[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11196-11255]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  2001 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 171 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2216.

                              {time}  1454


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair has been advised that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has a bit of laryngitis and, for that reason, wishes to pass 
control of his time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the House the 2001 
Supplemental Appropriations bill. While this is the first 
appropriations activity on the floor of this Congress, it is actually 
the last appropriations action for the last Congress because this is a 
supplemental dealing with fiscal year 2001 funding.
  The bill before us represents our best attempt to address funding 
shortfalls for our military, provide emergency assistance to 
communities impacted by natural disasters, and secure relief for 
consumers affected by high energy costs.
  We have accomplished this within the funding levels requested by the 
President and approved by the Congress in the budget resolution. In 
other words, if we were to go above the $6.5 billion provided in this 
bill, we would be violating budgetary constraints which would cause 
serious problems. And in the other body, the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations has said publicly that $6.5 billion is the maximum 
because if they were to go over that, they would be subject to a 60-
vote point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, let me briefly discuss the highlights of the bill and 
after the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) makes his comments, 
I would yield to several of the subcommittee chairmen who have played a 
major role in preparation of this bill.
  The net funding in this bill is $6.5 billion. However, it provides 
for $6.75 billion to address these urgent defense needs, including 
rising fuel costs, military health care, readiness and operations 
requirements, substandard housing for our troops scattered throughout 
the world and especially in Korea, repair of damages to the U.S.S. 
Cole, disaster assistance for damage to U.S. military installations, 
and implementation of the Department of Defense's energy conservation 
plan in California and the western United States.
  Also included is $92 million sum for the Coast Guard operational 
needs. The bill also includes $380 million for emergency natural 
disaster assistance to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and 
Wildlife Service for the Forest Service for the recent midwestern

[[Page 11197]]

floods, ice storms, earthquakes, and wildfire land management.
  Additional energy needs are met by adding $150 million to the 
President's budget request of $150 million for LIHEAP. We doubled that 
to $300 million. It provides $161 million to implement last year's 
conference agreement on title I education for the disadvantaged 
program, $44.2 million to avert a potential deficit in the House 
Member's representation allowances, and $115 million to enable the 
Department of the Treasury to mail out the tax rebate checks that go to 
almost every American taxpayer.
  As I said earlier, the bill includes offsets in order to stay within 
the 2001 budget, so the $6.75 billion is netted at $6.5 billion. There 
will be an issue discussed at length today in our offsets. We have a 
one-for-one offset of unobligated FEMA balances to support nondefense 
emergency spending needs for natural disasters.
  FEMA will still have large carryover balances in excess of $1.6 
billion even after this rescission. I would say to the Members who are 
concerned about the use of the emergency designation, normally and in 
the past, we have declared emergencies which allowed us to spend money 
over and above the top line in the bill. That is not the case here. 
These emergency declarations do not increase any funding because they 
have been offset. The reason we use the emergency designation is 
because the funds were rescinded or transferred from a fund that was 
created by an emergency designation in the last Congress.

                              {time}  1500

  And so it is a one-for-one offset. The emergency designation is 
technical. It does not add any additional money to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, those are the highlights of this bill. There is a lot 
more detail. We have a point paper that indicates all of the major 
items included in this bill which is available to any Member that would 
like to have it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the House the 2001 
Supplemental Appropriations Bill.
  The bill before you represents our best attempt to address funding 
shortfalls in our military, provide emergency assistance to communities 
impacted by natural disasters, and secure relief for consumers affected 
by high energy costs. We have accomplished this within the funding 
levels requested by the President and approved by the Congress in the 
Budget Resolution.
  We made a commitment to stay within the $6.5 billion provided under 
the Budget Resolution even though we had a number of emergency natural 
disaster requirements and other non-emergency requirements that were 
not requested by the Administration. We found offsets for the 
additional spending. So even with emergencies, the FY 2001 cap provided 
in the Budget Resolution has not been exceeded. The emergencies are 
offset.
  The bill includes over $6.75 billion to address urgent defense needs, 
including rising fuel costs, military health care program needs, 
readiness and operations requirements, substandard housing for our 
troops stationed in Korea, repair of damages to the U.S.S. Cole; 
disaster assistance for damage to U.S. military installations and 
implementation of DOD's energy conservation plan in California and the 
Western United States. Also included is $92 million for Coast Guard 
operational needs.
  The bill also includes $389 million for emergency natural disaster 
assistance to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the Forest Service from the recent Midwestern floods, ice 
storms, and earthquakes and for wildland fire management. Funding is 
also included for the Bureau of Indian Affairs San Carlos Irrigation 
Project to avert potential electricity blackouts in rural Arizona.
  Additional energy needs are met by $300 million included in the bill 
for the Low Income Home and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), twice 
the amount requested by the President and highest level in the 
program's history.
  The bill provides $161 million to implement last year's conference 
agreement on Title 1, Education for the Disadvantaged program; $44.2 
million to avert a potential deficit in House Members Representational 
Allowances and $115 million to enable the Department of Treasury to 
mail out tax rebate checks.
  As I said earlier, the bill includes offsets in order to stay within 
the FY 2001 budget cap. We have included a one-for-one offset of 
unobligated FEMA balances to support non-defense emergency spending 
needs for natural disasters. We believe FEMA still has large carryover 
balances in excess of $1.6 billion after this reduction which should be 
sufficient to meet emerging needs, such as the floods in Texas.
  There are many other important issues addressed in this bill. The 
report provides a more complete description of them.
  While I recognize that this bill is not going to please everybody, a 
lot of people need this bill, including us, because of badly needed 
funds to operate the House of Representatives.
  Now, the bill is before the entire House for consideration. One 
amendment has been made in order under the rule, but I expect that many 
more will be offered. We will have a long day, and I urge all members 
to be brief as the House perfects this bill.
  The bill as reported by the Committee is a good bill. I hope that 
throughout the day we can improve it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Most of this bill is a bipartisan bill. The defense portion of it, 
which is the largest section, is bipartisan. But it is late and 
certainly inadequate. The gentleman from Florida just mentioned the 
fact that it is inadequate. The chairman of the subcommittee mentions 
that it is inadequate. In the past normally, we have gone to the 
emergency side where we were not artificially capped by the legislation 
and passed an adequate amount of money. But realizing the problems we 
have not only here but in the other body, we know that it is going to 
be very difficult to pass anything any larger.
  The thing that worries us the most on this side is some of the 
disaster relief money that is not available and the fact that one of 
the ways we have found money to fund some of the other programs is take 
out of FEMA. Yet we have gotten a letter from the OMB Director and also 
from the FEMA Director that says he estimates demands far in excess of 
the amount of money that is available. We have nothing in the Federal 
Highway Administration's emergency relief program. It is out of money 
completely. Certainly those kind of considerations should have been 
made. I do not have to say that we always have fires and storms in 
California or in other places in the Midwest and we always have to fund 
those programs.
  I am disappointed that we do not address the energy crisis, but I 
know that as we go along, we are getting closer and closer to getting 
something done. I think public pressure has finally gotten to the point 
where everybody realizes it. The President has said it is a crisis in 
California and something needs to be done. All of us recognize that we 
do not have the answer to it. But as a whole, this bill is in my 
estimation inadequate. All of us know, though, that voted for the 
balanced budget amendment that we have to live within the constraints 
of what we have.
  We have room in this bill, and I am hopeful that in the conference we 
will be able to make some adjustments. I know that in defense, after 
the review, we have indications there will be more money to take care 
of things that are so important to our national security. We have a 
substantial housing shortage, we have a shortage in the amount of money 
for health care even though we added to health care.
  We have some problems with this bill, but ultimately I am going to 
support the bill. Depending on the amendments that are offered and 
accepted, hopefully we will have a better bill and a bill that all of 
us can vote for when it is finished.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has indicated, the largest amount of dollars 
in this bill goes to the Department of Defense. There are many, many 
more needs than this bill provides for. However, I would like to yield 
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, to describe in 
more detail the defense part of this bill.

[[Page 11198]]


  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the 
gentleman for yielding me this time. I must say it is very interesting 
to be taking up the supplemental and have on the Democratic side the 
bill actually chaired or being handled by my partner in the 
Subcommittee on Defense. It is very, very appropriate. There are two 
things that are appropriate about that: One is the fact that the vast 
percentage of the dollars within this supplemental involve our national 
security. And the other is that the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), is sitting over there taking notes, careful 
notes, to make sure that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
and I do not get out of line too much. We very much appreciate the 
effort of the gentleman from Wisconsin to expedite the process today. I 
want to thank him personally for his work as well as my chairman.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. This is an interesting thing. The ranking member on our 
side actually realizes there is a shortage in defense, and it may have 
something to do with his laryngitis that he cannot get the words out.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I must say he has made an immense 
contribution today and I appreciate it very much.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill, as the gentleman from Florida has indicated, 
involves supplemental appropriations requirements across the board. 
With many of the circumstances facing the country but particularly with 
national defense, this bill addresses the fact that there are 
shortfalls in a number of areas that essentially are must-pay 
obligations.
  Within the bill there is a total of defense appropriations amounting 
to some $6.3 billion. With an offset of some $834 million, the net 
increase is $5.46 billion. The bill reflects a broad cross-section of 
serious concerns dealing with our military.
  I will give just a few examples regarding the elements of this bill 
and hold back as much as I possibly can on taking time.
  An example of high priority on the part of both the President as well 
as the Chiefs of the various services, the bill includes $550 million 
to cover the costs associated with military pay and benefits, costs 
which are being incurred largely because of legislated changes in the 
pay and benefit package. In addition to that element, there is 
approximately $1.6 billion for funding shortfalls dealing with defense 
medical programs, the TRICARE program that helps provide the 
fundamental medical care available to our military people.
  The bill also provides over $3 billion in direct support for ongoing 
operations and readiness. This includes $670 million to address those 
increases in energy costs that are being borne by DOD installations 
across the country. We have had a good deal of discussion already today 
about the impact of rising energy costs in the West. As our communities 
are affected, so is the military affected, and this bill attempts to 
begin to address that subject area.
  I might mention, in connection with that, especially to those in the 
West who are concerned about the energy matter, another component of 
this appropriations bill as well as the language that goes along with 
it will attempt to take us in the direction of developing energy 
independence on our military bases, hopefully moving in the direction 
of having them have enough capacity to meet their needs but also have 
supplementary capacity that can help assist in the grid when serious 
shortfalls take place.
  Finally, within the bill, we have provided funds for unexpected costs 
for a number and variety of immediate challenges and unexpected 
challenges. For example, the U.S.S. Cole, that tragedy that occurred 
not so long ago, there is a $44 million amount. There is also $40 
million for damages at defense facilities resulting from national 
disasters, but the Cole is an obvious illustration of the kind of 
emergency needs that we are talking about.
  We would hope in the months and years ahead to be able to establish 
guidelines within defense appropriations that will essentially take us 
to the point of not having to have supplemental appropriations bills. 
But clearly emergencies do come along. We have illustrations of those 
in the chairman's statement and mine as well.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know we have set up a unanimous-consent request which will give 
people time on the amendments. I really think we ought to get into the 
amendment process since we are going to have a late evening, anyway.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise as Ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee to discuss the housing provisions in this bill.
  This bill continues the practice in recent years of diverting 
affordable housing resources to non-housing programs. Specifically, the 
bill rescinds $114 million in Section 8 funds. There are two problems 
with this. First, it is not clear that HUD will have sufficient Section 
8 budget authority to meet all its obligations in the current fiscal 
year if this rescission is adopted.
  Secondly, even if there is not a problem in the current fiscal year, 
this rescission takes away over $100 million in budget authority that 
could otherwise be used to restore a portion of the billions of dollars 
of cuts in housing programs proposed in the Administration's fiscal 
year 2002 budget.
  The Administration justified these cuts as necessary to offset 
technical increases in Section 8 authority. It would be totally 
unjustified if the majority party brings a VA-HUD appropriations bill 
to the floor next month which cuts housing funding, citing rising 
Section 8 costs, while it diverts Section 8 funds today that could be 
used to restore those cuts.
  I would also like to point out that this bill adopts the 
Administration approach to resolving the FHA multi-family loan crisis--
raising premiums which will be passed along in the form of higher rents 
to working families, and supplementing that with $40 million in credit 
subsidy. While this means that the program will probably be back up 
again in 30 days or so, it is the wrong solution to the problem.
  First, the FHA shutdown was totally unnecessary. The Administration 
should have used the $40 million Congress appropriated last year to 
keep the program running. It is unreasonable that the Administration 
refused to use that $40 million, but is now requesting a new $40 
million. Second, instead of raising premiums, we should have used a 
tiny portion of the billions of dollars in annual FHA profits as credit 
subsidy to keep the program running, without fee increases.
  Finally, I would note that this bill ignores the funding crises in 
public housing caused by the huge run-up in utility costs, which have 
not been reimbursed under the federal operating subsidy.
  In so many ways, this bill is a disservice to the Nation's housing 
needs.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support 
this bill today.
  I am not saying the bill's provisions are all bad. While I think some 
things in it are questionable, it does include some very good things.
  For example, it would add $100 million for essential environmental 
restoration and waste management at Savannah River, Hanford, and other 
sites in the DOE complex and to acquire additional containers for 
shipping wastes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. These are important 
for Colorado, because our ability to have the Rocky Flats site cleaned 
up and closed by 2006 depends on the ability of other sites in the 
complex to play their roles in that process. So, I am very appreciative 
that the appropriations committee has responded to these needs.
  Similarly, the additional $300 million for low-income home energy 
assistance will enable that important program to provide much needed 
assistance this year, even if it will not meet all needs.
  And the bill includes other good and important provisions as well.
  But for me all the good things in the bill are outweighed by one 
glaring omission--the total absence of any funds to pay already-
approved claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or 
``RECA.''
  RECA provides for payments to individuals who contracted certain 
cancers and other serious diseases because of exposure to radiation 
released during above-ground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of 
their exposure to radiation during employment in underground uranium 
mines. Some of my constituents are covered by RECA, as are hundreds of 
other Coloradans and residents of New Mexico and other states.
  Last year, the Congress amended RECA to cover more people and to make 
other important modifications. I supported those changes.

[[Page 11199]]

But there was one needed change that was not made--we did not make the 
payments automatic. Unless and until we make that change, the RECA 
payments can only be made when Congress appropriates money for that 
purpose.
  And the undeniable fact is that we in the Congress have not 
appropriated enough money to pay everyone who is entitled to be paid 
under RECA. As a result, people who should be getting checks are 
instead getting letters from the Justice Department.
  Those letters--IOUs, you could call them--say that payments must 
await further appropriations. What they mean is that we in the Congress 
have failed to meet a solemn obligation. We failed to meet it when we 
passed the regular appropriations bill for the Justice Department--and 
we are failing to meet it again today.
  In February, along with other Members, I wrote President Bush about 
the problem of RECA payments. I wanted him to be aware of the problem 
and hoped that he would ask Congress to promptly provide additional 
funds so that people would not have to wait much longer for payments. I 
greatly regret that the President did not see fit to make that 
request--but I regret even more that the appropriations committee has 
not stepped up to the challenge and has not included RECA funds in this 
bill.
  We need to do better. We should change the law so that future RECA 
payments will not depend on annual appropriations, but instead will be 
paid automatically in the way that we now have provided for payments 
under the new compensation program for certain nuclear-weapons workers 
made sick by exposure to radiation, beryllium, and other hazards. I 
have joined in sponsoring legislation to make that change.
  But right now, today, we need to provide all the funds needed to pay 
the claims that have already been approved and all the ones that will 
be approved during the rest of the fiscal year. To fail to do that is 
to continue what the Denver Post has correctly described as a 
``betrayal'' of sick and dying people that is ``disgusting and 
dishonorable.''
  This bill, as it now stands, would continue that betrayal, and so I 
cannot support it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tables for 
the Record.

[[Page 11200]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.001



[[Page 11201]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.002



[[Page 11202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.003



[[Page 11203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.004



[[Page 11204]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.005



[[Page 11205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.006



[[Page 11206]]


  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am greatly dismayed to see that 
desperately needed earthquake assistance to both India and El Salvador 
are missing from this supplemental appropriations bill. We have 
shortchanged the many men, women and children who lost their homes, 
their belongings, their very livelihoods because of these two 
devastating earthquakes.
  We all spoke so eloquently in their aftermath but, to date, have 
delivered a paltry $13 million from existing funds taken from child 
survival programs at US AID for Indian assistance.
  This is an embarrassment.
  The Gujarati Indians in my district in Queens and the Bronx are 
outraged that the U.S. government has done so very little for friends 
and family members who are suffering in the aftermath of the January 
earthquake after the promises made to them by our government.
  Until the people of Gujarat, India and El Salvador are provided the 
opportunity to rebuild their lives and their economy, those that were 
not lost in the earthquakes of January and February, we should not 
relent in our calls for assistance.
  This is a humanitarian issue.
  This is a political issue.
  This is an economic issue.
  Today's Asia Times notes that India's gross domestic product is 
likely to slip below 6 percent in the current fiscal year.
  This is attributed, in part, to the significant impact of the 
earthquake in Gujarat.
  The people of India and El Salvador must have our help.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and the amendment printed in part A of House 
Report 107-102 is adopted.
  The amendment printed in part B of the report may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, shall be considered read, and shall not be 
subject to amendment or to a demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2216

       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, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                       NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS

                               CHAPTER 1

                     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $164,000,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $84,000,000.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  I thank the ranking member of both the full committee and the 
subcommittee and I thank the chairman of the full committee and the 
subcommittee. I note that the general debate mentioned issues that are 
of great concern to my community in Houston, Texas, and the surrounding 
areas. I am pleased that in striking the last word that as this 
amendment is being discussed, that I am also able to raise these very 
pertinent issues.
  Today as we speak, the FEMA Director, the Governor of my State, the 
mayor of my city and the county judge are making a second tour and 
looking at the disaster designation and the terrible pain and impact of 
Tropical Storm Allison that just a few days ago dropped 36 inches of 
rain. There is a wide, wide breadth of devastation, from 20,000 homes 
and displaced residents to the major shutdown of a nationally renowned 
medical center, to universities being inoperable, schools being 
inoperable and people out of their homes. I am very disappointed that 
we could not find the opportunity to be able to put in a mark for 
Houston or an increased supplemental for FEMA. I am grateful to the 
Committee on Appropriations for taking note of the devastation in 
Houston, and I look forward to working with them as we progress.
  I would simply say that there is an amendment being put forward that 
I would be inclined to support. It seems that it is adding back the 
$389 million to FEMA, if I am correct, but it represents a major 
across-the-board cut, almost to the extent of asking us to sacrifice 
many, many national needs for the pain and suffering of Houston.
  I have in the RECORD three amendments that I hope to clarify the 
point of order and may have the opportunity to submit, and, that is, a 
$50 million increase to FEMA as well as a restoration of the Highway 
Trust Fund because our roads are in devastation, and additionally one 
that deals with India disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here to say that I appreciate the sensitivity of 
my colleagues. Many of them have asked about Houston. I appreciate the 
sensitivity of the Committee on Appropriations, recognizing that we 
have this terrible, disastrous impact. I would ask that as we proceed 
in the amendment process, that my amendments may be considered if the 
point of order has been lifted, but otherwise that we continue to work 
together so that the community that I represent and surrounding areas 
along with my colleagues from Texas can have true rehabilitation to be 
able to get back on their feet.
  I thank the Members very much. I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for the opportunity, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for allowing me to discuss this 
very important, devastating impact on Houston and the surrounding 
areas.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2216, a bill providing 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001. As the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget, I would advise my colleagues that this 
bill is within the levels established by the budget resolution and 
complies with the Congressional Budget Act.
  H.R. 2216 provides for a net increase in budget authority of $6.5 
billion. This amount reflects appropriations of $7.9 billion in new 
budget authority and a rescission of $1.4 billion. The vast majority of 
the appropriations provided by this bill is related to national 
defense.
  The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002, H. Con. 
Res. 83, revised the 302(a) allocations to the Committee on 
Appropriations for fiscal year 2001 to accommodate this supplemental 
appropriations bill, providing up to $6.5 billion in nonemergency 
supplemental appropriations.
  The bill is within the revised 302(b) allocations to the Committee on 
Appropriations established by the budget resolution and therefore 
complies with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.

                              {time}  1515

  This bill deserves our support. The Committee on Appropriations 
deserves our commendations for meeting our defense and domestic needs 
while staying within the levels agreed to by the Congress as part of 
the budget resolution. I compliment the chairman and the committee on 
doing so and I rise, as I say, in support of this H.R. 2216.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunity, I want to speak out on the work that is included 
here, the $40 million in credit subsidy for FHA multifamily loan 
guarantee program in this supplemental. It certainly is absolutely 
necessary, and I want to thank the committee for its insightfulness

[[Page 11207]]

and for its leadership here in including it.
  Now with this $40 million credit subsidy, HUD will be able to resume 
lending under the FHA multifamily housing insurance program; and it 
will allow us, the Congress, the committee and the full Congress, the 
time necessary to determine a solution to future funding and operation 
of this program. It does need reform, and we have to deal with it in 
the future in a realistic way.
  I will not take up any more of the time here, except to say that I 
look forward to working with Secretary Martinez. He and I have 
discussed this. We have gone into some depth about it; and I know that 
they, they being the Department and Secretary Martinez, have recently 
issued an interim rule to increase the mortgage insurance premium on 
this program by 30 basis points. Whether or not this will be the final 
way to deal with it, we are not quite sure; but we have committed to 
working together on a bipartisan basis.
  I want to commend the President and the committee for including $40 
million in credit subsidy for the FHA Multifamily loan guarantee 
program in the Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2001.
  Providing this $40 million in credit subsidy now will allow HUD to 
resume lending under the FHA Multifamily insurance program and allow us 
the time necessary to determine a solution to future funding and 
operation of this program. Congress anticipated the need for this 
additional $40 million in credit subsidy last year when it was included 
as part of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act which passed the 
House on December 21, 2000.
  On May 17, I joined with my Ranking Minority Member on the Housing 
Subcommittee in asking the Secretary to release the $40 million 
approved by the House last year, so I am particularly pleased to see 
the $40 million in this legislation today.
  This country is facing a growing affordable housing crisis for low- 
and moderate-income families. Despite the fact that more and more 
people are sharing in the American dream of home-ownership, many 
working families are finding it more difficult to find affordable 
rental housing. It is estimated that $3.5 billion in federally backed 
loans to build 51,289 affordable rental apartments are in jeopardy 
unless we take steps to address the current shutdown of this program. 
This translates into lost construction jobs, unbuilt rental housing 
units and a significant economic impact which could ripple across the 
country.
  I am anxious to work with Secretary Martinez and the members of this 
Committee to determine a long-term funding solution for this program. I 
know that HUD has recently issued an interim rule to increase the 
Mortgage Insurance Premium on this program by 30 basis points. The goal 
of this increase in premium is to provide the funding necessary for 
this program in the future. It is my understanding that this interim 
rule will take effect when published and will provide the funds 
necessary to keep the program running for the remainder of fiscal year 
2001 and into 2002. However, this rule is not final and there will be 
an opportunity for comments and changes to this interim rule if deemed 
necessary.
  While I am anxious to take steps to provide a permanent funding 
source for this program, I want to make sure that the 30 basis point 
increase is the appropriate action. In addition, I believe it is 
important to review the calculations used by OMB in determining the 
level of credit subsidy necessary for a program like this that appears 
to have a very low default rate. For this reason, I will be asking OMB 
to rationalize how it assess the risk of this program to the 
government.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent 
request that has been worked out with the minority, and it has to do 
with amendments that are subject to a point of order. We are more than 
willing to allow some debate on those amendments before they are either 
withdrawn or the point of order pressed.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the following 
specified amendments to the bill, and any amendments thereto, be 
limited to the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and myself:
  Number 1, an amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) regarding energy price caps for 30 minutes;
  Number 2, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr) regarding the national power grid for 20 minutes;
  Number 3, an amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) relating to LIHEAP for 20 minutes;
  Number 4, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) relating to dams and hydroelectric power for 20 
minutes;
  Number 5, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) relating to FEMA for 20 minutes; and
  Number 6, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) relating to funding for the Department of Defense for 20 
minutes; and
  that such debate may occur pending the reservation of a point of 
order on each amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to ask the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) a question.
  Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) read the 
two bills that were energy related, the two amendments that were energy 
related, one by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the 
other one by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thought we had one by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), one by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), and LIHEAP I would think would be considered an 
energy issue; the Visclosky amendment relating to dams and 
hydroelectric is certainly energy related.
  Mr. KUCINICH. The one on price caps, is that offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The Pelosi amendment, yes, regarding energy 
price caps.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I was not here earlier, but does the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) agree to that limitation?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes. The point is that these would be subject 
to a point of order and there could be no debate if we raised the point 
of order.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I understand.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. So in our spirit of generosity, bipartisanship 
and comradeship, we are prepared to allow the debate; and then I expect 
that the amendments would either be withdrawn or the point of order 
would be pressed.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Indeed, the gentleman is a gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there an objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman of the full 
committee for his assistance and that of the administration for 
providing upwards of $20 million in disaster relief in this 
supplemental for the people, the ranchers of Klamath Falls, Oregon, in 
the Klamath Basin, that includes also over into California. This aid is 
extraordinarily important.
  Saturday, the House Committee on Resources held a hearing in Klamath 
Falls that had to be moved to the fairgrounds because more than 2,000 
people affected by this cutoff of the water turned out to hear what the 
Federal Government was doing.
  Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed, I greatly appreciate all the 
efforts of the chairman and that of his staff to expedite the delivery 
of those funds in the form of grants to the farmers that are so 
affected. As we have talked, however, this is literally a drop in the 
bucket in terms of the disaster magnitude there. Upwards of $200 
million is what they estimate will be the problem.
  I wondered, Mr. Chairman, if it might be possible, recognizing this 
will not be the only vehicle going through this session of Congress, 
but if possible we could work to increase that disaster aid to these 
people whose fields are

[[Page 11208]]

drying out and they are getting foreclosure notices today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Walden) for his comments. On page 18 of the committee report, the 
gentleman is aware of the language that we put in the report that he 
had requested; but we are more than willing to cooperate the best we 
can within whatever budgetary constraint that exists at the time to 
deal with the gentleman's issues and would like to assure him of that 
and thank him very much for having discussed this with us well in 
advance and he gave us an opportunity to actually provide the language 
that he requested in the report.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) for his consideration. I appreciate, again, the 
work of his staff and himself and the other committee members for 
recognizing the extraordinary loss that is occurring here and the 
dramatic situation we are engaged in.
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) in a colloquy. I know the gentleman has gone through a 
tremendous amount of work, his staff and everyone else, trying to meet 
the emergencies and the disasters and all the problems that we have had 
in this country this past year. As the gentleman knows from our earlier 
discussion, a devastating, once-in-a-lifetime ice storm struck 
southeast Oklahoma, the northeast part of Texas, Arkansas, northern 
Louisiana on Christmas Day 2000. Approximately $115 million was 
included in this bill to address the emergency funding needs of the 
Army Corps of Engineers.
  Within this $115 million, may I inquire, does this include 
approximately the $10 million necessary to restore the Tulsa District 
of the Corps of Engineers to the levels of operations prior to the 
December ice storm?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, yes, the 
gentlemen is accurate. Approximately $10 million is included within 
emergency funding for the Tulsa District of the Army Corps of Engineers 
as aid to combat damages suffered in last winter's ice storm. I would 
like to add that I really appreciate the gentleman's very persuasive 
presentation to the committee; and because of that, we did include the 
$10 million to deal with that issue.
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much. The Army Corps of Engineers lands and the project areas within 
the third district of Oklahoma sustained at least $6 million in 
damages, and I am grateful to the committee for providing funds to 
address this emergency need. Like I say, it was a once-in-a-lifetime 
ice storm throughout the Tulsa District of the Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) from the depths of my heart. He and this committee and the staff 
have done an excellent job of working this, and I support him fully in 
this effort.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $69,000,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $119,500,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $52,000,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $8,500,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $6,000,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force'', $12,000,000.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $659,600,000: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $6,800,000 shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $948,100,000: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $7,200,000 shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2002.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $54,400,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $840,000,000: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $3,000,000 shall remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2002.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       In chapter 1 of title I, in the paragraph under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $24,500,000)''.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I am concerned 
about the readiness of our Nation's military and the quality of life 
for our men and women in uniform. So of this long list just read, I 
have no objections; but I do have an objection to something that is 
buried deep within line 23 of this bill.
  As John Donnelly, who I had to find out about this from the private 
sector, exposed in a recent ``Defense Week'' article, hidden in this 
line item under ``contractor logistic support'' is $24.5 million for a 
fleet of luxury jets for generals and admirals.
  We know there is a very large fleet. In fact, the GAO, through two 
reports since 1994, has criticized the size of the fleet for far 
exceeding the wartime requirements, let alone the peacetime 
requirements, of the generals and admirals at the Pentagon; excessively 
expensive and excessively large.
  Last year, over the objections of the civilians at the Pentagon, a 
number of generals and admirals requested, and Congress delivered, 
behind closed doors, eight new jets, 737s, and the special long-range 
Gulf Streams.
  That was just last year. Now suddenly this money is specifically for 
the eight new jets, not for some of the aging huge fleet the GAO says 
should be downsized. Perhaps if they did that, they would have the 
money to maintain the eight new luxury jets for the generals, but this 
$24.5 million is a specified earmark for the new jets that the Pentagon 
civilians did not request to add to a fleet that the GAO says is 
excessively large.
  I do not understand how it could cost that much money for new planes, 
particularly for the few months remaining in this year. I would assume 
this is not an emergency, unless they do not have money to stock the 
wet bars or something is wrong in the luxury galleys and they have to 
upgrade to Jennaire or something like that.
  I am not quite sure why it is we suddenly need $24.5 million for 
eight generals and admirals' luxury jets that the Pentagon civilians 
did not even ask for, that Congress gave them. If they do not have 
enough money in this special fleet budget, then they should retire some 
of the aging high-cost aircraft that the GAO says are superfluous to 
the wartime needs, let alone the peacetime needs. I am not aware that 
we are currently at war anywhere in the world, although we certainly do 
have some extensive deployments overseas, of which I have been 
critical.
  This line item is not an emergency. There are dozens of things in 
this bill on which the money could be better spent or if we chose not 
to spend the money we could save it to help bolster up our quickly 
shrinking surplus so we can move through the regular appropriations 
process here in the House of

[[Page 11209]]

Representatives, without slashing domestic programs and things that the 
American people want to see funded.
  So I suggest to my colleagues strongly that in a budget of $300 
billion the Pentagon can find $24.5 million for these new luxury jets 
to outfit them or do whatever else is necessary, or maybe they are 
going to wait until next year to use them and ask for the money in 
their regular budget, or maybe they need to retire some obsolete 
aircraft from this oversized fleet.
  One way or another, this is an expenditure that should not go 
forward, particularly stealth, an amendment hidden deep in the bill and 
only discovered by one very diligent reporter who ferreted this out and 
got some folks at the Pentagon to fess up.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chairman, I would urge strongly that my colleagues support this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a relatively simple matter to stand and oppose 
new airplanes that one can designate as ``airplanes purchased for 
generals'' and describe them as ``luxury jets.''
  The reality is that we do have a number of aircraft purchased over a 
number of years that are used by the leaders of all the forces within 
the Department of Defense and the individual branches. In this case, 
over the last several years we tried to replace several of those older 
aircraft. Some of them are as old as 40 years of age. The new aircraft 
that have been put in as replacements are smaller, they are modern, 
they are commercial, they allow the senior military leaders within the 
branches to carry out their very serious responsibilities in providing 
leadership for our national defense systems.
  The Air Force budgeted $6 million in fiscal year 2001 of the 
President's budget for the C-37A provided for in the Fiscal Year 1999 
appropriations. However, total operating costs for that C-37A have 
exceeded estimates, plus start-up costs for a number of other aircraft 
put us in a position where the total cost involved for this fiscal year 
is some $30.5 million. The military had already budgeted some $6 
million, leaving us with a shortfall of $24.5 million.
  If we were to cancel that funding, essentially we would have new 
aircraft in place, but no way to effectively use them in the fashion 
they were designed to be used in the first place.
  This appropriation was considered and passed by the Congress in the 
past. I urge the Members to recognize the reality of this need among 
the leadership of the branches and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I was the one 
that personally offered the amendment in subcommittee for both these 
airplanes. I talked to the CINC Central Command who has responsibility 
for Saudi Arabia, who was flying in an airplane where he had no 
communications. This is a battlefield commander in a sense. He had no 
communications at all, he had an antiquated 40-year-old airplane, and 
he could not take his entire staff to make his decisions.
  General Zinni happened to be the CINC at that time. He convinced me, 
I convinced the subcommittee, and we have, as the chairman just said, 
two airplanes in place and we need the logistics systems to support 
those two airplanes. So it would be a mistake, in my estimation, to cut 
this money, and I would oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, also with my colleague, 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
General Government, and the gentleman from Utah, who is a 
representative of the host State of the 2002 Winter Olympics.
  Mr. Chairman, the Winter Olympics of 2002 have been designated as a 
National Special Security Event. That designation was made in August of 
1999. Under Presidential Decision Directive 62, and now in statute 
under Title 18, Section 3056 of the United States Code, the United 
States Secret Service now has responsibility for planning security and 
operations for the entire event and the venues of the Winter Olympics 
to be held in Utah in 2002. In addition, the Secret Service has to 
concurrently provide for their traditional missions of protection and 
investigation.
  Although almost 2 years has passed, Mr. Chairman, since the 
designation of this as a National Special Security Event, the 
President's submitted budget for Fiscal Year 2002 did not include 
necessary funding set aside for the planning of security and operations 
of the Treasury law enforcement for the 2002 Winter Olympics, in 
particular, the Secret Service, as well as related agencies.
  In contrast, Mr. Chairman, as you know, the original Fiscal Year 2002 
budget did include funding for security-related requirements of other 
Federal agencies, such as the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration.
  I am pleased that the supplemental request sent by the President for 
2002 does fund the requirements to meet the security at the Olympics of 
Treasury law enforcement and, in particular, the United States Secret 
Service. However, Mr. Chairman, as you know and we have discussed, the 
committee in this particular bill has not provided that funding, 
although it was part of the President's request.
  This colloquy is for the purpose of explaining why, lest it be 
misunderstood. Quite simply, the money is not needed in the current 
fiscal year, which ends September 30. The funds will be required to 
cover activities that take place during the time period shortly before 
and during the Olympics in February of 2002. So what I wish to make 
clear, Mr. Chairman, is that certainly as chairman of the relevant 
subcommittee for providing this funding, I fully support the 
President's request to provide the funds for security at the Winter 
Olympics, and I want to affirm my intention to include the full 
necessary amount in the regular appropriation bill for fiscal year 
2002.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
want to join him, my colleague from Oklahoma, in underscoring the 
importance of the funding for the security of the 2002 Winter Olympic 
games. This primary component of our public safety and anti-terrorism 
policy is essential to uphold public confidence and to ensure that no 
situation ever develops that would require the services of the FBI or 
FEMA.
  My friend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) has been talking to 
me about this, and I know that you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who will be next speaking, have 
expressed great concern about this issue. I share that. I will continue 
to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) to see that this funding is 
provided in a timely fashion.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to strongly support the 
funding of the security planning and operations of the 2002 Winter 
Olympics in my home State of Utah. This funding is essential to ensure 
that the 2002 Winter Olympic games in Salt Lake City are conducted in 
safety and openness. I

[[Page 11210]]

agree that this funding should be included in Fiscal Year 2002 
appropriations.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to voice my continued 
enthusiastic support of this vital program to plan for and implement 
security operations in our State as we welcome the world to the 2002 
Winter Olympic games in Salt Lake City. I greatly appreciate the 
commitment of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to ensure this effort is funded in 
a timely fashion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
recognizing the need for funding the Secret Service, their security, 
planning and operations role at the 2002 Winter Olympics. I add my 
voice to the gentlemen from Oklahoma, Maryland and Utah in supporting 
this funding, and also recommend that it be included in the Fiscal Year 
2002 appropriations bills.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Istook was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I would like to note the spending allocation provided to the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, which 
the gentleman chairs, for fiscal year 2002 assumes full funding of the 
upcoming Winter Olympics.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
very much, and I appreciate the opportunity through the colloquy to 
assure everyone involved that full necessary funding for security at 
the Olympics is forthcoming, as this is certainly a major event 
attracting so many thousands of people from throughout the world. I 
thank the chairman for providing the assurances and add my own that we 
will make sure that these needs are fully met to provide that security.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $123,100,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $20,500,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy Reserve'', $12,500,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve'', $1,900,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force Reserve'', $34,000,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $38,900,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air National Guard'', $119,300,000.

