[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21159-21168]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5212, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
      APPROPRIATIONS FOR HURRICANE DISASTERS ASSISTANCE ACT, 2005

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 819 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 819

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5212) making 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance 
     relating to storm damage, and for other purposes. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) the amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by Representative Hensarling of 
     Texas or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order or demand for division of 
     the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 819 is a modified, closed rule that provides for 
consideration of H.R. 5212, making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for 
additional disaster assistance relating to storm damage and for other 
purposes.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and 
controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee 
on Appropriations. The rule provides for consideration of the 
Hensarling amendment which shall be separately debatable for 20 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, this is my inaugural rule, and I want to begin by 
thanking the Speaker for the honor of serving on this distinguished 
committee, and what an important rule to begin with, as it impacts the 
Sunshine State that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I are 
so honored to represent.
  Mr. Speaker, on four occasions in a span of 6 weeks, portions of my 
home State of Florida have been designated disaster areas. 
Additionally, areas in nine other States have been declared disaster 
areas due to hurricane-related damage. Between August 13 and September 
26, five hurricanes wreaked havoc upon the eastern and Gulf coasts of 
the United States. For the first time since 1886, a single State has 
been hit by four hurricanes in one season.
  The widespread devastation caused by these natural disasters is 
breathtaking. Damage was sustained along the entire eastern seaboard 
from ravaging winds in the Florida Keys and the Florida panhandle to 
tornadoes and mudslides in the Carolinas and severe flooding up the 
east coast.
  The emergency supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 5212, provides 
substantial resources for recovery. This rule brings to the Floor 
legislation to help families and farmers and businesses rebuild in the 
aftermath of nature's destruction.
  The long-range economic effects of these storms will be severe. All 
facets of the economy were affected due to power outages, crop losses, 
and wind and water damage. It is difficult to comprehend the impact of 
these successive storms on Florida's economy. Florida's largest 
economic engine is tourism. The land of pristine beaches and world-
class attractions has seen significant hardship for the tourism 
industry, while entire communities along the panhandle have been washed 
away. Businesses, large and small, are suffering from the aftermath of 
these storms. Many remained closed for weeks at a time while they went 
without utilities, losing important revenue. Mom-and-pop shops have 
fewer beach-goers to serve. Families and businesses now face multiple 
insurance deductibles following the damage of multiple storms that hit 
the same areas.
  Florida's agriculture industry sustained the loss of up to 40 percent 
or more of its citrus crop for this season, along with the loss of 
trees that provide future harvests. In addition to citrus, the 
vegetable, sugar, cattle, timber, dairy, nursery, and other industries 
suffered severe losses.
  Our infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, was utterly destroyed in some areas. 
Bridges, interstate bridges were washed away, cutting off evacuation 
routes and isolating communities. Hospitals were forced to close due to 
damage. Schools were shut down to serve as shelters. In my county 
alone, 13 days of school have been missed. The school year has 
essentially begun anew on four separate occasions. Military bases have 
been closed following extensive damage to hangars, equipment and 
training areas. Traffic lights lay in the middle of intersections. 
Daily life came to consist of searching for ice and batteries and 
helping neighbors wield a chain saw to remove a tree on top of your 
home, business or vehicle.
  President Bush has recommended a total of $11 billion in assistance 
to the States that have been affected by these storms. The bill 
provides for $6.5 billion for disaster recovery efforts for FEMA, which 
is in addition to the $2 billion that was appropriated for FEMA earlier 
this month. FEMA uses these resources for a variety of disaster relief 
activities, including direct assistance to impacted individuals and 
families, debris removal, utility and infrastructure repairs, emergency 
food and shelter, and mitigation.

[[Page 21160]]

  Mr. Speaker $1.1 billion for the Department of Defense; $929 million 
for disaster relief activities of the Small Business Administration; 
$800 million for the Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief 
program for repairs to roads and highways; $600 million in agricultural 
assistance to provide needed help to producers suffering crop loss from 
these hurricanes; $245 million for the Army Corps of Engineers; $150 
million for community development grants; $50 million for the Public 
Health and Social Services Emergency Fund to help provide nutritional, 
medical and social services to affected elderly individuals; $126 
million for NASA; $121 million to repair damage to VA facilities that 
support our ever-so-important servicemen and women and the veterans; 
$70 million to support the American Red Cross in their mission to 
shelter, feed and otherwise support the victims of these storms.
  In addition to this enacted and requested emergency funding, Federal 
agencies will continue to use existing resources and programs for 
response and recovery efforts from all recent hurricanes and storms.
  I am proud that our President has followed through with an assistance 
package that amounts to more than $12.2 billion in restoration efforts 
for damages occurring as a result of Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan 
and Jeanne, storms that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I 
have come to know by their first name in an all-too-intimate way. I am 
deeply grateful to our governor Jeb Bush for his tireless efforts 
throughout this period, and I want to applaud the extraordinary efforts 
of our chairman, a fellow Floridian of the Committee on Appropriations, 
the gentleman from Largo (Mr. Young), and all of his team. Their hard 
work guarantees that Floridians can recover from the devastation left 
by these storms.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to praise the 
combined efforts of FEMA, local first responders, local cities and 
counties, recovery operations, managers, utility companies, the men and 
women and everyday heroes who climb to the top of telephone poles to 
restore power while the wind is still out there and the water is still 
coming in; people from around the country who rush in with mobile semis 
that can feed 10,000 people at a time, giving hope to an entire 
community. Storms like this tend to bring out the best in people, Mr. 
Speaker, and it is an impressive thing to see the American spirit alive 
and well.

