[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13084-13097]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2216, 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 
                                  ACT

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for 
other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                 Motion Offered By Mr. Young Of Florida

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII 
and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Young of Florida moves that the bill (H.R. 2216) making 
     supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
     amendment thereto, be taken from the Speaker's table, that 
     the House disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
     conference asked by the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to go to conference is basically a routine 
motion. We need to get to conference on this supplemental. We have 
military operations, training activities, we have readiness issues 
ready to close down if we do not provide the additional money that is 
needed. Much of the money that has been used already from the fourth 
quarter accounts of the military have gone to pay for things like 
higher fuel costs, like all of us will have to do at the fueling pumps, 
to pay for medical expenses that have already been incurred by members 
of the military, their families and retirees, that have already been 
incurred but have not been paid. They need to be paid.
  There are other items included in this conference, and time is 
extremely important. I suggest that we should get on with moving this 
bill into the conference so that we can actually sit down with our 
counterparts in the other body, have the conference, and have a 
supplemental bill ready to report back to the House early next week.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Of course I yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman intend to yield to this 
side of the aisle any time?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was not going to until the 
gentleman asked. I would be more than happy to yield to the gentleman. 
Would he like to name a specific amount of time?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it depends on how much time the gentleman 
intends to take. Normally it is an hour, but it can be less than that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, actually I am ready to vote, but I 
would yield to the gentleman 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr Speaker, could we make it 20 minutes on this side?

[[Page 13085]]


  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 20 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I would advise him that I do 
not intend to use much more time on this. The issue is so important 
that we need to get to it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for 20 minutes to control of debate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are caught up in two issues here this morning. One 
is, of course, the issue before us, the question of the proper 
disposition of the motion to go to conference on the supplemental 
appropriations. But we are also, in debating that issue, caught up in 
the larger question this morning of what is going to happen for the 
rest of this day as we move into the subject that will dominate debate 
for the rest of the day, campaign finance legislation.

                              {time}  1115

  It had been the reasonable expectation of reformers on both sides of 
the aisle, I believe, that the two competing propositions would be 
allowed to face each other in a stand-up, fair fight, Shays-Meehan on 
one side of the issue and the Ney-Wynn proposition on the other side of 
the issue. Instead, the Committee on Rules has not allowed that to 
happen. What they have done is report a rule which will require 
campaign finance legislation to be debated under very strange 
circumstances. It will not allow Shays-Meehan to present their package 
as a coherent whole. It requires some 12 amendments to be voted on 
separately. I would say that that is sort of like telling people to go 
into a car dealer if they want to buy a car and telling them they have 
to buy one that is disassembled; they will have to buy a transmission 
separately; they will have to buy the tires separately; they will have 
to buy the motor separately.
  That is not the way you buy cars, and that is not the way we ought to 
legislate. We ought to have a fair fight between the two principal 
propositions that we will be asked to choose between today. But instead 
we are not going to be given a fair fight, because apparently the 
people who designed these rules think the only way they can win the 
debate is to stack the deck. I think that is unfortunate because I 
think we have evidence on both sides of the aisle that there are 
Members who want true reform and are willing to vote for it.
  I would simply say that I have substantial doubts about the wisdom of 
either of the propositions that will be brought before us. But if the 
House leadership will go through these kind of machinations and this 
kind of manipulation and these kind of contortions in order to block 
the incredibly tepid reform represented by Shays-Meehan, I would hate 
to see what they would do to block comprehensive reform of campaign 
finance legislation.
  Let me also say a bit about the motion before us. I do not, when the 
time comes, expect to vote against the motion to go to conference; but 
I will ask for a rollcall vote on it. I want to express some concerns 
about what we ought to do on that proposition.
  We are being asked to go to conference on a bill which everyone 
understands is totally inadequate even by administration standards. The 
administration has told us in the words of the FEMA director, Mr. 
Albaugh, and also in the words of Mr. Daniels, the OMB director as 
quoted in the Houston Chronicle, that they will probably need 
considerably more money than is presently appropriated for FEMA. Yet 
the House bill for the supplemental actually rescinds existing 
appropriations for FEMA. That makes no sense whatsoever.
  Secondly, the administration is planning to spend $30 million on a 
political mailing to tell people that they are going to get a tax cut 
check, and they already know they are going to get a tax cut check. 
Meanwhile, the Congress is refusing to appropriate the money necessary 
to the victims of radiation poisoning, a claim which has already been 
clearly established and an entitlement which has already been clearly 
established. So they are willing to spend money on this political 
mailing, but they are not willing to deliver these payments to people 
who are sick and dying who have been literally fried by their own 
government. I do not think that makes much sense.
  Thirdly, even though the administration has asked us to provide 
funding to protect public health and to protect the health of our farm 
stock from the twin problems of mad cow disease and foot and mouth 
disease, this Congress has chosen not to appropriate funds requested by 
the administration for those items. When the proper time comes, I will 
have a motion instructing conferees to accept those three changes in 
the House bill. But for now I want to make clear that this additional 
step this morning has been required because of the anger that is felt I 
think on the part of people on both sides of the aisle about the 
stacked deck that has been provided to us in the rule on campaign 
finance.
  This House ought to be able to debate these two issues straight up 
and not be hampered by indirection and manipulation. The name of the 
game is clear. It is the hope of the people who designed this rule on 
campaign finance that they can pick off one or more of those 12 
separate fix-up amendments to Shays-Meehan and in the process prevent 
people from voting on the entire comprehensive, coherent package. That 
is indeed unfortunate. I think it is an abuse of the process, but it is 
not the first time we have seen that around here.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I listened with interest to the gentleman's discussion. I checked my 
schedule, the card that I carry to tell me where I am supposed to be 
all day long. I thought we were here talking about a supplemental 
appropriations bill for national defense and for other health issues 
and other emergency disaster issues. I did not realize that this motion 
had anything at all to do with campaign finance reform. That is because 
it does not. Absolutely nothing. And then I thought, are we on a tax 
bill? No, we are not on a tax bill. This has nothing to do with a tax 
bill. So I am not sure where we are going with this debate.
  I mentioned in my opening comments about the needs of the Army, the 
Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. Let me tell 
Members what else is in this supplemental bill, that has nothing to do 
with campaign finance reform or with the tax refund except for the 
money to mail out the refund checks.
  This legislation will address emergency needs related to natural 
disasters, a number of which have occurred; including recent floods, 
ice storms, in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma and Texas; the Seattle earthquake; and approximately 300 
wildland fires that we have had to deal with. These needs are also 
covered in this supplemental appropriations bill. Assistance is 
important to all of the communities that suffered these terrible 
disasters.
  Additional energy needs are met for the poorest of the poor, those 
who need help with their energy assistance. LIHEAP, a program that 
everybody in this Chamber knows about, is provided $300 million in this 
bill. I think that is a program that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
supports enthusiastically. We did increase it over the President's 
request to the $300 million mark. Also in this bill is $160 million to 
implement last year's conference agreement on Title I, Education for 
the Disadvantaged. There is $115 million to enable the Department of 
Treasury to mail out the tax rebate checks. If people have tax rebate 
checks coming to them, we ought to mail them out.
  Mr. Speaker, the discussion today is about sending this bill to 
conference. We need to get this bill to conference so we can work out 
the differences between the House bill and the Senate bill. They are 
not that great, actually. We will be able to bring this conference back 
to the House, I believe, early next week if we can get to conference 
today.