                              PROCUREMENT

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $3,000,000.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'', $222,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2001: Provided, That upon enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall transfer such funds to the 
     following appropriations in the amounts specified: Provided 
     further, That the amounts transferred shall be merged with 
     and shall be available for the same purposes and for the same 
     time period as the appropriation to which transferred:
     To:
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1995/2001'':
       Carrier Replacement Program, $84,000,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $300,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1996/2001'':
       DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $14,600,000;
       LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program, $65,000,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1997/2001'':
       DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $12,600,000;
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2001'':
       NSSN Program, $32,000,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer Program, $13,500,000.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $84,000,000.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $15,500,000.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Air Force'', $73,000,000.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $85,400,000.

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with the 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the committee has included assistance 
for damages incurred by severe southern ice storms last winter. On 
January 8, 2001, President Clinton issued a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas due to the severity and magnitude of the damage 
caused by the ice storms. In Texas alone, the United States Department 
of Agriculture and the Texas Forest Service assessed damages to over 
70,000 acres of non-industrialized private forestland with an estimated 
economic impact of over $46 million.
  I want to clarify that the committee recognizes that Texas private 
and public landowners incurred substantial damage resulting from the 
ice storms of December 12 to January 8, 2001.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDLIN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations 
does recognize the impact of last winter's ice storms to private and 
public landowners in Texas.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also want to clarify 
that the $10 million provided for the U.S. Forest Service, State and 
private forestry account for emergency activities associated with the 
ice storm damages includes the States of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. 
Additionally, I wish to inquire if the omission of the State of Texas 
from this section of the bill was merely inadvertent?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, I would say that it was inadvertent. The committee agrees that 
the States of Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas should be eligible for State 
and private forestry funds contained in this bill. The committee will 
work with the gentleman from Texas to modify the bill accordingly in a 
conference between the House and the Senate.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership and diligence in bringing this bill to the floor. I 
appreciate the gentleman working on this matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $5,800,000.

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Army'', $5,000,000.

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Navy'', $151,000,000.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Air Force'', $275,500,000.

[[Page 11211]]




                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       In chapter 1 of title I, in the paragraph under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', 
     after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force's Airborne Laser Program, 
ABL, seeks to put a laser on a Boeing 747 jet in order to shoot down 
ballistic missiles. In January 2001 the Air Force claimed the Airborne 
Laser Program needed $98 million in supplemental appropriations.

                              {time}  1545

  This amount is $55 million less than the $153 million currently 
requested in this supplemental bill.
  There have been various congressional requests to the Air Force for 
an explanation of the extra funding. The Air Force has not provided 
Congress with a comprehensive answer. According to Air Force officials 
quoted in the press, some of the money will be used for spares and 
other equipment to help reduce risk for the overall program and keep it 
on schedule for its 2003 missile intercept test.
  But this 2003 deadline is arbitrary. Moreover, various officials have 
expressed concern with the ABL's testing program. Last year, the 
Pentagon's chief tester concluded that the airborne laser program, 
testing program, is alarmingly short, allows for no technical problems, 
and ``cannot all physically be accomplished in the time allotted.'' 
That is the chief tester.
  The GAO has stated that an airborne laser design more realistic than 
the current model ``may not be achievable using current state-of-the-
art technology.'' By appropriating the ABL program $55 million more 
than the Air Force requested, we are helping to accelerate a flawed 
testing program.
  Appropriating $153 million for the airborne laser in the supplemental 
does not represent good government, it does not represent smart 
budgeting, and it may not represent common sense. A full $153 million 
supplemental appropriation would represent a 65 percent increase over 
the ABL's 2001 budget of $234 million.
  The airborne laser has already received an additional $85 million 
above the administration's request in the 2001 fiscal year defense 
appropriations bill, so we are already funding the Air Force's airborne 
laser program at levels above those requested by the executive branch, 
and now we are prepared to grant this program's budget a massive 
midyear increase.
  If this additional funding is truly necessary, why not include it in 
the fiscal year 2002 budget? Including the money in the supplemental 
only makes the money available a few months earlier than it would be if 
included in the fiscal year 2002 budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this extra $55 million for the airborne laser program 
will do nothing to provide adequate housing for our servicemen and 
women, it will do nothing to provide them health care, it will not 
increase their salaries or benefits. Not a penny of this money will be 
used for the benefit of the men and women who sacrifice so much to 
serve their country, and whose needs are not being fully met.
  I think it is time for this House of Representatives to begin a new 
debate over what our defense priorities are. I think it is time that we 
began to put more money into our basic defense, into our Air Force, 
into our Navy, into our servicemen and women to see that they are well 
paid, to make sure they have good housing, decent health care.
  That ought to be what describes America's defense, not pouring money 
into technology which does not work, which cannot work, which throws 
money away, while the men and women who serve this country are left 
wanting.
  This is a good time to start this debate, and this is a good moment 
for this Congress to start making a statement about where it stands 
with our servicemen and servicewomen who have to go begging for help 
while we pour money into these crazy technological missile programs 
that feeds a missile mania that cannot be described or countenanced 
anywhere in this world except somewhere in the Department of Defense.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the airborne laser integrates a high power laser on a 
Boeing 747 aircraft. It is designed to protect our deployed troops from 
the threat of theater ballistic missiles. The Pentagon requested $153 
million to address program shortfalls. The amendment reduces that 
request by $55 million, leaving an increase of $98 million.
  It is true that in the January time frame this year, the Air Force 
estimated the airborne laser shortfall to be at $98 million. Thirty-
four million was part of cost growth, $64 million rephase efforts 
originally planned for out years.
  Since January, the Air Force has identified two additional areas of 
increased cost which total $55 million as follows: $30 million 
additional cost growth for the loss of suppliers, technical 
complexities, et cetera; $25 million additional spares to reduce 
testing risks.
  We have scrutinized these additional costs carefully and have 
determined that they are necessary to keep the program on track. 
Failure to fund the additional cost growth could force the contractor 
to stop work on the program. Failure to fund the additional spares will 
likely lead to inefficient schedule disruptions that will increase 
costs further.
  The airborne laser already has a very tight schedule for a 2003 
lethal demonstration against a theater missile. This is an important 
program required to protect our troops from weapons of mass 
destruction. I strongly encourage the Members to vote no on this 
amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The airborne 
laser integrates a high-powered laser on a Boeing 747 aircraft. It is 
designed to protect our deployed troops from the threat of theater 
ballistic missiles.
  The Pentagon requested $153 million to address program shortfalls. 
The amendment reduces this request by $55 million, leaving an increase 
of $98 million.
  It is true that in the January time frame, the Air Force estimated 
the airborn laser shortfall only to be $98.5 million, but subsequent to 
that, as the chairman has pointed out, they have identified two 
additional areas that need $55 million.
  The committee has carefully scrutinized this request, and we believe 
that the failure to fund the additional cost growth would force the 
contractor to stop work on the program. Failure to fund the additional 
spares will likely lead to inefficient schedule disruptions that will 
increase costs further.
  Most importantly, we are pushing to get a real test in 2003 for this 
program. If we do not fund this supplemental request, that question of 
being able to get the test to see if this will work to protect our 
troops when they are deployed in the field will be jeopardized.
  I would just say to my colleagues, we may have a lot of debate here 
in Congress about national missile defense, but I think there is 
bipartisan consensus that we need theater missile defense in order to 
protect our deployed troops.
  We can give somebody a check, we can take care of their health care, 
we can take care of their pension, but we also have to take care of 
protecting their life. What we are talking about here is a system that, 
if it works as advertised, will protect the lives of young men and 
women when they are deployed abroad.
  I urge a no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I think it is very important 
that we know that this reduction would jeopardize all the efforts the 
Air Force has

[[Page 11212]]

been putting into play to create an airborne laser program aimed at 
protecting our troops and interests around the globe.
  There are four good points I want to make about why this should be 
opposed.
  Number one, the technology is currently available. It works in the 
lab. We simply need to complete the project of mounting it on a 747. 
The technology is there and it works.
  Second, this threat is a very real threat. If we just go back 10 
years to the Gulf War, the greatest numbers of casualties for our young 
men and women over in the Gulf area came from a missile that this 
system is designed to eliminate, a Scud missile that fell on our 
troops.
  Thirdly, the funding for this program, if it is cut, provides an 
unnecessary delay. It also raises the cost of the program that is 
inevitable anyway, and it will put in place a stop work situation where 
contractors will have to literally stop work on this program, send 
their talent off to other projects, which will make it very difficult 
to get them back, again resulting in schedule delays and cost delays 
that are unnecessary.
  The fourth thing I think is a more personal note. We ask our young 
men and women to volunteer to serve our country, to provide for the 
need that we have as a nation in projecting power. When they do this, 
they are putting themselves at risk. What we want to do is to make sure 
that they return home safe and sound to their families. They are 
volunteers. They are doing our bidding. We must provide them a safe way 
to get home. This will protect them when they are in a situation of 
risk.
  So Mr. Chairman, it does not have to be this way, with a longer 
program of higher cost. We are now less than 2 years away from having 
this speed-of-light theater missile system in place. Congress has the 
responsibility to field this important system as soon as possible.
  The gentleman from Ohio said that this would only delay funding a few 
months if we push it over to 02. It will stop the program and probably 
result in a 6-month delay, driving up the costs significantly.
  He made a statement that it cannot work. I want to emphasize it has 
worked in the lab and it will work on the airplane. It is not a crazy 
missile program, as the gentleman from Ohio stated, it is a commonsense 
approach to protecting our young men and women who put themselves at 
risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there is no doubt that the Kucinich amendment 
will result in unnecessary delays. I would urge my colleagues to oppose 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $94,100,000.

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital 
     Funds'', $178,400,000, to remain available until expended.

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $1,453,400,000 for Operation and maintenance: Provided, That 
     such funds may be used to cover increases in TRICARE contract 
     costs associated with the provision of health care services 
     to eligible beneficiaries of all the uniformed services.
       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $200,000,000 for Operation and maintenance, to remain 
     available until expended, only for the use of the Army, Navy, 
     and Air Force Surgeons General to improve the quality of care 
     provided at military treatment facilities, of which 
     $50,000,000 shall be available only to optimize health care 
     services at Army military treatment facilities, $50,000,000 
     shall be available only to optimize health care services at 
     Navy military treatment facilities, $50,000,000 shall be 
     available only to optimize health care services at Air Force 
     military treatment facilities, and $50,000,000 shall be 
     available only to finance advances in medical practices to be 
     equally divided between the services and to be administered 
     solely by the Surgeons General: Provided, That none of the 
     funds provided in this paragraph may be made available for 
     optimization projects or activities unless the Surgeon 
     General of the respective service determines that: (1) such 
     project or activity shall be self-financing within not more 
     than three years of its initiation after which time the 
     project or activity will require no net increase in Defense 
     Health Program funds, or (2) that such project or activity is 
     necessary to address a serious health care deficiency at a 
     military treatment facility that could threaten health care 
     outcomes: Provided further, That none of the funds provided 
     in this paragraph may be made available to a service unless 
     the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional 
     defense committees that all projects or activities to be 
     financed by that service with said funds will be continued 
     and adequately financed in the Department of Defense six year 
     budget plan known as the Program Objective Memorandum.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

       For an additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', $1,900,000.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 1101. Except as otherwise specifically provided in 
     this Act, amounts provided to the Department of Defense under 
     each of the headings in this chapter shall be available for 
     the same period as the amounts appropriated under each such 
     heading in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (Public Law 106-259).
       Sec. 1102. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414).


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 1103. In addition to the amount appropriated in 
     section 308 of Division A, Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 
     2001, as enacted by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law 106-554 
     (114 Stat. 2763A-181 and 182), $44,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That such amount, 
     and the amount previously appropriated in section 308, shall 
     be for costs associated with the stabilization, return, 
     refitting, necessary force protection upgrades, and repair of 
     the U.S.S. COLE, including any costs previously incurred for 
     such purposes: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer these funds to appropriations accounts 
     for procurement: Provided further, That the funds transferred 
     shall be merged with and shall be available for the same 
     purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations 
     to which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided herein is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount made available in 
     this section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 1104. Of the funds made available in Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded, from the following accounts in the specified 
     amounts:
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps, 2000/2002'', $3,000,000;
       ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund, 2001'', 
     $81,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy 2001/2003'', $330,000,000;
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps, 2001/2003'', $5,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2001/2003'', 
     $260,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2001/2003'', $65,000,000;
       ``Procurement, Defense-Wide, 2001/2003'', $85,000,000; and
       ``Intelligence Community Management Account, 2001'', 
     $5,000,000.
       Sec. 1105. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (Public Law 106-259), $39,900,000 is hereby appropriated 
     to the Department of Defense, for facilities repair and 
     damages resulting from natural disasters, as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $6,500,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $23,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $8,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', $200,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', $200,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $400,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $400,000; and
       ``Defense Health Program'', $1,200,000:
     Provided, That the entire amount made available in this 
     section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced

[[Page 11213]]

     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       Sec. 1106. The authority to purchase or receive services 
     under the demonstration project authorized by section 816 of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
     (Public Law 103-337) may be exercised through January 31, 
     2002, notwithstanding subsection (c) of that section.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Skelton

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton:
       At the end of chapter 1 of title I (page 13, after line 4), 
     insert the following new section:

       Sec. 1107. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (Public Law 106-259), $2,736,100,000 is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense, as follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $30,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $10,000,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $332,500,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', $30,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $916,400,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $514,500,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $295,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $59,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $9,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', $30,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $106,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'', $50,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Vehicles, Army'', 
     $10,000,000.
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army'', $14,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army'', $40,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $65,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', $108,100,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', $33,300,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', 
     $33,000,000; and
       ``USS Cole'', $49,000,000:

     Provided, That the entire amount made available in this 
     section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount under this section 
     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 as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Mr. SKELTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I offer unfortunately is not 
protected against points of order, as I had hoped it would have been, 
by the Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1600

  Nevertheless, my amendment would address acute funding shortfalls 
that all the military services are experiencing. It would increase the 
funding for the Department of Defense by $2.7 billion.
  It is no secret that the armed services are doing a magnificent job 
protecting the interests of the United States.
  This amendment would add $2.7 billion for all additional defense 
appropriations. Of this total, the vast majority of it, about $2 
billion, would be for operations and maintenance and, of course, flying 
hours and spare parts, real-property maintenance, depot maintenance, 
uniforms, the unglam- 
orous nuts and bolts essentials that really make our military work.
  Another $400 million would fund military personnel priorities, 
subsistence allowances to keep our service members off food stamps, 
housing allowances, and to pay for unbudgeted National Guard and 
Reserve costs.
  It would also provide, Mr. Chairman, $300 million for high-priority 
procurement costs. It would add $65 million to replace the EP-3 that is 
being cut to pieces on Hainan Island, China; also an additional $49 
million to expedite the repair of the U.S.S. Cole.
  All of these items, plus others, such as rebuild Apache helicopters 
and for ammunition, are all emergencies. These are high-priority 
funding, and they are all recommended by the chiefs of staffs of the 
military services.
  Mr. Chairman, last year, during the hearings that we had, request 
remained of the service chiefs to give us their unfunded requirements 
to get them through the coming year, and they did so. I reviewed that 
list, and being conservative, I offered an amendment of merely $2.7 
billion which, of course, could have been much more.
  It reflects some of the differences between the service chiefs' 
unfunded requirements lists and the portion of items that we have 
addressed in this bill today.
  These are legitimate needs. I only wish that the amendment could have 
been fully debated and fully voted on by this House.
  I know that my amendment is vulnerable to a point of order, and at 
the appropriate moment, according to my discussion with the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), who has reserved the right to object, I will 
withdraw it at the appropriate moment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I stand up to support the Skeleton amendment 
to H.R. 2216, the supplemental appropriations Bill. I think that this 
amendment is a very responsible amendment. We know that when we go and 
visit the training areas and the different camps, we know that the 
planes they fly are older than the pilots that fly those planes; and 
what happened during the past several years is that we have not kept up 
with the maintenance.
  The military, and the Army alone, has a shortfall of $483 million. If 
we cannot buy at least new planes now, I think that the responsible 
thing to do is to have sufficient money so that we can buy parts for 
these planes, so that we can maintain. Time is running late, my 
friends.
  If we do not come with a responsible supplemental, the training 
stops, no tanks will be running, no planes will be flying; and I think 
that this is a very responsible amendment. Therefore, I support the 
Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I might add at this point that there is sufficient 
funding in the contingency fund for this, according to the CBO.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support 
for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
to provide an additional $2.7 billion that is needed to meet the 
critical needs of our men and women in uniform.
  I am extremely disappointed that this amendment was not ruled in 
order. Why would this House not be willing to stand up on behalf of our 
Nation's military and provide it with the additional resources it needs 
to do its job?
  How can we send men and women into battle without all of the 
ammunition, spare parts and tools that they need to get the job done? 
These are the men and women who put their lives on the line each and 
every day to defend our freedom. This should not be about us saying one 
thing and then doing another.
  This is about the money needed to buy spare parts to repair equipment 
that can be as much as 30 years old. This is about money needed to buy 
bullets, ammunition, so our servicemen and women can get the training 
they need to prepare for battle.
  This is about the money needed to ensure that our military families 
have decent housing and do not have to depend on food stamps.

[[Page 11214]]

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment 
and to do the right thing, support fully our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skelton 
amendment. The underlying bill begins to address the hole that was 
blown in the side of the U.S.S. Cole. The Skelton amendment begins to 
address the hole that has been blown into the spare parts, the 
ammunition, the basic-training material that we need for our men and 
women.
  It begins to address the hole that has been blown and the promise of 
decent housing and decent education we have made to their families. But 
we cannot address the Skelton amendment because of the hole that has 
been blown in the budget by the tax cut that this House approved just a 
few weeks ago.
  It is the wrong national priority. The right national priority would 
be to pass the Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Skelton amendment; and I ask the administration, where is the help? 
Time and again, the military was told that help is on the way. They 
waited, and today they are still waiting.
  I have a handful of letters from San Diego echoing the same 
sentiment: help, significant help is required.
  Let me share with you this dire situation in California. There are 
1,200 highly skilled people all who are vital to the defense, the 
defense industrial base in San Diego are going to lose their jobs. Why? 
Why is that?
  The Navy requested an additional $375 million for ship-depot 
maintenance, but political appointees in the Pentagon and at the Office 
of Management and Budget reduced that amount to $200 million.
  Mr. Chairman, $375 million is not an arbitrary amount. It is 
absolutely essential to complete this year's ship maintenance and 
overhaul requirements.
  This year alone in San Diego, 26 major repairs had to be canceled, 
and even more were canceled in Hawaii and Washington State and in 
Virginia. Our sailors deserve vessels that are adequately maintained, 
ready to go in harm's way and perform their mission.
  Mr. Chairman, a continual decline in the condition of our ships is a 
real emergency. Clearly this funding emergency jeopardizes national 
security and preparedness, precipitates the rapid decline of the 
industrial base in this country. National security should not be a 
partisan issue. It is not a California issue; it is a national issue, 
and we are trying to help.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Skelton amendment. I am sorry 
that it is not in order. For having moved it forward, we would be 
showing our troops that help is on the way.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again I must express my disappointment over the fact 
that the Committee on Rules did not make the amendment in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  As a member of this committee, I am honored to work with the 
gentleman to ensure our military is provided the necessary funding to 
protect America and our allies.
  I support this amendment because it provides critical funding for 
basic maintenance costs, as well as personnel needs for each of the 
services.
  Specifically, this amendment would add a total of $2.7 billion to the 
supplemental appropriations bill for various defense programs. This 
funding will be used for flying hours, spare parts, maintenance, 
housing allowances, and subsistence allowances.
  It will also be used to repair or replace the EP-3 supply plane on 
Hainan Island, much-needed repair of the U.S.S. Cole and deployment 
munitions.
  These programs desperately need this funding. Let us make no mistake 
about it. Mr. Skelton wrote this amendment based on the service chiefs' 
fiscal year 2001 unfunded requirements list. It is reasonable and in 
direct response to the expressed needs of our military.
  Mr. Chairman, we must pass this amendment. We owe it not only to our 
hardworking men and women who have dedicated their lives to ensuring 
freedom and democracy in this great Nation, but we also owe it to all 
the Americans who are counting on us to ensure that they are safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and vote for the 
Skelton amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I regret that I had to reserve the point of order on this good 
amendment. I am not opposed to this amendment. As a matter of fact, I 
could identify to the Members of the House far more needs in our 
national defense than even the Skelton amendment covers.
  The problem is we are constrained by the budget resolution for fiscal 
year 2001 not to go above the number that we are using in this bill. 
Other than that, I would tell my colleagues that the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is a stand-up Member on national defense, and he 
has always been a stand-up Member for national defense.
  He understands the needs of those that work in defense every day. He 
understands their needs.
  I would like to give my colleagues an example of the needs that I 
have identified. For a couple of years, I have made a list, as the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has, of unfunded requirements. On 
this list is a substantial number of items that need to be done for the 
military, for the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine 
Corps.
  If the Members can see that list, they will see on this list, if the 
Members can see that, the blue lines. Those are items that we have been 
able to take care of in the last couple of years; but there are many, 
many more items on this list that have not been taken care of yet.
  The Skelton amendment would take care of a lot of them. The problem 
is, we are constrained by the budget resolution for fiscal year 2001. 
Other than that we would be here enthusiastically supporting the 
Skelton amendment, because, in fact, it is a good amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Defense.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my full committee chairman, for 
yielding me the time. Like the gentleman from Florida, I wish that I 
were the author of this amendment for, indeed, if it were not for those 
budget limitations that have been mentioned, there is little question 
that we would have bipartisan support by way of vote, as well as 
spirit.
  There is little question that one of the complications in this 
process is that under other circumstances, we might very well have 
exercised emergency provisions to be able to go by our budgetary cap. 
On the other hand, we face rather sensitive and complicated 
circumstances in the other body.
  If they should find themselves with difficulty, it would require 60 
votes in the other body; and it could slow down this very, very 
important measure. Nevertheless, as the gentleman from Florida has 
indicated, there is not a Member in the House who is more concerned and 
dedicated to doing the work

[[Page 11215]]

that is necessary for the men and women who make up our armed services 
than the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  He is my colleague, the ranking member on the authorizing committee. 
He works very, very closely with us as we go about the appropriations 
process. I very enthusiastically support his intent here, but I must 
reserve my vote when the vote actually occurs. And I appreciate the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there are a few people in this Chamber 
that all of us respect and one is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton). I love the gentleman. He is a descendent of Daniel Boone.
  I also agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) that this is 
very, very noteworthy.
  As a matter of fact, the individuals that spoke in favor of his 
amendment, I cannot see a one of them that is antidefense, that is not 
there to help our men and women. We asked for $362 million, which the 
gentleman helped us get for ship repair. The Navy switched that over to 
nuclear and carrier refueling and then gave us $171 million shortfall 
in ship repair.

                              {time}  1615

  So the mismanagement within the services is a problem as well.
  If we look at the basics of the things that have been mentioned here 
today, this does not even scratch it. And if I had the ability to 
override the other body and the Senator in the other body, I think we 
would see all of us supporting that. But we do not have the 60 votes in 
the other body.
  Many of us spoke about, including my friend, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), not going along with Izetbegovic in Bosnia. When we 
talk about the U.S.S. Cole, it was those Mujahadeen and Hamas that 
surrounded Izetbegovic in Sarajevo that blew up the U.S.S. Cole. And 
the 124 deployments that have put us into this position, that many of 
us fought against, including many of my colleagues on the other side, 
have put us in this hole. Shalikashvili, previous Secretary of Defense, 
stated that it just wore our equipment out and tore us down.
  I do not think there will be supplementals in the future. That tells 
me that the services better come up with a clean number so that we can 
fund them, because there may be limited ability to do that. But I laud 
my friend and I regretfully oppose his amendment.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would admonish Members they are not to 
characterize the intentions of the other body.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I regret I must insist on my 
point of order, and I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this much needed 
supplemental bill that seeks to replenish military accounts drawn down 
by high fuel costs and other training and military readiness 
requirements.
  For months I have joined my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in 
advocating for additional funding so our troops can continue training, 
replace spare parts and fix dilapidated infrastructure. While I support 
this supplemental bill today, I am concerned that it does not solve the 
many problems that our military faces this year.
  H.R. 2216, appropriates $6.5 billion in supplemental funds, $5.5 
billion (85 percent) of which will address military readiness, training 
and other operations requirements. Specifically, $44 million to repair 
the damage to the U.S.S. Cole, which was damaged by a suicide bomb 
attack last fall while it was docked in Yemen; $970 million to fully 
fund the flying-hours requirements of Navy and Air Force pilots; $463 
million for increased utility costs, especially in California; $100 
million for environmental cleanup and waste management; and $33 million 
for the Navy and Marine Corps to increase security against terrorist 
attacks.
  I am especially pleased that the committee has included $9.4 million 
for the construction of an emergency submarine repair facility in Guam. 
This project provides budgetary support to a renewed focus on Guam and 
the Pacific by military planners and the Bush administration. This 
facility will play a vital role in providing much needed support for 
the three navy attack submarines that are to be homeported in Guam 
starting in April, 2002. Currently, Guam has a very capable shipyard of 
providing support and maintenance to the surface fleet and submarines. 
Moreover, the U.S.S. Frank Cable is homeported on Guam, and is the only 
forward deployed submarine tender in the Pacific. While I strongly 
support this new facility, it is my hope that this will not instigate 
competition with the existing shipyard on Guam.
  Moreover, I would like to express my strong support for Mr. Skelton's 
amendment, which unfortunately is not protected from a point of order. 
This amendment will provide an additional $2.7 billion and reflects the 
difference between the Service Chiefs FY 01 unfunded requirements lists 
and the pieces of those lists included in the Appropriations Committee 
markup of the supplemental.
  Specifically, the Skelton amendment would provide nearly $2 billion 
towards current operations and maintenance accounts; $320 million in 
procurement, including funding for a new Navy EP-3E aircraft, which was 
damaged in regards to the accidental collision with a Chinese fighter 
jet and currently grounded on China's Hainan Island.
  As the Bush administration continues to delay sending a defense 
budget to Congress, it looks all the more likely that the Defense 
appropriations bill for FY 02 will be the last of the 13 annual 
spending bills passed this year. Given this predicament, this 
supplemental is the only vehicle Congress has to address the needs and 
requirements of our troops in uniform this year, thus punctuating the 
importance of the Skelton amendment.
  We all support increased military funding, but I call into question 
where the money will come from given the massive and recently passed 
$1.35 trillion tax cut. Our military is facing several multifaceted 
challenges that this Congress must address this year. It is my hope 
that President Bush will back up his campaign promise of ``help is on 
the way'' when he finally submits his defense budget request later this 
summer.
  With that, I urge all Members to support the Skelton amendment and 
this measure as it will work towards providing immediate relief to our 
Armed Forces.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment for the aforestated reasons.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be considered at this point.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. (a) For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Commission'' means the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission.
       (2) The term ``cost-of-service-based rate'' means a rate, 
     charge, or classification for the sale of electric energy 
     that is equal to the sum of the following:
       (A) All variable and fixed costs of generating such 
     electric energy.
       (B) Either--
       (i) a reasonable risk premium, or
       (ii) a return on invested capital used to generate and 
     transmit such electric energy that reflects customary returns 
     during the period 1994 through 1999.
       (C) Other reasonable costs associated with the acquisition, 
     conservation, and transmission of such electric energy.
       (3) The term ``new generation facility'' means any facility 
     generating electric energy that did not generate electric 
     energy at any time prior to January 1, 2001.
       (b) Within 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall issue an order establishing cost-of-service-
     based rates for electric energy sold at wholesale subject to 
     the jurisdiction of the Commission under the Federal Power 
     Act for use in that portion of the United States that is 
     covered by the Western Systems Coordinating Council of the 
     North American Electric Reliability Council.
       (c) Subsection (b) shall not apply to sales of electric 
     energy after March 1, 2003.
       (d) The rates required under subsection (b) shall not apply 
     to any sale of electric energy generated by any new 
     generation facility.
       (e)(1) If a State determines that a wholesale rate 
     applicable to delivery of electricity within the State is not 
     in compliance with subsection (b) or is not just and 
     reasonable, the State may bring an action in the appropriate 
     United States district court. Upon

[[Page 11216]]

     adequate showing that a rate is not in compliance with 
     subsection (b) or is not just and reasonable, the court shall 
     order refunds or other relief as appropriate.
       (2) Any person who violates any requirement of this section 
     shall be subject to civil penalties equal to 3 times the 
     value of the amount involved in such violation. The 
     Commission shall assess such penalties, after notice and 
     opportunity for public hearing, in accordance with the same 
     provisions as are applicable under section 31(d) of the 
     Federal Power Act in the case of civil penalties assessed 
     under such section 31.
       (f) Nothing in this section shall affect any authority of 
     the Commission existing before the enactment of this section.
       (g) Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     825(c)) is amended by adding the following at the end 
     thereof: ``Except during the continuance of any war, no order 
     may be issued under this subsection unless the payment of 
     compensation or reimbursement to the person subject to such 
     order if fully guaranteed by the United States Government or 
     by a State government.''.
       (h) If any provision of this section is found to be 
     unenforceable or invalid, no other provision of this section 
     shall be invalidated thereby.