                              {time}  1830

  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my 
friend, for yielding me the time. I also welcome the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam) to the committee and thank him for taking my place 
as the most junior member on the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule 
which tosses aside bipartisanship and abdicates this body's role to 
independently craft responsible public policy. This closed rule 
neglects millions of Americans who are hurting today not only from 
hurricanes but also from prolonged drought, flood, and freezes.
  As all in this body know, my home State of Florida and others 
throughout the East have been ravaged over the last month by a series 
of hurricanes. It is the first time in more than a century that any 
State has been hit by four storms of this magnitude in less than a 
month. First there was Charley, and then the others that followed; and 
when the last one passed, millions were left literally picking up the 
pieces of their homes and lives.
  Nineteen States along the eastern seaboard, from Florida to Vermont, 
were declared disaster areas. Seaports and airports came to a halt and 
the insurance industry is reporting more than $23 billion in claims, 
not including the millions of uninsured home owners and renters who 
lost everything they had in these storms. For them, their only relief 
is Federal Emergency Assistance.
  In my district, the after-effects of these storms will be felt for 
many years to come. From Ft. Pierce in the north to Pahokee and 
Clewiston in the west to Ft. Lauderdale in the south, people are 
hurting.
  I thank my colleagues for their encouraging words and support during 
this trying time. But we need more than consolations, and we need more 
than understanding.
  The underlying supplemental appropriations bill which the House is 
considering today is deeply appreciated, appreciated by all of us in 
Florida; but, frankly, it is not enough.
  We know that the majority knows that and the President knows that, 
but the willingness to deliver for those in distress just is not there 
unless a photo op comes along with it. This closed rule blocks my good 
friend from Florida (Mr. Boyd) from offering a substitute that would 
have provided nearly $2 billion in emergency assistance beyond the 
President's shortchanging proposal, to help all communities recover 
from the hurricanes.
  When I attempted to amend the rule at 7 a.m. this morning, to make 
the Boyd amendment in order, the majority defeated it along a straight 
party line vote. The underlying legislation mirrors the President's 
request and neglects the well-known needs of Florida and her 
neighboring States. In contrast, the Boyd substitute provides nearly 
$500 million more than the President's request in emergency agriculture 
disaster assistance, not only for Florida agriculture, which is 
suffering from more than $2.2 billion in losses in just 4 short weeks, 
but also for North Carolina and New York.
  Citrus and sugar growers, ranchers, nurseries and dairy farmers are 
all shortchanged or just plain ignored in the underlying legislation. 
In contrast, they are helped under the Boyd amendment which was not 
made in order. The Boyd substitute would also increase emergency 
funding to the Department of Defense for reimbursements to the National 
Guard and facility repairs, beach nourishment, and repairs to VA 
hospitals and the Kennedy Space Center.
  Most importantly, the Boyd substitute mirrors the bipartisan 
agreement that was reached between the outstanding chairman of this 
committee and the ranking member of the committee equally outstanding 
but was rejected by the President who seemingly has a knack for leading 
with a reckless disregard of the obvious.
  The rule also blocks the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) from 
offering an amendment to help States who are suffering from prolonged 
drought. In doing so, Republicans have dug themselves into a hole, and 
we are now going to see some true colors shine. Not only are they 
blocking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), someone who spent his 
entire life fighting for the well-being of farmers and ranchers across 
this country, from offering his amendment, but now they are trying to 
make in order an inferior amendment that the Committee on Rules never 
heard testimony on.
  The amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer). Not only does it provide less assistance than the Stenholm 
amendment, but it also cuts funding in the Farmland Conservation 
Program. The Neugebauer amendment literally robs Peter to pay Paul.
  As is done here often, we are refusing to help those most in need. We 
have tried the bipartisan approach led by the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations, but the President said, no, thank you. We have tried 
the bipartisan approach in the Committee on Rules, but the Republican 
leadership said, We are just not interested.
  When the Committee on Rules had the opportunity this morning to 
reject the President's ``my way or the highway approach,'' it balked 
and folded.
  I wish I could be more bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, especially on an 
issue as critically important to the welfare of all of our constituents 
in Florida as well as the Northeast. But they are making it difficult 
on the other side to be bipartisan. How is it that we got money to pass 
trillions in tax cuts to the

[[Page 21161]]

