Summary:
All articles in House section
1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING THOSE IN BOSNIA
(House of Representatives - May 15, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H2697-H2775]
1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM
NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING
THOSE IN BOSNIA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 149 and rule
[[Page
H2698]]
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1469.
{time} 1244
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
1469) making emergency supplemental appropriations for recovery from
natural disasters, and for overseas peacekeeping efforts, including
those in Bosnia, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
{time} 1245
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to present to the House the fiscal
year 1997 emergency supplemental bill,
H.R. 1469, and I hope that the
spirit of bipartisanship that has embraced the budget negotiations will
carry forward on this emergency appropriations bill. This is the first
bill the Committee on Appropriations has presented to the 105th
Congress, and I look forward to a very productive year as we move 13
appropriations measures forward.
The bill, as reported, proposes $8.4 billion in new spending
authority, fully offset, and I stress offset, by the rescission of
previously appropriated funds and by including other offsets. Again, I
say this bill is fully offset in budget authority.
The supplemental bill before us provides the following major items:
For disaster recovery we provide $5.509 billion; for miscellaneous
appropriations we provide $113 million; and then we offset that
spending with $5.622 billion of rescissions.
In peacekeeping, in Bosnia and other areas, we repay the Pentagon for
what they have already spent, $2.039 billion, and we offset that with
rescissions of funds previously made to the Pentagon of $2.040 billion.
Mandatory appropriations are included here as well in a third
category, mostly for the veterans' pension benefits and other benefits
for a total of $757 million.
At the beginning of the 104th Congress, Republicans began a policy of
paying for supplementals by rescissions of previously appropriated
funds. I am very proud to say that, once again, the bill reported by
the committee complies with this policy and is totally offset in budget
authority. We have had to look far and wide for offsets to pay for this
disaster recovery bill, as well as our international commitments in
Bosnia, but I would hope that all of our colleagues would recognize the
true national scope of this appropriations bill, and that finding
different or substitute offsets of any major scope is nearly impossible
this late in the fiscal year which began on October 1, 1996.
Mr. Chairman, my objective is to get the disaster recovery money to
the people who need it and to restore our national security funding to
keep our troops safe and secure on the ground in Bosnia. Flood victims
in some 35 States badly need the money in this bill. In addition, our
troops in Bosnia and those men and women who have served our country in
various wars are looking to us to pass this bill quickly as a sign of
our support for them.
So Mr. Chairman, the bill reported by the committee is an excellent
disaster supplemental appropriations bill. It is one which enjoys
tremendous bipartisan support, and there are now several amendments
that, if adopted, could cause this bill to be vetoed. We are going to
speak to them at the appropriate time, but I hope that the Members
would understand that it is important that we get this bill on the
President's desk and signed into law before we adjourn for the Memorial
Day recess.
So I hope that we will keep the bill clean and noncontroversial and
that we will get it passed, conferenced with the Senate and signed into
law as quickly as possible, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Record I would like to insert a
table reflecting the programs and amounts in this bill, as reported.
[[Page
H2699]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.000
[[Page
H2700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.001
[[Page
H2701]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.002
[[Page
H2702]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.003
[[Page
H2703]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.004
[[Page
H2704]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.005
[[Page
H2705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.006
[[Page
H2706]]
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I am in the happy position of
being able to say that at least as of this moment, unless we have
amendments adopted that change the situation, I think we are at a point
where we can have bipartisan support for this bill. I hope it remains
that way.
I would like to simply raise one concern I have about the Thune
amendment. I had hoped that Mr. Thune would be on the floor. I had
asked him to be here. I do not see him at this moment, but let me
simply, because we will not have time on the Thune amendment, let me
raise some concerns about it now.
As the Chair of the committee understands, on the Democratic side of
the aisle we were concerned about the committee decision not to provide
community development block grant funding for the Dakota floods. We had
urged that they do so. The decision was made by the majority party to
withhold judgment on whether or not there ought to be any CDBG funding
provided, and we respected that. Now I am happy to see that there will
be an amendment offered, and I do not expect to object to it when it is
offered today by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
I know that the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] and others are very concerned
that that amendment pass, but I must say that there are some problems
with that amendment that I believe are going to have to be fixed in
conference.
First of all, as I understand it, the amendment attempts to fund $500
million in CDBG money by reducing the $1.2 billion contained in the
original FEMA money to $700 million, which leaves FEMA with a very
tight budget. I am concerned about the robbing Peter to pay Paul, the
result that that might produce. I am also concerned that that amendment
would run the risk of limiting the Federal response and delaying
victims from receiving much-needed assistance through the regular FEMA
account.
In the Senate, the $500 million was added without reducing FEMA's
disaster fund account, and I had hoped that we would be able to simply
adopt that approach. I think it would be useful if we could do that in
conference.
I would also note that I am concerned because the gentleman's
amendment apparently seeks to make permanent changes in law which would
force the Secretary of HUD to waive the requirement that HUD's disaster
assistance benefit only low- and moderate-income persons.
I am also concerned about why it is necessary to force the Secretary
to waive the requirement to hold local public hearings. I am also
concerned that it appears to be the intent of the gentleman's amendment
to allow HUD to make grants, not loans, to privately owned, for-profit
utilities. I am actually unsure about what his intention is in that
regard, and I would simply make this point: It has been Government
policy that CDBG funds can be used to assist businesses damaged by
disasters, to the extent that such businesses are declined loans by the
Small Business Administration or because they need assistance above the
SBA loan limits, and I am curious as to whether or not it is the intent
of the gentleman in that amendment to change that long-standing
practice.
I hope that he can respond to those questions between now and the
time that we deal with this in conference, because everyone wants to
see this amendment go forward, but we want to see it go forward in the
right way.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the Thune amendment is an attempt to provide maximum
flexibility to the people who have suffered such devastation in the
Dakotas and in Minnesota as a result of the flood. There was some
concern that because the flooding was so extensive and had been on the
ground for such a long period of time, that certain businesses and
certain people who live in houses in that flood zone either would not
come back or should not come back, and it has been hard to get a handle
on exactly what should be done and whether or not the Federal
Government, within the confines and restrictions of current law
affecting FEMA, has the flexibility to deal with those questions.