  Ms. PELOSI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the amendment being considered at 
this point?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we have before us was a product of 
work done by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and others in the Committee on 
Commerce which I was pleased to present to the full committee the other 
day.
  For my colleagues' benefit, the Federal Election Regulatory 
Commission was established under the Power Act, and under it the FERC, 
when it determined that power companies, generators, were charging 
unjust and unreasonable rates, they would reach a threshold whereby 
they could do something, they could mitigate for that. The gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Eshoo) and others have authored this amendment, and I will yield to him 
to explain the amendment to our colleagues, but first I wish to thank 
him for his tremendous leadership on behalf of consumers in the western 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) as a real and a meaningful 
and a truly effective price mitigation strategy for the West Coast. The 
West Coast is a great place. We do not have hurricanes like the 
Southeast, but right now we have an economic tornado that is ripping 
right up and down the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.
  In Washington, our wholesale prices have gone up not twice, not 
three, not four times, but by a thousand percent. And while those 
prices have gone up a thousand percent, while people in the State of 
Washington, 43,000 of them, may lose their jobs this year in the State 
of Washington due to this economic tornado, what has the Federal 
Government done for our citizens on the West Coast? Nothing. In 
January, when we asked FERC to act, they did nothing. In February, in 
March, in April, they did nothing. In May and today, when we have asked 
the majority party to join us, nothing has been done.
  This amendment would do something meaningful. What it would do is to 
set a 2-year period of cost-based pricing for wholesale electrical 
generators. A reasonable thing to do. We would, by this amendment, 
simply require FERC to order cost-based pricing on the West Coast of 
the United States for 2 years. That means generators would charge 
reasonable rates based on their cost. Each generator would get what 
they have coming to them, which is the cost to generate the 
electricity, plus a reasonable degree of profit. That is not too much 
to ask when we have 43,000 people in the State of Washington that may 
be coming home with no job.
  Now, as my colleagues know, finally, after we have drug this 
administration and my friends across the aisle kicking and screaming to 
the price mitigation bar, the FERC finally did something 2 days ago. 
But FERC doing something does not mean that this House should do 
nothing. Because what FERC did would essentially adopt a price 
mitigation strategy that may not mitigate anybody's prices.
  Look what they did. They said nobody can charge more than a certain 
price. But the price they picked was the most expensive generator on 
the whole West Coast, the least efficient generator on the whole West 
Coast. Mr. Chairman, it would be the equivalent if we had FERC dealing 
with two high prices in the automobile industry. If we gave them that 
job, they would pick the cost of a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud as the 
price for the limit. That would not help any car buyers, and this is 
unlikely to help consumers on the western coast of the United States. 
It is likely to be an ineffective proposal.
  So what we have done is to do what historically has been done, which 
is to adopt cost-based pricing. Something meaningful. When we talk 
about incentives, think about it from this standpoint. If we are going 
to send a message to the generators of electricity, the message that 
FERC sent to the generators is they said turn your most expensive, your 
least efficient, your environmentally dirtiest plants on first. Is that 
the message that the U.S. Government wants to send to the industry to 
adopt their dirtiest most expensive generators first? Yet, that is what 
the FERC order has done.
  To those who argue that economics say we should not adopt price 
mitigation, I want to quote from Dr. Frank Wolak, who studied this 
effort. He is an economist from Stanford. This scheme, referring to the 
FERC order, guarantees that consumers pay more for wholesale 
electricity than they would pay for cost of service pricing. Under the 
FERC plan, consumers have the potential to pay significantly more than 
total production costs to receive the same amount of electricity in 
order to preserve a market clearing price mechanism which provides 
incentives.
  This is not enough. It is time for this U.S. House to act.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let me give a little history. Price 
caps in the 1970s were disastrous. Canada controls a large percentage 
of the energy coming into California. If we put price caps on, there is 
nothing that controls Canada in resources for selling power. That is 
why we ended up with gas lines in the 1970s.
  My colleagues, look at what Governor Davis has done to stop power 
generation, yet he is now trying to shift the blame to the White House. 
The Governor was warned that deregulation and not buying long-term 
power would be critical to California. He not only rejected it, he 
killed it. And at the same time the Governor now has millions of 
dollars from those same energy companies in his personal campaign. I 
think that is wrong.
  The Governor was warned that San Diego Gas & Electric was a private 
company and they had to buy excess power from public utilities, but 
they could not because there was no excess power. He rejected it.
  The White House offered the California Governor the GE and 
Caterpillar generators that could produce thousands of megawatts of 
power. I quote, ``We do not need it.'' The White House offered the 
Governor help, and each time he rejected it. The White House said if 
you make a request in writing, we will do a waiver of the California

[[Page 11217]]

Clean Air standards just for this emergency period. The Governor would 
not do that. A year and a half later, he is now thinking about it. We 
could have turned on 600 generators just for the emergency period, and 
in the interim worked to clean up those generators.
  One generator producer in Los Angeles wanted his license because he 
cleaned up his system. The Governor said, in response to the gentleman, 
``If you unionize your shop, I will give you a license.'' Playing 
politics. And now the Governor's poll numbers are going down and down 
and down, and the only thing he can do is try and shift the blame to 
the White House that was in office 1 week when this hit him.
  It has been caused over and over. Some of my critics will say, well, 
Pete Wilson started it. Gray Davis had the chance to buy long-term 
power and he did not, and now he is getting campaign money from the 
very electric companies that are ripping off these folks.
  I would say that regardless of what the reason that my colleagues on 
the other side want price caps, it is detrimental and it will not work, 
because there is no one that forces those 14 States or Canada to sell 
power to California. They will sell it elsewhere, and then we will end 
up with the gas lines like we did in the 1970s.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), who was a very critical part of putting this 
amendment together.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) for her great leadership on this issue in the Committee on 
Appropriations that affects not only her Congressional District, mine, 
but all Californians.
  I rise today as not only the representative of the 14th Congressional 
District but someone that loves my State. When I hear the word 
California, I cannot help but smile. It is a great State and we have 
done and will continue to do great things. But we know that she is a 
State that is in crisis, and so I join with my colleague from the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), in the amendment that she offered because it meant and still 
means relief for California.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Chairman, all of my colleagues are thinking, Well, the Federal 
agency did act on Monday. And I salute them for finally ending their 
sit-down strike because previously they refused to act on behalf of 
California's energy consumer.
  What I rise to speak about today is the issue of refunds. There has 
been some $8.9 billion which is not penny larceny, by the way, which 
has been exported out of the State of California, the largest export of 
dollars since the Civil War from one State to another. What the FERC 
did in their order was to simply say, in 15 days go before an 
administrative law judge and somehow settle this.
  I think it is the responsibility, and that is why I went to the 
Committee on Rules last evening to ask for an amendment to be debated 
on the floor today. They did not make that amendment in order. But what 
I will be offering is legislation that does deal with a refund. If a 
consumer goes to Macy's or a restaurant and is overcharged, they are 
going to seek a refund. Californians deserve it. They have been ripped 
off, and we seek to have this money returned to the good people of 
California.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  This issue of energy in California is perhaps the most critical issue 
at the moment in California. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) and some of our friends on the Democratic side have come 
forward with an idea for price caps. I have read the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). One of the most important 
things is figuring how do we bring new supply to market, and how do we 
do it in a manner that is environmentally acceptable.
  This week Senator Feinstein has been good enough to speak the truth, 
and that is perhaps we ought to let FERC's plan work a little bit and 
see if it actually works, rather than jumping in and imposing another 
layer of regulatory standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into the Record a letter that I 
received from Calpine, which is a national company reknowned for its 
ability to bring efficient, environmentally friendly power to the 
market.


                                                      Calpine,

                                    Washington, DC, June 18, 2001.
     Hon. Doug Ose,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Ose: Thank you for your leadership in 
     helping to resolve the severe electricity crisis in 
     California and the West Coast. Your legislation, H.R. 1974, 
     is a responsible attempt to provide the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) with the needed tools that will 
     help it in its effort to stabilize Western states electricity 
     markets.
       There has been some misguided criticism of your bill as it 
     relates to the price set during certain market conditions. 
     Under your proposal, the price limitations are based on the 
     FERC order of April 26, 2001. These price limitations are set 
     in relation to the least-efficient generation units entering 
     the market at specific times. Some have claimed that this 
     will encourage inefficiency. The reality is just the 
     opposite: by pegging the price to the least-efficient unit 
     entering the market, it rewards those generators who are more 
     efficient. In addition, it allows the power from these less-
     efficient units to be sent to the grid when it is most 
     needed, thereby preventing additional blackouts. This will be 
     especially important as we enter the summer, which is when 
     peak demand occurs in California and any blackouts could 
     create serious impacts on public health and safety.
       By using the least-efficient units for the price 
     limitations, your legislation actually encourages newer and 
     cleaner plants to be construed. Eventually this will lead to 
     the decommissioning of the oldest and dirtiest plants in the 
     state. It should be noted that Calpine's resources are very 
     efficient, as we do not own or operate the types of plants 
     that are the last to enter the market during times of 
     potential shortfalls.
       Calpine looks forward to working with you in resolving this 
     crisis. We want a stable market that provides reliable and 
     affordable electricity to all of the citizens in the West. 
     Whenever you need the perspective of a California-based 
     supplier of clean and reliable electricity, we will be 
     pleased to provide it.
           Sincerely,

                                                    Joe Ronan,

                                        Vice President--Government
                                           and Regulatory Affairs.

  They clearly state that price caps just are not going to work. They 
are, in effect, a reward given to the most inefficient, highly 
polluting plants that can be used.
  Mr. Chairman, here is the concept. Under the gentlewoman's bill, we 
would have generators regardless of their cost basis who would earn a 
return on their cost. So if they produce at $10 a megawatt, they make a 
percentage on that. Over here we may have some other producer who can 
do it for $5, and under the gentlewoman's proposal, they would get a 
percentage of that. The guy who can bring power to market for $5 is 
bringing power to California consumers at half the cost of the $10 
person.
  If we use the technology that is available to us today, we can bring 
power to the market, we can do it in a way that allows us to use highly 
efficient conversion of gas to electricity. We can do it in a way that 
instead of continuing to pollute our environment in California with 
these traditional sources that the gentlewoman is attempting to 
protect, we do it with technology that has significantly lower levels 
of pollution.
  That is what we are arguing about here today, whether to protect the 
dinosaurs using cost-based rates or to move into the 21st century, 
protect our environment, protect our consumers from price gouging, 
bring supply to the market and create jobs in California.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the gentlewoman from 
California's amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to comment on the 
previous speaker's comments.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) does 
not understand what our amendment does. What he described and its 
shortcomings is exactly what the FERC did

[[Page 11218]]

this week, to give standing to the dirtiest and oldest technology and 
generators, and thereby making the problem that will certainly be 
skirted by suppliers. My amendment will do exactly what he described we 
want to happen. If he had an understanding of both of these, he would 
realize that and support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott), who has been involved in these issues for a long time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is not just a California problem. I 
repeat, it is not just a California problem. We had the Deputy 
Secretary of Energy before the Committee on the Budget today, and he 
said in answer to a direct question, this is not only California, it 
affects the State of Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, we are facing 150 percent increases under BPA. We face 
the loss of 102,000 jobs in Washington State. Electricity that cost $23 
a megawatt last year is between $200 and $300 this year. Some of you 
are feeling fat and sassy in the Midwest or East and saying it is just 
the Californians arguing about a big problem. The rest of the Nation is 
also going to get it because there is a grid that connects the whole 
energy system in the United States. What is happening to us in 
Washington State, we are only a thousand miles from California, if my 
colleagues are within a thousand miles, my colleagues ought to be 
voting for this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I do not know of anyone on 
either side of the aisle who is opposed to helping California get out 
of this serious problem they are in, or any of the other Western States 
as well.
  We recognize fully that there is a crisis in the West. We recognize 
fully that this crisis is going to spread even more nationally. We 
recognize because of the crisis in California and because of the crisis 
in the West, that it is causing a domino effect even as low down in the 
South as Alabama because our rates, too, are increasing simply because 
of supply and demand.
  Let me tell my colleagues, I think this administration is trying to 
do the right thing. We had this issue that came up in our committee, 
full committee meeting this past week, and we debated it there and the 
issue was overwhelmingly defeated in committee. And it was 
overwhelmingly defeated, I think, because the committee was convinced 
that the administration is doing everything that they possibly can to 
eliminate this crisis and to stop those rolling blackouts in 
California.
  Mr. Chairman, we all want to do the same thing. We are all trying to 
get to the same corner of the room, but I think this is the wrong route 
to take because if we take this route of price caps, there is no doubt 
in my mind that we are going to encourage even more problems for 
California because that eliminates the incentives that are being 
imposed now by the fact that people recognize there is a shortage. We 
will eliminate the incentive for conservation if indeed we apply price 
caps. Indeed, this amendment could ultimately increase the problem in 
California, and I know that is the last thing the gentlewoman from 
California wants to do, and it is the last thing that anybody on either 
side of the aisle wants to do. We want to help.
  Mr. Chairman, just this week FERC has imposed some price caps the 
responsible way of imposing them, for all of the 11 Western States. So 
the administration is moving very aggressive in this direction to help 
California. We are going to ultimately provide money for new energy 
sources that we hope will be developed in California to make this a 
long-term solution.
  We cannot do anything that is going to solve this problem overnight 
and stop a rolling blackout that is going to take place tomorrow. But 
we can, by working together, provide the necessary resources and 
encouragement to California and to the Western States and to the energy 
providers to eliminate this problem; and that is our long-term goal.
  But this, Mr. Chairman, is not the way to do it because this 
amendment will compound the problems that California currently is 
undergoing. There has been a lot of talk about blame. Who is at fault? 
I do not care who is at fault. I do not care that I do not live in 
California. I know that the people in California are suffering 
financially because of this and for the inconvenience and the danger in 
some instances it is causing because of some health problems that 
cannot be addressed without availability of electricity.
  This is something we are going to have to work together, Mr. 
Chairman, to resolve. And we are going to begin working together to 
resolve it in the bill that will come to the floor hopefully next week, 
the energy and water appropriations bill of the Committee on 
Appropriations. We are going to pump money into this issue. We are 
going to address some of the other crises that are going to be 
affecting California, and that is the next crisis of water.
  Mr. Chairman, the people in California tell me this is an even more 
dangerous crisis pending than the electrical crisis. We are going to 
work together in a bipartisan fashion and try to give California the 
necessary resources and assistance they need to create a long-term 
solution and a permanent solution to this crisis that they are in.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire about the time 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 6\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who is an expert on power generation in our 
country and has been a tremendous resource to us.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, interesting debate; but let us talk about 
the facts. What the gentlewoman's amendment would do is return us to 
the system that prevailed in this country for two-thirds of the last 
century, through the Great Depression, World War II, the oil crisis, 
and made us the greatest industrial power on Earth. It is cost-based 
rates, and it goes to every individual generator, unlike the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ose) who said this would encourage inefficiency 
and the dirty plants would operate first and everybody would pay the 
price. No, that is what the Bush Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
did. They said the price will be based on the least-efficient plant, 
and the most-efficient plant will get that price.
  So the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), now knowing the facts, I 
am certain, will support the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The FERC also found in December that the prices were not just and 
reasonable. They were violating Federal law. And since that time, we 
have found wholesale prices 10 times that of 2 years ago. We found 
Texas-based energy conglomerates whose profits are up 1,000 percent in 
1 year. The price of energy has gone from $7 billion to $27 billion in 
California in 1 year, and that is spreading up into the Pacific 
Northwest.
  Mr. Chairman, the market does not exist. It is being manipulated. 
There is more and more evidence coming to prove that point. The FERC, 
by adopting a half-baked proposal, admitted that. It is intervening in 
a dysfunctional market because of market manipulation and price 
gouging, but what they have done does not solve the problem.
  We need to return to a system of cost-based energy which served our 
Nation so well for two-thirds of a century. We need full refunds, not 
the partial, maybe refunds that FERC mandated; and we need something 
that goes for two seasons in California and two seasons in the Pacific 
Northwest, not two seasons in California and one season in the Pacific 
Northwest.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard the administration is doing everything. They 
are

[[Page 11219]]

doing everything but offending the very powerful and generous 
contributors who are making money hand over fist from consumers who are 
experiencing price gouging.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield \3/4\ minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Pelosi 
amendment. This has been a real crisis, not just in California but 
throughout the West and particularly in the Pacific Northwest. My own 
utility in Tacoma has increased rates by approximately 50 percent and 
may be faced with another 50 percent increase because of drought 
conditions affecting Bonneville Power and its power.
  I want to associate myself with the gentleman from Oregon's comments. 
He is exactly right. The idea that we are going to base the cost of 
power on the output of the weakest plant and the plant that is the most 
expensive is an outrage. I think we need to stay with this. We need to 
get this amendment adopted. I urge the House to support the Pelosi 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time. The assumptions being made in the Pelosi 
amendment relative to the price caps assumes that one way or another 
that such price caps are going to make sure that the price of energy in 
California does not rise. The fact is that the price of energy, our 
utility bills in California, are rising at this moment and it appears 
they are going to continue to rise because of a history in California 
of a considerable lack of leadership in planning in terms of our energy 
needs and how we might meet those needs.
  There is little question that the action taken by FERC this last 
several days and actually over the last several weeks is a very 
positive step in the right direction. It was not by accident after the 
FERC ruling that affects the entire West that my colleague in the 
Senate, Dianne Feinstein, made a decision to back off of the approach 
that she was going to be taking relative to the energy crisis at home. 
She felt we ought to give it some time to work.
  It is very apparent that there is a very real risk that if we impose 
energy caps, two things will occur. First, we will lay the foundation 
to undermine the long-range solution, the kind of investment that will 
allow us to develop energy sources in California that we desperately 
need. But secondly I would point to a report that came forth today from 
the Department of Energy that indicates that the proposed wholesale 
electric price controls in California could double the number of 
rolling blackouts from 113 to 235 hours and increase the number of 
households in the dark to about 1,575. Minimizing the number of 
blackouts ought to be our principal goal because more intense blackouts 
would greatly imperil the health and safety of California's citizens 
and would undermine the State's economy at least as much as high 
prices.
  The analysis in this report is that blackouts will be worse and last 
longer if price controls are established. For those reasons, we should 
strongly oppose the Pelosi amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is very interesting to hear my colleagues from California speak 
out about this solution to our crisis that we have there. Either they 
and our colleagues on the Republican side are closing their eyes to a 
situation which they do not wish to acknowledge, to quote the Music 
Man, or they refuse to acknowledge the caliber of disaster posed by the 
exploitation by the power companies who have withheld energy in order 
to drive up prices to exploit the market and increase costs to the 
consumers.
  This amendment, which is the Inslee amendment, is appropriate to come 
up on this emergency supplemental because it is an emergency indeed. It 
does not cost one penny. But what it says is that this body will 
recognize an emergency. You be the judge. In 1999, Californians spent 
$7 billion on energy. In 2000, it was $27 billion because of this 
exploitation. And projected for 2001 is 50 to $60 billion, nearly 10 
times.
  This is taking a terrible toll on our economy. We will have a revenue 
bond issue to help cover the cost, to underwrite cost to consumers and 
businesses, residences and businesses, of about $12 billion, the 
highest State bond issue ever. What does that mean? It means that our 
credit rating for our State will be affected by that. And when our 
State's economy is affected, the economy of the whole country is and 
certainly that of the western United States as our colleagues from 
other States in the West have testified to.
  We have at this moment homeowners, residences, businesses, which will 
be driven out of existence. They cannot afford to pay even the cost 
that is not being underwritten by the State. In some cases their energy 
bills will go up $400 for a residence and even much more than that for 
some of the businesses, especially the small businesses will have their 
very existence threatened. We have 800,000 people who are disabled in 
California, who depend on energy at all times and will be very affected 
by not being able to pay their bills and have that source of energy.
  So when people want to talk about how we got where we are today, we 
can have that debate and frankly if we had more time we could have it 
right here. But the fact is that whatever those reasons, it does not 
eliminate the fact that power companies withheld energy to drive up the 
cost, to exploit the market, to have this impact on consumers. So our 
choice here, Mr. Chairman, is to make a choice between the exploiters 
and the consumers.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who with the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) and others from this region is the author of 
this amendment, which as I say I am pleased as an appropriator to offer 
and thank him again for his leadership.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is 
recognized for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this debate has a bit of an Alice in 
Wonderland feel to it for this reason: the FERC action of 2 days ago 
which the administration says they support, which I hear my friends 
across the aisle say they support, is a price cap. It is a price 
limitation. It says you cannot spend any more money than this dollar 
figure of the least efficient, most expensive, dirtiest plant in the 
whole western United States. It is a cap.
  What is wrong with it is it is the wrong cap. It is the wrong 
limitation. It is like setting the bar at a limbo contest and setting 
it at the lowest level that Shaquille O'Neal can get through. It is 
like setting the testing standards for fourth graders, finding the 
slowest student in America and that is where you set the limitation. It 
is not going to work, just like the failure of Congress and FERC for 
the last 6 months. They have not done a darn thing.
  I will just close by saying this. There is a famous story, we have 
heard it, where the grandchild comes to the grandfather's knee and 
says, ``Grandpa, what did you do during the war?'' And the grandpa 
tells his story.
  When the majority fail to allow us to offer a refund amendment, when 
the majority fail to allow us to even vote, even vote on something to 
do about these absurd, outrageous prices, when the majority insist that 
we do nothing, when your grandchild asks you what you did in the power 
crisis of 2001, you can tell them, ``Nothing.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise again only to say that the history of this is 
very, very important. Well over a year ago in San Diego, California, as 
a result of ill-placed policies developed in the State legislature, we 
found ourselves faced

[[Page 11220]]

with an energy crisis. Some way, somehow the chairman of our public 
utilities commission in California advised the Governor that it was not 
a crisis and as a result of that literally they did nothing. The State 
legislature and the Governor has done nothing during this last year and 
a half. Now suddenly they are recognizing the crisis and asking 
Washington some way to figure out how they got there and how they ought 
to get out.
  The fact is that electrons do not know the limits of San Diego or of 
California. We are in a regionwide crisis. That crisis is beginning to 
be dealt with by some actions by FERC, only after long awaiting the 
Governor and the State legislature to come forth with actions of their 
own.
  Mr. Chairman, there is little question that we face a crisis in the 
West. But this proposal of price caps will only undermine the short-
term efforts that are being made here but could potentially destroy our 
hope for a long-term solution which involves more and new energy 
sources in California.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman. California is facing an energy crisis. This 
problem is not one that California can solve without the help of 
Federal intervention. The root of the California energy crisis is the 
soaring wholesale rates for electricity. The spot market price of 
electricity has increased from $30 per megawatt hour in 1999 to $300 in 
2001. Energy prices have soared as high as $1,900 per megawatt hour. 
For a point of comparison that many of us can better relate to: if the 
price of a gallon of milk increased at the same rate as California's 
energy prices, milk that now costs $3 per gallon would cost $190 per 
gallon. Energy costs are a real problem facing California and our 
western neighbors. The Inslee-Pelosi amendment can remedy this problem 
but the Republican leadership will only allow debate on the amendment--
they will not allow a vote on the amendment.
  Many critics will tell you that price caps hurt the market and will 
stifle new electrical power generation. However, the Inslee-Pelosi 
amendment exempts new generating facilities to ensure that the pricing 
mechanism does not provide a disincentive to new energy generation. The 
amendment places the Western energy grid under a cost-of-service based 
rate system. This means that the energy suppliers, most of which are 
Texas-based friends of the current administration, will be able to 
recover the cost of producing energy, as well as make a reasonable 
profit.
  The administration realizes that some form of price caps is necessary 
and allowed the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission, FERC, to 
impose a limited price control structure to help mitigate the soaring 
price spikes. However, more must be done. These energy generators are 
gaming the deregulated system in order to increase profits, all at the 
expense of California's families and businesses. FERC has the power to 
impose effective cost controls now, but they refuse to fulfill their 
obligation. The recent FERC decision might help California, but price 
caps are certain to help California's consumers.
  Unfortunately, we have a White House that is more sympathetic to the 
Texas energy producers than to California residents sitting in the dark 
and the heat, facing skyrocketing electricity rates. The only 
alternative is congressional action with measures such as the Inslee-
Pelosi amendment, since FERC will only provide limited consumer 
protection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as previously announced under my 
reservation of a point of order, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 
of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, ``an amendment to a 
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.'' The amendment directly amends existing law. I insist on my point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman raises a point of order. Does the 
gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends 
existing law. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and 
the amendment is not in order.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to inquire of the distinguished chairman if 
there are any other authorizations in this supplemental, emergency 
supplemental bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would concede to the gentlewoman that there 
are several that are protected by the rule. This amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California is not protected by the rule and, 
therefore, is subject to the point of order.
  Ms. PELOSI. Would the gentleman be so kind as to inform our 
colleagues as to how many authorizations are within this bill? Is it 
something like 30?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentlewoman will yield, I will be happy 
to go through that list and provide that to her in an expeditious time.
  Ms. PELOSI. It is my understanding that there are about 30 such 
authorizations protected by the rule in this emergency supplemental.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Any other item that might be considered 
authorizing on an appropriations bill would have been protected by the 
rule.
  Ms. PELOSI. It is very unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that while there 
may be 30 perhaps, the gentleman has not told us an exact figure, but I 
respect the fact that he will get that information to us, 
authorizations protected by the rule for this bill, that the majority 
has chosen to ignore a crisis in California and the western States, our 
western region as our amendment addresses the West.
  This is an emergency for us. Our energy costs have increased 10 
times, into the tens of billions of dollars as I mentioned. Hundreds of 
thousands of disabled people depending on access to energy at all times 
cannot tolerate rolling blackouts or any other kind, including the high 
cost of energy. It will have an impact on the credit rating of our 
State which has now surpassed France as an economy in the world. 
California has surpassed France as an economy, and we are going to be 
cavalier about the impact that has on our country and that small 
businesses and homeowners and residences and all the rest will carry 
this tremendous burden.
  It seems to me our Republican colleagues want to play the blame game 
instead of trying to find a solution to this problem. No matter how you 
describe it, the fact is that the suppliers have exploited the market 
by withholding power to drive up the prices to exploit the consumer. 
You cannot deny that, as many places as you want to place the blame. 
The fact is that we have had tremendous growth in our economy in the 
West. We have also had a real dearth of rainfall and we depend heavily 
on hydroelectric. There are other reasons why we are in the situation 
we are in today.
  But again I repeat, the remedy that we are suggesting today is for a 
reasonable cap based on expenses and profit to the suppliers that is 
just and reasonable. That is what the power law called for. That is 
what they told and instructed the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, that they could do if there were not just and reasonable 
rates charged. The FERC determined that the rates were not fair and 
reasonable. They are almost $9 billion overcharged to consumers in 
California. With all of that, the FERC has decided to act this week, 
favoring the dirtiest and oldest technology to make the cap the highest 
possible cap.

                              {time}  1700

  So while they recognize there is a problem, they intervened into the 
market. They did so in a way that was, as was said earlier by my 
colleagues, half baked. So for this committee to say that we will 
object to this on the basis of the fact that it is authorizing on an 
appropriations bill, when there are at least 30 other authorizations in 
this bill protected by the rule, but to save the people in the western 
United States the emergency does not count to us, again we would rather 
play the blame game than solve the problem, I have serious problems 
with that, Mr. Chairman. I just wish that the chairman would reconsider 
his objection on the

[[Page 11221]]

basis of it being authorizing; but if that is the route the majority 
chooses to go, as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) said last 
week, he said the Californians made their bed, then let them lie in it.
  The Republicans are making their bed on this issue right now by 
siding with the exploiters at the expense of the consumers. They are 
making their bed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this House knows that when I make 
an agreement, I keep it. As I said, I think everybody in this Chamber 
knows that if I make a commitment, I keep it. I agreed not to press the 
point of order at the beginning of the debate so the gentlewoman could 
have time, and we agreed that each side would have 15 minutes. She had 
her 15 minutes and then went on to violate the agreement by taking 
another 5 minutes.
  I am not going to respond in kind or rebut this at all; but the point 
is, the arguments of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
should be made on an authorizing bill. They should not be made on an 
appropriations bill.
  The other authorizing issues she is concerned about are practically 
meaningless. This is a very significant change of the basic law.
  I would suggest to anyone else listening to this conversation that if 
we are going to violate the agreement that we had earlier in the day, I 
will press the point of order on everyone at the beginning of the 
consideration of the amendment, and I will not provide the additional 
20 minutes that I have agreed to. If we are going to make a deal, let 
us keep the deal. Let us do not violate it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I apologize because I was part of the 
unanimous consent agreement. I am sure the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) did not mean in any way to violate the agreement, but I 
agree that we should not have violated the agreement.
  We have a legitimate agreement to talk about this. As important as it 
is, I understand the emotion; but I would hope we would be able to 
continue on with the other agreements that have been made. I apologize 
that it is such an emotionally charged issue and that we got a little 
out of hand here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 2

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                National Nuclear Security Administration

                           Weapons Activities

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Activities'', 
     $140,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funding is authorized for Project 01-D-107, Atlas 
     Relocation and Operations, and Project 01-D-108, Microsystems 
     and Engineering Sciences Application Complex.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr of California

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr of California:
       Page 13, after line 14, insert the following:

                 Electric Power Grid Improvement Loans

       The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to make direct 
     loans and loan guarantees in an aggregate principal amount 
     not exceeding $350,000,000 for the purpose of improving 
     existing electric power transmission systems within the 
     United States: Provided, That such direct loans and loan 
     guarantees may be made only when the Secretary determines 
     that they would maintain or improve electric transmission 
     efficiency, reliability, or capacity necessary to protect 
     public health and safety or to prevent significant economic 
     disruption in regions served by such systems: Provided 
     further, That such direct loans and loan guarantees may be 
     made only to States, companies, or other entities according 
     to terms and conditions established by the Secretary: 
     Provided further, That such direct loans and loan guarantees 
     may be made only if the Secretary determines that other 
     commercial financial alternatives are not economically 
     feasible: Provided further, That, during a period determined 
     by the Secretary that does not exceed 25 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Department of Energy shall 
     fully recover, and deposit in the general fund of the 
     Treasury, the cost of any direct loan or loan guarantee made 
     under the authority provided in this paragraph in a manner 
     determined by the Secretary: Provided further, That no direct 
     loan or loan guarantee may be made under the authority 
     provided in this paragraph until 30 days after the Secretary 
     (1) notifies the Committees on Appropriations in writing of 
     the proposed direct loan or loan guarantee, and (2) certifies 
     that the costs to be borne by the Government are reasonable 
     and that contractual safeguards will be in place to provide 
     reasonable assurance that the Government will be repaid in 
     full on a timely basis: Provided further, That nothing in 
     this paragraph may be construed to provide Federal eminent 
     domain over any land acquisition needed to improve existing 
     electric power transmission systems: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary may delegate to other Department of Energy 
     officials the administration of direct loans and loan 
     guarantees conducted under the authority provided in this 
     paragraph: Provided further, That the total amount provided 
     under this paragraph is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: 
     Provided further, That such amount 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 as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress.