[[Page 13086]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate one thing that the 
gentleman from Florida spoke about. There is a problem called ``hold 
harmless'' in title I education funds, to where the States that are 
losing population maintain a certain level, but those States that are 
gaining children that are impoverished do not get additional dollars. I 
worked with a Senator in the other body from California, we brought it 
to conference; and we decided to fund both until we can find resolution 
to that. Guess what? There was not enough money to do that. So those 
children that are the poorest of the poor in title I funds, this 
supplemental takes care of it. That is one of the reasons this is 
important.
  Secondly, we met with Secretary Rumsfeld this morning. While all the 
12 appropriations bills have been going up, if you have got a baseline, 
up to a level like this, Defense with all of the deployments we have 
had, the cost is down here in the cellar. Even this supplemental will 
only bring us up to a level here. It will not even bring us back up to 
the baseline.
  Secretary Rumsfeld said that one of the most important things that 
will happen if we do not get this besides all of the ships and things 
and the repairs and the training that stops, our TDY personnel, that is 
temporary duty orders, and our permanent moves, right now it is the 
summertime when our military folks' kids are out of session and they 
are trying to get their families moved in to their next base so that 
they can enroll their children into the schools. If we do not hurry up 
and do this, that is going to be delayed; and all of those families, 
the disruption of not having your child entered into a school is going 
to be affected. So we strongly support this amount in this 
supplemental. It is critical. We should have done it before we left for 
our Fourth of July break, and now it is even more critical.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Florida has indicated what is in 
this bill. There is no argument about what is in this bill. I intend to 
vote to go to conference. The problem is what is not in this bill. It 
does not contain the roughly $1 billion that we have been given 
indications from the administration itself that in the end we will need 
to meet our obligations in dealing with the disasters cited by the 
gentleman from Florida, including the huge disaster in Houston and 
several in other States, including my own. It does not contain the 
money requested by the administration to protect this country from foot 
and mouth disease and from mad cow disease. And it does not contain the 
money that is needed to pay the victims of radiation poisoning who are 
entitled to that money. We will have a motion to instruct asking that 
those three items be included.
  With respect to the other point made by the gentleman, I fully grant 
that this issue does not involve campaign finance. But when what I 
believe to be a majority of this House, composed of people on both 
sides of the aisle, when that House majority has been denied the 
opportunity by the Committee on Rules that runs this House, when they 
have been denied the opportunity to vote on the package that they 
believe ought to pass for campaign finance reform, except in piecemeal 
fashion, then there are only so many tools available for that majority 
to protest what is going on. That is why we are having this additional 
debate this morning. I regret the fact that it takes the time, but not 
nearly as much as I regret what the Committee on Rules did to what I 
believe is the majority will of this House.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), who is a member of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I normally would not rise to get into this 
debate, but I just got back from visiting our troops in Korea. They 
need our help. I just got back from Italy from visiting our troops. 
They need our help. I visited my base at home. They need our help.
  I think, with all due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin, I like 
the gentleman from Wisconsin and we are friends, but I think to use our 
servicepeople and involve them in a disagreement over a political 
matter in this House, I cannot stand idly by and not speak that I think 
that is inappropriate. Our people in the field need to train, they need 
care, they need help. To allow them to become part of a partisan battle 
here I think is inappropriate.

                              {time}  1130

  We voted on this. We should pass this. We should get this help.
  I just came back from the Defense Department. They need a lot more 
help, because we have underfunded the Defense Department. They admit 
they have waste, they admit they have problems, and they are trying to 
change them. I think that we should get on with that and not bring 
other debates into a situation where our troops and their lives and 
their training and their families on these PCS changes and everything 
else is affected. It is not appropriate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out it is the majority in this House that 
held this supplemental up for 4 months. This debate does not have one 
whit to do with whether our military personnel will get the help they 
need or not. They will. They will have virtually unanimous support on 
both sides of the aisle. To suggest that aid to them will be delayed by 
1 day is absurd, preposterous, nonsense. Everybody on both sides of the 
aisle is going to be for that aid. What we want to see in addition is 
other obligations of the government also met to American citizens, 
including the American citizens who were literally killed by their own 
government through the use of nuclear testing and other problems 
associated with conducting nuclear tests. That has nothing whatsoever 
to do with whether our military personnel will get the funds they need. 
Of course they will.
  I challenge the gentleman to name one person involved in this bill on 
either side of the aisle who is opposed to that money. He cannot 
because there are not any.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am curious where the figure of 4 months comes from, 
where they held this bill up for 4 months. We passed this bill on the 
June 20, which was about 2 weeks after we got the request from the 
White House. The House expedited consideration of this measure, brought 
it to the floor; and we passed this bill.
  The problem has been that the other body did not take it up right 
away, and they just passed it a few days ago. So I do not know where 
the gentleman got the idea that we delayed it for 4 months, because we 
did not delay it at all.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to tell the gentleman. The 
White House itself announced they were not going to send down the 
request for the supplemental until after the tax bill was finished 
because they did not want to upset the apple cart on their tax bill.
  The last time I looked, the White House was in Republican hands, as 
is the majority of this House.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I just wanted to make sure that the gentleman 
was not saying that the House delayed this bill, because the House did 
not delay this bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the 
administration itself delayed the request for over 2 months until they 
could get their precious tax gift to rich people out of the Congress.

[[Page 13087]]


  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman if 
he would answer this question: Will the gentleman agree then that the 
House actually did expedite the bill once we got the request?
  Mr. OBEY. Absolutely, no problem with the timing. I have a lot of 
problems with the timing of the White House on this one.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for that response.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what this argument is about today, because 
everybody knows we have to go to conference on this bill. Now when we 
bring the conference report back or during the conference itself, there 
will be some negotiations and there will be some discussions. There may 
be some things added and some things taken away, but the truth of the 
matter is, we sent this bill to the Senate at $6.5 billion, which was 
the amount that was agreed upon by the House and the Senate. The Senate 
leadership said that they would not go above $6.5 billion. Their bill 
is a little different than ours, but that is also not unusual. That is 
why we go to conference, to work out those differences.
  So I am not sure what this argument is all about. In the beginning, 
it sounded like it was about campaign finance reform, but I do not 
think that is the case. We need to get this bill into conference, Mr. 
Speaker, so I am going to ask for a very strong yea vote so that we can 
continue the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
supplemental but in opposition to the rule for the Shays-Meehan bill. 
What we needed was a fair fight, an up or down vote on Shays-Meehan, a 
quality, balanced, bipartisan campaign finance bill that a majority of 
this House has supported twice and that has already passed the Senate.
  We needed a fair rule. But what did we get? We got a mine field. We 
got Shays-Meehan shattered, fragmented, broken into 14 separate parts 
that needs to be reassembled in separate votes into that fragile flower 
called consensus. After the mine field, more poison pill votes. 
Apparently the leadership felt they could not win on the merits so they 
had to manipulate the process to shortchange the American people once 
again. Campaign finance reform is the litmus test for real change in 
this Congress. And the real litmus test for supporters of campaign 
finance reform is voting against this destructive, unfair, undemocratic 
rule.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), our ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to go to conference, and 
also support of the later motion to instruct conferees to oppose 
rescission of funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, 
the disaster relief fund. The Senate restored the $389 million that was 
cut in our original supplemental that passed here, but estimates now 
say that FEMA may need as much as a billion dollars between now and 
October 1. The need for money in this fund is real and it is pressing 
and we should not be reducing or cutting any funding from FEMA.
  Already this year there will be 27 major disaster declarations across 
our country, including the devastating funds in my hometown of Houston 
and across southern Texas, southeastern Texas, Louisiana, and even up 
into Philadelphia from Tropical Storm Allison. The damage estimates 
from this declaration alone are estimated to be $5 billion. 
Traditionally, FEMA pays about half of this amount in damage assistance 
so we are talking about $2.5 billion.
  Since FEMA's disaster budget is only $1.6 billion total, we need to 
make sure that funding is increased and not decreased. There is still a 
lot of time left in this fiscal year, and I would expect we have not 
seen the last of the disaster declarations and thus need more funding 
for disaster relief.
  To date, FEMA has had 85,000 disaster relief applications in the 
Houston area from Tropical Storm Allison. Of the 70,000 homes that FEMA 
inspected, 67,000 of those inspections are completed and 3,500 were 
completely destroyed. Over 10,000 suffered major damage and 33,000, 
almost 34,000, have minor damage, totaling 47,999 affected properties.
  Of the more than $500 million initially allocated for this disaster 
by FEMA, $434 million, or 84 percent of these funds, have already been 
committed; and we are not even 2 months after the disaster. That is, 
they either have been or will be sent out to those in need of 
assistance.
  That $434 million is already more than the $389 million that we cut 
in the last supplemental that passed this House. Remember, this is just 
one disaster with $5 billion in damages. Twenty-six other parts of our 
country have suffered disasters of varying degrees. That is why I would 
hope the House would agree with the Senate and restore the $389 million 
as the first step, and we need to make sure that we provide FEMA the 
money not just for my own constituents but also for all the people in 
our country who have experienced disasters.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the motion to instruct 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will offer shortly. As my 
colleague, the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Green) just spoke of 
Tropical Storm Allison, the damage that has been done is unbelievable. 
Last week, my colleagues the gentlemen from Texas (Mr. Delay) and (Mr. 
Brady) and I were joined by Secretary of Health and Human Services 
Thompson when we toured the Texas Medical Center, which is in the 25th 
district that I represent. This is the largest medical center in world.
  As a result of Tropical Storm Allison, it is estimated the damage to 
that medical center alone will exceed $2 billion. The three main 
hospitals are shut down. The City of Houston and Harris County, the 
fourth largest city, the third largest county in the United States, is 
now operating with one level-one trauma center because the other level-
one trauma center, Herman Hospital, has been shut down and will be shut 
down for several months.
  The two main medical schools, Baylor College of Medicine and the 
University of Texas Health Science Center are shut down as a result of 
this storm. This is an area that trains a large portion of our doctors, 
including one of the largest percentages of pediatricians are trained 
through the Texas Medical Center, and a large portion of that is shut 
down. As my colleague mentioned, the Harris County Tax Collector 
Assessor estimates the damage close to $5 billion and FEMA now 
estimates their obligation to date to be about $2.4 billion, of which 
they paid out already about $400 million.
  That being said, FEMA only has approximately $800 million in direct 
and contingency appropriations on hand in order to cover this storm, 
not to mention the affects of Allison in Louisiana, Florida, and 
Mississippi; not to mention the storms that just occurred in West 
Virginia; not to mention other storms that have occurred; not to 
mention the other storms that will occur for the remainder of the 
fiscal year.
  As my colleague mentioned, 85,000 people in the 30 counties that were 
affected in Texas have filed claims with FEMA. 60,000-plus homes have 
been inspected. 3,500 homes are already deemed to have been destroyed 
beyond repair and that number will certainly go up.
  The fact is that the money that FEMA currently has in their disaster 
accounts now is insufficient, and to take $389 million out would be a 
grave mistake.
  The other body has seen the wisdom of this and they have restored the