To his credit, the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] is
attempting I think to answer some of those questions. Others in this
Chamber, both on the Republican and the Democrat side, both the
majority and minority side, have had different ideas on how to provide
that flexibility, and I think this is an ongoing process. It is an
ongoing process, so that we can talk it out and by the time we get to
conference, hopefully we will provide the maximum amount of flexibility
that really does help the people that need help, but without simply
throwing the money at the problem and wasting taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I understand the gentleman's
comments and agree with them. We do want to provide whatever amount is
necessary through the CDBG process to enable them to meet their
problems. We do also, because of our responsibility to the taxpayers
and to other potential recipients from FEMA, want to make certain that
in the process we do not hurt FEMA's ability to deliver aid. We also
want to make certain that we do not unnecessarily make permanent
changes in law that might come back to haunt us.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations for yielding time to me, and I hope I can do it in 2
minutes. I want to commend the gentleman.
I do want to say I was very disappointed, though, that the leadership
in the Committee on rules chose not to protect from points of order a
total of $1.6 billion in rescissions of contract authority. These
rescissions are necessary to ensure that the spending contained in this
bill is fully offset. Without them, this emergency Supplemental
appropriations will add more than $1.6 billion to the deficit, and I
would have hoped, knowing that the gentleman has done such a good job
and the committee did such a good job of offsetting it, that that would
have been protected. I just thought it was a given, because we have
been committed to making sure that all of this is offset.
Second, and I have so much here, I would just submit it all for the
Record, but I would say that I am concerned that the senate has added
much more money in to this for highway spending to donor States, far
beyond what the President or anybody else has even suggested that
should be in. We wanted a bill that was totally offset, and now they
have added so much more.
Third, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations knows, and
I would hope that we can resolve this matter, they have also basically
put earmarking back in. This House, on both sides of the aisle, did
away with earmarking. Some people call them pork projects, some people
call them highway demonstration projects, others call them whatever
they want to.
As an example, in the Senate bill, the State of Alabama would receive
$21 million in additional highway aid funds in fiscal year 1997 and the
State of Alabama would be required to spend all of that money on one
specific project, the Warrior Loop project.
The House is well aware that we have gotten rid of these things, so
therefore the other body has put in more money, well beyond what the
President wanted, and at the very time both bodies are meeting, the
budget committees are meeting, everyone is taking credit for reaching a
balanced budget in the year 2002, yet we put more money into this than
the President asked or anybody else asked for. So I hope as we get to
conference both of these issues will be resolved.
Lastly, this is not the place to rewrite ISTEA. The place to rewrite
ISTEA is in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure this
year.
I again want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
for his outstanding job, and just hope that we can make sure this money
is offset when we go back to committee.
[[Page
H2707]]
I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding me
a few minutes so that I might discuss a few of the items in the
Transportation Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
First, the chairman of the full committee needs to be congratulated
for the yeoman's work that he has done in crafting this bill--an $8.4
billion emergency supplemental bill that is fully offset. That was no
easy task. He has been forced to make some difficult decisions and has
done a commendable job under equally difficult circumstances.
I am disappointed, however, that the leadership and the Rules
Committee chose not to protect from points of order a total of $1.6
billion in rescissions of contract authority. These rescissions are
necessary to ensure that the spending contained in this bill is fully
offset. Without them, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill
will add more than $1.6 billion to the deficit.
This action is disturbing and painful.
In the area of transportation, the emergency supplemental bill
includes $650 million in emergency highway program funds, $40 million
for the FAA to procure additional explosive detection equipment, $22
million for the National Transportation Safety Board, and $10 million
for emergency railroad rehabilitation. These funds are needed
desperately to respond to the devastating floods that occurred
throughout our country this spring and to ensure safety in our skies.
The bill also includes $318 million in additional fiscal year 1997
obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway program. These funds
were requested by the President and are intended to compensate those
States that were given an expectation of what they would receive--a
false expectation, based on an arithmetic error by the Treasury
Department--which they then calculated into their State highway fund.
The committee has been responsible and diligent in responding to the
needs of the people in the flooded areas while being mindful of the
desire of the American people to balance the budget and to offset this
additional spending.
I am concerned, however, that the other body has gone much further
than is necessary or warranted. I want to alert my colleagues to the
other body's actions on its version of the supplemental bill--
particularly with respect to two troubling issues. These issues have
the potential to delay unnecessarily the emergency funding contained in
this bill.
The other body has provided a total of $933 million in additional
fiscal year 1997 obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway
program. Of this amount, $457 million was added to address the Treasury
error that I alluded to earlier in my remarks.
Moreover, the other body has provided almost a half a billion dollars
more in additional fiscal year 1997 Federal-aid highway spending. This
spending was not requested by the President and is not necessary as an
emergency requirement.
This funding has nothing to do with the arithmetic error. It has to
do with providing a hold-harmless provision to donee States to address
what the donee States now see as a problem in the highway authorization
act of 1991.
That act, ISTEA, contained a provision for donor States--those States
that had traditionally received back substantially less than they had
contributed to the highway trust-fund--that in the last year of the 6
years of ISTEA authorization, which is this year, there would be
inserted a 90-percent floor. That is, no State would get back less than
90 percent of what it contributed to the highway fund. The 90-percent
standard has been the holy grail of those States that have gotten less
back than they have contributed to the fund.
This program, the 90 percent of payments program, was part of the
common understanding of the Congress and the States when President Bush
signed the bill in 1991. It was the understanding of the donee States.
It is now the law of the land.
Well, now the donee States want more--more than what they have
received in excess of their contributions over the last 6 years, more
than what they would get under current law, more that what they are
entitled to under ISTEA. The donee States would get a half a billion
dollars more from the other body. This is not fair to the donor States.
While the majority of the other body is represented by donee, States,
the overwhelming majority of this House is elected from donor States.
Mr. Chairman, this urgent supplemental appropriations bill is not the
place--nor is it the time--to debate the donor/donee States issue. The
reauthorization of ISTEA is the proper and appropriate legislation to
debate this divisive issue.
In addition to this item, the other body has taken the unprecedented
step of earmarking seven highway demonstration projects from the funds
provided to the States under the regular Federal-aid highway program.
Rather than provide additional highway funds to the States without
strings attached or to earmark funds in excess of the regular Federal-
aid highway program for specific projects, as has been the norm, the
other body directs certain States to spend a portion--and in some cases
all--of their Federal-aid highway fund on specific highway
demonstration projects.
As an example, in the Senate bill, the State of Alabama would receive
$21 million in additional Federal-aid highway funds in fiscal year
1997. The State of Alabama would be required to spend all of that money
on one specific project, the Warrior Loop project.