  Mr. FARR of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
wish to make sure that my reservation on a point of order against the 
Farr amendment is protected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) reserves a point 
of order on the amendment.
  Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the interesting debate on this emergency 
supplemental, which appropriates about $6.7 billion to fix emergencies 
in the United States, I think it is appropriate that it did that; but I 
want to point out that the debate all session, since we began in 
January, has been a lot about the California energy problem, and it now 
recognizes a national energy problem.
  If we watch the debate, it has been for 6 months essentially a 
Washington, White House-led accusation that the problem in California 
is Californians; that we have not built enough power plants; that we 
have too many environmental regulations; that it is essentially a State 
problem.
  Californians, on the other hand, have responded that if we look at 
the facts, we are using the same amount of energy that we used last 
year, so the demand is not up. If we look at the national facts, 
California uses less energy per capita than any other State in the 
United States.
  So this debate, it is California's problem on infrastructure and 
California's response, it is the Federal Government's problem on not 
being able to control costs.
  Well, guess what? Guess what this bill does? This bill recognizes 
that it is a cost problem. It recognizes that it is a cost problem for 
our military, our Federal military installations and the men and women 
in uniform who work for the military bases. They did not say that they 
have a problem with the way they are conserving energy. They did not 
say they have a problem with the way they are producing energy. They 
said, we have a problem with what we are paying for energy. It is a 
cost problem. So in this bill, we appropriate $6.8 million for the Army 
to pay its energy bills; and by the way, we waive points of order on 
that.
  We appropriate $7.2 million for the Navy to pay its electrical bills, 
and we waive the points of order on that; and we appropriate $3 million 
for the Air Force to pay its electrical bills, for a total of $17 
million.

[[Page 11222]]

  Now, I support that, but I want it to be known that we are being two-
faced here when we say we are going to pay for the military and nobody 
else; nobody else gets any cost reduction.
  The last debate was about how a cap is put on those costs, and I 
think it was an appropriate debate to have.
  Now, the amendment that I am presenting is essentially to answer that 
other accusation. It is, let us fix the infrastructure. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, in the United States there are about 13 gridlocks. There are 
places where the power cannot get through the transmission line. There 
is too much power on one side and a need for power on the other, and it 
is too tight. It is too old. It is too archaic. This simple amendment 
would appropriate $350 million nationally to have applications for 
those funds on the basis that one could not get a loan anywhere else 
and that the President would have to declare that these, indeed, 
gridlocks are an emergency.
  It is a simple amendment. It has to be paid back in 25 years, and it 
answers what this accusation is in Washington: let us fix the 
transmission problems; let us fix the distribution problem.
  The reason they need to have a Federal guarantee is because these 
gridlocks are owned by a whole consortium of companies. No one of them 
can stand alone and qualify for those loans. It is a complicated 
ownership. It is so complicated that these transmission gridlocks, 
which are pointed out in the President's energy report, are a serious 
problem; so serious that the Secretary of Energy testified that during 
the summer of 2000 cool weather in the Midwest and hot temperatures in 
the South created a heavy north-to-south flow of lower-cost energy to 
serve air conditioning loads. Because the transmission system was 
unable to accommodate the heavy loads, regions in the South had to rely 
on inefficient, older generation units at higher prices. Went on to 
say, high density urban areas such as Chicago, New York and others have 
also old, inefficient, obsolete power transmission systems. This 
amendment would fix that.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this amendment is exactly putting money 
where our mouth has been for the last 6 months.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am somewhat confused 
because on the one hand we see a few minutes ago some on the other side 
accusing the energy companies of price gouging and making excessive 
profits during this current energy crisis and seeking to impose a cap 
on those companies and obtain funds for unjust and unreasonable rates, 
refunds. Now, in the next minute, they want us to feel sorry for these 
poor energy companies that are so financially strapped that we have to 
give them a federally guaranteed loan. I know that there are some who 
think that this might be a good idea, but it certainly makes no sense. 
Maybe the distinction being proposed is that we should punish those 
companies and utilities that made successful business decisions and are 
making a profit and reward those that made bad business decisions by 
giving them government loans.
  We realize that there are some very serious problems with the 
transmission grid in the West. We know that. I disagree with the 
Governor of California. When I was out there 2 or 3 weeks ago, I 
watched television and the only thing I saw the Governor doing in a 
progressive sense was point his finger at Washington and to tell George 
W. Bush this is his fault.
  What I would like to tell the Governor and the people of California, 
this is not George W. Bush's fault. It is not the fault of the Congress 
of the United States. We are the body and he is the President that is 
going to provide the relief that is absolutely necessary for the crisis 
that they are in.
  So it is not a question of whether or not we are going to help these 
companies by giving them loan guarantees that admittedly, based on the 
statement the gentleman has made, these companies are insolvent. So we 
are going to give them loan guarantees to continue what they are doing 
now?
  No, we are not. We are going to come through, as the President and 
the Vice President has come through in his energy policy, and give them 
a reasonable amount of time to develop a coherent and comprehensive 
plan for the transmission grid.
  On the immediate basis, what we have done in this bill and what we 
are doing, the supplemental before us today takes action on the most 
obvious transmission grid problem, the bottleneck called Path 15 in 
California. Our bill provides $1.5 million so the Western Area Power 
Administration can complete the necessary planning and environmental 
studies so this project can go forward. So we have done something about 
the crisis in California. We do it in this bill. We provide for that 
major bottleneck, an opportunity to do immediate studies so we can help 
correct them; but we are coming to help.
  We are not the enemy. We are friends. George Bush did not create 
this. The Congress did not, but George W. Bush and the Congress of the 
United States are going to help our friends and our beloved people of 
California in that wonderful, beautiful State have the necessary power 
and the grids to carry that power.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). This emergency 
supplemental is exactly the vehicle that should include measures to 
address the current energy emergency out West and relieve transmission 
congestion in the Midwest and avoid similar problems in other parts of 
the country before we have a repeat of this crisis.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce held several hearings on the 
electric emergency bill over the past couple of months and identified 
transmission expansion as vital to California's situation. One of the 
components of the legislation was expansion of the Path 15 transmission 
lines that could deliver an additional 1,500 megawatts of power to 
California from the northwest. That measure identified the need for 
Path 15 expansion at $220 million. During that hearing, I asked 
witnesses what stood in the way of getting Path 15 transmission lines 
expanded and upgraded, and the director of that Western Power 
Association said, an appropriation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Energy and Commerce did not authorize 
an appropriation, but the chairman indicated that they felt they had 
that authorization already. We just need to step up to the plate. So 
funds to upgrade transmission systems all over our country is the most 
critical problem we can address today for our Nation's energy future. 
Besides the efforts to upgrade Path 15, the creation of the loan fund 
in the Farr amendment will allow for investment in other approaches to 
upgrade the transmission systems that have lacked commercial support.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we are asked to work in a bipartisan 
way. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has a bill on 
fusion; my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). The 
President spoke about Path 15 and the inability for us to get power 
transmission. All the positives that the Members on both sides of the 
aisle are working together with, if we do not have a way to get that 
power to our constituents, it is all for naught, whether it is ANWR, 
whether it is electric, whether it is whatever. That is why I think 
that this is a good amendment.
  My colleagues on my own side of the aisle sought not to support this 
amendment, but I would say that there are

[[Page 11223]]

many, many bipartisan supporting activities. The exploration of ANWR, 
some are against it; some are for. The things that we want to do and 
look at: clean coal, some are for; some are against. We can take all of 
these positives that we are working on, and I think people would listen 
and say we are fighting each other on caps.

                              {time}  1715

  I think caps historically are wrong and will be detrimental. But the 
amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is exactly what 
the President spoke about in his own power projection plan. That is the 
reason I rise in support.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama said it is not 
the fault of the Congress. It is the fault of the Congress. It was the 
1992 Energy Act, which I opposed, which brought about and enabled the 
State of California to deregulate and brought about Federal 
deregulation of wholesale power transmission and generation. It is the 
fault of the Congress.
  They say it is not the fault of the administration. It is the fault 
of the administration. The buck stops there. The President has 
appointed a majority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He 
appointed the Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who 
would not do anything, even though his own staff had said they are 
violating the law, the prices are unjust and unreasonable. So there is 
plenty of blame to go around on the Federal level.
  There should be Federal support to solve this problem. It involves 
Federal power agencies. The gentleman from another part of the country, 
he is familiar with TVA. That is a Federal agency. We have WAPA, we 
have EPA, we have other Federal agencies involved in power transmission 
in the West. They need funds to enhance that transmission to get us out 
of this problem and more efficiently use the power west-wide.
  What are the jerks at FERC doing? They are proposing a market-based 
congestion management pricing system which will give us a California 
every day on the transmission system.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 10 seconds to 
the gentleman from Washington.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 4 
minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note the graciousness of 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) in allowing us to speak and 
address this issue in debate today. We appreciate that. But I also want 
to note that people do not pay us to talk here, although we do that a 
bit. They pay us for action. And the majority is not allowing a vote by 
the elected representatives of this Chamber on two or three of the most 
important issues in the West Coast and that part of the country right 
now, refunds for consumers and small business people, on inadequate 
price limitation.
  Despite the graciousness on debate of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), which we have had plenty of, we have had plenty of debate, but 
we are having no votes, and America, in the small democratic tradition, 
with a small D, ought to have votes.
  So I want to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and ask 
him a very sincere question: We have many people who have paid 
literally billions of dollars too much in their electrical bills in the 
West Coast in the last several months. We have small businesses going 
out of business because of that.
  Does the gentleman join us in asking for a vote on these issues in 
some bill in the next couple of weeks?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would respond in this way: This 
is an important subject. This is an important matter. What I am trying 
to do is to protect the institution, and the institution provides for 
appropriations bills and for authorization bills. The way to deal with 
these issues, because they are authorizing in nature, they change the 
law, is to write a bill, introduce it, take it to the committee of 
jurisdiction and persuade that committee to bring the bill to the 
floor.
  If we do not do that, what happens is every appropriations bill that 
comes before the Congress is going to get overburdened with amendments 
that are not appropriations in nature. At the end of every year, 
Members complain bitterly sometimes that everything is being held up, 
we cannot come to a conclusion on this or that. Most of the issues that 
hold us up at the end of a Congress are legislation on appropriations 
bills, riders that have no place on appropriations bills. We are trying 
to protect the integrity of the rules of this institution.
  Just one further point: All of these amendments that we are talking 
about here were presented in the committee, and they were debated at 
great length in the committee, and in fact there were votes on all of 
these amendments in the committee. So there have been votes at the 
Committee on Appropriations level.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the 
gentleman has to say, but the fact of the matter is we have been trying 
to get a vote for these through the regular order, through an 
authorization bill, for over 6 months, while my people are dying on the 
vine paying these extraordinary bills, and yet the majority has not 
allowed these bills a vote by this Chamber, the elected 
representatives.
  I want to ask a simple question: I just want to ask the gentleman, 
will the gentleman help us ask the Republican leadership of this House, 
bring these bills to the floor for consideration in the next couple of 
weeks so we can have an up or down vote and see where the votes lie?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just take the time to advise the gentleman that 
our leadership knows of the gentleman's concern. As the gentleman has 
noticed from the debate that has taken place today, there is a strong 
disagreement as to whether these amendments would actually solve the 
problem or add to the problem.
  Now, this situation deserves hearings, it deserves an opportunity to 
be investigated by the committee that has jurisdiction and has more 
knowledge than the Committee on Appropriations.
  So, I would be happy to tell the gentleman, the leadership already 
knows about this debate. I repeat, there is a strong difference of 
opinion as to what the effect of these amendments would be. Those on 
our side believe that they would be negative, have the opposite effect 
of what your side believes. The amendments should be considered by an 
authorizing committee that has jurisdiction, and they can have hearings 
and investigate and make the decisions based on what the facts really 
are.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for this debate. Let me 
point out on page 38 of the bill, it says, ``The bill includes several 
appropriations that are not authorized by law and, as such, may be 
construed as legislative in nature. The bill includes several emergency 
appropriation designations that may be construed as legislative in 
nature,'' and the first three that they list say that language has been 
included for the Department of Defense, military, in the operation and 
maintenance, Army, which extends availability of funds for California 
energy demand reduction, and goes on to repeat that for the Navy and 
the Air Force. In fact, it goes on and lists 35 waivers.
  Now, the point here is that I think that we are all, and this is the 
problem, we are sort of getting into this blame game, and I hope we can 
get off the blame game and really help solve the problem.
  There has been a suggestion here that in this emergency, which the 
Secretary of Energy has indicated is a

[[Page 11224]]

problem, that we ought to appropriate money which the committee of 
jurisdiction said was an appropriations problem. Here is an 
appropriations bill that is declared as an emergency that ought to 
solve that, and points of order have been waived for other provisions 
recognizing it is an emergency.
  That is all that I am trying to point out, is that we have got to 
deal with the availability of funding. If we are going to talk about 
infrastructure improvement, let us improve infrastructure. If we are 
going to talk about cost, let us not just help the military, and I 
support 100 percent of what we are doing here, but I think we leave it 
flat by also not helping the civilian community. That is an emergency 
as well as it is for the military.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and as 
such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman insists on his point of order.
  Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. FARR of California. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that this amendment includes an 
emergency designation under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The amendment therefore 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Other Defense Related Activities

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Environmental 
     Restoration and Waste Management'', $100,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                  Defense Facilities Closure Projects

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Facilities Closure 
     Projects'', $21,000,000, to remain available until expended.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Environmental 
     Management Privatization'', $27,472,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                               CHAPTER 3

                         MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

                      Military Construction, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Army'', $67,400,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, such funds may be obligated or expended to 
     carry out planning and design and military construction 
     projects not otherwise authorized by law.

                      Military Construction, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, 
     Navy'', $10,500,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, such funds may be obligated or expended to 
     carry out planning and design and military construction 
     projects not otherwise authorized by law.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Air 
     Force'', $8,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, such funds may be obligated or expended to 
     carry out planning and design and military construction 
     projects not otherwise authorized by law.

                          Family Housing, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, Army'', 
     $29,480,000 for operation and maintenance.

                 Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, Navy and 
     Marine Corps'', $20,300,000 for operation and maintenance.

                       Family Housing, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, Air Force'', 
     $18,000,000 for operation and maintenance.

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part IV

       For an additional amount for deposit into the ``Department 
     of Defense Base Realignment and Closure Account 1990'', 
     $9,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 1301. (a) Cadet Physical Development Center.--
     Notwithstanding section 138 of the Military Construction 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (division A of Public Law 106-246; 
     114 Stat. 524), the Secretary of the Army may expend 
     appropriated funds in excess of the amount specified by such 
     section to construct and renovate the Cadet Physical 
     Development Center at the United States Military Academy, 
     except that--
       (1) such additional expenditures may be used only for the 
     purposes of meeting unanticipated price increases and related 
     construction contingency costs and making minor changes to 
     the project to incorporate design features that result in 
     reducing long-term operating costs; and
       (2) such additional expenditures may not exceed the 
     difference between the authorized amount for the project and 
     the amount specified in such section.
       (b) Limitations and Reports.--No sums may be expended for 
     final phase construction of the project until 15 days after 
     the Secretary of the Army submits a report to the 
     congressional defense committees describing the revised cost 
     estimates referred to in subsection (a), the methodology used 
     in making these cost estimates, and the changes in project 
     costs compared to estimates made in October, 2000. Not later 
     than August 1, 2001, the Secretary of the Army shall submit a 
     report to the congressional defense committees explaining the 
     plan of the Department of the Army to expend privately 
     donated funds for capital improvements at the United States 
     Military Academy between fiscal years 2001 and 2011.
       Sec. 1302. Except as otherwise specifically provided in 
     this Chapter, amounts provided to the Department of Defense 
     under each of the headings in this Chapter shall be made 
     available for the same time period as the amounts 
     appropriated under each such heading in Public Law 106-246.


                              (rescission)

       Sec. 1303. Of the funds provided in previous Military 
     Construction Appropriations Acts, $70,500,000 is hereby 
     rescinded as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                TITLE II

                   OTHER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                    GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 2101. The paragraph under the heading ``Rural 
     Community Advancement Program'' in title III of the 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by 
     Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-17), is amended--
       (1) in the third proviso, by striking ``ability of'' and 
     inserting ``ability of low income rural communities and''; 
     and
       (2) in the fourth proviso, by striking ``assistance to'' 
     the first place it appears and inserting ``assistance and 
     to''.

                               CHAPTER 2

                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                       District of Columbia Funds

                   Governmental Direction and Support


                         (including rescission)

       For an additional amount for ``Governmental Direction and 
     Support'', $5,400,000 from local funds for increases in 
     natural gas costs.
       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001, approved 
     November 22, 2000 (Public Law 106-522; 114 Stat. 2447), 
     $250,000 to simplify employee compensation systems is 
     rescinded.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Development and 
     Regulation'', $1,625,000 from local funds to be allocated as 
     follows: $1,000,000 for the implementation of the New E-
     Conomy Transformation Act of 2000 (D.C. Act 13-543); and 
     $625,000 for the Department of Consumer and Regulatory 
     Affairs to carry out the purposes of D.C. Code, sec. 5-513: 
     Provided, That the fees established and collected pursuant to 
     Bill 13-646 shall be identified, and an accounting provided, 
     to the Committee on Consumer and Regulatory Affairs of the 
     Council of the District of Columbia.

                       Public Safety and Justice


                         (including rescission)

       For an additional amount for ``Public Safety and Justice'', 
     $8,901,000 from local funds to be allocated as follows: 
     $2,800,000 is for the Metropolitan Police Department of which 
     $800,000 is for the speed camera program and $2,000,000 is 
     for the Fraternal Order of Police arbitration award and the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act liability; $5,940,000 is for the 
     Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department of which 
     $5,540,000 is for pre-tax payments for pension, health and 
     life insurance premiums and $400,000 is for the fifth fire 
     fighter on trucks initiative; and $161,000 is for the Child 
     Fatality Review Committee established pursuant to the Child 
     Fatality Review Committee Establishment Emergency

[[Page 11225]]

     Act of 2001 (D.C. Act 14-40) and the Child Fatality Review 
     Committee Establishment Temporary Act of 2001 (D.C. Bill 14-
     165).
       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001, approved 
     November 22, 2000 (Public Law 106-522), $131,000 for Taxicab 
     Inspectors is rescinded.

                        Public Education System


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Public Education System'', 
     $2,000,000, of which $250,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the amount provided under the heading ``Federal Payment 
     for Plan To Simplify Employee Compensation Systems'' in the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 
     106-522; 114 Stat. 2444) and $1,750,000 from local funds, to 
     be allocated as follows: $1,000,000 from local funds for the 
     State Education Office for a census-type audit of the student 
     enrollment of each District of Columbia Public School and of 
     each public charter school; and $1,000,000, of which $250,000 
     shall be from the funds transferred earlier in this paragraph 
     and $750,000 from local funds, for the Excel Institute Adult 
     Education Program: Provided, That section 108(b) of the 
     District of Columbia Public Education Act, Public Law 89-791 
     as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 31-1408), is amended by adding at 
     the end of the paragraph the following: ``In addition, any 
     proceeds and interest accruing thereon, which remain from the 
     sale of the former radio station WDCU in an escrow account of 
     the District of Columbia Financial Management and Assistance 
     Authority for the benefit of the University of the District 
     of Columbia, shall be used for the University of the District 
     of Columbia's Endowment Fund, and such proceeds may be 
     invested in equity based securities if approved by the Chief 
     Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.''


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Knollenberg

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Knollenberg:
       Page 19, line 25, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$14,000,000''.
       Page 20, line 5, strike ``$1,750,000'' and insert 
     ``$13,750,000''.
       Page 20, line 6, insert after the colon the following: 
     ``$12,000,000 from local funds for the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools to conduct the 2001 summer school program;''.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to 
allocate $12 million of the District of Columbia's local funds for the 
city's summer school program. These funds are the city's own money and 
they are taken from the unobligated surplus funds. This amendment has 
no cost, no cost, to the Federal Government. Simply put, Federal money 
is not involved.
  I have long held that education is one area that I want to focus on 
as the chair of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia. In fact, my first trip into the city to visit 
some of the local schools and the subcommittee's very first hearing 
this year was on education.

                              {time}  1730

  I am not alone in my attention to the District of Columbia schools. 
President George Bush and First Lady Laura Bush have visited schools in 
our Nation's Capital. The First Lady also champions a local initiative 
that will hire 100 professionals and put them into the city's 
classrooms.
  This amendment is the continuation of this mutual commitment.
  For the past few years, the D.C. public school system has received 
money from the Federal Department of Education, and the officials have 
been working with them to secure the summer school funds for fiscal 
year 01. Recently, it has become apparent that the funds will not be 
forthcoming from the Federal agency for the current fiscal year and 
local officials have been scrambling to find or address the looming 
shortfall. After all, if the funds are not available, the summer school 
doors will remain locked and the kids will not be able to get the 
education they deserve.
  I must confess some disappointment as to how we arrived at this 
point. The mayor and the city council sent a supplemental package to 
Congress on May 22, but it contained no money for the summer school 
program and I think surely someone must have known this was looming.
  In fact, I did not receive any notice about the $12 million shortfall 
until Friday, June 8, nearly 3 weeks after the mayor and the council 
sent their request to Congress. And I saw no justification or language 
until the following Wednesday evening, June 13, which was the night 
before the full committee markup of the supplemental. I know the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and I were unprepared to 
address this last Thursday in full committee because details were still 
coming in at that time and there were remaining questions that had not 
been answered. Since then, further details have been slow to come, but 
most arrived just yesterday after some prodding from the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and I thank her for that 
assistance, and now we have what we want. I look forward to working 
more closely with District officials to ensure that we are provided 
with materials and answers to questions at the beginning of the 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment is not a part of the supplemental 
bill, then thousands of kids will not be able to attend summer school 
in the District of Columbia. Regardless of how we got here this 
evening, it is critical we pass this amendment.
  I want to reiterate that the $12 million in the amendment is not 
Federal money, but merely allocating funds from the unobligated local 
surplus that the District has accumulated through the careful financial 
management by Mayor Anthony Williams. There will be no impact on the 
Federal budget as a result of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the amendment. I yield to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, 
for any comments he might wish to make.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the 
gentleman as the new chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia. He has done an exceptional job in bringing a great 
communication between the Congress and the District of Columbia.
  This is a good amendment. As he said, this is not Federal funds, this 
is District of Columbia funds. This is a germane amendment, it is an 
appropriation amendment, and I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee for 
accepting this amendment, along with the ranking member. I brought this 
up in the committee meeting and with an agreement of the chairman of 
the subcommittee, we held it back because the chairman assured me and, 
as is his word, he is here on the floor today, making sure that the 
30,000 children in the District of Columbia will be able to participate 
in summer school.
  The District of Columbia has had a renaissance: 4 years of surpluses 
and upgrades in all of its bond ratings. It has a large cash reserve, 
and it is really unfortunate that the District even has to come to the 
Congress to ask to spend its own money on behalf of its own children 
for summer school. This is the first year, as the chairman mentioned, 
that it had not received from the Federal Government support for its 
summer school program, which is disappointing. I am sure that Secretary 
Paige and the Bush administration, because of their extraordinary 
commitment to the D.C. schools, next year we will not be in this 
situation and the Department will provide support for its summer 
school.
  Nonetheless, the District has made a way, and the chairman has made 
it available through this amendment. I want to thank him.
  I also want to say that this would not have been possible without the 
leadership and support of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton). I want to thank her for the extraordinary leadership that 
her office provided.
  I wish the superintendent, Paul Vance, well. He is doing a tremendous 
job. Summer school for these young people will be as important here in 
the District as it is back home in our districts for the young people 
there. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), 
the chairman of the subcommittee, for following through on his 
commitment

[[Page 11226]]

made in the committee markup to bring this matter to the floor once we 
had further information.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I need to rise first to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member. I thank 
the gentleman from Michigan for the great attention, for the scrupulous 
and careful, tough oversight, but always fair oversight he is rendering 
as subcommittee chair. And I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who 
brings a profound understanding of the District and its operations, the 
first big city ranking member we have had in some years now. The 
chairman and the ranking member have worked so well together, and that 
is why we are here today.
  Let me apologize for taking up the time of the body on whether local 
jurisdiction can spend its own local money on its own children. I am 
inclined to think it is pathetic, but this is the procedure that is 
used here. I hope to have an amendment before this body that will keep 
this body from spending its time this way.
  The superintendent I think held out hope, he is a new superintendent, 
that Federal funds that have been forthcoming will be forthcoming this 
year. They were not. Yet, this is the 3rd year of a summer school 
virtual extension of the school year, and it is extended and expanded 
because we have so many students who test at basic or below basic and 
because the first 2 years of this expanded summer school have had such 
a big payoff in educational achievement. I think the body should 
commend this pioneering program to other districts, because there is 
none in the United States that does not need it.
  Essentially what it does is to extend the school year here from 5 to 
6 weeks with a 20 percent increase from 22,000 to 30,000 students. This 
means almost half of the school students in the District of Columbia 
will be in this Summer Stars program. This is a 267 percent increase in 
the size of the program, with only a 50 percent increase in funds.
  The key to the program is a 15-to-1 student-teacher ratio and a 12-
to-1 ratio for special education students. The reason the program is 
expanding is because of the consistent increase in post-test scores 
over pre-test scores, and in the same significant improvement in the 
SAT 9 scores. This program is required of every student in the District 
of Columbia who scored basic or below basic in reading and math. That 
is the morning program. There is an afternoon program that is optional 
for children who scored proficient or advanced in reading and math and 
for all English learners and special education students. Something that 
works so well and is so well documented I hope will be voted by 
acclamation. Every child in the United States who needs extended 
educational opportunities in the summer should have a similar 
opportunity. I hope Members will look at this program for their own 
districts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Human Support Services

       For an additional amount for ``Human Support Services'', 
     $28,000,000 from local funds to be allocated as follows: 
     $15,000,000 for expansion of the Medicaid program; $4,000,000 
     to increase the local share for Disproportionate Share to 
     Hospitals (DSH) payments; $3,000,000 for the Disability 
     Compensation Fund; $1,000,000 for the Office of Latino 
     Affairs for Latino Community Education grants; and $5,000,000 
     for the Children Investment Trust.

                              Public Works

       For an additional amount for ``Public Works'', $131,000 
     from local funds for Taxicab Inspectors.

                         Workforce Investments

       For expenses associated with the workforce investments 
     program, $40,500,000 from local funds.

                            Wilson Building

       For an additional amount for ``Wilson Building'', 
     $7,100,000 from local funds.

                       Enterprise and Other Funds

         Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct

       For an additional amount for ``Water and Sewer Authority 
     and the Washington Aqueduct'', $2,151,000 from local funds 
     for the Water and Sewer Authority for initiatives associated 
     with complying with stormwater legislation and proposed 
     right-of-way fees.

                               CHAPTER 3

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, 
       Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee

       For an additional amount for ``Flood Control, Mississippi 
     River and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 
     Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee'', for 
     emergency expenses due to flooding and other natural 
     disasters, $18,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                   Operation and Maintenance, General

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     General'', for emergency expenses due to flooding and other 
     natural disasters, $115,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That using 
     $1,900,000 of the funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of 
     the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed 
     to undertake the project authorized by section 518 of Public 
     Law 106-53, at full Federal expense.

                 Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

       For expenses necessary for emergency flood control, 
     hurricane, and shore protection activities, as authorized by 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, as 
     amended, $50,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Energy Programs

                  Non-Defense Environmental Management

       For an additional amount for ``Non-Defense Environmental 
     Management'', $11,950,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

             Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation

       For an additional amount for ``Uranium Facilities 
     Maintenance and Remediation'', $18,000,000, to be derived 
     from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning Fund, to remain available until expended.

                    Power Marketing Administrations

 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration

       For an additional amount for ``Construction, 
     Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
     Administration'', $1,578,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That these funds shall be non-
     reimbursable.

                    GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 2301. Of the amounts appropriated under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, General'' under title I of the 
     Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2001 (enacted by Public 
     Law 106-377; 114 Stat. 1441 A-62), the $500,000 made 
     available for the Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee, shall be 
     available for completion of the feasibility study for 
     Chickamauga Lock, Tennessee.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title II, at the end of chapter 3, insert the following:

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $1,000,000, for establishment of a maximum price for 
     wholesale sales of electricity at rates that are unjust, 
     unreasonable, or unduly discriminatory or preferential and to 
     provide for the refund of prices paid in excess of such 
     maximum price, to be derived by transfer from funds made 
     available under title I: Provided, That the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall determine the amount to 
     be transferred from each account in title I: Provided 
     further, That the Director shall not transfer any amounts 
     from the funds made available under the headings ``Military 
     Personnel'', ``Defense Health Program'', ``Family Housing, 
     Army'', ``Family Housing, Navy

[[Page 11227]]

     and Marine Corps'', and ``Family Housing, Air Force''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reserve a point of 
order. Although this amendment was not part of the originally agreed-
upon unanimous consent, I will not make the point of order until the 
gentleman has his 5 minutes, but after he has explained the amendment, 
I will make the point of order against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman reserve his point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) for his courtesy.
  This item, which provides money to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission for the purpose of establishing cost-base rates in the 
western region of our electricity grid and to provide for refund of all 
of the criminal overcharges that California and the West has 
experienced since last June.
  Now, we have debated on this floor amendments similar to this. I 
would just like to add for my colleagues some information.
  I represent San Diego, California, which was at ground zero for the 
crisis that we are experiencing in the West and, I predict, soon in the 
rest of the United States. The experience we had in San Diego is that 
when our retail market was fully deregulated, and I will say to those 
who say full regulation never occurred in California, it did in San 
Diego. Both the retail and wholesale prices were fully deregulated, and 
I will tell my colleagues that within 30 days of deregulation, prices 
doubled on all businesses and individuals in San Diego County. At the 
end of 60 days, prices tripled. There was literally a revolution and 
panic in San Diego. Businesses closed up by the scores. If you were a 
small business on the margins and you had an $800 bill for your monthly 
electricity rates, and that bill went up to $1,500 and then to $2,500, 
there is no way that you can survive.
  I will tell the Chairman, a recent report by our San Diego County 
Chamber of Commerce showed that, and I want my colleagues to listen to 
this figure, because it is almost unbelievable: Sixty-five percent of 
small businesses in San Diego County face bankruptcy this year if 
electricity prices do not come down. Sixty five percent.
  Now, I will tell my colleagues when a few percent of businesses are 
wiped out with an earthquake or a flood or a fire, FEMA and the whole 
Federal Government is into that area.