[[Page 13088]]

money; and, in fact, they added a million dollars as a place holder to 
look at adding to this.
  The director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Daniels, 
told our committee, the Committee on the Budget, the other day, he told 
the Senate Committee on the Budget subsequently, that they believed 
that FEMA will need additional money in the current fiscal year.
  Now as I said, in the past, when we debated this, when the committee 
on the House side chose to rescind the $389 million, Tropical Storm 
Allison had not yet occurred, and had the committee marked up the bill 
a week later after Tropical Storm Allison, I strongly believe that they 
would not have chosen to rescind it because they could not have 
foreseen the disaster that was going to occur.
  This was a 500-year event, meaning that it has a half of a percent of 
a chance of happening in any given year, but it did occur.
  So I would hope that the House will adopt the motion of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to instruct, that the House, when it goes to 
conference with the Senate on this otherwise very important bill, will 
recede to the Senate's position, restore the $389 million; and I would 
hope, even more to the point, that the House and the Senate conference 
will go further and add the billion dollars that is estimated because 
it is going to be far greater than that. But we know we will have other 
disasters, and we will have to respond because it is an essential 
function of the government. And Congress should not be standing in the 
way of that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, very briefly, when the vote comes, I will join my 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and ask the people to 
vote yes on the motion. I will also ask them to vote yes on a later 
motion that we will make to add three items to this proposition. We 
will simply be asking the House to approve three Senate actions that 
would eliminate the rescission for FEMA, that would fund the 
administration request for mad cow disease and for hoof and mouth 
disease, and to fund the claims for radiation victims, many of whom are 
sick or dying and some of whom have already died.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am happy to hear the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) say that he will vote for this motion. I hope 
that everybody will vote for this motion so we can get to the business 
of the conference.
  I would point out that the gentleman from Wisconsin will be an 
important member of that conference committee and will have every 
opportunity to make whatever suggestions that he has; and I am 
satisfied that he would be very influential in that conference 
committee, as he always is. But we need to vote. I do not know if the 
gentleman is going to ask for a rollcall vote or not, but we need to 
get on with the conference. I would like to get the conference work 
done before the House adjourns for the weekend.


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 2216, as well as on any motion to go to 
conference on H.R. 2216, and that I may include tabular and extraneous 
material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423, 
nays 3, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               YEAS--423

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     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
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     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 (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     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
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry

[[Page 13089]]


     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     DeFazio
     Filner
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Foley
     Jefferson
     Lewis (CA)
     Morella
     Paul
     Scarborough
     Spence

                              {time}  1208

  Mr. STARK changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 224, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 224, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''


                 Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2216 be instructed:
       (1) to insist that no provision to rescind funds from the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund be 
     included in the conference report on H.R. 2216;
       (2) to agree to the provision contained in the Senate 
     amendment that appropriates an additional $35,000,000 for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--Animal and Plant Health 
     Inspection Service--Salaries and Expenses''; and
       (3) to agree to the provision contained in the Senate 
     amendment that appropriates an additional $84,000,000 for 
     ``Payment to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund'' for 
     claims covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) each will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think more than a few Members of this House and a lot 
of people outside of this institution have been pleasantly surprised at 
the relative unity this House has had on a bipartisan basis on 
appropriation bills this year.
  Last night we passed the agriculture appropriations bill with 95 
percent support in this House. We had similar majorities which 
supported the transportation bill, the energy and water bill, the 
interior bill. And it seems to me that that kind of consensus we have 
been able to develop on each of those bills has been good for both 
parties, it has been good for the House, it has been good for the 
country. It helps us to get our work done, and it helps us to build a 
foundation for cooperation on other items. I think it has been a very 
positive thing and something we have not seen enough of in this House 
in recent years.
  However, the legislation which the majority is asking us to pass 
today in this bill does not represent that type of consensus. It is not 
bipartisan legislation. It has been handed down from on high. I think 
it is severely constrained by a narrow, partisan, ideological judgment 
about how we spend our money and how we meet the country's needs, and I 
think the current situation illustrates clearly how misguided that 
judgment is.
  There are a few people on the other side of the aisle and people in 
the White House who have taken the position that once Congress has 
passed a budget plan, we have to put together our bills through the 
year, and that we cannot address any other needs beyond those 
anticipated in the original plan. It does not matter how much 
circumstances change; it apparently does not matter what the magnitude 
of natural disasters are that strike; it does not matter, I suppose, if 
we decide to go to war. If we have only a few months left in the fiscal 
year and a hurricane strikes, we can wait until October 1 to provide 
assistance, or we can fire IRS agents or close down some other badly 
needed program in order to find the money to pay for that disaster 
assistance. That, in essence, is the point of view that is controlling 
the consideration of this bill.
  Now, some people are having difficulty understanding the term 
``faith-based initiative.'' I think an example might be our disaster 
assistance program. We are praying that we do not have any more storms. 
We are trying to preclude acts of God from getting in the way of our 
budget process. I think that is an arrogant way for human beings to go 
about legislating, but so be it; that apparently is the mindset around 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out, and this chart demonstrates one 
example, which shows what happened to one highway in Houston after the 
reign of terror in June of 2001. Currently, we are trying to cope with 
that huge gulf storm. Damage in a single county in Texas was estimated 
to be $4.8 billion.