Now, under the provisions of the Senate's bill, the State of Alabama
either uses its Federal-aid highway funds on this one particular
project by the end of September, or it loses all of it.
The State is afforded no elasticity as they have under current law.
The process advocated by the other body will significantly change the
manner in which the Federal Highway Administration manages the Federal-
aid highway program. It will also impact each of the States' ability to
fund the projects of greatest need. And it eliminates the flexibility
afforded the States and local units of government under current law to
determine what project or program is best for them.
This process undermines the planning process established by ISTEA and
forces the States to give a higher priority on these projects than on
other potentially more worthy projects.
The House is well aware of our position on the earmarking of highway
demonstration projects. As a result of not earmarking highway
demonstration projects, the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation has been able to increase the Federal-aid highway
program by almost $1 billion.
In doing so, we have allowed the States and people at the local level
to determine the appropriate use of these funds--not people here in
Washington in their ivory towers.
These issues are surely to be contentious in conference and I felt
compelled to inform my colleagues at this stage of the process.
I am afraid that a protracted debate on Federal-aid highway formulas
and the underlying donor/donee State problem as well as the earmarking
highway demonstration projects will delay the necessary funding to
respond to the devastating floods that occurred this spring.
I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
(Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
{time} 1300
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
1469, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, because it
contains very important money for our region for the disaster that we
just went through, a disaster like we have never seen in 500 years in
Minnesota.
In East Grand Forks, pictured here, in Breckenridge, in Ada, in
Warren, and all the rural communities along the Red River, we were
under water. Nobody can remember anything like this. We had snowstorms,
ice storms, and then, last, the flood of 1997.
There is the city of East Grand Forks, a town of 9,000 people, that
got hit probably the hardest of any community in this flood. Everyone,
the entire town was under water. It had to be evacuated because the
water kept rising. In the end it just could not be stopped. Every
street, every home, every business went under water, and the water did
not go down for 2 weeks.
In true Minnesota style, the people of Crookston, Thief River Falls,
Red Lake Falls, Bemidji, and many other communities opened their doors
and provided shelter and people to help us get through, and to help the
people driven out by the floods.
Now, although the water has receded, the damage and desolation that
is everywhere is reminiscent of a nuclear blast. There are no children
playing, and life is now just returning to normal. There is garbage and
debris every place you look. People's entire lives are sitting on the
berms waiting to be scooped up by payloaders. East Grand Forks has lost
four of their six schools,
[[Page
H2708]]
their city hall, their library, and neighborhood after neighborhood.
Thirty-five to forty percent of this community is going to have to be
rebuilt and moved to another part of the area so we do not do this
again.
Mr. Chairman, in all of the flood-ravaged communities in the Red
River Valley, the challenge now is to rebuild. On behalf of all of the
Minnesotans in the Seventh District, I want to thank the President, the
Vice President, the Speaker, the majority leader and other Members who
came out to look at the damage for themselves, and thank them for all
the help they have given us to get to this point.
The work of FEMA and the director, James Lee Witt, have been
outstanding. I want to thank each and every one of the agency personnel
who have been out in the Seventh District helping our people and
communities get back on their feet.
I also want to thank the National Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and
the mayors. I thank them and I encourage everyone to support this bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], chairman of the
Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I
would like to urge our colleagues to do everything possible to expedite
this bill. The money for the Department of Defense that we provide in
this bill is offset from the Department of Defense budget. There is no
new money here. It is basically a transfer within the department's
funding. But if we cannot get this done expeditiously, the operation
and maintenance accounts, the training accounts for all of the
services, are going to be severely affected.
I just urge our colleagues, however they intend to vote on the bill,
help us expedite the consideration of this bill so we do not have to
stand down any flight training or stand down any training on the part
of any of the services, or affect any of the operations and
maintenance, because that is what will happen if we do not get this
funding resolution, this supplemental appropriations bills, through
here quickly.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Reyes].
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer an amendment today, but it
was ruled not germane to the bill. The amendment would have provided
for displaced workers affected by NAFTA, which I believe qualify for
disaster relief. I appreciate the opportunity to enter my remarks,
written remarks, into the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer an amendment today but I've been told
that, under the rule, my amendment is not germane so I'm not going to
offer it but I would like to tell my colleagues about it.
Last week, the New York Times ran a lengthy article about workers who
have been dislocated by NAFTA. The dateline on the story was El Paso,
TX, which I represent.
Mr. Chairman, during the first 2\1/2\ years of NAFTA, Texas had
almost 8,000 certified job losses as a result of NAFTA.
More than half of those dislocated workers were in El Paso.
Under current law, after these workers exhaust their unemployment
compensation, they are entitled to cash benefits for 52 weeks while
they are retraining.
Many of these workers have exhausted those cash benefits and they are
still jobless.
My amendment would have appropriated an additional $10 million for
these workers and extend their eligibility for benefits an additional 6
months.
My amendment would also have appropriated an additional $1.6 million
for the retraining programs, which would bring the appropriation up to
$30 million, the maximum amount authorized.
Today we're considering a supplemental appropriations bill primarily
for disaster relief.
As far as I'm concerned, these dislocated workers need disaster
relief, too. Unfortunately, under this rule, we're not going to be able
to help them.
Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to these workers and I will be on
this floor every chance I get to speak on their behalf.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I thank very, very sincerely the Committee on
Appropriations chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations for their assistance in working up an appropriate
disaster relief proposal, formed as the Thune amendment.
Mr. Chairman, what we have in North Dakota is an absolute disaster,
the dimensions of which we have never experienced before. Grand Forks,
ND, second largest town in the State, A town of 50,000, was under
water, and the consequences of it are absolutely devastating for the
businesses and the homeowners that reside there.
What we are finding as we begin tackling the rebuilding component of
this is the additional needs that are simply not met with the existing
programs. For example, we literally have hundreds of homes in the
floodway, a floodway that is proposed to be razed, and a permanent dike
established so we do not have this problem ever again.
These individuals need to know right now whether or not funds will be
available on a home buyout proposal so they might have the means to
build on higher ground while the city's enhanced flood protection
program moves forward.
The Thune amendment allows this to happen by transferring funds from
FEMA into the Community Development Block Grant, to be more flexibly
applied to the unique needs that this situation presents. The CDBG
funds in the Thune amendment are not exclusively for the area, and
other areas that have had disasters may also access these funds to
augment the existing structure of disaster relief programs.