                              {time}  1745

  Well, where is the Federal government in California and San Diego 
when this kind of disaster strikes? Not only are we facing business 
closings, bankruptcies, but individuals on fixed income cannot afford 
their electricity bills, big businesses cannot afford the uncertainty 
about the prices.
  The biggest employer in my district may close this year, not just 
because of the potential price increases, but because of blackouts and 
uncertainty that they cannot keep up their production. This is 
disaster.
  The chairman has in the supplemental bill, and I heard his testimony 
at the Committee on Rules, the first thing the chairman mentioned was 
that $750 million of this bill was going for increased energy costs. He 
recognize that the problem in the West is high prices of electricity.
  There were no lectures in this bill about increasing supply or 
decreasing demand. The chairman reimbursed the military for their high 
prices. What about the small businesses in San Diego and California? 
What about the people on fixed income? We need to bring the prices 
down.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Vice President 
and President have said that price controls do not produce a kilowatt 
of electricity. They do not save a kilowatt of electricity. Hello, we 
know that, but the Governor of California has a dozen plants online in 
California to increase capacity. We are now the number one State for 
energy conservation in this Nation. We are doing our share to increase 
capacity and bring down demand, but it is the prices that are bleeding 
us dry. It is the prices.
  We paid, Mr. Chairman, $7 billion for all of our electricity 2 years 
ago. Now last year we paid $27 billion without any increase in demand, 
though a little increase in cost of production. We have faced bills of 
between $50 billion and $70 billion this year, a ten-fold increase, a 
ten-fold increase of prices, with no appreciable increase of demand or 
increase of cost.
  That is the problem, Mr. Chairman. The problem is the prices that are 
bleeding us dry. They recognize the problem by increasing the military 
expenditures in this field. We need to bring down the prices for the 
small business people, for the big business people, for the families on 
fixed incomes, for all families in San Diego, in California, and in the 
West, and I will bet soon in the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, when we brought to the attention of FERC the increase 
of prices in San Diego, we charged that the electricity cartel was 
withholding supply. We charged that they were falsifying transmission 
data to show that there was a problem with supply. We showed that they 
were laundering electrons.
  Do Members know what happened? FERC did an investigation. FERC found, 
yes, the market was manipulated. The market was manipulated. They found 
the prices to be unjust, unreasonable, and by Federal power law, 
illegal. So we have been paying illegal prices, Mr. Chairman, for 1 
year. We have been paying illegal prices for 1 year.
  When FERC did nothing in November, December, January, February, 
March, April, or May, what did they tell the electricity cartel? Go and 
rob the State blind. Go and rob the region blind. Go and rob the 
country blind. That is exactly what is happening.
  I will tell the Members, whether they are in Florida or Pennsylvania, 
they are going to face this next.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
on an appropriation bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect. I ask for a 
ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on the point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. FILNER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on the point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the technical point of order, 
but my constituents do not understand how a technicality can prevent 
dealing with this emergency in San Diego and in California.
  The chairman knows, and I will not bother to ask, but the chairman 
knows that there are hundreds if not thousands of provisions that have 
been on appropriations bills since the gentleman's chairmanship that 
have been passed through this Congress. The gentleman knows that items 
which are not authorized are approved.
  I heard the gentleman in an earlier statement saying they were 
meaningless items in this bill. I do not know about that, but certainly 
in other appropriations bills they have been significant 
authorizations.
  On behalf of my constituents, I would just plead to the gentleman, on 
a technicality, do not insist on a point of order when we have this 
emergency that is bleeding us dry. All the small businesses are at risk 
in San Diego and in California. Please do not send them under.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that 
this

[[Page 11228]]

amendment includes language imparting direction. The amendment 
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered By Mr. Visclosky

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I will be offering an amendment. We are 
working with the majority to refine the language.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to return to this 
portion of the bill to offer my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
wonder if the gentleman would speak a little more directly into the 
microphone and explain what his request is.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the staffs and Members are conversing 
about the amendment that I am offering for $23.7 million for dam safety 
and efficiency improvement. I believe we have reached an agreement, but 
we do not have the final language prepared. I simply want to preserve 
the prerogative to return to this point in the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's 
request. He is an important member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
I certainly hope that the House will accommodate his request.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 24, after line 19, insert the following new chapter:

                               CHAPTER 3A

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                  agency for international development

                   international disaster assistance

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``International Disaster 
     Assistance'' for rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance 
     for India, to be derived by transfer from the amount provided 
     in chapter 1 of title I for ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Air Force'', $100,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.



  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I 
do so to reserve a point of order. Although this amendment was not part 
of the original agreement, I will not make the point of order until the 
gentlewoman has concluded her 5 minutes on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman's statement, Mr. 
Chairman. Both the chairman and the ranking member are very kind.
  Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to the gentleman's staff, I stand here 
speaking about a disaster that is very far away from Houston, Texas.
  It so happened that I began my work with the members of the Indian 
community, the Indo-American community, in Houston way before the 
devastation of Tropical Storm Allison appeared in Houston, Texas.
  This amendment is responding to the devastation that we are well 
aware of that occurred some months ago in India, where 18,000 are dead, 
166,836 are injured, and 600,000 are homeless.
  Although I know a number of my colleagues have been working toward 
assisting the Nation of India, this is an amendment to add $100 million 
to the bilateral economic assistance line to provide resources for the 
rehabilitation of India, after their devastating earthquake last year.
  I can only say that it is part of our general attitude in this 
country of extending our hand of assistance to those who have been 
devastated. As I indicated to the chairman, I am far away from Houston, 
Texas, on this particular amendment, but this is a long-standing work 
that we have been doing.
  The Indo-American community has been raising private funds throughout 
the Nation. They have been trying to independently work to provide 
resources to their loved ones in India. I am only hoping that, as we 
proceed through the appropriations process, that we would have the 
opportunity, though this amendment may be subject to a point of order, 
that we will have the opportunity to work with the appropriate 
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations to be sure that we 
provide the necessary resources to help rebuild the devastating part of 
India that this disaster took place in.
  Although today I will come forward again speaking about the 
devastation in Houston, I would be remiss not to continue the work that 
I have done with the Indo-American community on trying to assist them 
and the Nation of India.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there will be an appropriate time 
to consider this amendment. When the authorizing bill is passed, the 
vehicle will be available.
  But at the present time, I must make a point of order against the 
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized 
program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule 
XXI states, in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may not be in order 
as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed 
into law. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I 
insist on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman insists on his point of order.
  Does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for that purpose.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know authorizers and 
appropriators have to work together. We were hoping this had been 
authorized and that we could, frankly, find the exchange of funds.
  Based upon the chairman's pronouncement, let me say that I will take 
him at his word that we will work through the appropriating process so 
that India will be able to have the secured funds that are necessary. 
Although I would hope that the point of order would be withdrawn, I 
thank the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The proponent of an item 
of appropriation carries the burden of persuasion on the question of 
whether it is supported by an authorization in law.
  Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the point 
of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of 
appropriation in question is authorized in law.
  The Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of order 
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI. The amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Visclosky

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Visclosky:
       On page 24, after line 19, insert the following:
       Sec. 2302. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons 
     Activities'' are reduced by $23,700,000. For an additional

[[Page 11229]]

     amount for ``Corps of Engineers--Civil--Operation and 
     Maintenance, General'', $23,700,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I essentially would explain the 
amendment that is for $23.7 million for desperately needed 
rehabilitation, repair, and safety measures at dams under the 
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.
  It is meant to improve the safety, reliability, and efficiency of 
these facilities that are already in place, and with the recognition 
that if we can improve efficiency by 1 percent, we can generate an 
additional $3.3 billion kilowatt hours of electricity without the 
construction of any additional facilities.
  It is my understanding that the majority has agreed to the amendment. 
I simply want to use my time to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young), the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), and 
the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), for their deep 
consideration and approval of this measure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had the opportunity to review the amendment. We 
find it to be a very positive amendment. For the majority, I accept 
this amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  We have no objection to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take all my time, but I would like to rise 
and express opposition concerning the approach that is being taken 
toward the Federal Emergency Management Administration disaster relief 
funding.
  Already this year we have 27 major disaster declarations across the 
United States, including the devastating flood in Houston and 
southeastern Texas caused by Tropical Storm Allison. The damage 
estimates from this declaration are continuing to go up.
  In fact, in today's paper in Houston we see that the estimates now 
are up to $4.8 billion in losses just from 2 weeks ago in Houston, 
Texas, and that is not counting the loss in Louisiana and to the 
southeastern United States, all the way up to Pennsylvania this last 
weekend.

                              {time}  1800

  The provision in this bill to rescind the $389 million in FEMA 
disaster relief should not be taken lightly, not only to my own 
constituents in Houston but to all Americans who may suffer natural 
disasters this year. My colleagues should understand there is an 
amendment that will make it an across-the-board cut that will restore 
about $330 million of this; but even with that, there is much to be 
lost.
  In fact, I have a letter from our U.S. Senator, Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, expressing concern about this cut, but also there is concern 
that we may be looking at asking for an extra billion dollars for FEMA. 
Because, again, as of 7:00 a.m. on June 19, yesterday, we had 47,348 
claims filed with FEMA in just Houston, Texas, alone.
  Again, this is really the early start of it, as my colleagues know 
who have been through this before. I have not been through it in the 
Houston area, like some of my colleagues, but the recision funding 
could hinder FEMA's ability to provide quick and effective disaster 
assistance, maybe not only in Houston but in future disasters.
  Again, the Bush administration expressed concern about this with the 
Office of Management and Budget in a letter, and I know if we do not do 
it in this particular emergency spending, because that is what 
emergency spending bills are about, disaster relief, then we will have 
to fix it in the appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman; and that is what 
concerns me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have areas in northeast Harris County that literally 
have been devastated, very urban areas, areas that are very costly to 
try and even reach some kind of an amount that will help my 
constituents.
  I know there are efforts even now as we stand here tonight that FEMA 
is offered to try and deal with mosquito control in Houston, because we 
always have mosquito problems. Now we see that the number of mosquitos 
is measured by how many landings they have on a person's exposed arm. 
So anything above 25 is considered dangerous.
  If you have your arm outside and 25 mosquitos light on it, and I do 
not know how many would be willing to take 25, but we have more than 
that, in fact, four times that rate in Houston, so FEMA has agreed to 
fund $1.2 million to help spray for the mosquitos. Again, this is just 
in one area of the loss from Tropical Storm Allison.
  Again, I cannot implore to my colleagues, not only on the majority 
side but on the minority side, to realize that disaster relief is 
mounting and the recision of the $389 million should not happen; and 
even the restoration of $330 million with cuts across the board may not 
be enough.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 4

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs

                      Operation of Indian Programs

       For an additional amount for ``Operation of Indian 
     Programs'', $50,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2002, for electric power operations at the San Carlos 
     Irrigation Project, of which such amounts as necessary may be 
     transferred to other appropriations accounts for repayment of 
     advances previously made for such power operations: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $17,700,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to repair damages caused 
     by floods, ice storms, and earthquakes in the States of 
     Washington, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, 
     New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                         National Park Service

                       United States Park Police

       For an additional amount for ``United States Park Police'', 
     $1,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002, for 
     unbudgeted increases in pension costs for retired United 
     States Park Police officers.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service

                       State and Private Forestry

       For an additional amount for ``State and Private 
     Forestry'', $22,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     to repair damages caused by ice storms in the States of 
     Arkansas and Oklahoma, and for emergency pest suppression and 
     prevention on Federal, State and private lands: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                         National Forest System

       For an additional amount for ``National Forest System'', 
     $12,000,000, to remain available until expended, to repair 
     damages caused by ice storms in the States of Arkansas and 
     Oklahoma and to address illegal cultivation of marijuana in 
     California and Kentucky: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Wildland Fire Management

       For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'', 
     $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     emergency rehabilitation, presuppression due to emergencies, 
     and wildland fire suppression activities: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Capital Improvement and Maintenance

       For an additional amount for ``Capital Improvement and 
     Maintenance'', $4,000,000, to

[[Page 11230]]

     remain available until expended, to repair damages caused by 
     ice storms in the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 2401. Of the funds appropriated to ``Operation of the 
     National Park System'' in Public Law 106-291, $200,000 for 
     completion of a wilderness study at Apostle Islands National 
     Lakeshore, Wisconsin, shall remain available until expended.
       Sec. 2402. (a) The unobligated balances as of September 30, 
     2001, of the funds transferred to the Secretary of the 
     Interior pursuant to section 311 of chapter 3 of division A 
     of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted 
     into law by Public Law 106-554) for maintenance, protection, 
     or preservation of the land and interests in land described 
     in section 3 of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site 
     Establishment Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-115), are 
     rescinded.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall be effective on September 30, 
     2001.
       (c) The amount rescinded pursuant to subsection (a) is 
     appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior for the 
     purposes specified in such subsection, to remain available 
     until expended.
       Sec. 2403. Section 338 of Public Law 106-291 is amended by 
     striking ``105-825'' and inserting in lieu thereof: ``105-
     277''.
       Sec. 2404. Section 2 of Public Law 106-558 is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) in its entirety and inserting in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.''.
       Sec. 2405. Federal Highway Administration emergency relief 
     for federally-owned roads, made available to the Forest 
     Service as Federal-aid highways funds, may be used to 
     reimburse Forest Service accounts for expenditures previously 
     completed only to the extent that such expenditures would 
     otherwise have qualified for the use of Federal-aid highways 
     funds.

                               CHAPTER 5

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                Administration for Children and Families

                   Low Income Home Energy Assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Low Income Home Energy 
     Assistance'' under section 2602(e) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621(e)), $300,000,000: 
     Provided, That these funds are for the home energy assistance 
     needs of one or more States, as authorized by section 2604(e) 
     of that Act and notwithstanding the designation requirement 
     of section 2602(e) of such Act.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                            Education Reform

       In the statement of the managers of the committee of 
     conference accompanying H.R. 4577 (Public Law 106-554; H. 
     Rept. 106-1033), in title III of the explanatory language on 
     H.R. 5656 (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001), in the matter relating to Technology Innovation 
     Challenge Grants under the heading ``Education Reform'', the 
     amount specified for Western Kentucky University to improve 
     teacher preparation programs that help incorporate technology 
     into the school curriculum shall be deemed to be $400,000.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       In chapter 5 of title II, strike the item relating to ``low 
     income home energy assistance'' and insert the following:

                   low income home energy assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Low Income Home Energy 
     Assistance'' under section 2602(e) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621(e)), $600,000,000: 
     Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985: Provided further, That such amount 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 as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, is transmitted by 
     the President to the Congress.
       For making payments for ``Low Income Home Energy 
     Assistance'' under section 2602(b) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621(b)), 
     $1,400,000,000, which shall become available on October 1, 
     2001.
       In chapter 9 of title II, in the item relating to ``Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency--disaster relief'', after the 
     dollar amount of the rescission, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $300,000,000)''.

  Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment as agreed to earlier today and that there would be 10 minutes 
on each side. So, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order until that 
10 minutes on each side has been concluded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee today, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $600 million in emergency 
funding for this fiscal year for the Low-Income Heating Energy 
Assistance Program, the LIHEAP program, and $1.4 billion for fiscal 
year 2002 in advance funding for the LIHEAP program. Equally critical, 
it would restore $300 million to the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Disaster Relief Fund.
  The LIHEAP program is one of the most critical and successful 
components of our social safety net. The program provides essential 
heating and cooling assistance to almost 5 million low-income 
households, including the working poor, those who are making the 
transition from welfare to work, disabled persons, elderly and families 
with young children, the most vulnerable in our society. The price 
spikes with regard to costs of energy have a disproportionate effect on 
these vulnerable populations.
  They pay 20 percent of their income on energy bills, and that is 
about four times on average the amount paid by other people. These are 
folks who are making around $8,000 or less a year.
  Mr. Chairman, the $150 million requested by the President and the 300 
million included in this bill are inadequate. They do not meet the 
needs of millions of working families and seniors who are facing 
unbelievable energy costs, no matter where you go in the United States.
  In addition, all of the LIHEAP funds appropriated for this fiscal 
year have been released and nearly half of the States have already 
exhausted or nearly exhausted their funding.
  Warm weather States facing the prospects of a hot summer will have 
little relief without immediate emergency LIHEAP funds. The amendment 
increases assistance to these families by providing this emergency 
appropriation.
  The funds are needed in order to address an immediate problem, an 
immediate relief for those States who are trying to deal with 
delinquent energy payments and then preparing for the effects of the 
summer.
  The amendment also provides $1.4 billion for LIHEAP for that 
appropriation for the year 2002, and we need to do this now so that 
there is no interruption of benefits for people who are suffering with 
the high prices.
  States need to have the advanced funding so that they can prevent the 
cuts in benefits, they can determine eligibility levels, and they can 
enter into contracts when the energy costs are low so that they do not 
have to pay more when the cold weather hits.
  Finally, the amendment would restore $300 million to the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. These were 
originally used to offset the $300 million the committee had set aside 
for LIHEAP assistance.
  As my colleagues have said earlier today, most of the South is 
dealing with the aftermath of Tropical Storm Allison. This storm has 
caused numerous fatalities and dumped 30 inches of rain in some areas 
as it has ripped its way from Texas to New England.
  Yesterday, FEMA director Joe Allbaugh stated that the costs are now 
going to exceed $4 billion. They originally talked about $2 billion. As 
my colleague from Texas pointed out, the Houston Chronicle this morning 
talked about $4.8 billion, and they are not sure where this number is 
finally going to land.

[[Page 11231]]

  This is not the time, not the time to take money away from FEMA; but 
it is the time when we ought to be strengthening what we are doing 
here.
  If we fail to act now, our most vulnerable population, people who are 
struggling every single day to pay the high cost of energy, making 
serious choices in what their lives are about in order to deal with 
energy costs, they are going to be confronted continually with these 
skyrocketing costs. We have an opportunity on an emergency basis to do 
something about it. We should act today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and 
Education.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
recognize, of course, that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro), the proponent, is concerned; but let me say that we also 
recognize there is a need out there.
  The President recommended 150 million extra dollars and in the 
subcommittee action as part of the full committee, we doubled that to 
$300 million. And effectively, what this means that we have committed 
for fiscal year 2001 a total of $2.5 billion.
  Obviously, you add and add and add; but at some point we have to say 
this is a reasonable amount, and this recognizes the responsibility of 
the government and does provide a reserve for the balance of this 
fiscal year of 300 additional million dollars, plus what was already in 
the bill.
  Last summer, we only used $35 million of the $600 million that was 
provided in emergency funding, and those remaining funds are carried 
into 2001, and they are available for this year's program. I think that 
what we have done is recognize the importance of LIHEAP to those who 
have fuel problems, and I think in putting in 300 million additional 
dollars, we understand that and have been very generous in trying to 
meet those needs.
  Mr. Chairman, no one knows exactly what the weather is going to be, 
but it seems to me that the $300 million represents a very reasonable 
amount. It is double what the administration recommended. Again, I 
think it expresses the concern that the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations have for this program.
  I would say to my colleagues that I believe we have been very 
responsible in providing the $300 million and would reluctantly oppose 
adding any more to this, because the supplemental is already 
approaching a large sum of money.
  On the issue of advanced appropriations, and that is also part of 
this amendment, it provides for an advanced appropriation of $2 billion 
for the LIHEAP program. While I understand there is a desire on the 
part of the States to have as much advance notice on the funding level 
as possible for the next fiscal year, I do not think it is a 
responsible approach to advance appropriate that amount.
  Obviously, when we get to the 2002 budget, and I am sure that the 
gentlewoman understands that, we are going to be as generous as 
possible in providing for LIHEAP funding for the fiscal year 2002, but 
I think it is a little premature to put the money out now until we know 
what the fiscal condition of the government will be; and what happens 
with the extra money we put in for this year will give us a better feel 
for what will be needed next year. Fortunately, energy costs are coming 
down in many areas; and I believe this, too, will be a factor.
  We probably will be doing a markup in September, and at that time the 
Committee would be better able to evaluate the needs of 2002 rather 
than to start at this point and advance fund the program.
  Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I mentioned, I would urge my colleagues 
to not vote for this particular amendment, because we have already gone 
the extra mile in putting in the $300 million for this fiscal year.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I might just say that the $300 million that was added 
in is the money that came from the disaster relief account, and we know 
that that money should not be taken out of the disaster relief account 
and that the $1.4 billion that is here in my amendment is what the 
President has requested.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of the DeLauro 
amendment. I share her belief that we need to provide additional 
funding for the LIHEAP program. The State of Maine knows winter very 
well. Winter in my State has lasted longer than normal. Significant 
snowfall, colder temperatures, and high heating costs took a toll on 
many households.

                              {time}  1815

  As in other northeastern States, many Mainers rely on oil for their 
heat. And as we all know, oil prices have been very high. Heating bills 
were higher than normal, and it was too much for many households to 
bear. The winter alone, the LIHEAP program served more than 53,000 
Maine households, a 20 percent increase over the previous winter. 
Unfortunately, the benefit was only $432. While appreciated, because of 
the high energy costs and because of the larger pool of people, we 
ended up not being able to meet the needs of most Maine families that 
did qualify.
  This is a tremendous social safety program for our Nation's poorest 
and most vulnerable citizens and it keeps people in their homes, which 
is something I know we are all committed towards. I think it is 
unfortunate that we have not given the funding necessary.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
for yielding me this time. Obviously, I want to congratulate the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut for bringing this amendment forward. In 
Massachusetts, there are 85,000 people who rely on LIHEAP in order to 
get their fuel. I also want to commend the chairman of both the 
committee and the subcommittee, because they have taken a look at this 
and they have increased the numbers somewhat and they are appreciative 
and sympathetic to the problems that people face.
  I think, however, the gentlewoman from Connecticut makes the point 
that we need more funds than the committee made available. We have 
large amounts of people that face this problem. One need only talk to 
the dealers who go out and deliver the oil in the winter to people in 
my communities to know that time in and time out there are not enough 
resources there for the people that need these services. So having this 
money on hand makes an important statement and gives important 
protection to people.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we go forward, approve this amendment 
both with respect to the LIHEAP monies and also with respect to the 
FEMA monies that have been asked for, because those situations are upon 
us, they are real and people suffer otherwise. Again I thank the 
gentlewoman for bringing forward this particular amendment and urge 
Members to support it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of the DeLauro 
amendment to double the LIHEAP emergency fund, to increase the 
nonemergency LIHEAP block grants, and to restore the $300 million to 
FEMA's disaster relief fund.
  LIHEAP is an essential safety net for the millions of low-income 
families who struggle to heat their homes in the winter and cool their 
homes in the summer. For these people, this program is a matter of life 
and death. For these people, many of whom live in my district, they 
have to choose between putting groceries on their table or heating and 
cooling their homes. For these people, they have to choose between 
paying for their prescription

[[Page 11232]]

drugs and heating and cooling their homes.
  We can do much better than this. The President's budget request of 
$150 million was insulting and dangerous. The $300 million in this 
bill, while an improvement, we could do so much better. We need the 
$600 million proposed in this amendment to protect and save those lives 
that we all say we care about.
  Restoration of the FEMA disaster funds also makes sense, especially 
in light of Tropical Storm Allison. Three months after the President 
cut vital projects in the FEMA budget, Tropical Storm Allison reminds 
us all that cutting vital funds for FEMA is a tragic mistake. This is a 
good amendment. Please support it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I appreciate her bringing these issues before us.
  We are dealing with the two elements of her amendment that actually 
affect people's lives in the most direct and immediate sense. We are 
watching, in the aftermath of Hurricane Allison, where we could have up 
to $4 billion dealing with cleanup and related health costs. The 
restoration of $300 million I would think would be the minimum that we 
would do to be able to assure that we have the services that are 
necessary.
  In a time when we are dealing with global climate change, at least 
the scientific community feels it is not time to study it, we must move 
for action. Not having adequate energy assistance literally could mean 
the difference between life and death for poor citizens who choose 
between air-conditioning and heating and cooling when we have weather 
extremes as it relates to global climate change. It makes me very 
nervous.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman bringing forth this amendment. I think 
it can make a huge difference for the people we serve.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I serve as the authorizing 
subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that has 
jurisdiction over the LIHEAP program. Earlier this year, we were trying 
to move legislation to help the West Coast with their electricity 
problem. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) offered a LIHEAP 
amendment authorizing an additional $100 million. The Bush 
administration later came forward and said they were going to support 
$150 million. The subcommittee and now the full committee in the 
supplemental has raised that to $300 million.
  If we look at the history of the program and look at the situation 
both in terms of heating requirements in the colder regions of the 
country and cooling requirements in the warmer regions of the country 
for the summer, the amount of additional funding in the pending 
supplemental should be more than adequate, if we consider the rollover 
money that is carried forward that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) 
talked about in his statement several minutes ago.
  Also, if we consider that we are going to have a FEMA increase 
amendment, we think fairly quickly on the floor offered by three 
Members, which increases FEMA with an offset to the rest of the bill, I 
think we can handle that part of the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut.
  So I know it is well meaning, but I would hope we would follow the 
committee and reject this amendment and support the Toomey-Tancredo-
Flake amendment that should come later and we can act in a responsible 
fashion. So I would oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say to my colleagues that this is the emergency 
supplemental bill. I do not think anyone could deny the whole issue of 
energy prices, whether someone is from the West Coast, in the middle of 
the country, or the East Coast; that there has been a severe crisis and 
an issue with regard to the escalating energy costs.
  The fact of the matter is that LIHEAP has proven to be a successful 
program but always a program that is underfunded, and it does affect 
the most vulnerable populations in this country. We know firsthand that 
almost half of the States of these United States are out of money or 
almost out of money. We have the hot summer months coming up. That we 
can stand here today and not utilize this vehicle, which is for 
emergency purposes, to bring some relief to people in this country, I 
find somewhat mind-boggling.
  On the issue of disaster relief, I am not from Texas, I am not from 
Houston, we got only a piece of what this tropical storm was all about, 
but I have heard from people on both sides of the aisle, I have been 
reading and watching the news broadcasts, and the folks in Texas are in 
trouble. They are in trouble. They keep doubling the costs of what this 
disaster is going to be. The mosquito problem has just risen, and we 
have agreed to pay a portion of that. Why do we want to knowingly take 
money from the program that we know we are going to have to appropriate 
to help people?
  Our job is to represent those folks who send us here, no matter where 
we are. This is the right thing to do.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my colleagues in 
expressing my strong support for an increase in Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program's (LIHEAP) emergency funding level and advance 
funding for fiscal year 2002. This advanced funding would allow LIHEAP 
recipients to purchase home heating oil and natural gas early--during 
the summertime--when home heating energy prices are lower. Thus, they 
would get more bang for their buck.
  If we have learned nothing over the past year, it should be that 
short-term thinking does not work. Last winter, I learned about a 
senior citizen in my district who lives on $515 a month from Social 
Security. In addition to heavy medical costs, 19.7 percent of her 
income has to go to paying her energy bills. Unfortunately, I am sure 
her situation is not unique.
  Currently, two-thirds of LIHEAP households have incomes of less than 
$8,000 per year and even with assistance, the average LIHEAP family 
already spends over 18 percent of its income on home energy costs, 
compared with 6.7 percent for all households. Only 19 percent of the 
households who are eligible receive LIHEAP assistance. At the same 
time, last winter in my state, forty percent more households were 
applying for Home Energy Assistance Program grants than the previous 
year.
  I am disappointed that Representative DeLauro's amendment was not 
made in order. This increase in LIHEAP would be a significant first 
step toward helping our residents pay for a basic necessity.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order at this 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The Rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and as 
such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and 
I insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Just very, very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I say to the 
Chair of the committee that it is true this additional amount for 
LIHEAP for this emergency contingency fund is not authorized. However, 
last year Congress provided a $600 million emergency supplemental for 
LIHEAP that was also not authorized. If we can overlook the lack of 
authorization last year, I think when the need is greater this year we 
can overlook it, particularly because it is of an emergency nature.

[[Page 11233]]

  I also submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there are several other 
provisions in this supplemental that are provisions that have not been 
authorized and yet they received waivers. I think we could waive the 
point of order on this issue which affects the American folks so 
deeply.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that 
this amendment includes an emergency designation under section 
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
of 1985. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
debate on the following specified amendments to the bill, and any 
amendments thereto, be limited to the time specified, equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and myself as an opponent:
  Number one, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), as printed in part B of the Rule, for 20 
minutes; and an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) regarding the tax rebate mailing and high-intensity drug 
trafficking areas, for 30 minutes.
  This request has been agreed to by the minority and the majority.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Title II, chapter 5, at the end of the item relating to 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES--Administration for 
     Children and Families Low Income Home Energy Assistance'' 
     insert the following:
       For ``Low Income Home Energy Assistance'' under the Low-
     Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et 
     seq.) for fiscal year 2002, $2,000,000,000.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
Sanders amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is cosponsored 
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Quinn). It would provide $2 billion in advance funding for 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, for fiscal year 
2002. I understand that the point of order is going to be asked for, 
and I am very disappointed that this important amendment will not get a 
chance to be voted upon today.
  From California to Vermont, every American knows that energy costs 
are skyrocketing. LIHEAP is the primary program that provides 
assistance to help lower-income families pay their energy bills, and 
there has been no time when more people are going to need LIHEAP 
assistance than now. According to the National Energy Assistance 
Directors Association, 19 States have reported that they are either out 
of LIHEAP funds or have very low balances.
  Mr. Chairman, this is simply unacceptable. In the richest country in 
the world, not one family should go without heat this winter, not one 
senior citizen should choose between heating their homes or affording 
their prescription drugs. Not one child should come home to a 
refrigerator empty of food because the heating bill is too high. But, 
Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what will happen if we do not 
substantially increase funding for LIHEAP.
  Let me take this opportunity to thank the committee and the chairman, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for doubling the President's 
totally inadequate request for LIHEAP emergency funding, but because of 
the severe energy crisis that we are in, the committee's number is 
still far too low.

                              {time}  1830

  It should not be acceptable for any Member of Congress or the 
President that more than 17 million Americans who are eligible to 
receive LIHEAP have been left behind because of insufficient funding. 
In fact, since 1985, LIHEAP funding has declined by 70 percent after 
adjusting for inflation.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I yield to my colleague from California. 
Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield to other Members for debate, 
but may not yield blocks of time under the 5-minute rule. So the 
gentleman simply has to yield to another Member.
  Mr. SANDERS. For approximately 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields to the gentlewoman for her 
comments.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank 
the gentleman for pushing forward this Sanders-Lee-Quinn amendment, 
which would add $2 billion in forward funding for the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program. The supplemental appropriations bill as 
written ignores one of our most urgent situations, and that is our 
Nation's energy crisis which we are experiencing in California, but it 
is moving nationwide.
  We must provide real and meaningful increases for LIHEAP, which help 
seniors, people with disabilities and low-income individuals and 
families pay their skyrocketing utility bills. LIHEAP assistance helps 
people for whom rising energy costs are not an inconvenience, but a 
real catastrophe.
  Currently, only one in three American households that are eligible 
for LIHEAP assistance receives any support. In California, fewer than 
10 percent of the 2.1 million eligible households will receive LIHEAP 
funding unless funding is increased significantly. State officials 
assisted as many Californians in the first 5 months of this year than 
in all of 2000.
  Furthermore, at least 19 States have completely exhausted their 
LIHEAP funds or are almost out of money or in dire need.
  We held a meeting in my district in Oakland, California, with the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. At our 
meeting, Members of Congress saw the faces of this crisis. They heard 
from persons with disabilities, from low-income individuals and 
families. They heard from people in California who have been paying the 
price of this crisis for the last year.
  Now we have an opportunity to help, help those most vulnerable. 
Unfortunately, we will not allow, as I understand it, this amendment to 
come forward. Our Nation needs this. Senior citizens need this. Low-
income families and individuals need an additional $2 billion minimum 
in LIHEAP.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California, and 
the bottom line is that we appreciate the committee's effort in 
doubling the President's total inadequate funding. But because energy 
costs are skyrocketing, let me say in the State of Vermont, the price 
of propane gas has gone up by 27 percent, kerosene by 47 percent, and 
heating oil by 56 percent.
  When we have these extraordinary increases in the price of fuel, then 
the LIHEAP program has got to respond. All over this country more 
people need LIHEAP, and we have to increase funding.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order. 
I make a point of order against the amendment. This amendment is not 
germane, and as such is a violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
  This rule states that: ``No motion or proposition on a subject 
different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color 
of amendment.''
  This amendment deals with a proposition different from that being 
amended; and, therefore, is a violation of rule XVI, clause 7, and I 
insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman insists on his point of order. Does the 
gentleman from Vermont wish to be heard on the point of order?