                              {time}  1215

  The director of FEMA called me and told me that he thought that it 
could be possible that they would need significant additional money 
above the amount already appropriated by this Congress, and when 
contacted by the Houston Chronicle, OMB director Daniels stated, and I 
quote, that ``It is highly likely'' that FEMA's budget will need 
another boost this year.
  What is going to happen with this bill? OMB told my office last night 
they are not planning to make a request. They are hoping to slide by on 
existing funds. If everything goes right and if God decides that the 
weather is not going to operate the way it normally does, we may just 
make it through. But if we have a normal year and we have a couple of 
hurricanes after we leave here in August, what then? We are not going 
to have the money to respond to those disasters.
  What are we going to do then? Are we going to go down to Texas and 
deobligate money that we have initially provided? I would hope not. But 
whatever happens, without additional funding, we will not be providing 
normalcy to people who are affected by those storms.
  Why is that? The reason is that all of the needs facing the Federal 
Government apparently must be met within a $6.5 billion package. Why is 
that? That is because that number was picked out by Congress last 
December when we were trying to get out of here in time for Christmas.
  Does that number have any relationship to the current projected 
surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare? No, it does not. Did 
we know at the time how much rising fuel costs would affect steaming 
costs for the Navy or training exercises in the Air Force? No, we did 
not. Did we know how much those costs would deplete spare parts 
inventories for aircraft, tank, and ships? No, we did not.
  Did we know we were going to face major electricity blackouts in most 
of the western United States? No, we did not. Did we know we were going 
to have a severe storm hit the gulf coast in the month of June? No, we 
did not. I did not know that a tornado with 250 mile-an-hour winds was 
going to hit a town in my own congressional district.
  We did not know any of those things. Yet, we are being told that we 
have to stick within that magic number because that is what the number 
was defined as last summer. That is a ridiculous way to legislate.
  When this conference report comes back, it will be the last train 
through the station for the year. If Mitch Daniels or others at the 
White House think there is a high probability or even a significant 
probability that additional FEMA funds will be needed, and evidently 
they do, then they ought to ask for them, rather than to pretend that 
this problem does not exist.
  In my view, we are playing a stupid numbers game with the lives of 
people

[[Page 13090]]

who have already gone through a great deal just to insist that the 
numbers concocted in the middle of the night 8 months ago are the right 
numbers.
  So consequently, I will be asking the House in this motion to do 
three things. First, I ask that we accept the Senate judgment and 
eliminate the action of the House in rescinding previously-approved 
money for FEMA. Everybody in this House knows that we are going to need 
that money. Let us fess up.
  Secondly, I am going to ask that we instruct the conferees to recede 
to the Senate and accept the funds which the administration requested 
but the House deleted to deal with foot and mouth disease and mad cow 
disease.
  Thirdly, I will ask the House to instruct conferees to recede to the 
Senate and accept the money needed to process the checks that are owed 
to victims of radiation exposure. Some of those people are extremely 
ill. Some have already died.
  These are people who were exposed, in many instances unknowingly, to 
radiation as a result of the development, testing, and transportation 
of radioactive material by the Federal Government. In other words, 
those people were fried by their own government. It seems to me that a 
government that can spend $30 million on a political mailing to tell 
people that they are going to get a tax cut is a government that should 
not be simultaneously denying already-earned benefits to people who are 
dying and need that money now, not after they are in the grave.
  I would also point out that the administration itself sent a letter 
commending the Senate ``for not including the provision in the House-
passed version of the bill that would have rescinded $389 million in 
disaster relief funding for FEMA.''
  I would urge Members to listen to the administration on this item, 
and listen to us on the other two items, do what we know we are going 
to have to do, and instruct the conferees to accept these three items.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to start by saying I appreciate the gentleman's comments 
about the bipartisan way we have been dealing with appropriation bills. 
He is exactly right, we have worked together very well. We have had 
some differences, but that is not unexpected nor unusual for the bill 
we are talking about now, the supplemental appropriations bill.
  He mentioned the agriculture bill passing with about 90 percent aye 
votes. The truth of the matter is that the bill we are now discussing 
passed the House with 80 percent of the vote. So there was a very large 
vote in the House for the bill as the committee wrote it as modified by 
three amendments that were agreed to in the House during the debate on 
that bill.
  So I appreciate the fact that we can work together. I think, before 
this is over, we will end up having worked together and produced a good 
conference report.
  The difficulty with accepting a motion to instruct on a bill that 
does not have that many differences to start with is that it really 
ties the hands of the House negotiators. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be one of the chief negotiators when we go to conference with the 
Senate.
  We should not do that negotiation here on the floor. That is why we 
have conference committees in the first place.
  I was asking the gentleman to yield, but he was very busy with his 
statement and he did not yield. I was going to ask the gentleman, a 
question. He talked about the FEMA rescission in the House bill, and we 
did talk about that at length when we debated the bill on the floor on 
June 20. The fact is that this Congress, under the Republican majority 
or the Democratic majority, never ignored the needs of our communities 
when it came to disasters. Whatever funds were needed, we made them 
available. I do not think that is a concern.
  I was going to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to amend his 
motion to recommit just to include the issue of FEMA. We would be happy 
to accept it if he would amend it. But we do not want to have our hands 
tied going into conference. We need the ability to negotiate with the 
other body, which is the same ability that the other body has to 
negotiate with us. Then we will produce a conference report that I 
think at least 80 percent of the House would agree with.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would like me to respond, and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding, let me simply say I appreciate the gentleman's 
suggestion. I think that demonstrates that even he understands that we 
need to reject what the House originally did with respect to FEMA.
  But I would say that I cannot accept the gentleman's offer because I 
think there is no rational reason whatsoever for the House not to do 
what the Senate has already done and to provide the money that we badly 
need in the agricultural area, and to provide the money that we know we 
have a moral obligation to provide to the victims of radiation 
poisoning. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would 
suggest to the gentleman that we do not do conferences here on the 
floor of the House or on the floor of the Senate, we do the conferences 
in conference committees. We do that because there has to be give and 
take.
  There has to be negotiation. If we adopt this motion to recommit, we 
tie the hands of the conferees. The other body will not tie the hands 
of their negotiators. So I think it is a mistake to adopt this motion 
to recommit.
  As far as the FEMA issue is concerned, we have had numerous meetings 
already with the potential conferees in the other body. We are pretty 
much agreed that we have found other ways to provide that money without 
getting into the FEMA fund. So we do not really need that part of it.
  When the gentleman from Wisconsin chaired the committee, he did not 
look favorably upon motions to instruct when he took the committee to 
conference because it tied his hands. That is the same thing here.
  We do not have that many differences. We will be able to produce a 
good conference report that at least 80 percent of the House will agree 
to, but we need the flexibility. Do not tie our hands as we go to 
conference with the Senate, because their hands will not be tied in any 
way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to tie the hands of the conferees on these 
three items, because I think there is absolutely no reason for us to 
use these items as leverage.
  I think the people who are eligible for these funds and need these 
funds need to know that they are going to get them, and the sooner we 
do that, the better off everybody is going to be.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding 
time to me. I thank the chairman of the Committee for going to 
conference, because obviously I want to go to conference, but my 
concern is that we need to make sure we restore the funding to FEMA, 
and even look at the emergency needs that we will have, not just for my 
area in Houston, but all across the country.
  I rise in support of the motion of the ranking member to instruct 
conferees, particularly the section on restoring funds for FEMA. The 
need for the money is real. Again, FEMA's budget is $1.6 billion. The 
flood in Houston alone was $5 billion. FEMA typically pays half of the 
loss, so that is $2.5 billion. We will have more emergency needs in the 
last 3 or 4 months of the fiscal year.
  I spoke earlier, but let me share with you a story of a frustration 
that I know a lot of people have when they