What we have seen with the Thune amendment is a bipartisan response
to a truly national disaster. President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, the
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, all have visited
the area. The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] and the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] have worked at great length putting this
together. Please support the Thune amendment and the bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], a new and valued member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 1469, the
Disaster Recovery Act of 1997, which will get money needed as a result
of the floods to Kentucky residents. I am sorry for so many of the
people that suffered in my community because of this extraordinary
flood that occurred this spring. We had 12 inches of rain in 1 day. We
had flash flooding, and then a major flood when the river overflowed as
it drained off and the river flooded.
This flood was the worst since 1964. There is no amount of personal
insurance, of personal precautions, that would prepare a person or a
community for this size flood. It is in this bill where we reach out to
those people who were struck so badly.
My constituents have said this is when Government should become
involved in citizens' lives, when Government is truly the last resort
for assistance. It is a bill which will help many States and citizens,
and it was developed in a teamwork approach. That is why I urge my
colleagues to vote for this bill.
I hope the President will listen to the needs of my constituents from
Kentucky, Arkansas, and throughout the Nation, and please, sign this
bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations and our ranking member for their hard work to bring
this legislation to the floor. When natural disaster strikes, the
people of our country have a right to have a response from us, and a
response that is quick and appropriate. That is why I hope that we can
do that with this legislation, and why it is hard to understand why
anyone would want to throw up an obstacle to the very quickest response
to the needs of the American people.
That obstacle is in the form, in this legislation, of having in order
the Gekas amendment. President Clinton has rightfully said that if the
Gekas
[[Page
H2709]]
amendment is included in this bill, that he would veto the bill. So I
urge my colleagues, when it comes time to vote on the Gekas amendment,
to vote against it.
Who wins under the Gekas amendment? I think just the House
Republicans, because this month's balanced budget agreement includes
several new investments in education and other priorities for American
families, but Republicans are hoping they can ignore those bipartisan
commitments by ramming through this amendment, which would allow them
to impose automatic $25 billion cuts in education and other priorities.
If the Gekas amendment passes today, here is what could happen:
86,000 fewer children would be enrolled in Head Start, 360,000 fewer
students would receive Pell grants for college or job training, 31,000
fewer students would get college work study jobs. If you are a veteran
you should be concerned, because 60,000 veterans could be denied
medical care, 66,000 people would lose job training and job placement.
The list goes on and on. If you are concerned about the environment,
the cleanup of 900 toxic waste sites could be delayed, 500,000 fewer
at-risk pregnant women and children would get milk, cereal, and other
foods. We will be debating that under the WIC provision that our
colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], is proposing. It is
hard to understand how the Republican majority rejected the WIC
funding. It is hard to understand why they would allow the Gekas
amendment to stand in the way of the quickest possible aid to people
suffering from disaster in America.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Quinn].
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment today. Our
amendment adds $38 million to the supplemental food program for
nutritionally at-risk pregnant women, infants, and children under the
age of 5. We propose to take unused dollars from a NASA wind tunnel
project to offset the cost of the additional dollars.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the interest from Members on both sides
of the aisle. If we do not include these funds, 180,000 women, infants,
and children will be removed from the program. Because of an increased
need, food price inflation, along with an underestimated caseload for
fiscal year 1997, a serious reduction of women, infants, and children
served through the WIC Program this year is inescapable.
The WIC participation for 1996 fiscal year exceeded the initial
projection by 100,000 women, infants, and children. Innocent children
are facing unique and challenging circumstances at this time. We should
be there to help them. For instance, the flooding in North Dakota has
caused 3,000 additional caseloads with the WIC Program.
There has been some controversy surrounding our request for these
additional funds, there is no question. However, if we cannot continue
to serve these people who need our help, who are experiencing temporary
difficulty with maintaining a healthful diet at their most critical
time of growth and development, if we cannot do this, we are
essentially cutting the program.
WIC is a well-managed program that would put these additional
dollars, I believe and others believe, to efficient use. In fact, it
includes the most successful cost-containment system of any Federal
health-related program. We all know, and it has been justified, it has
been talked about, that for every dollar WIC spends on prenatal care,
we save $3.50 spent on Medicaid.
WIC is one Federal program that I believe and others do that is truly
deserving, and it delivers what it promises to the American taxpayer.
Medical evidence shows that the WIC Program reduces low birthweight,
infant mortality, and child anemia. This amendment is proof that we can
do what we want when we work from both sides of the aisle.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations for yielding me the time, and also the
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. Chairman, I stand to lend my support to the bill as reported by
the committee, and I want to thank them for their skill and sensitivity
in bringing this before the floor.
On behalf of myself and my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Diaz-Balart, the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Clay Shaw, and the gentleman from Rhode
Island, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, our amendment, which has been allowed as a
part of this particular exercise here this morning, it takes through
the fiscal year the cutoff of SSI income and Medicaid checks to legal
immigrants, including refugees and asylees. This delay will give
Congress a chance, Mr. Chairman, to agree on a permanent solution to
help and assist these vulnerable people.
Our amendment provides an offsetting rescission in budget authority
that will allow us to do this, so that when Congress takes its recess,
these very worthy legal immigrants will continue to receive their
benefits. Our amendment, which they have been so helpful in letting us
offer this morning, is identical to the one that has already been
passed by the Senate on May 7.
We all know that the Social Security Administration has sent out over
800,000 letters to people letting them know they may or may not have a
cutoff of their benefits. We know they have let them know, and this has
caused quite a bit of consternation with the many people who received
them.
But now, because of the sensitivity of this Congress and because of
this supplemental bill, we will hopefully, with our amendment, be
allowed to help these people. This cutoff was required by the welfare
law that was enacted last year.
SSI checks, as we know, they go to needy people, they go to aged and
frail people and disabled people. They are the most vulnerable people
in our society. These people, most of them are over 64 years of age,
blind or disabled, and certainly this Congress does not want to see
their SSI cut off. We want to thank this Congress, Mr. Chairman, for
this wonderful act.
{time} 1315
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
I would simply like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida. The
history of this provision is that when we first marked up the
supplemental in the Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from
Florida tried to offer an amendment which would have provided for a
long-term extension of the restoration of the benefits that this
amendment covers. She understood fully that it was not the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Appropriations, and she understood why the
gentleman from Louisiana and I had to oppose that amendment.