[[Page 11234]]


  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, what I wish to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I hope in 
conference committee and in my colleague's work with the Senate, can we 
have some assurance from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who I 
know recognizes this problem, when I have some assurance when we go to 
conference, the gentleman will be representing the House and asking for 
substantially more LIHEAP funding?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I suggest to the gentleman that we will 
represent the House's position when we go to conference with the other 
body. During that conference, I expect that LIHEAP would be a subject 
of consideration.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to fight as hard as 
they can for substantially more money for LIHEAP.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has heard each gentleman on his own time. 
Members need to restrict their remarks to the point of order.
  The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from Florida raises a point of order that the amendment 
is not germane. The bill provides supplemental appropriations for 
various programs for fiscal year 2001. The amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont provides funding for the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program for fiscal year 2002. Clause 7 of rule XVI, the 
germaneness rule, provides that no proposition on subject different 
from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
amendment. One of the central tenets of the germaneness rule is that 
the fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to the 
fundamental purposes of the underlying text.
  The fundamental purpose of the bill is to provide supplemental 
funding for programs for the current fiscal year. By contrast, the 
fundamental purpose of the amendment is to provide an advanced 
appropriation in the next fiscal year for LIHEAP.
  Accordingly, the amendment is not germane, and the point of order is 
sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Education for the Disadvantaged

       The matter under this heading in the Departments of Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by 
     Public Law 106-554) is amended by striking ``$7,332,721,000'' 
     and inserting ``$7,237,721,000''.
       For an additional amount (to the corrected amount under 
     this heading) for ``Education for the Disadvantaged'' to 
     carry out part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 in accordance with the eighth proviso 
     under that heading, $161,000,000, which shall become 
     available on July 1, 2001, and shall remain available through 
     September 30, 2002.

                               Impact Aid

       Of the $12,802,000 available under the heading ``Impact 
     Aid'' in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) for construction 
     under section 8007 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965, $6,802,000 shall be used as directed in the 
     first proviso under that heading, and the remaining 
     $6,000,000 shall be distributed to eligible local educational 
     agencies under section 8007, as such section was in effect on 
     September 30, 2000.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Crowley:
       In chapter 5 of title II, before the heading of the item 
     relating to ``Special Education'', insert the following:


                      school improvement programs

                          (transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``School Improvement 
     Programs'' for magnet school assistance, to be derived from 
     amounts provided in title II for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'' and to remain available until expended, $25,000,000.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reserve a point of 
order on the gentleman's amendment; and as a courtesy to the gentleman, 
I will not exercise that point of order until he has had an opportunity 
to explain.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, while I understand that the 
Parliamentarian will rule this amendment out of order, I would like to 
take this opportunity to offer my amendment and highlight a key 
educational issue not only for my district, for the Seventh 
Congressional District in Queens and the Bronx, but for congressional 
districts and local educational agencies throughout the U.S.
  At the end of my time, Mr. Chairman, I will then withdraw this 
amendment. My amendment would strike the $25 million under operations 
and maintenance account of the Army that has been requested for 
recruiting and advertising for this branch and would transfer this $25 
million in badly needed funds to the U.S. Department of Education for 
the Magnet School Assistance Program.
  Magnet schools are specialized theme schools with innovative 
educational programs, often focusing in specific areas like math and 
the sciences while also providing some choice to parents and students.
  I have become quite familiar with and impressed by the successes of 
magnet schools after witnessing the students' achievements at Community 
School District 30 centered in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York in my 
congressional district.
  Community School District 30, which serves the student populations of 
Astoria, Long Island City, East Elmhurst, Jackson Heights, and parts of 
Corona and Woodside in Queens, is home to the most diverse ethnic 
population in the United States, according to the U.S. Census. These 
communities house over 120 ethnic groups and languages, making the 
ability to serve all of the educational needs very, very challenging, 
to say the least.
  But Community School District 30 has proven that serving these 
children is not impossible. They have achieved a number of successes 
through the operation of magnet schools. In the case of School District 
30, they have created an interactive intra- and interschool learning 
community, employing all of the stakeholders in this issue: teachers, 
parents, students, and local universities.
  My amendment will provide additional funding to increase assistance 
to School District 30 and other local educational agencies to create 
and/or expand magnet schools in their communities, whether they be 
urban, suburban or rural.
  It is my hope that as this bill works its way through the process, 
that this Congress will find an additional $25 million for the Magnet 
School Assistance Program for the Department of Education.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in strong support of his amendment. I also rise 
today with strong concerns about the supplemental appropriations bill. 
While I agree there are a number of items on the bill that need 
increased funding, I am disturbed that this funding is at the expense 
of a very important program, the Workforce Investment Act, which was 
cut, and that there are other important items that need to be funded, 
such as education. We all know that nothing is more important to our 
children's future than education. This amendment would strike $25 
million from the operations and maintenance, and transfer these very 
much needed funds to the Department of Education for the Magnet School 
Assistance Program.
  Many of the students in my district in Astoria, Queens, attend magnet 
schools, specifically School District 30 which serves a very diverse 
school body in Queens, had received a magnet grant several years ago; 
and they were in fact in competition for yet another magnet grant this 
year.
  Because of their high performance, their increased scores in math and 
English, I am certain that they would have received the grant; yet the 
Board of Education ran out of money.
  So this funding, this $25 million, is needed tremendously. I am also 
very

[[Page 11235]]

concerned that this bill cuts the Workforce Investment Act, which 
provides job training, related services to low-income persons, 
dislocated workers and other unemployed or underemployed individuals.
  This program had trained and helped many of the young people in the 
district that I have the honor of representing, specifically the 
Stanley Isaac Neighborhood Center, the Boys and Girls Club of Queens. 
Both of these programs were funded by WIA, and now I wonder whether or 
not they will be funded in the future because this very important 
program trains our young people for jobs. I speak very strongly in 
support of the $25 million for education, my colleague's amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations 
filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 19, 
2001. That was House Report 107-104. This amendment would provide new 
budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made 
under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the 
act, and I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida wishes to pursue his point 
of order. Does the gentleman from New York wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, no. I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           Special Education

       In the statement of the managers of the committee of 
     conference accompanying H.R. 4577 (Public Law 106-554; H. 
     Rept. 106-1033), in title III of the explanatory language on 
     H.R. 5656 (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001), in the matter relating to Special Education Research 
     and Innovation under the heading ``Special Education'', the 
     provision for training, technical support, services and 
     equipment through the Early Childhood Development Project in 
     the Mississippi Delta Region shall be applied by substituting 
     ``Easter Seals--Arkansas'' for ``the National Easter Seals 
     Society''.

            Education Research, Statistics, and Improvement

       The matter under this heading in the Departments of Labor, 
     Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by 
     Public Law 106-554) is amended by striking ``$139,624,000'' 
     and inserting ``$139,853,000''.
       In the statement of the managers of the committee of 
     conference accompanying H.R. 4577 (Public Law 106-554; H. 
     Rept. 106-1033), in title III of the explanatory language on 
     H.R. 5656 (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001), in the matter relating to the Fund for the Improvement 
     of Education under the heading ``Education Research, 
     Statistics and Improvement''--
       (1) the aggregate amount specified shall be deemed to be 
     $139,853,000;
       (2) the amount specified for the National Mentoring 
     Partnership in Washington DC for establishing the National E-
     Mentoring Clearinghouse shall be deemed to be $461,000; and
       (3) the provision specifying $1,275,000 for one-to-one 
     computing shall be deemed to read as follows: ``$1,275,000--
     NetSchools Corporation, to provide one-to-one e-learning 
     pilot programs for Dover Elementary School in San Pablo, 
     California, Belle Haven Elementary School in East Menlo Park, 
     California, East Rock Magnet School in New Haven, 
     Connecticut, Reid Elementary School in Searchlight, Nevada, 
     and McDermitt Combined School in McDermitt, Nevada;''.

                               CHAPTER 6

                           LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                        Congressional Operations

                        House of Representatives

      Payments to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress

       For payment to Rhonda B. Sisisky, widow of Norman Sisisky, 
     late a Representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
     $145,100.
       For payment to Barbara Cheney, heir of John Joseph Moakley, 
     late a Representative from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
     $145,100.

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for salaries and expenses of the 
     House of Representatives, $61,662,000, as follows:

Members' Representational Allowances, Standing Committees, Special and 
      Select, Committee on Appropriations, Allowances and Expenses

       For an additional amount for Members' Representational 
     Allowances, Standing Committees, Special and Select, 
     Committee on Appropriations, and Allowances and Expenses, 
     $44,214,000, with any allocations to such accounts subject to 
     approval by the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives: Provided, That $9,776,000 of such amount 
     shall remain available for such salaries and expenses until 
     December 31, 2002.

                    Salaries, Officers and Employees

       For an additional amount for compensation and expenses of 
     officers and employees, as authorized by law, $17,448,000, 
     including: for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Clerk, $3,150,000; and for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, $14,298,000, of 
     which $11,181,000 shall be for salaries, expenses, and 
     temporary personal services of House Information Resources 
     and $3,000,000 shall be for separate upgrades for committee 
     rooms: Provided, That $500,000 of the funds provided to the 
     Office of the Chief Administrative Officer for separate 
     upgrades for committee rooms may be transferred to the Office 
     of the Architect of the Capitol for the same purpose, subject 
     to the approval of the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives: Provided further, That all of the 
     funds provided under this heading shall remain available 
     until expended.

                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of Compliance, as authorized by section 305 of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), 
     $35,000.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding

       For an additional amount for authorized printing and 
     binding for the Congress and the distribution of 
     Congressional information in any format; printing and binding 
     for the Architect of the Capitol; expenses necessary for 
     preparing the semimonthly and session index to the 
     Congressional Record, as authorized by law (44 U.S.C. 902); 
     printing and binding of Government publications authorized by 
     law to be distributed to Members of Congress; and printing, 
     binding, and distribution of Government publications 
     authorized by law to be distributed without charge to the 
     recipient, $11,900,000.

               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       For payment to the Government Printing Office Revolving 
     Fund, $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     air-conditioning and lighting systems.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for salaries and expenses, Library 
     of Congress, $600,000, to remain available until expended, 
     for a collaborative Library of Congress telecommunications 
     project with the United States Military Academy.

                               CHAPTER 7

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the unobligated balances authorized under 49 U.S.C. 
     48103, as amended, $30,000,000 are rescinded.

                              {time}  1845


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 37, line 14, after ``$92,000,000'' insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 44, line 25, after ``$389,200,000'' insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order and 
advise the gentlewoman as a courtesy to her that I will not raise the 
point of order until she completes her explanation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman very much and again 
the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know how I can capture a visual for this 
House. So many Members have come to the floor of the House in times of 
need of their respective communities. I believe that the most potent 
statement that can be said about what happened in Houston,

[[Page 11236]]

Texas as we have followed the devastating pathway of Tropical Storm 
Allison is that nobody knew. It has gone from the heart of Texas in the 
Houston and surrounding areas east to New Orleans, Louisiana and other 
places and up the East Coast, even to the extent of matching its wits 
for the States in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast. We too were unaware 
of the devastation that occurred.
  But let me say to you, Mr. Chairman, we are in need. We really need 
this House to act. We have got now some $4 billion in damage in 
Houston, Texas; 32,000 plus homes are devastated and people are out of 
their homes. We were declared a disaster for personal aid as well as 
infrastructure. And the FEMA director is back in the community today. 
He traveled with us about a week ago, and he indicated at that time he 
thought there was enough money. But I am very glad that he is back 
again because we are realizing that we do not have enough money and 
after there is the $300 million plus rescission or money taken out of 
FEMA, I know we will not have enough money. In fact, we believe that 
with all FEMA has to do around the Nation, they only have $1.1 billion 
left, I do not see how in the world they are going to be able to 
function.
  There is an amendment that adds the $300 million plus, $389 million. 
I do not know where Texans will be primarily because it is devastating 
to the other parts of the bill, but I have a letter here, Mr. Chairman, 
and to the chairman from the Senator, United States Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, who is begging us not to take the money out from the other 
body, if you will, a letter that I would like to offer into the Record.


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, June 20, 2001.
       Dear ----: As we recover from the devastation of Tropical 
     Storm Allison and brace ourselves for the upcoming hurricane 
     season, I am writing to enlist your support for ensuring that 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) remains ready 
     to respond.
       As you may know, the House Appropriations Committee 
     recently approved its Supplemental Appropriations Bill for 
     Fiscal Year 2001. In that bill, the House Appropriations 
     Committee included a $389 million rescission of FEMA's 
     current disaster relief funds. This rescission is opposed by 
     the Bush Administration.
       In terms of economic impact, Tropical Storm Allison is 
     proving to be one of the largest natural disasters in U.S. 
     history, with over 50,000 homes and hundreds of businesses 
     destroyed or damaged in Southeast Texas alone. Furthermore, 
     several vital area hospitals and major academic research 
     facilities have been heavily damaged, with some currently 
     closed.
       The preliminary overall damage estimate from the storm and 
     the record flooding it caused in Texas is in excess of $4 
     billion. While at least $2 billion of this amount may be 
     recoverable through FEMA, those payments will likely meet, if 
     not exceed, the amount FEMA currently has in its disaster 
     relief and contingency accounts.
       In light of this situation, I ask for your assistance in 
     supporting any efforts on the House floor to eliminate the 
     provisions in the Supplemental Appropriations Bill that 
     rescinds FEMA's disaster relief funds. In addition, as 
     Congress continues to consider the Supplemental 
     Appropriations Bill, I would like your support in going a 
     step further by ensuring that FEMA's disaster relief 
     resources are replenished in order to make up for the 
     substantial costs the agency is now incurring due to Tropical 
     Storm Allison. I am working with Joe Allbaugh to determine an 
     appropriate reserve amount.
       Please feel free to contact Natasha Moore of my staff at 
     224-5922 if you have any questions. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                             Kay Bailey Hutchison,
                                                       U.S. Senate

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes an attempt to add $50 million to 
deal with the displaced elderly in our community who cannot stay in 
these shelters much longer. The physically challenged, the young 
families, the women who are expecting are in shelters and they need to 
get temporary housing assistance. As was already noted, we have a 
devastating mosquito problem. The mosquitoes are practically taking 
over our community. We have houses that have yet to begin to get 
repaired. It is going to be a long period of time. This is not the time 
to cut FEMA.
  This amendment is a reasonable amendment. Though I may be, I guess, 
apt to, with the reservation of the point of order, withdraw this 
amendment, I hope that I have been able to create a visual of the 
urgency of what we have got to do. And so I would like to yield to 
common sense, I guess, and to take this amendment now off the table and 
to be able to yield to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
for a colloquy.
  I hope I have adequately, Mr. Chairman, described the enormous 
devastation. He noted that I was on the floor previously about India. I 
told him I had been working on that. I did not want there to be a 
misunderstanding of the importance of all of these issues. But now I 
come to him pleading for the people of Houston and surrounding areas 
regarding this. I rise for the purpose of the colloquy or I am standing 
here with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) regarding as I have 
described to him the enormous impact of a tropical storm that was 
unexpected and certainly not an incident, if you will, or a factual 
basis of which we in Houston have had much experience. We have had our 
hurricanes, we know how to get out of the way, but this tropical storm 
really has devastated our community.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I want to confirm here on the floor our 
conversation earlier that we have a great deal of sympathy for the 
enormous relief efforts taking place in Houston as a result of Tropical 
Storm Allison. I applaud the gentlewoman's efforts in doing everything 
possible to make sure that the United States House of Representatives 
helps Houston recover from this disaster. I would add that this 
Congress has never refused to meet the requirements and obligations to 
a natural disaster in our country and many other parts of the world. We 
are working together on this.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. As I 
indicated to him, I am questioning whether we have enough money, but I 
am very hopeful.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I 
yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I hope that we can provide adequate funding 
for the damage done by Tropical Storm Allison to Houston and the 
surrounding areas. This is critical to the people of the 18th 
Congressional District that have suffered so immensely as a result of 
the storm.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman 
that there is no doubt in my mind that there are currently adequate 
resources to provide all appropriate resources and necessary assistance 
for her constituents. I will work to guarantee that that remains the 
case. And even after this rescission, there is $1.6 billion remaining 
in that emergency fund. Should that not be sufficient in the future, we 
will react quickly to make sure any emergency is dealt with.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think the practicality of 
what we are doing here today is to get help for Houston. Realizing 
that, I am going to withdraw this amendment because I have received 
from him and the members of the committee and the ranking members their 
sincerity about working with us, rolling up our sleeves and trying to 
bring home to Houston some sense of relief. I want to thank the 
gentleman for his support and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Operating expenses'', 
     $92,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.

                               CHAPTER 8

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $49,576,000, to remain available through September 30, 2002.

[[Page 11237]]



                        Internal Revenue Service


                 processing, assistance, and management

       For an additional amount for ``Processing, Assistance, and 
     Management'', $66,200,000, to remain available through 
     September 30, 2002.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       At the end of chapter 8 of title II, insert the following 
     new provision:

    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE 
                               PRESIDENT

                     Federal Drug Control Programs

             High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For an additional amount for ``High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Areas Program'', to be derived by transfer of 
     amounts provided in this chapter for ``Internal Revenue 
     Service--Processing, assistance, and management'', 
     $30,500,000, as authorized by law (21 U.S.C. 1706).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member on 
the Committee on Appropriations, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we speak often in this body about the need to reduce 
waste, fraud and abuse, and unnecessary spending. Yet today's bill 
includes an example that is wasteful, that I believe is an abuse of 
funds, and that is clearly unnecessary spending.
  Included in this bill is a measure that would apparently provide up 
to 20 to $30 million to send a letter to the American people telling 
them something they already know for purposes which can only be 
described as blatantly political; 20 to $30 million to tell the 
American people that they are pleased to inform them that the United 
States Congress passed and President George Bush signed into law the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act which provides long-
term tax relief.
  The American people know that. I can right here save the American 
people $29,999,999.75 by telling them take 25 cents, buy a newspaper, 
read about the tax bill, and you will know everything that you would 
receive in this letter.
  We should not be spending this kind of money on unnecessary political 
propaganda. It is the worst example of waste and abuse of government 
spending. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who I want to 
commend and I wish he did not have laryngitis because I would love to 
hear what he would have to say were he empowered to speak on this 
today, but he has correctly identified the problem and he has proposed 
a much, much better use of these funds.
  In my district in southwest Washington, we have got an explosion of 
methamphetamine labs, literally explosions of those labs, a doubling of 
meth busts every single year. People are being exposed to the dangerous 
drug methamphetamine, to black tar heroin, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin has correctly recognized that there is a need for additional 
funding to expand the high intensity drug trafficking areas to help 
fight these scourges.
  Mr. Chairman, if you ask the American people, would you rather put 
$30 million towards battling the scourge of drug abuse, toward 
protecting our children and our families and our schools, or would you 
rather receive a letter telling you something you already know?

                              {time}  1900

  I know exactly where the American people would stand. The American 
people would say, do not waste the $30 million of our taxpayers' money. 
Put it instead to something productive like high-intensity drug 
trafficking areas, as the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) would call for.
  Mr. Chairman, it is indeed time to stop wasteful and unnecessary 
spending in government. We can begin today by passing the amendment 
from the ranking member and the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), a 
distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that were 
provided in offering this amendment, but I think they were at least a 
little bit misleading. There was reading from the notice itself, and I 
think that was fair. In point of fact, it was really only the first 
sentence. The notice includes a lot more information than just the fact 
that a tax relief bill was passed. What the notice attempts to do is to 
include helpful, useful information to taxpayers and to ensure that as 
we go forward mailing out rebate checks, which were supported by dozens 
of Members on the minority side, that we do not have mass confusion.
  The notice informs the taxpayer as to the amount of the rebate check. 
It informs the taxpayer how this amount was calculated, because every 
taxpayer is not going to receive an identical check. The rebate will be 
based on the taxable return that was paid for the year 2000.
  The notice includes information as to whether or not the rebate check 
is reportable as income when they go to next pay their taxes. If one 
receives a $300 check or a $600 check, unfortunately for a lot of 
people there will be confusion as to whether or not they have to pay 
taxes on this rebate.
  It also gives information to the taxpayer as to what they should do 
if they have questions, a phone number, a Web site, so that they can 
follow up if they need additional information. Providing a taxpayer 
with this important information is not abusive. Providing a taxpayer 
with information about how to get their questions answered is not 
fraud. I certainly do not believe that the employees of the IRS would 
consider the work that they do to deal with confusion or questions to 
be fraud, to be abusive, which is exactly why the National Treasury 
Employees Union has written opposing the kind of cut that is trying to 
be put through on the floor today.
  Is it wasteful? Well, we can go back to the old television 
commercial, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. If taxpayers 
are not given information about how this rebate is being calculated, 
whether or not it is taxable income, how to get their questions 
answered, then when all of these checks go out the IRS phone lines are 
going to be flooded, or there are going to be complaints, and there is 
going to be a significant amount of cost incurred by the customer 
service representatives at the IRS trying to sort out that confusion.
  We can pay for it now to make sure that they have the information 
that is needed, or we can pay later in the form of much higher calls 
required, much higher cost of customer service. I think it makes sense. 
I think it is fair planning to deal with it now, to deal with it in 
this fiscal year, when the checks are going to be sent out.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Sununu), he says some of this information, for instance, whether 
or not it is taxable and the amount, have to be told to people. I would 
guess most people would be able to tell the amount when they looked at 
the check. As far as whether or not it is taxable, why could a little 
thing in the same envelope not be included in the rebate check that 
said, this is not taxable? Why does there have to be a separate 
mailing?
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, to address the gentleman's first point, 
what I said was there is information about how it is calculated, 
because while the headline in the Washington Post or the New York Times 
may be $300 a person, $600 a person, that is not technically

[[Page 11238]]

correct. I know it is a surprise to Members on both sides of the aisle 
that the New York Times may not have gotten the headline right, but not 
everyone is going to receive the same check.
  So there is information about how it was calculated and information 
about whether or not it is taxable.
  Mr. FRANK. Why could not it be put in that same envelope that the 
check came in? Do they need a lot of advanced notice to prepare them 
for it?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I think it serves the taxpayer well to have advance 
information. From the IRS's standpoint, the processing of checks may 
well be done differently than the processing of a notice like this. Why 
not give the taxpayer the information ahead of time before they receive 
the check?
  Mr. FRANK. Because it costs $30 million is why.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I do not think it is unreasonable.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my silent ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for yielding those quiet 4 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not be quite as quiet. First of all, it is 
interesting that this administration that wants to send out this check 
did not ask for this money to be sent to the taxpayer this year. This 
essentially was an initiative on this side of the aisle to make an 
immediate payment, number one. Of course, the letter does not go into 
that slight detail. It would be inconvenient to do so, I understand.
  Secondly, it is their money. It is their money, and we ought to spend 
it carefully. So we are sending a letter telling them they are going to 
get a check. It is not taxable; and by the way, they do not have to do 
anything. The taxpayer will be overwhelmed with that information, 
without which think how at sea they would be.
  They do not have to do anything. There is no answer, and the 
gentleman who is extraordinarily bright and able, struggled for an 
answer to the question of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). 
Why is the check and the information not sent in one envelope and save 
$30 million of their money?
  Now, $30 million is a lot of their money. This amendment is opposed 
by the NTEU, the National Treasury Employees Union. Do we know why? 
Because they are fearful that the administration's desire to send out 
this money, and by the way the conference that included no Democrats, 
this is not in the statute, they do not have to do this statutorily. 
They have to do it in the conference report. I guarantee, maybe two 
people on the House floor knew that was the case when they voted for 
this bill. Maybe. I do not want to ask the chairman whether he knew or 
the ranking member whether he knew. I did not know, I will say, and I 
am the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Nobody knew this. It is in conference report language; and by the 
way, the conference report does not even direct that it be done. It 
says, we expect that it will be done.
  What the Treasury employees are worried about is, if this money is 
taken out, the letter will be sent anyway and make the Treasury 
employees eat it. Cut the costs of the IRS because you want to impose 
this Dear Taxpayer, George Bush is giving you some money back. In 
another context, this might be called $30 million of public financing 
of campaigns which, of course, President Bush and the minority side are 
very much against; and in my opinion probably most taxpayers are 
against that as well, but that is what is happening. We are spending 
$30 million as a campaign letter.
  Now, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) fully knows that 
1-800 number could be included in the mailing of the check. Let me say, 
when they get the check is when it is going to motivate them to call. 
So if we think we are saving money on calls, we are going to have to 
look at that when the committee marks up this bill later on, because I 
guarantee it will not. Why? Because there will be certain people who 
will look at this letter and say, oh, that is nice; not do anything, 
not take any action, not really have any knowledge. But when they get 
the check, that is the operative time that the taxpayer will get 
interested. If he does not get the $300 or they do not get the $600, 
they will pick up the phone and say, why not? Hopefully we will answer 
them.
  If they do not and they call and we use this $30 million to mail them 
this what we believe to be a political notice, if they do that then we 
are going to have 30 million less dollars that they could use for 
taxpayer service.
  We passed the reform bill, said we wanted to be taxpayer friendly, 
which meant the ability to answer phones. Sending this money off this 
way will undermine our ability to serve our taxpayers well. I urge a 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would, in the same tone that my friend, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), just spoke, I would like to say to him and 
to all the Members that if we wanted to be political about this what we 
would have done would be to have all the checks delivered to those 
offices of the Members who voted for the tax cut and let them send out 
the checks with a little message to their constituents. Now that would 
have been political.
  The way we are doing it now is really not political, and I think it 
is important that people understand in plain English what this is all 
about.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) told me that in private as well. I think that is an 
interesting observation and option. It is the difference between 
blatant and subtle, I would suggest to my chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time he may consume 
to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, in addressing some of the concerns raised, 
particularly with regard to the employees at the IRS, I think rather 
than characterize what their motives might be, it is best to go right 
to the source.
  In a letter from the National Treasury Employees Union, it was made 
clear what the concerns were. Simply put, quote, ``the IRS has great 
difficulty responding to all the telephone calls from taxpayers with 
questions. The volume of calls will increase dramatically as 
anticipation of rebate checks grows. Providing taxpayers with a notice 
in advance will hold down the increase in calls and prevent a 
significant decrease in the IRS' ability to provide customer service.''
  It is also stressed in the letter, which comes from the National 
President of the employees union, that the IRS has indicated, the 
agency, not Congress but the IRS itself, that it may go forward with a 
notice on the tax rebate even if the funds to mail it are not provided 
or are reduced. So this is a decision that the IRS is likely to make of 
its own accord because the agency understands it is important. The 
union itself recognizes, and the employees recognize, that if the 
notices do not go out that the burden on customer service will be 
significant. In the end that will not be in the best interest of 
taxpayers because the costs associated with that confusion are just as 
likely to be greater than what this expenditure calls for.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I want to start in a spirit of 
bipartisanship with congratulations. I congratulate the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations on the restraint he says he showed in not 
having Members individually send out the checks to the constituents. It 
might have been a violation of the separation of powers. I admire his 
doing that.
  Until he just smiled, I was going to congratulate the gentleman from 
New Hampshire for keeping a very straight face during this entire 
proceeding. Were I he, I could not have done so.
  I welcome this in some ways. Let us be clear what we are talking 
about. It

[[Page 11239]]

is a letter that begins not with telling you that it is not taxable or 
how it was calculated, but by telling you that this is a present to you 
from George Bush. It comes to you from George Bush and the Congress.
  Now, I in one sense must tell you for self-interests welcome this. 
For some time I have been distressed that politically self-serving mail 
is known as ``franked'' mail. I have been upset to be a synonym with 
the use of taxpayer money to send out blatantly self-serving mail.
  But, from now on, that mail will no longer be thought of primarily as 
franked mail. It will be ``bushed'' mail; not bush mill, bushed mail, 
because the $30 million in this one fell swoop will be a greater 
exploitation of the taxpayer's money for political purposes than ever 
before.
  Now, I had this question as to why it could not be included, there 
are two important pieces of information; how it was calculated. By the 
way, according to the letter, how it is calculated is on the back of 
the letter, so that none of the things on the front of the letter are 
relevant to that. Secondly, people need to know it is not taxable.
  Well, that could have been put in the same letter, I thought. But 
then I read what the gentleman said to the New York Times about it, and 
maybe this explains it.
  My question is, why could you not simply put into the same envelope, 
``this is not taxable,'' and then include that about how it was 
calculated? Why do you have to tell them that President Bush did it, 
and Congress did it, and it is part of the long-term tax relief? There 
are a number of things in here that have no relevance to that.
  The New York Times article is very interesting, because Mr. Keith, a 
spokesman for the wholly autonomous Internal Revenue Service, which 
apparently decided on its own to do this favor for the President, and 
that is a degree of loyalty that he inspires in his employees that is 
truly inspirational in itself, but he says, ``I would point out that 
the letter contains the information that we believe the taxpayer 
needs.'' But then in an indirect quote, ``including the size of the 
check.''
  Now, I had thought that meant the dollar amount. But, on the other 
hand, that would be too stupid even to try and pretend, because the way 
the average person would tell what was the amount of the check would be 
to look at the amount on the check. It says it right on the check, 
``amount.'' Most people would probably be able to figure out when it 
said amount of the check $300, that the amount of the check was $300. 
But, no, we have to tell them in advance of the size of the check.
  And why can we not put it in the same envelope? Then I suddenly 
realized, these are going to be really big checks. There will not be 
room in the envelope. They want to really make an impression. You are 
getting this from George Bush, and we do not want some little dinky 
piece of paper that you can read it, $300, that is nice, put it in my 
pocket, I will spend it, that is good for the economy, which we 
suggested.
  Instead, we are going to send them really big checks, and we have to 
warn them. We have to warn them, so that people, for instance, may have 
to widen their mail slots. They may have to empty out their mailboxes, 
because what we are telling them is, listen, you are going to get a 
really big check. Now, to some people, $300 would not be a big check in 
dollars, so it must mean a big physical check.
  So we are going to send them such a big check that we have to warn 
them in advance that it is coming, do not let your kid, if you have got 
a small child, do not have your child walking under the mail slot when 
the mail comes. He may get whacked in the head with a really big check, 
and that is not worth $300.
  And, we also then cannot fit it in that envelope, because I cannot 
think of any other reason. Here is what we are told; the reason for 
doing this is, one, to tell them the amount of the check. Now, as I 
said, nobody believes that. Some people have said it; I do not think 
many people believe it. The fact is that you will see the amount of the 
check when you get the check.
  We are told you should be told it is not taxable. Well, that could be 
put in the envelope along with the calculation. But I have to say, if 
this works, why stop here? We know that many older people who live 
isolated lives like getting mail. They get Social Security checks. 
Social Security checks are not, for many people, taxable. For some they 
are. People may not know that.
  Why not 2 weeks before the Social Security check comes send them a 
letter telling them that they are going to get a Social Security check? 
Why not alert them to the size of the impending Social Security check, 
and they can be warned about it and they can be told it is not taxable, 
or that it is, and how it was calculated.
  I mean, if we are in fact going to have a policy where we not only 
provide a benefit to the public, but we tell them in advance who gave 
them the benefit, I think we should not stop here. I think the 
gentleman has a policy we ought to extend.
  If the gentleman wants me to yield, I will be glad to yield, unless 
he just was kind of standing up because he was, you know, adjusting 
something. Does the gentleman want me to yield?
  Mr. SUNUNU. I am sorry, is the gentleman distracted by the fact I am 
standing at the lectern? We have reserved the balance of our time.
  Mr. FRANK. I will tell you what, I thought the gentleman, usually 
when people stand, they want to respond. I will tell you, I will have 
trouble sleeping tonight, because I am still trying to figure out why 
they cannot go in the same check, and I thought maybe the gentleman 
from New Hampshire was going to enlighten me. I thought maybe my 
neighbor was going to say I am so perplexed, because I tend to think I 
am of reasonable intelligence.
  And here is the issue. We are going to send people a check, and they 
need to know two things, other than the check itself. They need to know 
that it is not taxable, and I think that is right; and they need to 
know how it is calculated, if they are interested. They do not need to 
know that, but that would be useful. I cannot figure out why that 
cannot go in the same envelope. I do not understand.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield on that point, 
the Financial Management Service considered a range of options. They 
considered including that information in the same envelope.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Why did they reject that?
  Mr. SUNUNU. Well, there are two reasons. One, because the checks are 
going to go out in a staggered format. They are going to go out in 
July, they are going to go out in August, and they are going to go out 
in September. The first people that are going to get the checks will 
get them in July, and the people that have not received the checks are 
certainly going to wonder what is going on. It makes sense to notify 
everybody at the same time.
  The second reason is because there are two different systems right 
now for printing notices and printing checks. Now, we can try to 
combine the two and manually stuff all the envelopes.
  Mr. FRANK. I thank the gentleman, and I am taking back my time.
  Mr. SUNUNU. I think it is unreasonable not to allow me to answer the 
question.
  Mr. FRANK. I will take back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts controls the time.
  Mr. FRANK. I understand the gentleman has trouble understanding how 
the mail works, but he should know how the rules of the House work.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question is 
simple why the FMS and others decided they could not do it in one 
mailing, which seems to make sense to everybody, and that is because 
the majority in its conference report, which was seen by nobody on the 
floor when they voted on the bill, said that the majority, who, of 
course, the President is a