wealthiest of Americans, but we do not have the money to help Americans 
recover from natural disasters of all kind.
  Where is the compassion? But better yet, where is the outrage? I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and do all that we know we can 
if we were to pass it to help those most in need. My constituents are 
depending on our vote. Please do not let them down.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the passion of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and I will remind him that in 
addition to the $11 billion that is in this package, the President 
delivered $500 million in assistance to citrus, nursery, and fruit 
vegetable growers just 2 weeks ago in the aftermath of the first two 
storms. And as we gather data from these storms and whatever else the 
Atlantic sea may have in store for us, there will be additional 
assistance forthcoming.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my young colleague from 
Florida for yielding me the time. I want to congratulate him for having 
risen to the high level of being a member of the Committee on Rules, 
the newest member of the Committee on Rules. And I believe that his 
expertise and his talents will show through as he presents these rules 
from day to day. I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam) because in Florida he is a hero, and I think as 
Members get to know him as a member of the Committee on Rules, they 
will agree.
  There is good news and bad news here today. The good news is Florida 
has not had a hurricane in the last 10 days. Now, that is a switch 
because we have become so accustomed to them. This delegation on a 
bipartisan basis has joined together to help the people of Florida 
recover from these tragedies.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) mentioned several of the 
problems that his part of the State has experienced. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) has talked about other issues. So I wanted to 
mention to the membership that there are two bills today. This bill, 
H.R. 5212, is the one that we will call up under this rule. This bill, 
H.R. 5227, which I also introduced today, includes everything in H.R. 
5212 plus $1.6 billion in additional funding that is required, and that 
we, as a delegation, have identified.
  I just want you to know that I am going to do everything possible, 
everything that I can, to make sure that H.R. 5227 is the bill that 
goes to the President's desk and not H.R. 5212 because it is short.
  Incidentally, for those who are concerned about the extra $1.6 
billion, I have offset it. I have offset the entire $1.6 billion so, in 
fact, the top number is going to be the same in either bill. But H.R. 
5227 covers a lot more of what has been promised to the people of 
Florida and neighboring states due to these terrible, terrible 
tragedies called Hurricane Charley and Hurricane Frances and Hurricane 
Ivan and Hurricane Jeanne and Tropical Storm Bonnie.
  Not one section of the entire State of Florida escaped damage from 
one of these storms or maybe in some cases three of these storms. And 
so the Governor has made promises, the President has made promises to 
the people of Florida, and I am going to do everything that I can, 
despite any bureaucracy or despite any problems here in the Congress, 
to help the President of the United States deliver on his promises.
  I will discuss this more in length as we get into the bill itself.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend and a leader in 
this fight.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I urge Members to vote 
``no'' on the previous question, and not because I disagree with the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and his eloquent defense of 
the need for assistance for Florida. I support that. I do not know of 
anyone that does not support that.
  But I rise to point out to my colleagues today that there should be 
an element of fairness associated with how we respond to the disaster 
in Florida.
  The President called for crop loss assistance. His emergency 
legislation was not offset, what the President asked us to do. But 
unfortunately he only asked for victims of 2004 hurricanes and tropical 
storms.
  Now, again, we all agree that we should help Florida. But, as Senator 
Pat Roberts said so eloquently, How on Earth can you provide disaster 
assistance to people who have suffered gravely over hurricanes and then 
deny assistance to people who have not had any rain for 3 years?
  We have other disasters, and what I and 41 of my colleagues joined in 
co-sponsoring a bill yesterday have said, let us treat all disasters 
fairly. Let us not for the first time in a long time differentiate 
between various kinds of disasters. Let us look at the disasters and 
let us fund them, as the President asked us to do.
  Now, there will be an argument saying that we should offset the 
additional agricultural disasters. I ask my friends on both sides of 
the aisle who may lean towards that position, why? Why make a 
differentiation between a disaster in Nebraska and one in Florida or 
Pennsylvania when the farmer has been affected the same way?
  To those who suggest that there is an easy offset by reopening the 
farm bill which we will hear in just a moment an amendment offered that 
reopens the farm bill not by what I say, but what 25 farm organizations 
are saying to us tonight and 15 conservation groups are saying for us 
to think long and hard before we undo the delicate balance that puts 
together the 2002 farm bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) 
and I and many of my colleagues still in this body worked so hard to 
put together.
  Do not be deceived for one half second that if you get into the 
conservation title in paying for this disaster for other farmers, you 
are not reopening the farm bill because you are, not by what I say, but 
by what 25 farm organizations all around the country are saying. Be 
careful before we go there.
  Now, to those that suggest there is some fiscal responsibility about 
this let me make it very clear. Whatever amount of money the President 
of the United States designates for disaster assistance, that is what 
we offered in our amendment. Whatever the President said. And if he 
says it is going to be less, then we will prorate it out to all farmers 
and disasters all over. That is the way we have always done things. We 
treat everyone fairly.
  The bill before us and the proposed amendment does not treat everyone 
fairly.
  I ask my colleagues, before you join in a move that reopens the farm 
bill, think it out twice because there will be repercussions that will 
affect producers, and there is going to be a lot of other needs that we 
are going to have to address.

                              {time}  1845

  But once we begin to tear up the coalition that was put together when 
we stood on this floor and we made agreements with the conservation 
crowd, the environmental groups, we made deals.
  This farm bill, the 2002 farm bill, we had a partnership. It was the 
greenest farm bill in the history that I have been here, in the history 
of this body, and now all of a sudden we have an amendment that is 
going to tear that coalition up, and folks are going to stand on this 
floor and say it is not going to have any effect on anything.
  I urge my colleagues, the 14 of my friends on this side of the aisle 
that cosponsored the bill we introduced yesterday, stick with me on 
this one. We have got the votes to pass it; and it is my understanding 
I am not arguing differently what the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, who

[[Page 21162]]