But she then offered this amendment in committee which would provide
in essence for a 1-month bridge so that we would not have people lose
their benefits in August, be out of benefits for a month, only to then
have them resume if the budget agreement passes which restores these
benefits. So she agreed to withhold offering that amendment in
committee, so long as her right to offer this amendment was protected
on the floor, as in fact now has occurred.
I simply want to say that this is the responsible way to approach
this problem. It would be ludicrous for these people to be bounced off
the rolls for one month and then go back on. I appreciate her
commitment on the issue. That is why this matter is before us today.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I agree with everything that
the gentleman from Wisconsin has just said but would add that this
amendment became necessary because of a shortfall created in the
welfare reform program.
I want to say that I totally agree with, concur with and support the
welfare reform activities that this Congress entered into in the 104th
Congress. But when we reduced welfare, in effect we created savings in
the entitlement side of the equation or the mandatory portion of the
budget, and now we are making up for the differential out of the
discretionary portion of the budget.
For the average person throughout America, they do not know the
difference between mandatory spending
[[Page
H2710]]
and discretionary spending, and they do not care and they need not
care. It does not matter to them. But for us who have to work with the
numbers day in and day out, we know that we are making great gains in
the discretionary portion of the budget pie, saving the American
taxpayers money, and we are not making significant or we made less
gains on the entitlement side.
Hopefully with this budget agreement we will make significantly more
gains. But it just seems unfortunate that we have to make up for the
shortfall on the discretionary side of the budget that was created on
the entitlement side of the budget recognizing that what I just said is
inside-the-Beltway jargon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Walsh], the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Legislative. He did an outstanding job previously on the Subcommittee
on the District of Columbia.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], for the terrific job that he is doing under very difficult
conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the intent of the provision included
in this bill by the Committee on Appropriations that would place a 14-
million acre limitation on the number of acres that could be enrolled
in the Conservation Reserve Program in 1997.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of
the CRP program, and I support efforts to ensure a full 36-million acre
enrollment. However, my purpose in placing this limitation language in
the bill was to ensure that only the most environmentally sensitive
land is enrolled in the CRP. USDA maintains that they plan on enrolling
acreage that provides the greatest environmental benefit for the dollar
spent. Our language merely was giving USDA breathing room to do the job
right in accordance with the 1995 farm bill.
Currently, over 75 percent of the acres enrolled in the CRP is
concentrated in nine States. Much of this acreage was enrolled back in
the mid-1980's, when the CRP program was a price support program. Our
bill language was meant to ensure that the USDA did not re-enroll some
of these highly productive lands when world stocks of grain are
exceedingly low. Idling productive acres is not what Congress intended
when it passed the farm bill last year. Taxpayer money should not be
used to re-enroll productive lands in the CRP program.
One of the problems with this new sign up is that this year's bidding
occurred only 3 weeks after the new rules were finalized by USDA. This
did not leave sufficient time for outreach to farmers who had not
previously participated in the program. It is only reasonable to assume
that most of the States need some time to disseminate information about
the new program.
Even more troubling to us was the fact that USDA policies on rental
rates discouraged enrollments in the East and the West coastal regions
while USDA administrative policies also discouraged Western rangeland
from participating in the program.
We also wanted to ensure that adequate CRP acreage was provided for
the continuous enrollment of buffer strips which are perhaps the most
effective way of controlling farm runoff.
A final point is that tight Federal dollars must buy maximum
conservation benefits. Our appropriations bill language was fiscally
responsible in that it saved, in fiscal year 1998, $31 million, and in
1999, $177 million. These moneys could have been available to spend on
other critical agricultural programs that we will not otherwise be able
to fund at sufficient levels in the upcoming bills.
I thank the chairman for yielding me the time on this important issue
to express the intent of the CRP bill language. I look forward to
continued work with the committee and with USDA to ensure that regional
inequities in the administration's CRP program are addressed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I appreciate the gentleman's
concern for his region. It is perfectly appropriate.
I would simply say that I think there are many in Congress who have a
different view of the provision in the bill at this point with respect
to the CRP. It seems to me that on an emergency supplemental, we should
not be making this kind of change in basic law. It insures to the
detriment of a good many farmers in the upper Midwest. I trust that at
the time it will be properly stricken on a point of order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We are concerned
in the Northeast, the Southeast, the Southwest and the far West that
all of the acres will be enrolled within this year in one section of
the country. This was meant to be a national program.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is a national program.
it should be allowed to proceed the way the department and farmers
expected it to. If other regions of the country are behind, I suspect
over time that will be a self-correcting phenomenon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Boswell].
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise in support of this emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
As many of my colleagues have done, I, too, have been an appropriations
person in another life. I realize there is a temptation for Members on
supplementals to want to do other things. But I want to remind my
colleagues that the intended target of this funding would be the people
affected by the flooding which has devastated parts of North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, and California.
We need to help our neighbors in their time of need, and it is the
right thing to do. Nearly 4 years ago my State of Iowa suffered from
the great flood of 1993, a 500-year flood. I remember the assistance
the Federal Government provided us in our communities in our time of
great need. There may be provisions in this massive funding bill that
we may find objectionable; that will always be the case. But please do
not derail this because of wanting to attach to a supplemental
something that would actually delay the needed relief.
I ask my colleagues to join me in extending a neighborly helping hand
to the affected States and provide them with the help they need to
improve their situation. Anyone who has been through a devastational
flood can attest it takes time, money, and a lot of sweat and hard work
to get back to some semblance of normalcy. Let us provide one part of
that equation by adopting this emergency funding bill. It only makes
sense.
Hopefully, no amendments will be adopted that will cause a veto or
delay this much needed assistance. We owe it to our neighbors. Let us
pass this and get this help to them right away.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the great
gentleman from the Great State of Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a great
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston], the great chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, for his great introduction.
Mr. Speaker, I am here pleased to support the work of the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations and working with the ranking minority
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to bring to the
Congress, to the House, a wonderful effort to meet the needs of the
flood victims of last year. It is absolutely critical that we pass this
bill today, and I totally support it.
I also appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Walsh], my colleague who was here a moment ago, speaking with regard to
CRP. I want my colleagues to understand that, as a member of the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations, we really resisted the amendment of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Walsh] to cap CRP, Conservation Reserve Program, acres at
14 million acres. We want it to
[[Page
H2711]]
be the 19 million acres that are intended to be enrolled in 1997.