[[Page 13091]]

have these floods. I have a senior citizen couple. He is 70 years old, 
she is 63. Their house was destroyed. They were on a fixed income. They 
live on $2,000 a month. Their mortgage is paid off. The only thing they 
were eligible for was a small business loan. Granted, it was 4 percent, 
but because of their excellent credit rating, they were not eligible 
for a grant.
  This 70-year-old individual and the 63-year-old person are now 
looking at a 30-year loan. How many of us are going to be paying our 
home mortgages at 100 years old, or at 93 years old? That is what 
worries me about not providing the adequate resources to FEMA, because 
we will see more of this. A senior citizen should not have to say, ``I 
am going to sign a loan that is for 30 years because my house is 
destroyed.''
  That is what is frustrating. That is why we need to make sure we 
provide the money FEMA needs, not just eliminate the rescission of the 
$389 million, but we need to provide what FEMA needs between now and 
October 1 for the losses in Houston, Texas, that we can see from here 
in this picture. This is not actually my district, this is downtown 
Houston. But can Members imagine some of the subdivisions that I 
represent? The water was that high above the homes. We are talking 
about hundreds and even thousands of homes that were damaged.
  That is why we need to make sure that FEMA has that money restored.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking Democrat on the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) and the chairman of the full committee, and rise in very 
strong support of the Obey motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically address the portion of the motion 
to instruct that involves the $35 million of the request for the Animal 
Plant Health Inspection Service as part of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  I would say that if Members have been paying any attention to the 
newspapers and see what is going on in Europe and in Latin America, 
they would see the pressures on our Department of Agriculture to keep 
out of our country these severe animal diseases that are just 
absolutely devastating both livestock and human lives in places around 
the world.
  Our Department has a special new responsibility that they have been 
trying to augment with this supplementary appropriation bill. They have 
asked us for this $35 million to hire additional custom inspectors and 
veterinarians, and to make sure we have a doubling or tripling of our 
canine force to try to detect animal and disease problems that may be 
entering our country.
  This really is, I think, a difficult issue for many Americans, yes 
hard to understand. Life is pretty comfortable for the majority of 
people in our country. It is hard to understand that there actually 
could be such serious threats to our food chain. America has not had 
foot and mouth disease since 1929. But it spreads rapidly. And it will 
be devastating if it enters this country. We have seen mad cow disease 
do its damage to millions of animals and now to humans in Europe. Human 
beings are dying in Europe, in very developed economies, from this. 
These are almost, it seems, other-worldly experiences, but they could 
happen to us.
  We really need this $35 million to help the USDA. They have asked us 
for this money, and hopefully with this motion to instruct we will be 
able to get it. Mr. Speaker, the USDA continues to need the money. The 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who has just been so 
vigilant on this issue, will be talking about this in a minute. He has 
another letter from USDA seeking this assistance.
  We had a vote in the subcommittee, in the full committee, very close, 
27 to 35 when I offered it as an amendment. It was defeated on a close 
margin at that point, but I urge the conferees and I urge this House to 
consider this motion to instruct. Give us this $35 million the 
Administration has requested. Keep America free of these exotic pests 
and serious animal diseases.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct.
  My friend from Ohio was just making some points about how we all want 
to work on stopping any threat from entering our borders and 
threatening livestock or people in this country from any problem that 
currently exists overseas. We are in total agreement on wanting to do 
all we can to stop this from entering our country in any way 
whatsoever. However, the solution that is being proposed in this motion 
to instruct is unnecessary because in fact there is a system in place 
already that can be accessed by the Secretary of Agriculture on a 
moment's notice if something were to occur in this country.
  We have gone over this over and over again as we have moved 
separately on our agriculture appropriations bill in pointing this out 
clearly, and we even asked and reviewed with the Secretary that the 
money that she could access would amount to $30 billion. We are talking 
about an amount here of $35 million that, when compared to that $30 
billion, is a drop in the bucket in terms of what would be necessary to 
fight whatever threat may enter our borders.
  The Secretary gets that authorization from a program that was 
implemented 20 years ago for the Animal Plant and Health Inspection 
Service. Twenty years ago, in response to an avian influenza 
catastrophe, we included the following language in our annual 
appropriations bill, which has served the purpose over the years, and I 
read from that bill: ``In addition, in emergencies which threaten any 
segment of the agriculture production industry of this country, the 
Secretary may transfer from other appropriations or funds available to 
the Department such sums as may be deemed necessary for the arrest and 
eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of animals, 
poultry, or plants.
  Mr. Speaker, we have carried this language each year for the past 20 
years, and this language does permit the Secretary to simply declare 
that an emergency exists and that simple language would then allow the 
Secretary to fully access the Commodity Credit Corporation, through 
that corporation, a $30 billion entity, to take whatever action is 
necessary to address the emergency. We feel strongly this is the proper 
approach; and this permits the Secretary to meet any need much faster 
than waiting for congressional action, followed by OMB apportionment 
and treasury warrants, and everything else that is required by this 
action.
  So the system that is in place now we feel very confident would 
address any threat that could enter our country. And if, in fact, it 
was not, we would have sufficient time to review what threat could 
possibly enter our country and deal with it appropriately. But to pull 
a figure out of thin air of $35 million at this point and to say we 
must insist this money goes into the budget is unnecessary, and I guess 
an exercise in caution that some feel we need to take but is absolutely 
not something we need to do at this time.
  I, therefore, oppose this motion to instruct and urge its defeat.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would simply point out, Mr. Speaker, the administration has asked 
for the FEMA money. The Congress is rescinding it. The gentleman says 
this money for agriculture was pulled out of the air. This is the 
administration request that we are simply trying to comply with.
  Thirdly, the radiation item is an item which is owed people who are 
dying, at least in part because of the action of their own government. 
I think it will be very difficult for Members to explain their 
opposition to any of these three items.

[[Page 13092]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for including in this 
motion language that would instruct conferees to accept the Senate 
provision to provide $35 million for USDA's Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, as requested by the Bush administration, to protect 
American agriculture from serious animal disease threats like foot and 
mouth disease and mad cow disease.
  Unless we take steps now to protect ourselves, an outbreak of these 
diseases could be absolutely catastrophic for our country. My State of 
North Carolina is a good example of that. One estimate says that if 
foot and mouth disease were to break out in certain counties in eastern 
North Carolina, with concentrated hog operations, within a 20-mile 
perimeter we would have to destroy more animals than were destroyed in 
all of the country of England.
  Our Governor, Mike Easley, and agriculture commissioner Meg Scott 
Phipps have worked hard on a prevention effort, but the States need 
help from the Federal Government. Now, earlier this year Secretary 
Veneman did authorize the use of $32 million in APHIS funding for foot 
and mouth and mad cow disease border inspection activities. During our 
debate in the Committee on Appropriations, we were advised that this 
and other funds available from the Commodity Credit Corporation were 
sufficient; that USDA had adequate resources to address foreign animal 
disease. That, however, was not accurate. And I am amazed to hear the 
subcommittee chairman repeating that argument this morning.
  The President, 8 weeks after Secretary Veneman made these funds 
available, requested $35 million in supplemental funding for APHIS. I 
have confirmed with the Agriculture Department just this morning that 
we still need this $35 million in supplemental funding and that without 
it the Agriculture Department does not have adequate resources to 
protect the United States against foreign animal diseases. It is 
amazing to me, it totally escapes me, how we would not want to prepare 
ourselves for what could be an absolutely devastating outbreak.
  We have to do all we can to protect this country against the threat 
of foreign animal diseases. We should honor the administration's well-
justified request and accept the position of the Senate on this $35 
million for the Agriculture Department. So I urge adoption of the 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time 
until the gentleman is ready to close, as he has the right to do in 
this particular case, as I have no further requests at this time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the gentleman. The last 
time we were in this situation the gentleman did not use a lot of his 
time and at the end took about a 10-minute block with several speakers. 
Is the gentleman indicating that he has no additional speakers except 
himself?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. No, I just thought I would save a little time. 
I might have a few closing remarks for our side prior to the gentleman 
closing.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) has 22 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I think this is an excellent motion to instruct, 
and one of the things this motion does is seek to remedy a long overdue 
injustice.
  U.S. Citizens who went to work in uranium mines and downwinders who 
lived below atomic bomb explosions have suffered severely at the hands 
of the United States Government. Government doctors knew they were in 
danger. The Atomic Energy Commission knew they were in danger. But 
nobody told them, when they were working in the mines, the mines were 
dirty and they were going to get lung cancer. Nobody told the people 
living downwind that they were in danger.
  These victims had to go to court to try to seek justice. And they 
lost in the courts, and the courts came back and said, this situation 
cries out for justice. Finally, in 1990, the U.S. Congress acted and 
corrected that injustice and said compensation should be paid and a 
national apology be given to these individuals. Very few occasions in 
our Nation's industry has that occurred.
  Many of these victims are Navajo Indians who live in the remotest 
part of the country. They knew nothing of the dangers, and they are 
entitled to this compensation. But guess what, my colleagues, the 
government is out of money. The government account is empty, and we are 
issuing IOUs to those people. We are issuing IOUs to elderly Navajo 
widows who have large families. We are issuing IOUs to people that are 
living and have lung cancer and are waiting for this payment, many 
waiting for 25 years. There are 438 IOUs totaling $31 million.
  This is a national outrage, and this motion to instruct will tell the 
House conferees to accede to the Senate number and put the money in 
there and do justice.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding me this time, and I too rise in strong support 
of this motion to instruct, especially its support for payments under 
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or as it is known, RECA.
  The people covered by RECA include uranium miners and millers and 
others who worked to support our nuclear weapons program and those 
people who were exposed to fallout unknowingly from our program. 
Because of that exposure, they are sick, sick with cancers and other 
serious diseases. Many of them are residents of Colorado, New Mexico, 
and Utah, people like Merle and Richard Leavell of Cortez, Colorado, or 
Eugene Cox of Montrose.
  When Congress enacted this law, we promised to pay compensation for 
these illnesses, but we have not kept that promise. We have not 
appropriated enough money to pay everyone who is entitled to be paid. 
The Department of Justice tells me that on July 6, the end of last 
week, they had sent 438 people letters that are basically IOUs. Those 
people should have gotten checks that would have totaled $31 million. 
In Colorado, 51 Coloradoans have received these IOU letters. They 
should have been paid $5 million.
  What the letters say is that the payment must wait for further 
appropriations. What the letters mean is that we in the Congress have 
failed to meet a solemn obligation. Now, the Senate put the $84 million 
back in the bill for these RECA payments. So it is important that the 
House accept that addition. That is all this motion to instruct says 
that should happen and that is why we must approve this motion today.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remember sitting and listening to these 
workers in the State of Colorado and looking into their eyes and 
hearing them speak about how important it was not just for the money 
but for the principle of this. This is an apology, and this is also an 
affirmation that the work that they did is work that has not been done 
in vain. We need to acknowledge the debt we owe to these Americans that 
put their lives on the line.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
11 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 22 
minutes remaining?
  Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman intend to use any more of his time? I 
only have, I believe, two speakers.