made an offer some time last week to deal with this disaster within 
committee, and the leadership of the House chose not to accept it, and 
I am sorry they did not because we could have avoided a lot of this 
problem that we are about to get into.
  So, again, in summation, how do we separate a disaster from Nebraska 
from a disaster from Pennsylvania from a disaster from Texas? Do not 
separate the two. Let us deal with it in one package. Oppose this rule. 
Particularly, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the work the gentleman has done in agriculture, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's record in matters affecting the budget, 
which is why I draw to his attention the fact that we have improved 
upon this rule and will be providing for additional assistance beyond 
the Southeast, beyond the Carolinas, beyond Florida, to assist those 
affected farmers and ranchers and fully offset it, which is an 
important piece of fiscal responsibility.
  What is so sacred, what is so sacrosanct about a farm bill that my 
colleague would hold it up so high that he would not use it to help 
farmers? Farmers in Florida, farmers in Georgia, farmers in the 
Carolinas, perhaps farmers who do not have access to the billions of 
dollars that are allocated in the farm bill on an annual basis; but 
farmers who have suffered from four separate hurricanes, many farmers 
who had the eye of three storms come over their field, pass over their 
ranch, we would say to them, we do not want to open the farm bill to 
help you because that is for other farmers?
  The farm bill, as it is today, has a reserve because it has worked. I 
was on the committee. I voted for it. I supported it. It is a good 
package, but why would we let that package stand in the way of 
assistance to farmers? Is that not what the farm bill is for?
  Is that not why we put all the effort and time and labor into it, to 
help people in need, to help farmers who are suffering? Ranchers who 
have had their fences devastated, their barns blown to the ground? Row 
crop farmers who have seen all of their plastic torn up? Citrus growers 
who have seen a sea of brown from Charley and yellow from Frances and 
green from Jeanne, where Mother Nature has color-coded the devastation 
that is their crop, that is on the ground rotting? We would say to 
them, we will not open it up?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my good 
friend.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  And let me first congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) 
for being assigned to the Committee on Rules. I am sure in days ahead 
we will see a lot of each other as we testify before the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak about agriculture disaster assistance. Let me 
commend at the outset the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for 
introducing a disaster package in the House and for his tireless work 
on behalf of American agriculture. No one in this body does more for 
farmers than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  We are here today to discuss emergency funding for natural disasters. 
Fewer and fewer of us in this House represent rural areas. When natural 
disasters impact the people we are privileged to represent, we tend to 
band together across party lines to do what is right for those 
outstanding Americans, our farmers. This is especially true when it 
comes to those from rural areas.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I must say I am disappointed that the 
Republican leaders in this House have decided to play politics with 
America's farmers. Rather than passing a stand-alone, emergency 
disaster bill for U.S. producers whose economic well-being has been 
turned upside down by extremely dry weather, Republicans have decided 
it would be better to slash funding for programs within the 2002 farm 
bill.
  The gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Stenholm) bill declared that the 
drought conditions facing our farmers were an emergency that they 
should be paid for, just like any other national emergency, through an 
emergency supplemental spending bill. Opening up the 2002 farm bill to 
pay for this assistance is wrong-headed and ends up hurting some 
farmers to help others. This political theater has no place in the 
House, and it does a disservice to the men and women who are in the 
fields right now all across our land harvesting the food that we eat.
  Over the past several years, Missourians have experienced Mother 
Nature's fury. Tornadoes, flooding, and drought have plagued our State. 
Widespread drought has had the greatest impact on Missouri farms and on 
the rural communities that dot the countryside.
  I come from the Show-Me State. It is high time that the Congress 
shows all American farmers that we are here to help them when disaster 
strikes.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished Chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture, my former chairman and someone who is passionate about 
all of America's farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I rise in support of this rule.
  I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work, 
and I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the opportunity 
that we expect to have, the opportunity to put in place a way to 
provide the kind of assistance that America's farmers and ranchers need 
and deserve all across this country.
  For weeks, we have been working on this problem, and we have come 
upon a solution, and a solution that will work. It is a solution that 
is very, very, very similar to one that this Congress joined together 
in a bipartisan fashion, across the aisle, to support just about 18 
months ago to help farmers in the 2001-2002 disaster period. That was 
to take funds from a program that had funds available, took them off 
the back end of it and went ahead and paid it.
  Now we find that this program has in it four-and-a-half times as much 
money as was in the program when the gentleman from Texas and my 
predecessor, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Combest, wrote the farm bill 
and put money in for this new program; but after that work was done, 
others, apart from those here today, went in and took the cap off that 
program.
  So, in addition to being able to meet the needs of farmers all across 
this country from Florida to Texas to Minnesota, we will have the 
opportunity to do the same thing. We will have the opportunity to pay 
for it, and we will have the opportunity to have money in that program 
in a greater amount than was in the program when we did this the last 
time. We will have the opportunity to put a cap on that program because 
I think those on the other side of the aisle would agree that the 
future of farm programs is very dependent on one program not being 
uncapped, not having the opportunity to spend these enormous amounts of 
money.
  So I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer), who is going to have, if this rule is passed, the 
opportunity to offer an amendment to take care of this problem for 
every American and end this problem.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us 
in the same bipartisan effort that helped America's farmers and 
ranchers when we did this in the beginning of 2003 in a very, very 
similar circumstance with a very, very similar solution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair tell us, 
please, how much time each side has remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 16 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Putnam) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend.