This is supported by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. It
is supported by people who care deeply about agriculture across this
country, not the least of whom are in my own district, the Fifth
District of the State of Washington. CRP is a great program. We should
not fool with it in an appropriations bill, especially an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill.
I happened to be pleased to join with the chairman of the Committee
on Agriculture today in raising a point of order to have the cap lifted
and the language that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] was able
to insert in the subcommittee and full committee and have that language
removed from the bill, because it is bad policy on an emergency
supplemental. It is also bad policy for agriculture.
The Conservation Reserve Program helps habitat, it helps the
environment, it helps agriculture, it does all of those things for the
good of the Nation. The program has been fairly distributed. I am happy
to work with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and anybody else
to get the Department of Agriculture to enroll acres that are properly
to be enrolled, highly erodible acreage.
So I will offer this point of order with the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. Smith] today, and I urge the support of my colleagues.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
(Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill that is under
consideration and the Thune amendment. The area of Minnesota which I
represent is one of the hardest hit by this spring's flooding. The
work, the spirit of the local officials, the residents, the volunteers,
State and local officers, and others have prevailed in our area's
recovery. This is a tribute to all of this hard work.
I also wish to signal my support for the Smith point of order that
would strike the limitation on the Conservation Reserve Program. This
is an important program for our country. It ought to be allowed to move
ahead as the U.S. Department of Agriculture is implementing it.
I rise today to commend the community leaders, volunteers, and public
servants of flood ravaged communities along the Minnesota River. The
flooded communities in my district will begin to put their lives back
together with the passage of the fiscal year 1997 emergency
supplemental appropriations bill before the House today.
From treacherous November windstorms, to unprecedented January
snowstorms, to the flood of the century, Minnesota weather has
certainly tested our wills. Cleanup and recovery efforts from the
floods have just begun. I have held numerous town meetings in flood-
ravaged areas along the Minnesota River, and I have seen that, in the
true Minnesota spirit, folks are moving on with their lives with their
heads held high. The passage of this bill today is a long-awaited,
important step toward recovery.
This disaster experience has summoned an unprecedented level of
commitment from all levels of government starting at the local level.
Mayor Jim Curtis and City Manager Jim Norman of my hometown of
Montevideo, as well as Granite Falls' Mayor Dave Smiglewski and City
Manager Bill Lavin; Dawson's Mayor Al Schacherer and City Manager David
Bovee; Redwood Falls Mayor Sara Triplett and City Manager Jeff Weldon;
New Ulm's Mayor Bert Schapekahm and City Manager Richard Salvati; St.
Peter's Mayor Jerry Hawbacker and Daniel Jordet; Morton's Mayor David
Mude and City Clerk Shirley Dove; Appleton's Mayor Hugo ``Bob'' Roggatz
and Coordinator Robert Thompson; Ortonville's Mayor David Ellingson and
Clerk Administrator John Jenkins; and Beardsley's Mayor Glenn Burgess;
Boyd's Mayor Gary Steinke and Clerk Karen Schmitt; Clara City Mayor
Todd Prekker; Maynard's Mayor Richard Groothuis; and Odessa's Mayor
Donald Teske, along with numerous county commissioners and emergency
management officials, are just a few of the many community leaders who
showed remarkable courage and perseverance when their communities were
under crisis.
The Federal Government worked together with these officials as well.
When our region was devastated with drastic winter storms, Federal
employees from the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] were on
hand to assess the damage of our public roads, buildings, and
utilities. Other employees worked efficiently to open roads after
unprecedented winter snowfall. During the flooding of the Minnesota and
Red Rivers, FEMA employees were immediately disseminating information
and helping flood victims get back on their feet. I even heard from
several of our local county officials that FEMA responded so quickly,
local officials had to speed up their assessment of the damage so that
the Federal employees could proceed with their response.
These are but a few examples of good government and cooperation we
have witnessed throughout this disaster. City mayors to local emergency
teams, to county and State representatives, to Federal officials have
demonstrated that government can be effective.
I am pleased that the Speaker recognized the extent of the damage in
our area and vowed his assistance. According to Minnesota Gov. Arne
Carlson's office, the Speaker has promised Minnesota Federal
reimbursement aid at 90 percent when that level is accorded to the
States of North Dakota and South Dakota. This would allow the Federal
Government to cover 90 percent of the costs while the State and local
governments would be responsible for 10 percent. Minnesota's counties
who were ravaged by the unprecedented floods should not be excluded
from this reimbursement ratio that recognizes the severity of the
damage, and I commend the Speaker for lending his support to Minnesota.
I would also like to voice my strong support for the inclusion of
Community Development Block Grants [CDBG's] in the supplemental
appropriations bill. After consultations with the FEMA and local
officials in Minnesota, I agree that CDBG's will effectively serve
flood victims and I urge my colleagues to support Representative
Thune's amendment that provides the inclusion of Community Development
Block Grants [CDBG's]. This is the best way for the Federal Government
to quickly and efficiently aid flood victims and restore our devastated
communities to economic vitality.
Unfortunately, this bill came before the House with several
extraneous provisions and its consideration was delayed because of
several superfluous additions. I was disappointed that the bill was not
brought to the floor as a clean, emergency appropriations bill. The
extraneous provisions took the focus away from providing aid to the
victims of the flood.
I am pleased, however, that the Speaker allowed my colleague,
Representative Ray LaHood and I to bring forward an amendment to strike
one of the extraneous provisions. The bill called for a cap on
enrollment of the Conservation Reserve Program [C.R.P.]. The C.R.P. has
enabled Minnesota to protect environmentally-sensitive land and has
revitalized the wildlife habitat in our region. Our amendment would
maintain C.R.P. enrollment at the current level and allow farmers and
landowners to continue to take advantage of this popular, efficient,
conservation program.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgency of our situation in
Minnesota and allow the House to come to the aid of the flood victims
in the Midwest immediately. The passage of this bill will enable local
governments to continue to help the people in their flood-ravaged
communities put their lives back together.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I am in a similar
position as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. I had seven
Members who desperately wanted to speak, none of whom are now here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate
the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this bill to the House
so we can help and assist the flood victims and also provide more
financial aid to the troops in Bosnia.