[[Page 13093]]


  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I intend to use just a few minutes 
prior to the gentleman closing on his motion. Other than that, I have 
no further speakers.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to congratulate the gentleman for submitting this 
motion to instruct that includes doing the right thing. The Senate 
recognized it is the right thing to provide this funding for victims of 
exposure to radiation.
  It is interesting. We have a problem in our country where people tend 
to sometimes lose faith in their government. Here in Congress we stood 
up, I was not here at the time, but Congress stood up years ago and 
said, the government did something wrong and we are going to admit 
responsibility for doing something wrong in terms of inappropriately 
exposing people to radiation and so we are going to compensate these 
people. But at this point, it looks like Congress was talking a good 
game; but they are not backing it up with the actual funds.
  I have met so many people who have these letters in hand, these 
promises that someday we are going to give you this money. These are 
people that went through the process of filing a claim, filling out all 
the forms, going through their history, and the government then said, 
yes, you do qualify, but, gee, we do not have any money. That is just 
not acceptable.
  I challenge anyone in this body to look one of these victims in the 
eye and say, well, we do not have enough money for you. We are going to 
spend $35 million to send a letter to everyone telling them they are 
going to get a tax rebate, but we do not have enough money to 
compensate you while you are sick and dying from cancers caused by this 
Government. These actions have affected people in my State and in my 
own family.
  It is time for Congress to stand up and do what is right and fund 
this. I encourage everyone to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and I thank him for this motion.
  I stand in strong support of this motion, particularly the portion 
that gives a certain amount, $35 million, to APHIS. We wish we did not 
have to call for this emergency, but all of us are keenly aware of the 
outbreak in England in February of 2001. I can tell my colleagues that 
it affects all of the United States, but it has a particularly 
devastating potential effect for the State of North Carolina.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, I also would like to enter into the Record a letter from 
our Governor to President Bush. It is a copy of a letter that goes to 
President Bush from the commissioner of agriculture as well as the 
President pro tempore and our Speaker of the House.

                                          State of North Carolina,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Raleigh, NC, March 29, 2001.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.

     Hon. Ann Veneman,
     Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear President Bush and Secretary Veneman: As you are 
     aware, since being confirmed in England on February 19, 2001, 
     Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) has been extremely active in 
     many sections of the world, culminating in the catastrophic 
     events that have occurred in the United Kingdom and parts of 
     Western Europe over the past 18 months.
       Introduction of this virus into the United States remains 
     to be seen, but we do know that it would bring catastrophic 
     consequences to the animal livestock industry, with direct 
     and indirect financial losses in the billions of dollars. Of 
     particular concern here in North Carolina is our extensive 
     swine industry (10 million animals), as well as our precious 
     beef and dairy cattle commodities (950,000 head). We have 
     been working diligently over the past month strengthening our 
     safety net towards minimizing the risk of the introduction of 
     the disease into our state and country.
       Because FMD is a foreign animal disease, the USDA has 
     primary jurisdiction over the prevention and eradication of 
     this disease. Through the efforts of our State Veterinarian 
     in the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
     Services, as well as the efforts of members of our General 
     Assembly, we are strengthening the procedures we have in 
     place in North Carolina for disease eradication. However, we 
     have serious concerns that we believe can only be addressed 
     by a stronger USDA, APHIS effort.
       The USDA, APHIS should be urged to do the following:
       1. To promptly conduct a full risk assessment, particularly 
     identifying the most likely methods of entry of FMD into the 
     U.S., and implement risk management plans of action based 
     upon the identified or perceived risks.
       2. To immediately ban all used farm equipment and supplies 
     (including harness and tack) from FMD countries until further 
     notice. Future action would depend upon the outcome of the 
     USDA, APHIS risk assessment and risk management plan.
       3. To work with appropriate federal agencies to immediately 
     install effective sanitary footbaths at the point of entry 
     for all international conveyances (by air, sea, land) and 
     complete surveillance and decontamination of all cargo. It 
     should be mandatory that all passengers pass through the 
     footbath upon disembarkation.
       4. To conduct a thorough and complete compliance review of 
     the disposal of international garbage from foreign 
     conveyances (by air, sea, land).
       5. To work with appropriate federal agencies to ensure that 
     all foreign conveyances (by air, sea, and land) are 
     appropriately decontaminated of possible FMD virus.
       6. To immediately enter into active discussions with FEMA 
     officials with the intent of proactively developing a 
     national Emergency Support Function (ESF) for animal 
     industry, with USDA being the primary responsible agency. The 
     ESF should address both natural disaster and animal health 
     emergencies of national importance. In addition, technical 
     advice and assistance should be provided to states to develop 
     regional compacts between state emergency management 
     agencies.
       7. To review the FMD diagnostic capabilities at the Foreign 
     Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory on Plum Island and 
     develop a plan of action to enhance capabilities to an 
     appropriate level. Such plan of action should consider 
     approaching Congress to allow FMD testing at certified state 
     laboratories.
       8. To notify the AVIC and State Veterinarian in the state 
     of destination in advance of imported animals/animal 
     products.
       9. To immediately and thorougly review all livestock import 
     protocols at points of entry for Mexico and Canada.
       10. To thoroughly review the manufacturing and distribution 
     capabilities of FMD vaccine and the impact of its use in an 
     FMD eradication program.
       11. To work with appropriate federal agencies to ensure 
     full surveillance and decontamination of international parcel 
     post packages.
       12. To consider the benefits of restricting the importation 
     of any grooming, training, or riding equipment/supplies for 
     imported equine, with the exception of a halter and lead 
     rope.
       13. To notify NASDA of the results of above, including 
     needed resources, in order to develop partnerships to help 
     procure necessary resources to fully implement risk 
     management plans.
       14. To ensure that funds are available for indemnification 
     to the producer as provided by federal law.
       Many of these suggestions were developed by the Georgia 
     Department of Agriculture and forwarded to the National 
     Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). The 
     State Commissioners and Directors of Agriculture have held 
     several telephone conferences regarding this situation and 
     have expressed similar concerns.
       We must be extremely diligent in our efforts to prevent the 
     introduction of this disease into the United States. Your 
     assistance in this will be greatly appreciated.
       With kindest regards, we remain
           Very truly yours,
     Michael F. Easley,
       Governor.
     Meg Scott Phipps,
       Commissioner of Agriculture.
     Senator Marc Basnight,
       President Pro Tempore.
     Representative James B. Black,
       Speaker of the House.

  Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from this.
  He wrote to each of us in the North Carolina delegation. He called to 
our attention that North Carolina would be affected greatly. I will not 
enter this into the Record because it will not come out right, but if 
indeed there was an outbreak, we can see that poultry, dairy and indeed 
all the livestock would be immediately impacted. Within 5 to 15 miles, 
we will have a devastation on our hands unseen before in the

[[Page 13094]]

United States. So they are calling not only because they need to have 
staff, they also are putting more resources of their own.
  I entered into the supplemental bill an amendment in the Committee on 
Agriculture, when we considered the agricultural supplement, to put $50 
million. They could not do it within the amount of money they had. This 
gives the House the opportunity independently to do this. I would think 
we would want to do that. We would not want to have the outbreak.
  Let us do the right thing and prevent the outbreak by giving 
sufficient money that the staff can be equipped to handle such a 
devastation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations and the purposeful way in which the 
appropriations process has proceeded under his leadership. But it is 
also true that this motion to instruct draws our attention to some very 
serious deficiencies in the budgetary process which are becoming more 
obvious with the passage of every day.
  The White House today tells us that the anticipated budget surplus of 
$200 billion for the year is down very, very substantially, by more 
than $30 billion, more than 15 percent.
  It is very likely that if disaster strikes from natural causes or if 
we have an invasion of foreign animal disease strike our shores, that 
we will respond appropriately with the necessary funds. But the 
question arises where are those funds going to come from if we do not 
budget for them in the first instance.
  Increasingly one is driven to conclude that the answer to that 
question is going to be from places like the Medicare Trust Fund 
initially and perhaps even the Social Security Trust Fund if that 
becomes necessary. That is why this motion to instruct is very 
appropriate. Every Member of this House ought to give it their very 
careful consideration.
  We are not being honest in the way we are dealing with the people's 
money here. We are living in a time of budget surpluses, but those 
surpluses are going down day after day, week after week. If we do not 
anticipate our needs honestly and appropriately now, sure as we are 
standing here, we are going to be digging into those trust funds, and 
the security of our senior citizens who rely upon the Medicare Trust 
Fund to get their health care needs will be put into jeopardy.
  This motion to instruct is very appropriate, very pointed, and we 
ought to pass it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time he might use 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder when we listen to debate 
in this Chamber if we are not made up of a lot of Chicken Littles with 
concerns about the money that is put in here for APHIS and trying to 
prevent the diseases from coming over here. They are not here.
  There is absolutely no threat at this point domestically to any of 
us, humans, plants, animals, because our systems work. We are working 
every day in a bipartisan way to make sure that we remain safe from 
these threats that have devastated other countries.
  Can anybody guarantee that nothing is going to happen? Of course not. 
That is why we have over and over again talked to the Secretary and 
communicated with everyone involved who could possibly have a role in 
preventing these diseases from entering our country to make sure we are 
doing everything we can.
  Even though there was a request by the administration in this area, 
we reviewed that with the Secretary of Agriculture over and over again, 
specifically to find out if she could access this multibillion-dollar 
fund if, in fact, something happened.
  There is also a plan in place that, looking a step further, assuming 
that the sky does fall and Chicken Little is finally right, there would 
be an indemnity program for livestock if something were to occur. Of 
course, we cannot predict, and all we can do is do all we can to be 
prepared.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I believe in a bipartisan way in this 
House we should feel comfortable that we are doing all we can, but to 
stand up and say over and over again, oh, my goodness, we have to pour 
more money in for inspectors and so forth, it is not prudent. You 
cannot live by the fact that something terrible may happen every day. 
Let us be optimistic and look at the positives in the bill. We should 
feel good about that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman say there is 
already a multibillion-dollar fund available for this purpose?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, there is $30 
billion that the Secretary of Agriculture could access if one of these 
threats entered our country domestically.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that 
money is available today?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary could access that, that is 
correct. If the Secretary or we in this room agreed in a bipartisan way 
that it was not enough, we could come back and deal with that at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that 
very revealing information.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
the motion to instruct and the time to respond to a crucial provision, 
and that is to insist that no provision to rescind funds from the FEMA 
Disaster Relief Fund be included in the conference report.
  We might think this is a benign instruction, but as we move this 
supplemental to the floor, many of us have to rise and oppose the 
rescinding of $329 million, as well as attempting to add more dollars, 
as the Senate had informed us that FEMA at that time, rather than a 
billion dollars that was discussed on this floor in their coffers, only 
had about $178 million.
  Mr. Speaker, we are devastated in Houston by Tropical Storm Allison. 
In my community and the surrounding area alone, 5,000 homes were 
destroyed. The University of Houston is suffering about $100 million 
and growing worth of damage; the Medical Center, $2.2 billion and 
growing; St. Joseph's Hospital, $60 million; Texas Southern University, 
another institution of learning, also with damages that are not covered 
by flood insurance; and many, many people in my community who have not 
yet filed their FEMA application.
  Mr. Speaker, we need more resources. Tropical Storm Allison dumped 36 
inches. It was an unpredictable storm. Many people lost their lives, 
and this is a vital instruction to be able to provide the necessary 
funds to help those who are still recovering.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to close?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker, me.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I repeat something that I said at the beginning of the 
debate in opposition to the motion to instruct. On the issue of FEMA, 
this Congress never ignored the issues of our communities when it came 
to natural disasters, and I hope that we never will.
  Mr. Speaker, as I offered to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
early in the debate, if he would amend his motion just to deal with 
FEMA, we would be prepared to accept it, but we are not prepared to 
accept a motion to instruct that really ties our hands when we go to 
negotiate with the other body.
  One of my colleagues on the other side mentioned Social Security and

[[Page 13095]]

Medicare. The only way we would use any money set aside for Social 
Security and Medicare is if those who cannot control their appetite for 
spending have their way. We are doing the best we can to hold the line 
on spending so we do not use any monies from Social Security and 
Medicare funds. I understand that there are demands for more spending 
on not only this issue, but every issue that comes before us. But we 
have to constrain our appetites for spending by the Federal Government.
  An example of what I am talking about, several of my colleagues 
talked about 438 outstanding payments, worth $31 million, on point 
number 3 on the motion to instruct. Well, if that is the case, why 
would we have to go to $84 million if all we need is the $31 million? I 
use that as an example. We need to work out these figures, work out 
these disagreements, and come together on them.
  All in all, before I yield back my time, and before the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) closes on his motion, this motion is asking 
us on the conference committee to cave in to our brothers and sisters 
in the Senate before we ever go to conference. That is not why we go to 
conference. We go to conference to work out the differences. If our 
ability to negotiate is taken away, then the product we bring back may 
or may not be an acceptable product.
  Mr. Speaker, let us dispose of this motion to instruct now. Let us go 
to conference, do the best we can to represent the interests of the 
House of Representatives, and bring back a conference report that is 
really needed. It is late. This supplemental appropriations needs to 
get passed and sent to the President. Let us get to our job. Let us do 
the negotiating. Let us bring back a conference report on the 
supplemental that 80 percent or more of the House can agree to.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are asking the House of Representatives today to 
approve three items which are supported by the Republican 
administration.
  Number one, FEMA. The Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Administration tells us we are going to need more money. The OMB 
Director is quoted in print as saying we will need more money for 
disaster assistance. Yet this House, without this motion, will be 
supporting a proposition that cuts from existing funds $389 million for 
disaster assistance. This issue is not about spending more money, it is 
about telling the truth about what our spending plans are.
  Secondly, the administration has asked for the money to protect us 
from foot-and-mouth disease and from mad cow disease. The gentleman 
from Texas said our system works well. ``Do not worry, no worry.'' 
Well, I would ask my colleagues to recognize what the administration 
itself has said. ``Given the various foreign animal disease outbreaks 
in other parts of the world this year, USDA has been conducting a top-
to-bottom review of its core programs to ensure we have the necessary 
resources to protect American agriculture from devastating animal 
diseases. These additional funds will help strengthen these important 
programs. MFD is a highly contagious and economically devastating 
disease. It is one of the animal diseases that livestock owners dread 
most because it spreads widely and rapidly, and because it has grave 
economic consequences.''