[[Page 21163]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is too bad we are here under these conditions 
tonight, because the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) tried to bring 
out a bill which would have met all of the problems all of the parts of 
the country face. Unfortunately, the gang that cannot shoot straight 
has called for other ways to deal with the problem, and so we are 
dealing with only half a bill.
  I want to make one point: that I speak not as the ranking Democrat on 
the Committee on Appropriations, but simply as a Member of Congress 
from Wisconsin.
  One of the deficiencies with this rule is that it does not allow for 
an amendment to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract program. Now, that 
program was authorized in the 2002 farm bill. It is currently scheduled 
to expire next year, while other commodity programs run through the end 
of the farm bill, September of 2007.
  In my view, dairy farmers ought to be treated under the milk program 
in exactly the same way that farmers of other major commodities are 
treated under the farm bill. If Congress fails to extend the milk 
program through to the end of the farm bill, then dairy farmers across 
the country will be at a disadvantage when Congress prepares a new 
authorization in 2007. That is because, under existing budget rules, 
there will be no budget score for milk, and only the milk price program 
will appear in the budget baseline. That means the budget baseline for 
dairy price safety programs will be deceptively low, about $800 million 
below where it needs to be in order to ensure that dairy farmers are 
not treated less equitably than they are treated today.
  I do not think this Congress ought to allow that to happen, but 
unfortunately, we are not going to be allowed to try to correct the 
problem by the rule which is being adopted tonight.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) I notice indicated that the 
farm bill ought to be used to help farmers. There is one way the 
Committee on Rules could have done it. They could have helped dairy 
farmers across the country, but they chose not to do so. I regret that, 
which is one of many reasons I will be voting against this rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am disappointed that the gentleman will be voting against the rule. 
I know his passion for America's farmers, and I know that farmers all 
across this land have been affected.
  Perhaps it is the Floridian in me, but I would argue that this rule 
goes a long way towards those affected by some very substantial and 
unforeseen events, and the improvements that have been made would go a 
long way towards extending that beyond those areas affected by 
hurricanes. After neglecting those areas who have been dealing with a 
drought now for years, I know that the reservoirs are going dry.
  I know that people are frustrated and they are concerned about what 
their livelihood will hold because of this drought issue, and frankly, 
that is why I think these improvements were put in there. I think it is 
a fiscally responsible approach to helping as many of America's farmers 
who have been stricken by these disasters as possible, and certainly, 
the dairy industry is one that has been impacted. It has been impacted 
in Florida when the power was lost for days at a time, and of course, 
America's modern agricultural system, if we cannot get power to these 
milking parlors, the cows go dry.
  That is a legitimate problem, and we worked on a bipartisan basis as 
a delegation and, frankly, as a group of people who are concerned about 
the future of American agriculture to find ways to solve this disaster 
assistance problem.
  Just as, 18 months ago, we were able to reach down into section 32 
funds, which are traditionally designated for fruit and vegetables and 
marketing and nutrition programs, in providing drought assistance to 
the Midwest, we are similarly using an account to reach down into and 
provide assistance for farmers from Florida and Georgia and the 
Carolinas who are desperately in need.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want us all to take a deep breath and remind ourselves 
of what is taking place here. This country was hit with five major 
storms within the last couple of months. All five of those storms made 
original landfall in the State of Florida. That is the first time that 
has happened in over 100 years. It is catastrophic in Florida and in 
other parts of the southeastern United States, actually, outside the 
southeastern United States.
  We have an excellent emergency management agency in this country, in 
FEMA, and we get nothing but good remarks from everybody who has been 
hit by these storms about FEMA, and everyone has done a good job of 
keeping money in the FEMA pipeline. We have been able to do that under 
the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who heads the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I am speaking against this rule that 
is being brought to us under the leadership of the Committee on Rules 
and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), today. I am 
speaking against it because after those five storms that hit America, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) directed their staffs, under the leadership, and went out 
and did a lot of work to find out from the State, from the local 
governments, from the Federal agencies, the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Transportation, all those areas which would be affected 
by the storms, what the needs were, what the Federal requirements were, 
what those needs were as a result of those storms. That report was 
compiled, brought back to Congress and put in the form of a bill and 
actually taken down to the White House for their blessing.
  During that compilation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
myself, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) visited Pensacola 
Naval Air Station, where Ivan hit and completely obliterated Pensacola 
Beach and Perdido Key, and did major damage to one of our defense 
installations there. The White House turned down the committee request 
for the emergency bill and said they would only accept the proposal 
that they had brought forward, which was about $2 billion short.
  So when the Committee on Rules met yesterday, I went and asked the 
Committee on Rules to allow us to introduce as an amendment, the bill 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) held in his hands a few minutes 
ago when he made his presentation. I think that bill certainly more 
adequately reflects the needs of this Nation in response to these 
hurricanes, but I want to tell you the differences in those two bills.
  There is $486 million more for agriculture producers and processors, 
and that is not just in Florida. There is $486 million in Ag, $455 
million for defense, $750 million for transportation. We all saw 
pictures of I-10. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will defeat the rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed certainly a very close working 
relationship with both of these gentlemen from Florida as we have tried 
to do everything we can to bring in the appropriate amount of relief 
for a State that is hurting. There have been heroic efforts in the 
State of Florida bringing the I-10 bridge back on line in a matter of 
days and bringing, internally, administrative relief to agriculture and 
those issues affected early on.
  I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we keep in 
mind that this is a process. As we reach the end of this congressional 
session, there has

[[Page 21164]]

been a rush to pull together the adequate, the accurate and adequate 
damage numbers, and that is difficult to do. It is difficult to pull 
together the data on transportation needs. It is particularly difficult 
to pull together the data on agricultural needs when they are still 
mounting.
  I would say that, 6 months from now, we will still be dealing with 
damages that are presenting themselves that came about as a result of 
the hurricanes. So for the other side to say that they would reject all 
of the relief for lack of marginally additional relief seems a little 
bit foolhardy, adding to the fact that we are to be accused of ignoring 
the Midwestern States when we have a proposal to do just that, to 
expand the relief beyond those hurricane stricken States and take care 
of those who have been dealing with drought.
  I think we are delivering, in a number of ways, and frankly, from all 
of our working relationships with the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, there is a high level of confidence that those issues 
will be taken care of in conference and through his additional 
legislation that he is filing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
rule. Two weeks ago, heavy rains from hurricane Ivan inundated my 
district in southwestern Pennsylvania, and many communities across 
Pennsylvania experienced disastrous flooding and mudslides.
  This was no typical storm, Mr. Speaker. It has been estimated this 
was a 100-year rain, perhaps a 500-year rain, one that we will never 
see again in western Pennsylvania. And the damage inflicted went far 
beyond the federally determined floodplain. It devastated homes and 
businesses that were not expected to buy flood insurance.
  Several of the worst hit communities were, Etna, Millvale, 
Sharpsburg, Carnegie and small communities along the Allegheny River. 
As soon as the flooding subsided, I toured the communities affected by 
the flooding and met with the owners of many small businesses that had 
been damaged.
  Jane Moran got walloped by Ivan twice. Her 7-Eleven store in Etna was 
severely damaged, and her home nearby was damaged so badly it has been 
condemned. Her husband and three sons all had to move into a one-
bedroom apartment with her daughter and boyfriend and, until recently, 
were wearing borrowed clothes.
  In Millvale, 8 feet of water from Girty's Run flooded many of that 
municipality's businesses; 190 of the 230 businesses in Millvale 
suffered damage. The flood waters caused $400,000 in damage to Jerry 
Kitman's furniture store. His wife Judy's business, Lasting Memories 
floral shop, was also completely destroyed.
  Ed and Arleen Carr, the owners of Yetters Candy Store, a family 
business that had been in operation 75 years, saw all of their 
equipment and supplies completely destroyed.
  Grant Street Diner and Catering, a family-owned business, was 
completely destroyed, and 5,000 pounds of food were ruined.
  Mr. Speaker, I say this to you because these people are the 
embodiment of the American Dream. They worked hard and invested every 
penny in their businesses and they need help now. President Bush was in 
my district on September 23, and he told these people, we understand 
the Federal Government has an obligation to help, and we will.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we need your help, and what we do not need are 
loans. That is all that are available to these businesses right now. 
These mom-and-pop shops are already loaned up to their eyeballs, and 
they do not need another loan. What they need is a grant.
  Last night, we went to the Committee on Rules and asked for a one-
time grant of up to $250,000 for these small businesses in these areas 
that were not in Federal flood zones and, through no fault of their 
own, find their businesses gone. If we do not give these businesses 
grants, they are not coming back, and the communities they sit in are 
not coming back.
  What do we tell these folks? Do we tell them we have $20 billion to 
rebuild schools and businesses and infrastructure in Iraq, but when it 
comes to American taxpayers they have to take loans? Mr. Speaker, we 
can do better than that. We have supported all disaster relief for 
Florida, for our friends on the west coast that have fires and 
earthquakes. People in Pennsylvania need some help. Mom-and-pop 
businesses are the backbone of this country, and they are asking for 
our help tonight.
  I ask that we defeat this rule so that we can go back to the drawing 
board and put an amendment in there that will allow grants to small 
businesses so that we can restore these people's businesses and the 
American dream. I ask all my colleagues to support defeating this rule.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a tireless advocate for disaster relief and for 
drought relief.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  My colleagues, this is what the drought map looked like the early 
part of the summer. Unfortunately, that is about what the drought map 
has looked like for 5 years. There have been minor changes here and 
there, but many climatologists have said this is a 500-year drought. It 
is not one that is every 30 or 40, but a 500-year drought. In many 
cases, it has been worse than what we encountered in the 1930s.
  So what we find now is that almost all of the reservoirs in this part 
of the country are down to 15, 20, 25 percent full, and many will be 
empty next year. So irrigators as well as dry land people are paying 
the price.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a monumental problem and a 1-year drought 
is bad, but when you have 5 years, the amount of crop insurance you can 
buy goes down each year. So as a result, crop insurance does not do it. 
People have lost equity each year now for 5 years, and ranchers have 
not had pastures. Therefore, they have had to sell their breeding 
herds, and as a result, many of them are in pretty desperate shape.
  So it seems that nobody likes drought relief. Many people say that it 
is not a natural disaster. But it is as much a natural disaster as any 
other. You cannot stop it. You cannot predict it. It is like a 
hurricane, a flood or whatever.
  I would prefer that we do not have any offsets. I have great 
admiration for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the way he 
has tried to approach this. But I have made enough phone calls and done 
enough talking around here to realize this is the only way we are going 
to get it done.
  So we greatly appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Neugebauer) has made an effort here. The chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture has done a good job here, and so we do have a possibility 
now to get $3 billion out of the conservation and security program.
  It appears to me this is the only workable solution we have. It may 
not be the perfect, but it is the workable, and therefore, I recommend 
that we support this rule, and we support this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both gentlemen from Texas for 
their work in this regard as well as the chairman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I have such high regard for my preceding speaker, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). He has done a great deal to advance the 
cause of disaster response from this Congress. But I believe he is 
incorrect in concluding that, what is before us in the so-called 
Neugebauer amendment or nothing.
  If rural Republicans would hang with the Democratic Members of this 
chamber, we would, in bipartisan fashion, reject any other approach 
that did not