There are two issues that I would like the House Members support. One
issue deals with WIC. As you know, it should be the objective of this
House to fully fund WIC. In my former political life as a county board
supervisor and being in charge of an indigent hospital, we would see
that women who came in and were enrolled in the WIC Program delivered
children that were healthy and probably the children would have a
better life of quality, where women who were not enrolled in the WIC
Program delivered a low-weight baby and we found the children would
experience problems.
{time} 1330
So it makes good sense to support WIC because it is humane and also
it will save costs in the future.
[[Page
H2712]]
The second issue that I would ask support for deals with the Diaz-
Balart-Meek amendment, and this is to extend the social services that
will be denied to legal immigrants.
What is happening today, Mr. Speaker, is that legal immigrants,
people who have lived in this country for many years, have raised their
children, have paid their taxes, and because of the new welfare reform
legislation, will be denied social services.
Many legal immigrants today are receiving notices that they will no
longer receive social services due to their status of not being
citizens. That is causing a lot of problems, especially to the elderly;
people who are in nursing homes, people who need the assistance of food
stamps because they are not making enough on their pensions, and also
young people will be affected.
So I would ask the Members to support the Meek amendment. All it does
is extend the services until the end of the fiscal year so that the
people will continue to receive services and, once we pass the budget,
hopefully all those services will be restored to the legal immigrants.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would just take a minute to say that this is an important bill. The
President initially requested about $2 billion for disaster relief for
people devastated in California and various other States, and then the
incredible flooding of the Dakotas and Minnesota occurred in the
interim. All of these people, not only in those States I have
mentioned, but all told in some 35 States, have suffered the ill
effects of terrible weather and the tremendous adversity of nature.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the American taxpayer has become the
insurer of last resort. So it seems that year after year we have to
come up with these supplemental appropriations bills to deal with this
devastation. We are happy to do that. We want to make sure that we try
to repair some of the damage. There is no way on God's green Earth we
will be able to repair all of the damage but, at the same time, we owe
the taxpayer the responsibility to make sure that the money is spent
wisely; that it is not wasted; that it is simply not just thrown at the
problem.
In addition to the disaster relief, President Clinton, of course, has
detailed troops to Bosnia and to Haiti and other places throughout the
world and those expeditions have exceeded their budget and have
exceeded the money previously appropriated to the Defense Department,
and so we have to pay for those ventures. Unless we, at some point,
pull our troops out of those places, that expense goes on from day to
day. We cannot simply tell our troops to go out and do the job, but we
will not pay for it.
So it is important, I think, that we pass this bill, that we pay for
the troops, that we pay for the devastation, but that we offset it
within the existing budget. We have done that in this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
yielding.
I wanted to mention for the Record that there are a number of
colleagues who will have colloquies with myself regarding some items on
the emergency side of this bill. There are some complicated
difficulties we are having on housing programs. I want my colleagues to
know that we are very aware of those circumstances and plan to work
with our colleagues.
In view of the fact that many were not able to be here at this
moment, I would suggest that the gentleman has done fabulous work on
this bill, I congratulate him for his efforts, and certainly those
people facing disasters across the country owe him a good deal of
gratitude.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I want to
say this is a bipartisan bill. We have gotten this far in joint
agreement because Members across this House of Representatives, working
in tandem with the other body, have decided that these items must be
paid for, and yet we have also joined forces to make sure that we find
the budget authority within our previously appropriated items to offset
the increased costs.
So right now there are no additional costs to the U.S. taxpayer for
what is spent in this bill. I think that makes it a reasonable bill, a
bill that meets the demands of the American people and a bill that
should be passed with as few amendments as absolutely possible.
I do hope that we can get this bill passed without undue political
wrangling, that we can put it on the President's desk and that we can
get his signature within the next few days, certainly before we leave
on the Memorial Day recess. In fact, I would encourage all of our
Members on both sides of the aisle and the leadership to make sure they
do everything possible to assure that this bill becomes law before the
Memorial Day recess.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to announce my support for
H.R. 1469, the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
Included
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING THOSE IN BOSNIA
(House of Representatives - May 15, 1997)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H2697-H2775]
1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM
NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING
THOSE IN BOSNIA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 149 and rule
[[Page
H2698]]
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1469.
{time} 1244
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
1469) making emergency supplemental appropriations for recovery from
natural disasters, and for overseas peacekeeping efforts, including
those in Bosnia, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
{time} 1245
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to present to the House the fiscal
year 1997 emergency supplemental bill,
H.R. 1469, and I hope that the
spirit of bipartisanship that has embraced the budget negotiations will
carry forward on this emergency appropriations bill. This is the first
bill the Committee on Appropriations has presented to the 105th
Congress, and I look forward to a very productive year as we move 13
appropriations measures forward.
The bill, as reported, proposes $8.4 billion in new spending
authority, fully offset, and I stress offset, by the rescission of
previously appropriated funds and by including other offsets. Again, I
say this bill is fully offset in budget authority.
The supplemental bill before us provides the following major items:
For disaster recovery we provide $5.509 billion; for miscellaneous
appropriations we provide $113 million; and then we offset that
spending with $5.622 billion of rescissions.
In peacekeeping, in Bosnia and other areas, we repay the Pentagon for
what they have already spent, $2.039 billion, and we offset that with
rescissions of funds previously made to the Pentagon of $2.040 billion.
Mandatory appropriations are included here as well in a third
category, mostly for the veterans' pension benefits and other benefits
for a total of $757 million.
At the beginning of the 104th Congress, Republicans began a policy of
paying for supplementals by rescissions of previously appropriated
funds. I am very proud to say that, once again, the bill reported by
the committee complies with this policy and is totally offset in budget
authority. We have had to look far and wide for offsets to pay for this
disaster recovery bill, as well as our international commitments in
Bosnia, but I would hope that all of our colleagues would recognize the
true national scope of this appropriations bill, and that finding
different or substitute offsets of any major scope is nearly impossible
this late in the fiscal year which began on October 1, 1996.
Mr. Chairman, my objective is to get the disaster recovery money to
the people who need it and to restore our national security funding to
keep our troops safe and secure on the ground in Bosnia. Flood victims
in some 35 States badly need the money in this bill. In addition, our
troops in Bosnia and those men and women who have served our country in
various wars are looking to us to pass this bill quickly as a sign of
our support for them.
So Mr. Chairman, the bill reported by the committee is an excellent
disaster supplemental appropriations bill. It is one which enjoys
tremendous bipartisan support, and there are now several amendments
that, if adopted, could cause this bill to be vetoed. We are going to
speak to them at the appropriate time, but I hope that the Members
would understand that it is important that we get this bill on the
President's desk and signed into law before we adjourn for the Memorial
Day recess.