                              {time}  1300

  The way to save money is to spend it on prevention. You do not wait 
until the epidemic hits and then try to do something. It is too late. 
We already have had to destroy virtually every citrus tree in Florida 
because of citrus canker from a blight that was not supposed to come 
into the United States, either. I would say caution ought to be the 
watchword here.
  Lastly, the gentleman says we do not need the $82 million to pay the 
victims of radiation poisoning. These are people who are dying, at 
least in part, because of the action of their own government, and they 
did not know that they were being exposed to danger. I would point out 
that the Justice Department itself says that we need $82 million this 
year; not $31 million, $81 million.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I was just going by what the speakers on the 
gentleman's side said, that it was $31 million that they needed.
  Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, I would prefer to go by what we know. 
We are told by the Republican Justice Department, not us, that we need 
$81 million. In each of the three cases, what we are asking you to do 
is to put in what your own administration has said we will need to 
spend.
  This is not about spending levels. It is about truth-in-budgeting. It 
is about fessing up to what we actually will have to spend in the end. 
There is no point in hiding from ourselves what the actual costs of 
these items will be. Every single one of these items has been requested 
by the administration. Every single one of these items is in the 
national interest. Every single one of these dollars will have to be 
spent in the end. We might as well be honest and face up to it now.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues 
to support a motion to instruct conferees to eliminate the $389 million 
rescission from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund included in the House 
version that was not included in the Senate version. I went to the 
Rules Committee and came to the floor in mid-June to oppose this 
rescission because I knew the extent of the growing burden from the 
most current damage assessments and visits to my district and the area. 
FEMA, OMB, and Senator Hutchison from Texas held my same original 
position on this rescission. I do not completely fault the House 
Appropriations Committee for initially targeting the Disaster Relief 
Fund because when they began drafting this bill there was no tropical 
storm Allison. However, I was very disappointed in the sometimes ugly 
accusations sent my way that I was playing political games with 
disaster relief. Instead of politics, let us look at the arithmetic.
  The fund currently has only $583 billion in contingency 
appropriations which OMB expects to be released soon. The fund also has 
over $200 million in normal appropriated funds, leaving the Disaster 
Relief Fund with roughly $800 million. The original funds that the 
rescission had targeted has been spent. The money the House 
Appropriations Committee thought was available for a rescission is 
gone, due to the unpredictable financial burden of tropical storm 
Allison. So far, 85,000 Texans have filed for assistance and FEMA has 
disbursed well over $300 million, and many sources close to the 
recovery operation are predicting that federal obligations for recovery 
will reach $2 billion in Texas alone.
  I would like to relate the recent development since we debated this 
issue in mid-June. The Senate's version of the bill eliminates the 
rescission and includes an extra $1 million as a placeholder for 
additional funds. OMB's latest statements say that more, certainly not 
less, money will be needed in the Disaster Relief Fund this year. Let 
me stress this again: the Bush administration says it is ``highly 
likely'' to request emergency supplemental funds for the Disaster 
Relief Fund in 2001. I hope this stance by a very fiscally conservative 
administration will convince my colleagues that I was only reacting to 
nonpartisan arithmetic--there simply was not going to be enough 
Disaster Relief Fund moneys to pay for repairs in Texas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Florida, and Pennsylvania. The administration recognized 
the situation back in June, and I am confident that the House 
Appropriations Committee is well aware of the Disaster Relief Fund 
situation now. I ask them, in light of the well-publicized financial 
situation of the fund, to join me in support of this Motion to Instruct 
Conferees.
  Damage from tropical storm Allison has been appraised at $4.88 
billion in Harris County (Houston), TX. I have heard from the hospitals 
and medical schools of the Texas Medical Center that damage assessments 
are $2 billion to state-of-the-art, nonprofit health care facilities, 
25-30 percent of which is estimated to be covered by insurance. Add 
this to the fact that over 50,000 Texans in Harris County alone are 
either in temporary housing or working to make their homes livable 
again. Given the incredible extent of the damage resulting from 
tropical storm Allison, the administration is predicting that 
additional funds will be needed in fiscal year 2001 in addition to the 
rescission which I urgently hope will be restored.

[[Page 13096]]

FEMA, the administration, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and I believe 
that as much as $1 billion may be needed in additional funds for 2001. 
As far as I know, Congress rarely failed to come to the aid of a 
locality stricken by a major natural disaster. I am sure that the 
Appropriations Committee would not remove a large percentage of funding 
from the DRF, against the wishes of the administration, when disaster 
bills from a destructive deadly storm are rising steadily and depleting 
the DRF.
  Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that 28 disaster declarations 
have already been made in the first half of 2001. At the beginning of 
hurricane and wildfire season, I think it is a mistake to be 
undermining FEMA's primary method of assistance, the Disaster Relief 
Fund.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, Messrs. Brady and Culberson, 
join me in casting our votes against the motion to instruct because it 
attempted to tie the hands of appropriators as we go to conference. 
This procedural vote is a party line vote and has no practical effect 
on Houston.
  We can, should, and will continue to meet our commitment to Allison's 
victims and still meet our commitment to fiscal responsibility. 
Similarly, we can, should, and will continue to put people before 
politics.
  While it was premature and petty for the Democrats to essentially try 
to go to conference on the House floor today, rest assured that we will 
continue to work together for Houston in the most prudent, responsible, 
and effective way. Notwithstanding the demagoguery from the other side, 
Houston has nothing to fear.
  The Appropriations chairman indicated during the debate on the 
Democrats' motion to instruct conferees on the supplemental that if 
they would limit their motion to just the removal of the FEMA 
rescission, he would accept it. The Democrats declined his offer.
  ``We will provide whatever funds are necessary to meet these 
disasters in Texas and nationwide. We have always done so. We will meet 
our responsibilities with the necessary dollars,'' said Chairman Young.
  We express our appreciation to Chairman Young for his commitment to 
the victims of tropical storm Allison and vow to fight to restore funds 
to FEMA as the bill moves through conference.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 219, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               YEAS--205

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     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
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     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
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     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

                               NAYS--219

     Abercrombie
     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
     Cox
     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
     Forbes
     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
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     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
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berman
     Kirk
     Lewis (CA)
     McDermott
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Pomeroy
     Putnam
     Sanchez

                              {time}  1323

  Mr. SAXTON and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. McINNIS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 225 on June 12, 
2001. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 225, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed the 
vote on rollcall 225, the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2216. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 13097]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Without objection, the 
Chair appoints the following conferees:
  Messrs. YOUNG of Florida, REGULA, LEWIS of California, ROGERS of 
Kentucky, SKEEN, WOLF, KOLBE, CALLAHAN, WALSH, TAYLOR of North 
Carolina, HOBSON, ISTOOK, BONILLA, KNOLLENBERG, OBEY, MURTHA, DICKS, 
SABO, HOYER, MOLLOHAN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. 
SERRANO and Mr. OLVER.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________