[[Page 11240]]

part of their party, the President is the Chief Executive of our 
country, the Chief Executive is the executive officer of the FMS.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say, because 
we are about to run out of all time, that not having heard the 
explanation, it obviously makes no sense. Apparently people think 
Americans are consumed with jealousy, and some people are going to get 
a check in July, and some are getting it in September, and they will 
have no idea why that happened. Again, we do not think that is a 
serious argument. And the notion that you cannot consolidate in one 
check that information, again, is wholly unpersuasive.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I can understand why some of the gentlemen 
on the floor are baffled. I am quite sure they were baffled as to why 
we would want to return some of the taxpayer money in the first place. 
That really is, I think, the fundamental argument.
  Let me say this: This letter simply does not meet the standards of 
the previous administration. I have to assure you, when you want to 
notify taxpayers of really important information you ought to look at 
the Health Care Financing Administration multicolored brochure, which, 
when you open the first page, had a large color picture of then 
Secretary of HHS Donna Shalala. Then you turn to the second page, and 
there was a large color photo of the gentleman who was then the 
Administrator of HCFA. Then you turn to the next page, and there was 
another photo. So, for someone trying to find out something about 
Medicare, they had to go through three large multicolored photos of 
people who were there not for political reasons.
  I can understand why some people are baffled, because actually people 
learned through the media that Congress was returning some of their tax 
money. The first assumption would be it is not true. The second 
assumption would be, if it is true, how much am I getting? The third 
assumption would be, where do I call to verify?
  One of the concerns was that, believe it or not, some people would 
like to verify that they are getting money. Can you imagine millions of 
people, a small fraction of the total who are getting the checks, 
trying to call the IRS to find out, one, if they are getting their 
money; two, if they are, when are they getting it; and, three, how much 
is it going to be?
  So what you have is a letter that provides that factual information, 
especially the question of when I am going to get it? Because if you 
only included the amount and a way to determine how much it was 
supposed to be and the fact that it was coming, they would still make a 
phone call to say when am I going to get it?
  So I think the real frustration is that this Congress passed and this 
President signed, one, tax relief for the American taxpayer; and, two, 
it was done in such a way that we are actually going to return some of 
the money to the taxpayers.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS: I would like to finish my statement. I do not have a lot 
of time. Then, if I finish, I will yield.
  Mr. FRANK. He has 3 extra minutes for you at the end.
  Mr. THOMAS. Oh, good. Then I will use it in a minute.
  The idea here is to, first of all, ease the bureaucratic burden of 
trying to respond to millions of people who are inevitably going to 
call. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts believes he is of average 
intelligence, and, therefore, most other people would assume all of 
those things he assumed.
  All of us here on the floor know, and I will tell everyone else, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts is not of average intelligence; he is 
extremely intelligent and perceptive. And I guess the concern is that 
if not everyone matches his ability to understand, interpret and 
relate, that somehow it is a sinister political motive to notify people 
of the consequences, the time and the amount of the check return.
  It is not a rebate. It is money which is a lump sum payment in lieu 
of withholding adjustment. So people would kind of wonder, what is it 
that I am getting? And, gee, this letter says that it is in fact not 
something that you will have to worry about. You will not be required 
to report the amount of this as taxable income on your Federal tax 
return. And, by the way, it provides a convenient receipt for you if in 
fact your State or lesser municipality has tax consequences in terms of 
Federal money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. Do I get the 3 minutes? Could I have the 3 minutes? I 
thought you were going to give me 3 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK. The gentleman from Florida has the 3 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has time remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thought you were going to give me the 3 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise how much 
time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas.)
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I certainly yield to my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. First, I want to repeat what the gentleman from Maryland 
said. The notion of the $300 to $600 was not something opposed on this 
side. The gentleman inaccurately said there were people who were 
opposed to that. The notion of sending a check out right away was 
something that was advocated by many on this side.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman I will reclaim my 
time if he does not have a question of me. He is just debating the 
point on his side again.
  Mr. FRANK. I am correcting him. May I ask a question? May I ask the 
gentleman a question?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will reclaim my time. You had an 
opportunity.
  Mr. FRANK. May I ask a question? May I ask the gentleman a question?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California controls the time. He may 
yield to a question if he wishes.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chairman.
  Apparently the gentleman from New Hampshire is not the only one who 
understands the rules on the floor, or there was a willing abuse of the 
rules. I indicated that I would yield to the gentleman for a question. 
The gentleman then began continuing to make a statement.
  Therefore, in the remainder of my time, I will tell you this is a 
thinly veiled attempt to stop the Internal Revenue Service from making 
its job easier in informing taxpayers of money that is coming to them, 
in which a number of people who are now offering this amendment 
objected not only in substance, but in style. I understand that.
  Our purpose is to vote down this amendment so the American people can 
find out what they are getting from their government.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think the majority of Members in this 
body use frank mail to send out information to their constituents. This 
is information that will help those constituents.
  But I understand not wanting to send a letter out. In 1993, my 
colleagues took all the money, or cut veterans' COLAs. They do not want 
to send a letter out for that. They cut military COLAs. They increased 
the tax on Social Security. They spent every single dime of the Social 
Security trust fund, and I understand why the gentleman did not want to 
send out a letter for that. But I would say in this case, we believe it 
is their money, and we would like to let them know that it is coming in 
a fair manner.

[[Page 11241]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the spirited nature 
of the debate. I certainly apologize to my colleague from Massachusetts 
for attempting to answer his question too specifically and too 
accurately. I know it is never a comfortable situation for someone who 
is speaking on the floor.
  But I do think that if we look at the scope of what the IRS is trying 
to do, we look at the number of checks that are going out, a couple of 
hundred million, I think it is very reasonable to assume that there may 
be a lot of confusion.
  The Financial Management Service looked at a number of different 
options. I think they had a credible reason for wanting to do an 
advance notice, considering that the checks would be staggered over 
time. The IRS employees recognized that being inundated with phone 
calls could really degrade their level of customer service and that 
more information was better. We can quibble about the exact wording on 
the notice and some down at the White House might complain that 
Congress is mentioned first, Congress might complain that the President 
is even mentioned in the notice, but at the end of the day, the 
taxpayers will have information that is helpful to them: how this is 
being calculated, what the tax implications are for the current year, 
how they can get additional information.
  I do not think there is any surreptitious or are there are any impure 
motives here. We are just trying to make sure that taxpayers understand 
the legislation that has been passed and how it is going to affect 
them, and we are trying to take a little bit of burden off of the 
employees at the IRS, and I think both of those are appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 9

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compensation and pensions

       For an additional amount for ``Compensation and pensions'', 
     $589,413,000 to remain available until expended.


                         readjustment benefits

       For an additional amount for ``Readjustment benefits'', 
     $347,000,000 to remain available until expended.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                    medical and prosthetic research

       Of the amount provided for ``Medical and prosthetic 
     research'' in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing 
     and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-377), up to 
     $3,500,000 may be used for associated travel expenses.

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Of the amount provided for ``Medical care'' in the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (Public Law 106-377), up to $19,000,000 may be 
     transferred to ``General operating expenses'' of which up to 
     $5,000,000 may be used for associated travel expenses.

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        housing certificate fund


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
       In chapter 9 of title II, under the heading relating to 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--Public and 
     Indian Housing'', insert the following new item:


                     public housing operating fund

       For an additional amount for the ``Public housing operating 
     fund'' for payments to public housing agencies for the 
     operation and management of public housing, as authorized by 
     section 9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437g), $300,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment and will not exercise the point of order until the gentleman 
has had his 5 minutes to explain.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) reserves a point 
of order.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
his courtesy. I do appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues, I recognize the need to meet the 
rising energy costs of the Defense Department. This bill contains $734 
million for higher fuel costs. As we know, jet fuel, gasoline, even 
heating price increases are having a dramatic effect on the Defense 
Department. We all agree that it is no good to have the most advanced 
jet fighters in the world if they cannot fly. I, therefore, do agree 
with this portion of the bill.
  Yet, the Defense Department is not the only agency that is impacted 
by these price increases. Public housing is also directly affected. The 
estimates are that the public housing authorities need about $300 
million to make up the shortfall. Now, $300 million in the totality of 
this bill is not a great amount of money, so that is what my amendment 
does. It provides the funding for the $300 million. I regret that the 
Committee on Rules did not provide a waiver. I agree that these are 
needed funds to DOD, but there are other needs as well.
  Because of the budget caps in the recent tax bill, I have been forced 
to designate this need as emergency spending. I believe with all my 
heart that this qualifies.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, home heating oil 
prices increased nationally from 88 cents to $1.35, a 53 percent 
increase from fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000. Natural gas jumped 
51 percent, from $6.69 per thousand cubic feet to $10.07. In fact, in 
New York City, which I represent, the Nation's largest public housing 
authority, with 160,000 units, has actually had its oil prices rise 82 
percent and natural gas prices increase 90 percent.
  I could paint a picture of an elderly woman who worked for 45 years 
living in public housing that has no heat, but we know that, in fact, 
is not the case. Instead, the elderly woman who worked hard for 45 
years is living in an apartment that has a hole in the ceiling, that 
needs new flooring in the bathroom, and could benefit from energy-
saving windows and other energy-efficient things. The fact is that 
public housing authorities are now diverting funds from capital repairs 
and improvements to pay utility bills. Obviously, they do not want 
people to freeze over the winter.
  Let me be clear that it gets my goat that we are using money to pay 
for heat that should be used to pay for insulation which, in the long 
run, would save a lot of money on heat. We are going to be debating tax 
policy and we are going to be debating energy policy, and I have some 
innovative thoughts that I hope we can act upon later on in this 
session.
  Public housing has gotten a bad reputation around here in the past 
few years. We need to change this. I grew up in public housing. In 
fact, many of my colleagues in the New York City delegation grew up in 
public housing; and the people who live in public housing deserve to 
have quality housing. People move to public housing because it is often 
the only affordable housing they can find. Most public housing 
residents work, pay rent, and are just trying to provide a safe, loving 
home for their families.

[[Page 11242]]

  So, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have an obligation and a 
responsibility to public housing, and I would urge the chairman of the 
committee not to insist on his point of order and allow this amendment 
to move forward. I do appreciate the courtesy of the chairman of the 
full committee to yield his point of order so I can make this 
statement.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I rise to support the amendment offered by the 
Congressman from New York (Mr. Engel) to provide $300 million in 
emergency funds to help HUD meet increased energy demands in public 
housing.
  My colleagues, like you, I recognize the increased demand on LIHEAP 
and I support this legislation's $300 million increase in the LIHEAP 
budget, which doubles the President's request. However, the needs of 
hundreds of thousands of seniors, families and persons with 
disabilities are ignored because there is no funding in this 
supplemental to ensure their well-being during the hot summer months 
and the bitter winter, ahead. We must provide HUD with enough funding 
to meet higher energy costs but this bill fails to accomplish that 
goal.
  Public housing authorities across the country are paying higher 
energy cost to keep public housing families warm in the winter and 
seniors cool in the summer. Public housing is still catching up with 
the shortfalls found in the FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001 
appropriations bills. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, home heating oil prices increased nationally from 88 
cents to $1.35, a 53% increase, from FY 1999 to FY 2000! Natural Gas 
jumped 51%--from $6.69 per thousand cubic feet to $10.07. Chicago will 
need an additional $10 million to pay higher cost in public housing and 
to provide assistance to families in private housing.
  There is no doubt that this is an emergency. We are in the middle of 
the summer. In 1995, 700 people died in the Chicago area because of a 
heat wave. There were more deaths all across the country. We can't 
allow another tragedy like that to happen simply because Congress 
refused to give HUD enough money to give air conditioning to seniors in 
public housing.
  If Congress doesn't act, what is more likely to happen is that the 
public housing authorities will divert funds from capital repairs and 
improvements to pay utility bills. In Chicago, we have a $1.5 billion 
plan to rebuild public housing, including money to make units more 
energy efficient. My fear is that such plans in Chicago and across the 
country will be slowed unless we help address higher energy cost.
  So, for public housing authorities struggling to meet the basic 
energy costs of their tenants, our constituents, I urge my colleagues 
to vote for the Congressman's amendment to provide HUD with $300 
million in emergency energy assistance for public housing energy costs.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pitts). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and, as 
such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. 
Therefore, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to speak on this 
point of order?
  Mr. ENGEL. No, Mr. Chairman. I stand by my original statement.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair finds that this amendment 
includes an emergency designation under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The 
amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XIX.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              (rescission)

       $114,300,000 is rescinded from unobligated balances 
     remaining from funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development under this heading in fiscal 
     year 2001 or the heading ``Annual contributions for assisted 
     housing'' or any other heading for fiscal year 2000 and prior 
     years: Provided, That any such balances governed by 
     reallocation provisions under the statute authorizing the 
     program for which the funds were originally appropriated 
     shall not be available for this rescission.

                   Community Planning and Development


                       community development fund

       The referenced statement of the managers in the seventh 
     undesignated paragraph under this heading in title II of 
     Public Law 106-377 is deemed to be amended by striking 
     ``women's and children's hospital'' in reference to an 
     appropriation for Hackensack University Medical Center, and 
     inserting ``the construction of the Audrey Hepburn Children's 
     House''.
       The referenced statement of the managers in the seventh 
     undesignated paragraph under this heading in title II of 
     Public Law 106-377 is deemed to be amended by striking 
     ``$100,000 to Essex County, Massachusetts for cyberdistrict 
     economic development initiatives;'' in reference to an 
     appropriation for Essex County, and inserting ``$75,000 to 
     improve cyber-districts in Haverhill, Massachusetts and 
     $25,000 to improve cyber-districts in Amesbury, 
     Massachusetts;''.
       The referenced statement of the managers in the seventh 
     undesignated paragraph under this heading in title II of 
     Public Law 106-377 is deemed to be amended by striking 
     ``$500,000 for Essex County, Massachusetts for its wastewater 
     and combined sewer overflow program;'' in reference to an 
     appropriation for Essex County, and inserting ``$500,000 to 
     the following Massachusetts communities for wastewater and 
     combined sewer overflow infrastructure improvements: Beverly 
     ($32,000); Peabody ($32,000); Salem ($32,000); Lynn 
     ($32,000); Newburyport ($32,000); Glouchester ($32,000); 
     Marblehead ($30,000); Danvers ($30,000); Ipswich ($17,305); 
     Amesbury ($17,305); Manchester ($17,305); Essex ($17,305); 
     Rockport ($17,305); and Haverhill ($161,475);''.

                            Housing Programs


                  manufactured housing fees trust fund

       For necessary expenses as authorized by the National 
     Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 
     1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.), $6,100,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to be derived from the 
     Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund (in this heading 
     referred to as ``the Fund''): Provided, That all balances of 
     fees collected before December 27, 2000, pursuant to such Act 
     shall be transferred to and merged with amounts in the Fund: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed the amount appropriated 
     under this heading shall be available from the general fund 
     of the Treasury to the extent necessary to incur obligations 
     and make expenditures pending the receipt of collections to 
     the Fund pursuant to section 620 of such Act: Provided 
     further, That the amount made available under this heading 
     from the general fund shall be reduced as such collections 
     are received during fiscal year 2001 so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2001 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at not more than $0.

                     Federal Housing Administration


             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account

       Of the amounts available for administrative expenses and 
     administrative contract expenses under the headings, ``FHA--
     mutual mortgage insurance program account'', ``FHA--general 
     and special risk program account'', and ``Salaries and 
     expenses, management and administration'' in title II of the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001, as enacted by Public Law 106-377, not to exceed 
     $8,000,000 is available to liquidate deficiencies incurred in 
     fiscal year 2000 in the ``FHA--mutual mortgage insurance 
     program account''.


             fha--general and special risk program account

       For an additional amount for the cost of guaranteed loans, 
     as authorized by sections 238 and 519 of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3 and 1735c), including the cost of loan 
     guarantee modifications as that term is defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, 
     $40,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funding under this heading shall be made available only 
     upon implementation of an interim final rule revising the 
     premium structure for programs provided for under this 
     heading.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and expenses'', 
     $243,059 to remain available until expended.

                    Environmental Protection Agency


                 environmental programs and management

       From the amounts appropriated for Cortland County, New York 
     and Central New York Watersheds under this heading in title 
     III of Public Law 106-377 and in future Acts, the 
     Administrator is authorized to award grants for work on New 
     York watersheds.

[[Page 11243]]




                   state and tribal assistance grants

       The referenced statement of the managers under this heading 
     in Public Law 106-377 is deemed to be amended by striking all 
     after the words ``Limestone County Water and Sewer Authority 
     in Alabama for'' in reference to item number 13, and 
     inserting the words ``drinking water improvements''.
       The referenced statement of the managers under this heading 
     in Public Law 106-377 is deemed to be amended by striking the 
     words ``the City of Hartselle'' in reference to item number 
     11, and inserting the words ``Hartselle Utilities''.
       The referenced statement of the managers under this heading 
     in Public Law 106-377 is deemed to be amended by striking the 
     words ``Florida Department of Environmental Protection'' in 
     reference to item number 48, and inserting the words 
     ``Southwest Florida Water Management District''.
       The referenced statement of the managers under this heading 
     in Public Law 106-377 is deemed to be amended by striking all 
     after the words ``Beloit, Wisconsin'' in reference to item 
     number 236, and inserting the words ``extension of separate 
     sanitary sewers and extension of separate storm sewers''.
       Under this heading in title III of Public Law 106-377, 
     strike ``$3,628,740,000'' and insert ``$3,641,341,386''.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            disaster relief

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available in the second paragraph under 
     this heading in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 
     106-377), $389,200,000 are hereby rescinded.


                 Part B Amendment Offered by Mr. Toomey

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The amendment has 
been printed in House Report 107-105 and made in order by House 
Resolution 171.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment printed in House Report 107-105 offered by 
     Mr. Toomey:
       In chapter 9 of title II, strike the item relating to 
     ``Federal Emergency Management Agency''.
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

       Sec.   . (a) Government-Wide Rescission.--(1) There is 
     hereby rescinded an amount equal to 0.33 percent of the new 
     discretionary budget authority provided (or obligation limit 
     imposed) for fiscal year 2001 in this or any other Act for 
     each department, agency, instrumentality, or entity of the 
     Government.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to budget accounts 
     included under major functional category 050 (national 
     defense).
       (b) Restrictions.--In carrying out the rescissions made by 
     subsection (a)(1), no program, project, or activity of any 
     department, agency, instrumentality, or entity may be reduced 
     by more than 15 percent (with ``programs projects, and 
     activities'' as delineated in the appropriation Act or 
     accompanying report for the relevant account, or for accounts 
     and items not included in appropriation Acts, as delineated 
     in the President's most recently submitted budget).
       (c) Report.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall include in the President's budget submission for 
     fiscal year 2003 a report specifying the reductions made to 
     each account pursuant to this section.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of 
today, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and a Member 
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 15 seconds.
  First let me say that I recognize the need for the additional defense 
spending that is in this bill and I support that, and this amendment 
makes no attempt to offset that necessary increase in defense spending. 
My concern, however, is the $1.2 billion in nondefense, nonveteran, new 
spending in the supplemental spending bill.
  I would point out that last year the Congress and the previous 
administration increased Federal discretionary spending by more than 8 
percent. If we pass this bill in its current form without fully 
offsetting even the nondefense new spending portion, with sometimes 
spending reductions elsewhere, then we will have increased spending by 
approximately 10 percent. In doing so, we will be growing government 
faster than virtually any other segment of our society. We will be 
increasing government spending three to four times the rate of 
inflation. We will be spending away the surplus and that means less 
money available for tax relief, less money available for debt 
reduction, a greater chance that soon, perhaps as soon as 2003, we may 
be dipping back into the Medicare and Social Security funds to pay for 
all of this spending. To avoid this, we have to draw a line on 
spending.
  In fairness, this supplemental bill does attempt to offset part of 
this new spending, but it does not offset all of the nondefense 
portion, and one of the offsets does not seem kosher. So this amendment 
does two things with respect to offsetting the nondefense, nonveteran 
portion of the spending bill.
  First, it strikes the rescission of the FEMA funds. Many of our 
colleagues, including many Democratic colleagues, have discussed during 
the debate on this bill, as well as during the debate on the rule, that 
they do not believe it is right to concentrate so much of the offsets 
in the FEMA account, to cut nearly $400 million from FEMA. The White 
House has announced its opposition to this rescission. Others feel that 
maybe this is not a true cut. Some have suggested that FEMA has plenty 
of money and that this money will never be spent. Well, if that is the 
case, then it is not a real offset. In either case, this amendment 
restores the FEMA funding.
  The second thing is does is it says, let us take all the nondefense, 
nonveteran spending that is not offset, that is about $1.1 billion, and 
offset that with an across-the-board \1/3\ of 1 percent reduction in 
all 2001 nondefense discretionary spending.
  We provide flexibility for the administration to cut a little more in 
some cases so that they could cut less or not at all in others. We have 
done this before in legislation that was signed into law by President 
Clinton. We leave 100 percent of all defense funding in place, and we 
leave the 99.67 percent of all nondefense funding in place.

                              {time}  1945

  I believe the various bureaucrats of the Federal government can 
survive on 99.67 percent of a budget that is already more than 8 
percent higher than last year.
  This amendment does not attempt to reorder the priorities in the 
supplemental bill. The committee has decided we need to increase 
funding in non-defense areas, a number of non-defense areas. We are not 
contesting those items. What we are saying is if we want to increase 
spending on those items, that is okay, but pay for it with spending 
reductions elsewhere.
  Some opponents of this amendment will say, well, there is no need to 
do this because it is within the limits of the budget resolution. That 
is true, but it is beside the point. The fact is, spending is growing 
too rapidly. We have to draw a line.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will save taxpayers $1 billion this 
year. It will provide more in debt reduction. It makes it more likely 
we will avoid spending Social Security and Medicare surpluses, and it 
restores the funding to FEMA.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, according to the agreement, I 
claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I 
may yield half of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) to control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reluctantly rising to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment. He talks about a .33 percent cut across-the-board, but what 
he does not point out is that 75 percent of the fiscal year is already 
gone, which means that

[[Page 11244]]

75 percent or more of the money allocated to the agencies have already 
been spent.
  Let me give one example. In the event that this amendment were to 
pass, the aid to Israel, which has already been released and sent to 
Israel, they would have to give us a refund of $9.5 million.
  If we were to pass this amendment, we would be cutting WIC by $13.3 
million. We would be hitting the rural rental housing program with a 
deficit of $2.3 million, and $29 million would have to be cut from the 
Pell grant program. Furthermore, $25 million would be cut from the 
special education programs.
  LIHEAP, the program that we just doubled from the President's budget 
in this bill, would have to be reduced by $5 million. Child care, $3 
million would be cut from funding to help States provide assistance to 
families for child care.
  On border and port security, both the Customs Service and the INS 
would have to reduce staffing and overtime hours at ports of entry, 
likely causing delays and reducing the frequency of inspections along 
the border.
  With the Coast Guard, something we all support, the Coast Guard would 
lose $11 million because of this amendment, which would further 
exacerbate the shortages that the Coast Guard already has, something we 
are trying to improve in this bill.
  On VA and medical care, if .33 went out across the board, as the 
amendment said, VA medical care would be cut by $65 million. I do not 
think we want to do that.
  FEMA, although this is supposedly returning money that was rescinded 
from FEMA, it would be cut by $5.3 million. That does not make sense to 
me, when we take it out with one hand and put it back in with the other 
hand.
  These are only a few of the examples. I am sure there are many more, 
if we had the time to do this. But I just ask our colleagues to oppose 
the Toomey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I could name 
it, I could give it an acronym, RTC, which means restore the cut. That 
is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has done, restored 
FEMA and then cut it.
  I want to thank, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), 
for speaking out in opposition to this amendment. It will have a 
terrible impact on our programs.
  I would just say that the writer of this amendment does not 
understand. We need FEMA. We need to prove the point to the American 
public in which Hurricane Andrew, in which I was very much personally 
involved, $1.8 billion in FEMA's money went for that, and for Hurricane 
George, $2.4 billion in FEMA dollars to Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, 
and Mississippi; for Hurricane Hugo, $1.3 billion. I could go on and 
on. For Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, north and south, they 
received funds.
  I hope the gentleman understands that the people of this country do 
not want to resort to some kind of accounting gimmick to see money cut 
and then restored just because it looks good in Houston. We have to see 
what happened in Houston, and the devastating things that happened.
  FEMA needs money. If we want to find a better way to restore FEMA 
funds, I do not know where we will go to find the money, because we are 
cutting Head Start, Pell grants, community policemen, and virtually 
every other nondefense program.
  This Congress should not allow us to do that, in that the gentleman 
is posing a one-third of 1 percent across-the-board cut in all 
nondefense programs except the Veterans Administration. This is going 
to put a big cut in Federal programs. We should not allow an acronym to 
control our fiscal accountability to the people we serve.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would respond to some of these allegations, Mr. Chairman.
  First, I would remind my colleagues that our amendment gives 
discretion to the administration as to how much would be reduced in 
each area, therefore not specifying any particular program requiring a 
cut.
  Secondly, if someone is concerned about restoring funding to FEMA, 
our amendment restores $384 of the $389 million to FEMA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental appropriation bill before 
us has its genesis in the need to address budget shortfalls for our 
Nation's defense.
  Mr. Chairman, the Constitution is clear that national defense is the 
first priority of the Federal government. When we as a Congress think 
about spending taxpayer money, our modus operandi needs to be, defense 
first.
  Mr. Chairman, this has not been the case in recent years. Just 10 
years ago, defense made up more than 60 percent of our discretionary 
spending. Now it is less than 50 percent of discretionary spending. 
Defense has clearly been a lagging priority, and the readiness and 
capabilities of our Nation's Armed Forces have suffered as a result. 
That is why this supplemental is needed.
  So when we talk about offsets, it is perfectly appropriate to look at 
defense through a different lens than we view the rest of spending. 
That said, there is nearly $1 billion of spending in this bill that had 
nothing to do with defense, and frankly, it should not be termed an 
emergency.
  When we look at that money, we have to ask ourselves if the pattern 
that we are setting is appropriate if we are to maintain fiscal 
discipline as a Congress. Mr. Chairman, not long ago we passed an 
important piece of legislation to provide tax relief. This was the 
right thing to do. Americans have had too much of their money taken, 
and when this happens, it happens because the Federal government is 
simply spending too much. This bureaucratic monster is out of control, 
and Congress has simply kept feeding it, feeding it, and feeding it.
  There is no program singled out in this amendment. Any program that 
is deemed vital by the agency directors and department secretaries can 
be exempted, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) has 
indicated. We just call for a simple .33 reduction in spending to make 
up for the increases deemed necessary by the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Voting for this amendment is a vote for fiscal discipline. It will 
help set the pattern for the rest of the year. It will help prove to 
the American people that we can control Federal spending as we look 
forward to providing more tax relief in the future.
  Please support the Toomey-Flake-Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
trying to do, and I agree with the idea that FEMA needs to be restored. 
We got a letter from OMB which says it needs to be restored. We got a 
letter from FEMA which says it needs to be restored. A member of the 
other body wrote us a letter and says it needs to be restored. So I do 
not argue that. Later on, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking 
member of the committee, is going to offer a recommital motion which 
will say that we are going to restore the money.
  But the problem with this cut, at three-quarters, almost at the end 
of the fiscal year, we are cutting veterans' medical care. It does not 
have to be in that area. I know that is what it says. We do not know 
where it might be. We cut VA claim processing, cut Social Security 
Administration, and we cut highway funds. If we look at the back of 
this yellow sheet, we will see the amount of money cut from every 
State.
  Now, there are none of us that travel throughout our State that do 
not need more money for highways. The money for highways comes from the 
taxpayer,

[[Page 11245]]

and we voted this last year, to say that all the money that is 
collected in taxes is going to go to the highway fund. So it would be a 
mistake, in my estimation, for us to in any way make this cut in order 
to restore the FEMA funds.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, to follow up on that point, the 
gentleman is absolutely correct. The highway cuts are rather severe, 
such as the $187 million this would cut from the highway construction 
account, and I would point out that with 75 percent of the fiscal year 
already expired, these monies are obligated.
  The monies being spent, how are we going to get them back if this cut 
should go through? It would be devastating to every State in the Union 
on their highway account.
  Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the gentleman's explanation about 
that if he has anything further on it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Yes, I think it would be certainly devastating to 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman, because the money has already been 
obligated; I think any other State, also, and there are a whole list of 
States that would lose money.
  I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying to do. I went through 
a flood in 1977, which had a devastating impact. FEMA was absolutely 
essential to our recovery. We spent $350 million in Federal money 
trying to help the area, so we are going to help him at some point. But 
we cannot afford to take money out of these programs, the highway 
program in particular, in order to restore the FEMA money.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, he mentioned cuts in VA medical care, $56 million of cuts. 
That is likely, is it not, to come from the hospital care portion of 
VA, and would that not mean that VA would absolutely have to have those 
hospitals send them money back, and retrieve money from every one of 
the 172 VA hospitals? Is that not correct?
  Mr. MURTHA. The gentleman knows how hard we fought over the years to 
increase this. Every administration has not had enough money for 
veterans' affairs, so I would urge the Members to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues that this amendment 
contemplates $1 billion out of a $1,900 billion budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the well this evening to support the efforts 
of my good friends, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo), in their efforts to restore the FEMA rescission and to 
find suitable offsets for the nonveterans, nondefense-related 
appropriations found in this supplemental bill.
  In the few minutes that I have, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I 
believe this measure and this amendment is about putting our house in 
order. It is not, as some Members have suggested, restoring the cut. It 
is not even a reduction, Mr. Chairman. It is just a slightly smaller 
increase.
  I think tonight of all nights, in the wake of the largest tax cut in 
a generation, particularly the members in my party ought to remember 
not the victory of this time, or the victory of 20 years ago, but we 
ought to remember the mistakes of 20 years ago.
  We ought to remember the last time we cut taxes across-the-board for 
all Americans that we in this Congress and even in my own party filed 
to marry that with fiscal restraint, with fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, for the 
sole reason that history is a teacher. We will either learn from it or 
we will be cursed to repeat it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Freylinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would 
harm the existing Veterans Administration budget in three vital areas 
that would affect our Nation's veterans.
  First, in health care, we have all fought for increased medical care 
funding on a bipartisan basis. This amendment would cut almost $70 
million from veterans' medical care, resulting in furloughs of many 
employees that look after these very needy and sick veterans.