[[Page 21165]]

have the Senate-type approach upon giving disaster relief without 
cannibalizing the farm bill. We could do it. We could do it. We do not 
need that many. If rural Members would stand up for their farmers and 
reject this cockeyed notion we ought to cannibalize the farm bill to 
get help to farmers now, we could, in bipartisan fashion, pass exactly 
what the Senate passed.
  That is why the Committee on Rules did not make it in order. They 
know we would win. It would sure be nice to have a democracy actually 
have a chance in the House once in a while. This Senate passed a 
disaster response. Why are we not at least allowed a vote as to whether 
this might be the will of what the House would work? Instead, they have 
advanced a very different proposal. While it does offer desperately-
needed disaster relief to farmers, it takes the wrong approach.
  We would not even be here without the work of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture. 
By introducing his legislation, by getting 40-some other sponsors of 
both parties behind it, he forced an issue that has created the need of 
the majority to put forward this response, but the shape of their 
response is most regrettable. It requires dollar-for-dollar reduction 
out of the farm bill, taking down that conservation program.
  And if my colleagues do not think that the smell of politics is not 
swirling around this chamber right now, after virtually being nowhere 
to be seen on this disaster issue, they drum up the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the opponent of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), and have him sponsor this ill-advised alternative.
  I am kind of surprised the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) took 
them up on their little offer. It is opposed by virtually every 
agriculture coalition: American Corn Growers, American Farm Bureau, 
National Cotton Council. You see, they understand that it is just wrong 
for farmers to have to give up their farm bill, give up the protection 
that the farm bill offers in order to get the disaster response they 
need.
  I thought the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) offered an 
interesting rhetorical question: Why not use the farm bill to help 
farmers? Well, why should we have to reduce the farm bill's ability to 
help farmers in order to have it as an offset for this disaster bill? 
In the farm bill, we are coming in so far under what was projected; 
there is plenty of budget savings there. It was projected to have cost 
us $50 billion by now.

