
available under this section in the same manner as provided
under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).
(c) Mitigation.--In determining the eligibility for or
amount of payments for which a producer is eligible under the
livestock assistance program, the Secretary shall not
penalize a producer that takes actions (recognizing disaster
conditions) that reduce the average number of livestock the
producer owned for grazing during the production year for
which assistance is being provided.
SEC. __. TREE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
The Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of the
funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
assistance under the tree assistance program established
under subtitle C of title X of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 to producers who suffered tree losses
during the winter of 2003 through 2004.
SEC. __. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.
The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and
authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
this title.
SEC. __. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this title.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this title shall be made without regard
to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. __. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.
Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in this
title are each designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress),
as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res.
649 (108th Congress) and applicable to the Senate by section
14007 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005
(Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 1014). However, such amounts
shall be available only to the extent that an official budget
request, that includes designation of the entire amount of
the request as an emergency requirement, is transmitted by
the President to the Congress.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the
previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), if ordered, and on
the adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 186, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 499]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
[[Page H8287]]
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--186
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Chandler
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--30
Boehlert
Carson (OK)
Clay
Cox
DeMint
Gephardt
Harman
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Houghton
Jefferson
John
Jones (OH)
Kingston
Kleczka
Majette
Millender-McDonald
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Norwood
Paul
Pelosi
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Simpson
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns
Watt
Waxman
{time} 1954
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam).
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________