                              {time}  2000

  This amendment would be in addition to the over $45 million that was 
cut from the VA medical care as a result of the first across-the-board 
cut.
  Secondly, the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD act delays funds for building 
repairs and equipment purchases until August 1. This amendment would 
cut the amount of money available for hospital and clinic repairs, 
patient safety corrections and new medical equipment for our veterans. 
In addition, it would cut money from vital VA research accounts.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this supplemental provides increased funding of 
$19 million to expedite claims. These claims would be hurt because they 
would not be processed.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey) for yielding me the time.
  The debate on this reminds me of what happens every single time we 
look at Colorado. I imagine this happens with several other States too 
when we look at a reduction in budgets for any entity, especially 
schools. Every time somebody would talk about a potential budget cut 
for the schools, everybody would stand up and say, if you do this, we 
will not be able to buy chalk; if you do this, we will not be able to 
provide transportation to the kids.
  They would use every imaginable sort of hot button issue they could 
think of knowing full well that would never actually come to that 
point; but they know that people would say, oh, well, of course, if you 
cannot buy chalk, we cannot do this.
  When we talk about all the things that would happen if we pass this 
.3 percent budget cut and our colleagues suggest that the hospitals 
have to give money back, all the veterans issues that our colleagues 
bring up would have to end up being cut.
  Remember, of course, that we are not talking about mandatory 
spending. The mandatory spending that the gentleman refers to, 
especially in veterans, has absolutely nothing to do with this 
amendment, talking about discretionary spending.
  We cannot possibly stand here and say here are all the things that 
are going to happen and use the biggest hot buttons issues we can think 
of to suggest that a .3 percent cut would, in fact, make those things 
happen. We know that that would not, in fact, occur.
  We are looking at a Congress that should continue to fund our 
Nation's priorities, I understand. But what we are doing tonight in a 
budget, any budget, is establishing priorities. What we are simply 
asking our colleagues to do this evening is to think about priorities.
  Do you believe that the agencies of this government can do with a .3 
percent budget cut? In the meantime, do you think that that money or a 
good portion of it should better and could better be used by FEMA to 
address the problems that we all agree are national emergencies?
  It seems to me so clear. It seems to me almost incomprehensible that 
we could suggest that somehow this government which has grown so well, 
24 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years, I mean, what family budget has 
grown like that?
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) is 
recognized for 1 minute.

[[Page 11246]]


  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues and put this in 
some context, we have a $1,900 billion budget, plus or minus. We are 
contemplating $1 billion of the $1,900 billion that is going to be 
spent.
  Let us keep in mind also that the reduction is all in discretionary 
spending; it is not in mandatory spending. Veteran benefits is 
mandatory spending. That would not be touched by this.
  Let us bear in mind also that the amendment gives the administration 
the authority to have some flexibility, so they could choose to cut 
some more in some places and not cut at all in other places.
  Let us also, please, keep in mind we are talking about 1/3 of 1 
percent of this Federal budget, meaning that of all of the 
discretionary spending, 99.67 percent, would go forward.
  If our colleagues believe it is important to fund FEMA, and I heard 
many people come down here and say how important this is, this is the 
amendment that does this. We restore a net of $384 million out of $389 
million to FEMA.
  If our colleagues believe it is important to have some spending 
discipline, this is the amendment that does that. It says we will 
offset new spending with reductions. If our colleagues believe in 
honest offsets and debt reduction, I urge support of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, has 1\1/2\ minutes to close.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to correct something that was just said, 
veterans health care is discretionary. Veterans health care is 
discretionary and would be affected by this amendment. I mentioned 
earlier, as have others, 75 percent of the fiscal year has gone by. By 
the time this bill goes to the other body, gets conferenced, goes to 
the White House, 80 percent of the year might be gone.
  The money is going to be spent. This does not work. The money is 
obligated, and it is just not going to work. This amendment is not as 
good as it might sound.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
and Human Services and Education.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, just let me point out a few of the cuts; $67 million on 
medical research, if there is ever a time in medical research that it 
is important, it is now.
  There is $25 million from special ed. Most of the Members say we 
should put more in IDEA. Here we are proposing to cut $25 million from 
the programs for these kids that need special education.
  We heard about LIHEAP earlier. There is $5 million cut from LIHEAP 
when we have an energy crisis. There will be $3.8 million cut from 
community health centers where people can go instead of loading up and 
clogging up the emergency rooms, where the poor people can go and get 
some help; yet we talk about cutting it. A lot of that is done with 
volunteers.
  There is $2 million cut from the immunization program of the Centers 
for Diseases Control. Many of our colleagues saw the news in my 
district recently about the meningitis scare. Two young people died; 
another young lady came close. So as a result, we vaccinated 10,000 
students against meningitis. Yet we are talking about cutting it. We 
remember the shortage of flu shots.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bentsen

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bentsen:
       In chapter 9 of title II, strike the item relating to 
     ``Federal Emergency Management Agency--disaster relief''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today, the 
gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Bentsen) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me say on the previous amendment, I hope the 
House votes down the previous amendment, because that amendment sort of 
adds insult to injury. What the author did was to take the FEMA money 
hostage and use it to try and rewrite the budget that the Congress 
voted on and passed in the last Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that amendment goes down. In addition, that 
amendment would still cut FEMA; that is the wrong direction.
  We have had debates on this today. This amendment is going to be 
struck in a point of order, because of the Budget Act; but the fact is 
that there is not enough money in the FEMA accounts to deal with the 
situation in Texas and Louisiana, not to mention Pennsylvania and other 
disasters like that, and also the State of Wisconsin.
  In fact, in the last 48 hours, FEMA has doubled their estimate of the 
damage costs that they will incur in Harris County alone from a billion 
dollars to $2 billion; and it is estimated that that cost will continue 
to rise, probably to about $4 billion. In fact, the Texas Medical 
Center, which is in my district, looks like it has incurred about $2 
billion of damage on its own.
  There are 50,000 people either removed from their homes or their 
homes are in complete disrepair. This is a major disaster. FEMA only 
has about $1.1 billion of unobligated funds.
  Again, let me say, I understand the committee had to do what it had 
to do to try and make the numbers work, but they did add funding on and 
at the time they did it, they did not realize Allison was going to 
occur; but the President through the Office of Management and Budget is 
opposed to this recision.
  We have one of our Senators from Texas from the other party opposed 
to this recision. We can correct this situation if there is not a point 
of order, although I assume there will be a point of order. If that 
does not work, then I would recommend that Members support the 
recommittal motion by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that will 
correct the situation once and for all.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first, let me remind my colleagues 
that FEMA, which is also under my committee's jurisdiction, currently 
has $1.3 billion available in its emergency fund even after the 
recision goes into effect. I want my colleagues to remember that.
  I would like to also say, Mr. Chairman, that we have to understand 
one thing, I was not here for the Toomey-Flake-Tancredo amendment; but 
it violates the guaranteed funding levels established in T21 and Air 21 
by requiring an across-the-board cut for Federal spending programs.
  Every State and every Member's highway transit project and urgently 
needed airport projects would be subject to reduced fundings. T21 and 
Air 21 have brought much-needed honesty and protections to those 
dedicated-user financed trust fund programs. This amendment attempts to 
thwart the will of Congress.
  America's modus and airplane passengers have already paid for these 
programs in the form of dedicated-user

[[Page 11247]]

taxes which are established to pay for transportation improvements.
  Again, let me restate, FEMA has $1.3 billion available in its 
emergency fund right today. That amount should be sufficient to cut 
FEMA's emergency costs for the balance of the fiscal year.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on both of these amendments.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is 
right. I hope that FEMA has $1.3 billion. It is going to need every 
penny of it to respond to Allison; every penny is going to be needed 
and then some to respond to Allison.
  In Upper Moreland Township in my State, 10 inches of rain fell in 
less than an hour. In a fully developed suburban community with too 
many parking lots and too many impervious surfaces, these small 
backyard creeks, the Pennypack, the Mill Creek, Little Neshaminy Creek, 
usually a couple of inches deep, maybe a couple of feet, Mr. Chairman, 
became flooded 15 feet and 20 feet deep, stretching out hundreds of 
yards wide and flooded out whole neighborhoods.
  In my district, 1,200 homes were flooded, 200 businesses were 
flooded. Almost $5 million in damages to public facilities was 
incurred.
  This is a letter from Governor Ridge to President Bush asking for a 
Federal declaration of disaster to be issued. We have a major disaster 
in Philadelphia from the same storm that so badly affected Houston, 
Texas, and so many communities in between.
  This bill, which rescinds FEMA money, $389 million, is a terrible 
mistake. The previous amendment, I believe, will not succeed. It will 
be voted down, because of the broad across-the-board cuts. The Bentsen 
amendment is the only vehicle we have to restore this money to FEMA 
that is so badly needed.
  If the Bentsen amendment is ruled out of order, I hope that the House 
will pass the Obey recommittal. We have to restore this money. We 
cannot take a chance that FEMA will run short. The Allison bills are 
just beginning to roll in from Pennsylvania, and they are going to be 
enormous. We must act now.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. Chairman, we spent a lot of time trying to determine what funds 
are available in FEMA. And based on, I think, very accurate 
information, we know that the White House, that OMB, and the Treasury 
have $1.1 billion available to them in contingency emergency funds for 
FEMA.
  There is also approximately $900 million in the pipeline from prior 
years' appropriations. Even with a $389 million revision, there still 
is $1.6 billion available for the remainder of this year. When I say 
the remainder of this year, I am saying, July, August, September; three 
more months, $1.6 billion.
  In next year's bill, we intend to appropriate in the neighborhood of 
another $1.5 billion, which would be available as soon as the President 
signed the bill, hopefully in September or October. Those funds then 
become available.
  Mr. Chairman, within the very near future, we have got about $3 
billion to work with. No one knows exactly what the extent of the 
damages are due to Allison; but if we can learn anything from history, 
Hurricane Floyd, which was a very severe hurricane that we all 
remember, we voted on a supplemental appropriation. Hurricane Floyd 
affected 14 States all up and down the east coast, into the Carolinas, 
New Jersey, Florida, all the way up and down; and the total costs to 
FEMA were about $1.1 billion.

                              {time}  2015

  And it was a massive storm. No one knows yet what the estimates are 
for Allison, but it is fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have at least 
$1.6 billion available right now in the pipeline ready to go. And if 
the Congress acts promptly in the fall, we will have another $1.5 
billion. So a total of over $3 billion available.
  We looked very hard to find funds within existing appropriations for 
this rescission. I think it is a fair rescission. I have talked with 
Mr. Allbaugh about it. He is not totally sanguine with it, but he does 
understand the resources he has, and I think he can live with those 
until the next fiscal year begins.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a strong opposition to this amendment 
and urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that 
FEMA's report yesterday afternoon, for Texas alone, is $2 billion. 
These are their numbers and we know the numbers will go up.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Eleven days ago I had a shovel in my hands and I was in my backyard 
trying to clear drains to save my own house. My neighbors were not as 
lucky as me. Nine days ago I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen) and some of my other colleagues, along with Joe Allbaugh, the 
Administrator of FEMA, to tour the devastation we saw throughout 
southeast Texas. We saw lost businesses, lost houses, lost research, 
wrecked lives, lost lives, and yet today we are having a debate on 
allocating disaster funds. Unbelievable.
  Our question is do we put back into the budget the $339 million the 
Committee on Appropriations took out. How can any cut be justified in 
light of the fact that we just had a $4 billion disaster in one part of 
our country?
  My colleagues of the House, please do not turn your backs on these 
people or anyone else who needs help recovering from a catastrophe. 
Support the Bentsen amendment or support the Obey recommittal.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I am going to need all that 
time, and I will yield it back to the chairman of the committee.
  I do not think anyone here can stand back and not be concerned about 
the damages that have occurred in Texas and throughout the country. We 
are all very concerned about it. We would not rescind funds if we did 
not think that there was sufficient funds available. I want to make 
that very, very clear, because this is an important emergency that we 
have to respond to and FEMA needs the resources. As I said, there is 
about $1.6 billion available.
  The gentleman from Texas just pointed out that the FEMA estimates are 
approximately $2 billion for Texas. I believe that is true, but the 
fact of the matter is most of those expenses, most of those losses will 
be covered by private flood and disaster insurance. FEMA is not 
responsible nor would it ever be responsible for all those losses. Many 
of those will be covered by private insurance. So the $2 billion figure 
is not the FEMA requirement.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 50 seconds.
  Let me say to my good friend that I appreciate his sincerity and the 
sincerity of the chairman of the full committee. But I will tell my 
colleagues that they estimate, that probably less than a quarter were 
in the NFIP program; that less than a quarter had flood insurance. They 
estimate that private insurance will pick up less than a quarter of the 
costs, and they estimate the cost is going to rise.
  I know we will get back to it and get money in there. But my concern 
is we are going to hamstring FEMA while they are trying to do this. 
They already have a couple of hundred million allocated to this, and 
they expect to do much more, to move very quickly. I know the committee 
did not do this because they were not concerned about

[[Page 11248]]

Allison or trying to help, because Allison had not occurred when the 
committee was looking to do this.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I have a limited time, but I yield to the gentleman from 
New York for 5 seconds.
  Mr. WALSH. Even in that case, FEMA's responsibility is to do the 
immediate cleanup and then pay for municipal damages, not all private 
damages.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the numbers they are 
talking about are both the residential and the public disaster 
assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we can see, there is a lot 
of need in Texas. And I guess the point to my colleagues, as I support 
this amendment, is this is the right way to do it. This is simply 
striking the rescission of $389 million, and the reason is because we 
need the money now.
  Disaster after disaster, we do not know what this is going to total. 
And might I say that the FEMA Director himself analyzed that the total 
damage is $4 billion. We realize that some of this does not get covered 
by FEMA, but let me say that most people did not expect this and 
therefore they are in areas of flooding, covered areas, that did not 
require flood insurance. This was unexpected.
  We already have $771 million that FEMA is going to utilize for 
temporary grants, but we do not have the remaining dollars that we need 
to cover what FEMA does not know that it is going to have to pay out. 
We have 32,000 homes plus and we have the need of the monies now. To 
take out $389 million does not help us.
  I hope this amendment passes and we can waive the point of order. In 
the alternative, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for their recommittal and 
I hope we support that motion at that time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on 
each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the chairman of the committee is sincere, and I 
think the chairman of the subcommittee is sincere that they are going 
to fund this. I have no doubt that ultimately we are going to probably 
appropriate several billion dollars in disaster assistance to Texas, 
and Louisiana, probably Pennsylvania, not to mention the other 
disasters that are going to occur.
  The gentleman mentions we only have 3 months left in the fiscal year, 
although these are the big three months when we have the hurricanes, 
the forest fires and the like.
  The reason why there is a problem with the rescission at all in the 
FEMA account is because it is being used as a plug figure to make this 
supplemental fit under the budget caps for purposes of the Budget Act. 
And I understand, the committee has to do that. I sit on the Committee 
on the Budget. But to say on the one hand that we are being fiscally 
responsible by putting this rescission in, and then saying, sort of 
with a wink and a nod, but we are going to fix it later does not jibe 
mathematically. It may work for purposes of the Budget Act, but it 
would not match general accounting principles one iota.
  My concern is that the disaster in Texas and in my home county of 
Harris County is so severe and the amount of money that is going out 
the door is so rapid that by taking this $400 million out, if it were 
ever to become law, and quite frankly I do not think the other body is 
going to go along with it, because one of my Senators from Texas over 
there is actually trying to add $.5 billion to $1 billion, and I think 
at the end we are going to have no rescission but I think it is a bad 
start here, at the end of the day. If we were to do this, I think we 
would hamstring FEMA, because I do not think they really know how bad 
this is.
  The three main hospitals in Harris County, Texas are effectively shut 
down. The Level I trauma center is over capacity. The Army had to bring 
in a Level I trauma center for the fourth largest city in the United 
States, the third most populous county in the United States, because 
they do not have the sufficiency in their existing health care 
facilities, where they have the largest medical center in the world, to 
deal with it.
  I appreciate what the committee is trying to do to meet the Budget 
Act, to fund the other things that need to be funded, but on this one 
the committee is just wrong. They are just wrong, and I know they did 
not intend it when they started out but we can correct it. The chairman 
could be gracious and not raise his point of order, though I think he 
is probably going to raise his point of order, but if we do not do 
that, what we can do is, when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
offers his motion to recommit, we can send this bill back to the 
committee forthwith and have it come straight back to the House with 
this rescission corrected and move on with our bid.
  I predict if we do that, we will get the administration's okay, 
because they do not agree with this rescission. President Bush does not 
agree with this rescission. I do not think FEMA likes this rescission, 
and I do not think our colleagues across the Capitol like this 
rescission. So we can move forward to make sure FEMA has the resourses 
to deal with the disaster of Allison.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
enlightening comment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Since we have debated this issue five or six times here this 
afternoon and this evening, I just want to make the point again that 
Congress, since in the times that I have been here, has never refused 
to meet its responsibility when it came to natural disasters, not only 
in the United States but in many parts of the world, and we will 
continue to do so.
  If the gentleman were to be correct that we are wrong, and I do not 
think we are, but if he were to be correct, Congress would react 
quickly to meet any problems that might occur from a natural disaster.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. This Congress may have met its responsibilities to FEMA in 
the past, but right now it is playing let us pretend with this 
rescission.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 19, 2001. 
That was House Report 107-104. This amendment would strike a rescission 
and, therefore, provide in effect a new budget authority in excess of 
the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman advances his point of order. Does the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. BENTSEN. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, because of the time agreement 
that we honored.
  As the chairman read the point of order, I think it underscores the 
point, because he says were this to be allowed, the rescission would 
result in new budget authority. But, in fact, what the rescission does 
is it strikes budget authority that was created by the 106th Congress. 
It really is not new budget authority, but it underscores the nuance of 
the Budget Act and the

[[Page 11249]]

fact that additional spending in this supplemental had to be offset 
both through emergency declaration and then through the rescission of 
FEMA, which I believe, I truly believe, will hamstring FEMA.
  But I appreciate the chairman's sincerity and I will abide by the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair is 
authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget 
under section 312 of the Budget Act that an amendment providing any net 
increase in new discretionary budget authority would cause a breach of 
the pertinent allocation of such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas would, by striking 
a rescission contained in the bill, increase the level of new 
discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, the amendment 
violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                           human space flight

       The last proviso under the heading, ``Human space flight'', 
     in Public Law 106-74, is deleted. Of the unobligated balances 
     made available pursuant to the preceding sentence, 
     $15,000,000 shall be used only for research to be carried out 
     on the International Space Station.

                    GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 2901. (a) The unobligated balances as of September 30, 
     2001, of funds appropriated in the first seven undesignated 
     paragraphs under the heading ``Community development fund'', 
     in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-377), are 
     rescinded.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall be effective on September 30, 
     2001.
       (c) The amount rescinded pursuant to subsection (a) is 
     appropriated for the purposes named in the first seven 
     undesignated paragraphs under the heading ``Community 
     development fund'', of the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
     and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 
     106-377), to remain available until September 30, 2003.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baird

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Baird:
       Page 45, after line 25, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 2902. For payments by the Secretary of Energy to 
     States to provide reimbursements to local educational 
     agencies, and schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
     for the purpose of assisting schools severely impacted by 
     rising energy prices, of which $55,000,000 shall be derived 
     by transfer from the amount provided in this Act for 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'', 
     $21,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the amount 
     provided in this Act for ``Financial Management Service-- 
     Salaries and Expenses'', and $24,500,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the amount provided in this Act for ``Operation 
     and Maintenance, Air Force'', $100,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That a local educational 
     agency or Bureau funded school shall be eligible for 
     assistance under this paragraph only if (1) it has reduced 
     power consumption on a per capita basis at least 10 percent 
     from the previous academic year, and (2) it has power rates 
     that have increased at least 20 percent over the previous 
     academic year: Provided further, That any reimbursement to a 
     local educational agency or Bureau funded school under this 
     paragraph shall be of sufficient size to offset up to 50 
     percent of the increase in annual energy costs to each 
     participating school.

  Mr. BAIRD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against this amendment, but I will not exercise the point of order 
until the gentleman has had his 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations for his courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of a supplemental appropriation is to help 
out when our planning from last year did not adequately anticipate the 
needs of this current fiscal year.

                              {time}  2030

  This is a situation we face on the West Coast and elsewhere in the 
country as we contemplate the tremendous rise in energy prices. In my 
district alone we are facing million dollar increases for some school 
districts. The Vancouver School District and Evergreen School District 
anticipate almost a $1.5 million increase for their energy.
  Other school districts are facing similar problems, not because of 
error or a factor they could control, but largely because of failed 
government policies.
  Mr. Chairman, what I offer today is a $100 million appropriation to 
provide Federal support for schools which have done several things. 
First, they must lower their energy consumption by 10 percent on an 
average per capita basis from the previous year.
  Secondly, they must see a power increase of 20 percent over the 
previous year, so it must be a substantial increase, something they 
could not normally be expected to absorb. And let me state that schools 
do not have funding flexibility from year to year. They are based on 
levies or appropriations from the legislature.
  In addition, this bill does not give a full Federal handout to the 
schools. They must carry half the load, and then the Federal Government 
would help out.
  This is a reasonable and fair bill. We recognize and respect the $6.5 
million cap, and we have proposed three cuts. One, the aforementioned 
$30 million spent on the IRS letter. Secondly, a reduction in funds for 
repair and maintenance of business jets essentially for top brass in 
the military. That money was not actually requested by the Department 
of Defense, but was introduced by the House. In addition, a cut in the 
unrequested money for the air-based laser program.
  We believe if the choice is between letting our children have decent 
books, warm classrooms, and adequate light, this Committee and Congress 
should make the proper choice.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. Not only is the energy crisis in the Western United States 
impacting business and consumers, it is already eroding the meager 
budgets of our schools. The Oregon school administrators recently 
conducted a survey of school districts around the State to get a better 
understanding of what is happening.
  Mr. Chairman, the results of this survey are staggering. The average 
cost of electricity has increased by 29.3 percent. My colleagues have 
to understand, this is going to go up. There is going to be another 
increase in October. In fact, some of our school districts are facing 
100 to 200 percent increase in their utility costs; again with another 
increase due in October. This is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, we already have school districts that are barely making 
it on their budgets, and this is a horrendous cost to them. One of my 
schools, in fact the largest school, has budgeted another $850,000 for 
utility costs. This is money that could be spent on hiring 24 new 
teachers so they can decrease class size. It could be used to purchase 
text books or modernize our classrooms or even use it to perform 
professional development of teachers. School administrators from 
California to Massachusetts are having to make tough choices. Do we 
keep teachers on the payroll or pay the electric bill and keep the 
lights on.
  Schools are having to make these tough decisions in the midst of an 
energy crisis. I am sorry that we can not do this for our schools if we 
do not accept this amendment. This is a situation none of us foresaw, 
and that is what an emergency budget is for.
  This amendment speaks to what our priorities are in this Congress. I 
do not relish having to explain to my constituents that we could not do 
this for our schools.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, these costs were unanticipated. The Federal

[[Page 11250]]

Government has a responsibility to help these schools that had no way 
of paying for these in advance. The reductions elsewhere in the bill we 
believe are reasonable and sound, and we believe this would go a long 
way towards helping schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill; therefore, it 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An 
amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if 
changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction in 
effect, and I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The chairman advances his point of order. Does the 
gentleman from Washington wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, there are existing programs within the Department of 
Energy assistance to schools. While we believe this is somewhat 
different from the exact nature of those programs existing now, we 
believe it is within the same spirit. The premise here is this: the 
Department of Energy has within its purview the opportunity to provide 
money for local schools to help them meet energy costs. We see this 
more as an extension of that program rather than a new authorization.
  Let me reiterate, we have schools that are facing a million dollar 
shortfall in their energy budget, and that is unacceptable. This 
Congress has an opportunity to help those schools out. We believe we 
should do so. We believe the cuts that are offered within this 
amendment are reasonable and fair. While we respect the budget caps, we 
believe we should put our children first. If we really want to say, 
leave no child behind, we should also say leave no child in the dark or 
in the cold, and make sure that they have adequate teachers. This bill 
will help ensure that occurs.
  Mr. Chairman, should we not approve this amendment today, I would 
hope my colleagues would consider joining us if we need to seek further 
authorization in future legislation. I fully intend to introduce 
legislation to that effect.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule, and finds that this 
amendment includes language imparting direction. The amendment, 
therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, 
Human Services and Education regarding funding for the Pell Grant 
maximum.
  I am happy to see that the bill fixes a technical problem with title 
I funding with ESEA and the Department of Education, but I am 
disappointed that we were not able to do the same with the Pell Grant 
maximum funding. In the final fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill, the 
Pell Grant maximum was set at $3,750, a $450 increase over fiscal year 
2000, an increase that will help millions of low-income students go to 
college.
  However, because of unexpected growth in the number of eligible 
students, the fiscal year 2001 Pell Grant appropriation was $117 
million less than the amount actually needed to support the $3,750 
maximum.
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to fix this 
problem, but was hesitant to do so without an offset. Furthermore, we 
had discussed this issue. It is my hope, and I think the gentleman's as 
well, that we may work together to remedy this situation as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern which 
is shared on this side of the aisle. The Pell Grant program is the 
bedrock of student aid programs. I am pleased to say that this Congress 
has increased the Pell Grant program to the highest level in history by 
providing an increase of 60 percent in the maximum grant from $2,340 in 
fiscal year 1995 to $3,750 in fiscal year 2001.
  Offsets are necessary to keep the overall bill within limits, but 
should additional funds become available through the supplemental 
process, we would certainly consider providing extra funds to the Pell 
Grant program.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I appreciate his 
representation, and I look forward to working with him on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                      GENERAL PROVISION--THIS ACT

       Sec. 3001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 3002. Within 5 days of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of State is directed to report to the Committee on 
     Appropriations on the projected uses of the unobligated 
     balances of funds available under the heading ``Agency for 
     International Development, International Disaster 
     Assistance'', including plans for allocating additional 
     resources to respond to the damage caused by the earthquakes 
     that occurred in El Salvador in January and February of 2001.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Sec.   . No funds made available under this Act shall be 
     made available to any person or entity who has been convicted 
     of violating the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
     popularly know as the ``Buy American Act'').

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, Congress has approved building a 
memorial to our dedicated troops which served our Nation in World War 
II. One of the contracts awarded was to a subsidiary of a German 
company which has Nazi roots. They built Nazi war planes; and they have 
some procurement problems to boot.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is fitting.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem on this side with the 
amendment.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote; and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``2001 Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act''.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 171, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 1 by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio); amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); 
amendment in part B by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page 11251]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 50, 
noes 376, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                                AYES--50

     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Filner
     Frank
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Payne
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--376

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cox
     Flake
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Rush

                              {time}  2104

  Messrs. HAYES, RODRIGUEZ, CROWLEY, SCARBOROUGH, LEACH, SPRATT, WATTS 
of Oklahoma, GREEN of Texas, COOKSEY, STUPAK, and Ms. McCARTHY of 
Missouri changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 216, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               AYES--212

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

[[Page 11252]]


     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--216

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cox
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Rush

                              {time}  2115

  Messrs. HERGER, COBLE, GILCHREST, HYDE, COLLINS, and Mrs. WILSON 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Part B Amendment Offered by Mr. Toomey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in part B offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 65, 
noes 362, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 174]

                                AYES--65

     Akin
     Baker
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Blunt
     Burr
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Flake
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Istook
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kingston
     Largent
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Watts (OK)
     Wu

                               NOES--362

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cox
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Rush
     Souder

                              {time}  2126

  Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, WELLER, KERNS, and BRADY of Texas changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KENNEDY of Minnesota, ROYCE, TIAHRT and GOODLATTE changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 11253]]




                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, if I heard correctly, no motion to table a 
motion to reconsider was made after the Obey amendment. Now, I am a 
great believer in giving people third chances, not just second chances, 
and, with all of the switching, I thought we could offer one last 
chance for redemption.
  Would it be in order to move to reconsider the vote on the Obey 
amendment, for Members who did not get their switches in time?
  The CHAIRMAN. In the Committee of the Whole, there is no motion to 
reconsider.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I hate to leave so many Members on the other 
side dangling over the pit of uncertainty. Would it be in order to make 
such a motion in the full House?
  The CHAIRMAN. A separate vote is possible in the House only on an 
amendment that has been reported by the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. FRANK. In other words, the Members are off the hook, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
  There being no other amendments, under the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hansen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2216) 
making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2001, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 171, he 
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.

                              {time}  2130

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     2216, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the bill back to the House promptly with amendments to 
     strike the rescission of $389,200,000 from the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund while 
     complying with all applicable budget constraints.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have two letters in my hand. One letter from 
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison which reads as follows: ``I ask for your 
assistance in supporting any efforts on the House Floor to eliminate 
the provision in the supplemental appropriations bill that rescinds 
FEMA's disaster relief funds.''
  I also have in my hand a Statement of Administration Policy from the 
Bush administration. It says, ``The administration strongly opposes the 
proposed rescission of $389 million in disaster relief funds for 
FEMA.'' Enough said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for a tremendous performance as chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole. Speaking for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), and it is a pleasure. It has been stated many times, says the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, that this supplemental appropriation bill is 
deficient in a number of ways. For this reason, he is moving to 
recommit the bill with instructions to strike the rescission of $389 
million to the Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief 
fund.
  We have heard from a number of eloquent speakers about the 
devastation that has occurred as a result of Tropical Storm Allison and 
the need for disaster assistance. Speaking again for the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), while there are currently monies in the disaster 
relief fund, these funds will not be sufficient to cover all previous 
ongoing or projected disaster requirements.
  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget sent a letter 
prior to the full committee markup on this bill stating he was puzzled 
by this rescission. The director of FEMA has sent a letter to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) expressing his concern about this cut.
  Finally, yesterday the administration sent up its official position 
on the supplemental appropriations bill. It stated, ``The 
administration strongly opposes the proposed rescission of $389 million 
in disaster relief funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.''
  The rescission should eliminate much of the normal FEMA funding 
needed by the agency to provide quick and effective assistance to 
disaster-stricken communities and victims. Given the disaster relief 
need due to the impact of Tropical Storm Allison as well as other 
disasters, this is not the time to be cutting FEMA. Instead of taking a 
reduction in disaster relief or making a mindless decision to take on 
across-the-board cuts to all Federal agencies as an offset, this motion 
would send the bill back to the Committee on Appropriations where 
thoughtful deliberations could take place as how best to proceed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this money will be needed. We might as well 
admit it now. This amendment does not kill the bill, it simply tells 
the committee to come back with other actions consistent with House 
rules to save full funding for FEMA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Definitely and enthusiastically, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our community in Houston has been 
devastated by Tropical Storm Allison. As disheartening as that is, the 
only thing more disheartening is to hear the demagoguery about it on 
this floor today. My colleagues in Congress who are using scare tactics 
to needlessly heap even more misery on to the families and businesses 
harmed by Allison ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  I too have a letter. It is from FEMA, not from politicians, and it 
says, ``FEMA's disaster account has sufficient funding to ensure 
disaster aid to those victims of Tropical Storm Allison flooding. FEMA 
assures those in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida fighting to recover now 
that FEMA stands ready and is able to help them.''
  The fact of the matter is that over the next 3 months, we cannot 
spend the $1.5 billion FEMA has. The fact of the matter is that our 
accounts will be about a billion and a half dollars for that, like 
Tropical Storm Floyd has done and, the fact of the matter is, even if 
it is a little more, in the last 5 years, Congress has allocated $17 
billion to help communities recover.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
motion to recommit. Number one, the way the motion is written, it would 
send this bill back to the committee. The process would start all over 
again, and that

[[Page 11254]]

process takes a long time to get back to the floor. In the meantime, 
the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps and the 
United States Coast Guard are doing without money that they really need 
for operations today, that they need for fuel costs that have been 
increasing so dramatically, that they need to pay medical expenses that 
are $1.5 billion in arrears already. We do not want to see this problem 
being created with our military services. This would kill the bill. We 
do not want to kill this bill. We spent all day long here getting it 
ready to pass. I sure do not want to have to do it again.
  Let us vote down this motion to recommit, come back here tomorrow, 
and let us do the Interior Appropriations and get out for the weekend 
so that we can all go home and see our constituents.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 9 of rule XX, the vote on 
passage will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 218, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 175]

                               AYES--209

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

                               NOES--218

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cox
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Royce
     Rush

                              {time}  2155

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 341, 
nays 87, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                               YEAS--341

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee

[[Page 11255]]


     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--87

     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Royce
     Sanders
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cox
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Rush

                              {time}  2203

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

                          ____________________