                              {time}  1915

  But because of the price-support nature of the thing, it has only 
cost us $35 billion.
  There is savings in the farm bill without cannibalizing the farm 
bill. Reject this bill. Let us vote on the Senate approach.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman will have the opportunity to vote for $600 million in 
agricultural assistance, and the gentleman will have an opportunity to 
vote for drought relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), an outstanding new 
Member of the House of Representatives.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition to this 
proposed rule. I begin by saying that I fully support the emergency 
spending that is contained in H.R. 5212. The people of Florida and 
throughout the Southeast deserve the assistance contained in that bill. 
The reason for my strong opposition to the rule is simple. It does not 
treat all disasters equally, and thereby it does not treat all 
deserving Americans equally.
  The recent hurricanes are catastrophic weather events. They certainly 
do constitute emergencies, and the losses sustained should be 
compensated as such. However, droughts are catastrophic weather events 
as well, as my distinguished colleague from Nebraska pointed out. The 
only difference being, they are not as visually striking. They ease in 
gradually over the course of weeks and months and even years. They do 
not have names. They do not rip roofs off the buildings. They do not 
make good TV and, therefore, breaking-news coverage. None of the major 
news networks has sent reporters to Faith, South Dakota, to cover the 
ongoing drought.
  But that does not make drought any less devastating both financially 
and emotionally for the people that are affected. I oppose the 
Neugebauer amendment to this rule because it helps suffering farmers by 
raiding farm programs, programs that may not be favored by some but 
programs that as negotiated in 2002 are an important part of our 
national farm policy. The Neugebauer amendment would rob Peter to pay 
Paul, and I oppose it.
  This rule should be rejected so that we can offer a fair amendment to 
the legislation, the proposal by my distinguished colleague from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) that enjoys bipartisan support. I have cosponsored this 
legislation because I believe that it takes the correct approach, the 
fair approach. It would treat all weather-related disasters equally. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and to support the Stenholm 
alternative.
  Beyond these prepared comments, I must say that those in South Dakota 
whose livelihoods depend in large measure on the weather, that are 
involved in farming and ranching, are sick and tired of politics being 
played with this important issue. They deserve better. They deserve 
equal treatment. They deserve emergency disaster assistance.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, really what we are here tonight about is 
farmers and ranchers. The farmers and ranchers do not want us to have 
to be here tonight. They did not ask for these droughts. They did not 
ask for these disasters. But, in fact, they experienced them just like 
the people in Florida did, and it affects farming and ranching families 
all across America.
  Several of my colleagues have gotten up and spoken about the 
tremendous impact it has had on those families and those economies. 
What we are talking about tonight is about doing something in this 
House for those farmers and ranchers. I rise today in support of the 
rule because it is going to help them. This is not something that is 
new, that was invented this evening. This is something that was done 
for the 2001 and 2002 disaster relief program, and it was taken out of 
this very same program in the 2003 bill. So we are not reinventing the 
wheel. We are trying to come up tonight in this House and say to the 
American families that make their living in farming and ranching across 
America, We care about you. We are trying to help you just like we did 
in 2001 and 2002.
  One of the reasons that I introduced a new risk management crop 
insurance tool was to take our farm families away from having to depend 
on the will of the United States Congress when they have these kinds of 
disasters because currently a lot of our risk management tools, our 
crop insurance products, are not adequate to cover these losses, and so 
they have to come back to this Congress and say, Would you please help 
us.
  What we need to do is to help them tonight and pass this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). When my colleague from Florida was 
speaking, he tried to get his attention. I do not know whether he 
wanted to have a colloquy or whether he wanted to make a statement.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the gentleman from 
Florida a simple question. When we are talking about offsets, the 
President did not request offsets. The bill before us today, the 
President's request, did not require offsets for the Florida disasters. 
I just think making a differentiation between disasters in Nebraska and 
South Dakota and Texas from those disasters in Florida, which I concur 
are

[[Page 21166]]

very serious and should be addressed, but it really makes no real sense 
for us to set a precedent of deciding some disasters are worse than 
others.
  You were making that point. I just wanted to say, we are not arguing 
that point. We are saying a disaster is a disaster, and the President 
in his request to this body did not require offsets of the disasters 
which you are defending and supporting, which I concur with you. What I 
do not understand is why the leadership on your side has suddenly 
decided we want a separate rule for other disasters. That makes no 
sense.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
express my support both for the rule and for the basic bill, H.R. 5212. 
Since the early weeks of August, Florida has been ravaged by an 
unprecedented four hurricanes. I represent northern Polk County, and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) represents southern Polk 
County. He has some cities in his district that have been hit by all 
four storms, whether they came in from the east coast or the west 
coast. Those areas were the most hard hit. My constituents were harmed, 
too, but nowhere near the harm that occurred, certainly in the 
panhandle and in the area of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Hurricanes Charley, Ivan, Frances, and Jeanne greeted the Sunshine 
State with a voracity and viciousness that has brought destruction and 
despair to nearly every resident. The aftermath of these storms has 
left Floridians very weary. Floridians face a very dire situation. 
There is much damage to be repaired and the road to normalcy seems long 
and tiring. We must answer the needs of Florida and other States hit by 
the hurricanes and provide the necessary relief. We should not forget 
our commitment to our constituents. Today, by voting for the rule and 
for H.R. 5212, Congress has that opportunity to bring a little light 
back to the Sunshine State.
  This resolution provides for the assistance that these States, 
including Florida, need. The Florida delegation and I have worked very 
closely to ensure that the trials and tribulations of Florida's 
residents are known by the rest of the Nation and that they are not 
forgotten in the bubble of the Beltway. Through a special order, my 
distinguished colleagues and I have worked to ensure that the needs of 
Florida are known and that residents' pleas for assistance are heard, 
respected, and, yes, answered.
  In the early weeks after the initial hurricanes came ashore, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) certainly stepped forward, and we 
worked to provide a $2 billion supplemental appropriation. Once again, 
we are grateful to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for this 
additional appropriation which will help to get on the road to 
recovery, not just for Florida but for other States affected by the 
hurricanes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. 
Disasters know no boundaries, and they certainly know no political 
affiliation. But what we have created here is a system that pits 
disaster against disaster and States against States and that just is 
not right.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that will make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) that would add language to the bill to provide 
nationwide crop loss disaster assistance for weather-related losses for 
the last two crop years. This would help our Nation's farmers who have 
been hit so hard by not only hurricanes but by terrible droughts in the 
West and Midwest and by freezing weather in the North.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from 
taking up the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. However, a 
``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering the Stenholm 
amendment and providing the help that is desperately needed by our 
farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic. We cannot provide 
the assistance we need to provide here tonight when by a minuscule 
comparison of funds, this is just a little more than 1 percent of what 
we are spending in Baghdad.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Putnam

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Putnam:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5212) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for additional 
     disaster assistance relating to storm damage, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall 
     be in order except the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and the 
     amendment numbered 2 for printing in the Congressional Record 
     pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. Each such amendment may 
     be offered by the Member designated in the report or the 
     Member who submitted it for printing in the Congressional 
     Record, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STENHOLM. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Am I to understand that we now have an amendment to the 
rule that we were considering and does this amendment also provide for 
1 hour of debate as to the nature of the amendment?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida is currently pending. The gentleman from Florida is entitled to 
1 hour of debate.
  Mr. STENHOLM. The gentleman from Florida is entitled to 1 hour of 
debate and anyone who might be in opposition is entitled to no time for 
discussion of the amendment?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida remains the 
manager of the amendment and will be recognized for debate on his 
motion but may move the previous question.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Further requesting or asking for a parliamentary 
inquiry so that I and my colleagues might further understand this most 
unusual procedure that we are going through tonight. I do not recall a 
situation like this. There is 1 hour of debate, but it is controlled by 
the majority who have the right to offer an amendment to the rule under 
the rule that we were just debating?

                              {time}  1930

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The manager of the resolution 
may do so.

[[Page 21167]]


  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the majority should so choose to move 
the previous question on it without further discussion, they have every 
right to do so?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for his explanation.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as one can tell, I drew a hot one from my inaugural 
first rule. But I cannot think of a better group of colleagues to work 
on this with than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings); the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd); and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), certainly our senior delegation member.
  This Emergency Supplemental Appropriation is so vitally important to 
rebuilding the infrastructure, the economies, and the communities of 
the hurricane-damaged areas throughout the Southeast, and now, with the 
amendment, those communities of the Midwest and far West who have 
suffered so greatly under the drought. I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

    Previous Question for H. Res. 819--Rule on H.R. 5212 Emergency 
      Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act for FY05

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5212) making 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance 
     relating to storm damage, and for other purposes. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) the amendment 
     printed in Section 2 of the resolution, if offered by 
     Representative Stenholm of Texas or his designee, which shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order or 
     demand for division of the question, shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.
       The amendment referred to in the resolution is as follows:

                          Amendment to H.R. __

        Supplemental Appropriations Bill Offered by Mr. Stenholm

       Add at the appropriate place the following new title:

                                TITLE __

     SEC. __. CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Additional coverage.--The term ``additional coverage'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 502(b) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1502(b)).
       (2) Insurable commodity.--The term ``insurable commodity'' 
     means an agricultural commodity (excluding livestock) for 
     which the producers on a farm are eligible to obtain a policy 
     or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (3) Noninsurable commodity.--The term ``noninsurable 
     commodity'' means an eligible crop for which the producers on 
     a farm are eligible to obtain assistance under section 196 of 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7333).
       (b) Emergency Financial Assistance.--Notwithstanding 
     section 508(b)(7) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(b)(7)), the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in 
     this title as the ``Secretary'') shall use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make emergency financial assistance authorized under this 
     section available to producers on a farm that have incurred 
     qualifying crop or quality losses for the 2003 or 2004 crop 
     (as elected by a producer), but not both, due to damaging 
     weather or related condition, as determined by the Secretary.
       (c) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 815 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-55), including 
     using the same loss thresholds for the quantity and quality 
     losses as were used in administering that section.
       (d) Reduction in Payments.--The amount of assistance that a 
     producer would otherwise receive for a qualifying crop or 
     quality loss under this section shall be reduced by the 
     amount of assistance that the producer receives under the 
     crop loss assistance program announced by the Secretary on 
     August 27, 2004.
       (e) Ineligibility for Assistance.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (f), the producers on a farm shall not be eligible 
     for assistance under this section with respect to losses to 
     an insurable commodity or noninsurable commodity if the 
     producers on the farm--
       (1) in the case of an insurable commodity, did not obtain a 
     policy or plan of insurance for the insurable commodity under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for 
     the crop incurring the losses; and
       (2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, did not file 
     the required paperwork, and pay the administrative fee by the 
     applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable 
     commodity under section 196 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) for the 
     crop incurring the losses.
       (f) Contract Waiver.--The Secretary may waive subsection 
     (e) with respect to the producers on a farm if the producers 
     enter into a contract with the Secretary under which the 
     producers agree--
       (1) in the case of an insurable commodity, to obtain a 
     policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) providing additional coverage for 
     the insurable commodity for each of the next 2 crops; and
       (2) in the case of a noninsurable commodity, to file the 
     required paperwork and pay the administrative fee by the 
     applicable State filing deadline, for the noninsurable 
     commodity for each of the next 2 crops under section 196 of 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 7333).
       (g) Effect of Violation.--In the event of the violation of 
     a contract under subsection (f) by a producer, the producer 
     shall reimburse the Secretary for the full amount of the 
     assistance provided to the producer under this section.

     SEC. __. LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make and administer payments for livestock losses to 
     producers for 2003 or 2004 losses (as elected by a producer), 
     but not both, in a county that has received an emergency 
     designation by the President or the Secretary after January 
     1, 2003, of which an amount determined by the Secretary shall 
     be made available for the American Indian livestock program 
     under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 806 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114 Stat. 1549A-51).
       (c) Mitigation.--In determining the eligibility for or 
     amount of payments for which a producer is eligible under the 
     livestock assistance program, the Secretary shall not 
     penalize a producer that takes actions (recognizing disaster 
     conditions) that reduce the average number of livestock the 
     producer owned for grazing during the production year for 
     which assistance is being provided.

     SEC. __. TREE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       The Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary of the 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide 
     assistance under the tree assistance program established 
     under subtitle C of title X of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 to producers who suffered tree losses 
     during the winter of 2003 through 2004.

     SEC. __. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.

       The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and 
     authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out 
     this title.

     SEC. __. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement this title.
       (b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this title shall be made without regard 
     to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

       Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
     title are each designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), 
     as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 
     649 (108th Congress) and applicable to the Senate by section 
     14007 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,

[[Page 21168]]

     2005 (Public Law 108-287; 118 Stat. 1014). However, such 
     amounts shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the 
previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), if ordered, and on 
the adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 186, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 499]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Boehlert
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Cox
     DeMint
     Gephardt
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Majette
     Millender-McDonald
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Watt
     Waxman

                              {time}  1954

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________