So I hope that we will keep the bill clean and noncontroversial and
that we will get it passed, conferenced with the Senate and signed into
law as quickly as possible, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Record I would like to insert a
table reflecting the programs and amounts in this bill, as reported.
[[Page
H2699]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.000
[[Page
H2700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.001
[[Page
H2701]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.002
[[Page
H2702]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.003
[[Page
H2703]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.004
[[Page
H2704]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.005
[[Page
H2705]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15MY97.006
[[Page
H2706]]
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I am in the happy position of
being able to say that at least as of this moment, unless we have
amendments adopted that change the situation, I think we are at a point
where we can have bipartisan support for this bill. I hope it remains
that way.
I would like to simply raise one concern I have about the Thune
amendment. I had hoped that Mr. Thune would be on the floor. I had
asked him to be here. I do not see him at this moment, but let me
simply, because we will not have time on the Thune amendment, let me
raise some concerns about it now.
As the Chair of the committee understands, on the Democratic side of
the aisle we were concerned about the committee decision not to provide
community development block grant funding for the Dakota floods. We had
urged that they do so. The decision was made by the majority party to
withhold judgment on whether or not there ought to be any CDBG funding
provided, and we respected that. Now I am happy to see that there will
be an amendment offered, and I do not expect to object to it when it is
offered today by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
I know that the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] and others are very concerned
that that amendment pass, but I must say that there are some problems
with that amendment that I believe are going to have to be fixed in
conference.
First of all, as I understand it, the amendment attempts to fund $500
million in CDBG money by reducing the $1.2 billion contained in the
original FEMA money to $700 million, which leaves FEMA with a very
tight budget. I am concerned about the robbing Peter to pay Paul, the
result that that might produce. I am also concerned that that amendment
would run the risk of limiting the Federal response and delaying
victims from receiving much-needed assistance through the regular FEMA
account.
In the Senate, the $500 million was added without reducing FEMA's
disaster fund account, and I had hoped that we would be able to simply
adopt that approach. I think it would be useful if we could do that in
conference.
I would also note that I am concerned because the gentleman's
amendment apparently seeks to make permanent changes in law which would
force the Secretary of HUD to waive the requirement that HUD's disaster
assistance benefit only low- and moderate-income persons.
I am also concerned about why it is necessary to force the Secretary
to waive the requirement to hold local public hearings. I am also
concerned that it appears to be the intent of the gentleman's amendment
to allow HUD to make grants, not loans, to privately owned, for-profit
utilities. I am actually unsure about what his intention is in that
regard, and I would simply make this point: It has been Government
policy that CDBG funds can be used to assist businesses damaged by
disasters, to the extent that such businesses are declined loans by the
Small Business Administration or because they need assistance above the
SBA loan limits, and I am curious as to whether or not it is the intent
of the gentleman in that amendment to change that long-standing
practice.
I hope that he can respond to those questions between now and the
time that we deal with this in conference, because everyone wants to
see this amendment go forward, but we want to see it go forward in the
right way.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the Thune amendment is an attempt to provide maximum
flexibility to the people who have suffered such devastation in the
Dakotas and in Minnesota as a result of the flood. There was some
concern that because the flooding was so extensive and had been on the
ground for such a long period of time, that certain businesses and
certain people who live in houses in that flood zone either would not
come back or should not come back, and it has been hard to get a handle
on exactly what should be done and whether or not the Federal
Government, within the confines and restrictions of current law
affecting FEMA, has the flexibility to deal with those questions.
To his credit, the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] is
attempting I think to answer some of those questions. Others in this
Chamber, both on the Republican and the Democrat side, both the
majority and minority side, have had different ideas on how to provide
that flexibility, and I think this is an ongoing process. It is an
ongoing process, so that we can talk it out and by the time we get to
conference, hopefully we will provide the maximum amount of flexibility
that really does help the people that need help, but without simply
throwing the money at the problem and wasting taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I understand the gentleman's
comments and agree with them. We do want to provide whatever amount is
necessary through the CDBG process to enable them to meet their
problems. We do also, because of our responsibility to the taxpayers
and to other potential recipients from FEMA, want to make certain that
in the process we do not hurt FEMA's ability to deliver aid. We also
want to make certain that we do not unnecessarily make permanent
changes in law that might come back to haunt us.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations for yielding time to me, and I hope I can do it in 2
minutes. I want to commend the gentleman.
I do want to say I was very disappointed, though, that the leadership
in the Committee on rules chose not to protect from points of order a
total of $1.6 billion in rescissions of contract authority. These
rescissions are necessary to ensure that the spending contained in this
bill is fully offset. Without them, this emergency Supplemental
appropriations will add more than $1.6 billion to the deficit, and I
would have hoped, knowing that the gentleman has done such a good job
and the committee did such a good job of offsetting it, that that would
have been protected. I just thought it was a given, because we have
been committed to making sure that all of this is offset.
Second, and I have so much here, I would just submit it all for the
Record, but I would say that I am concerned that the senate has added
much more money in to this for highway spending to donor States, far
beyond what the President or anybody else has even suggested that
should be in. We wanted a bill that was totally offset, and now they
have added so much more.
Third, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations knows, and
I would hope that we can resolve this matter, they have also basically
put earmarking back in. This House, on both sides of the aisle, did
away with earmarking. Some people call them pork projects, some people
call them highway demonstration projects, others call them whatever
they want to.
As an example, in the Senate bill, the State of Alabama would receive
$21 million in additional highway aid funds in fiscal year 1997 and the
State of Alabama would be required to spend all of that money on one
specific project, the Warrior Loop project.
The House is well aware that we have gotten rid of these things, so
therefore the other body has put in more money, well beyond what the
President wanted, and at the very time both bodies are meeting, the
budget committees are meeting, everyone is taking credit for reaching a
balanced budget in the year 2002, yet we put more money into this than
the President asked or anybody else asked for. So I hope as we get to
conference both of these issues will be resolved.
Lastly, this is not the place to rewrite ISTEA. The place to rewrite
ISTEA is in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure this
year.
I again want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
for his outstanding job, and just hope that we can make sure this money
is offset when we go back to committee.
[[Page
H2707]]
I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for yielding me
a few minutes so that I might discuss a few of the items in the
Transportation Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
First, the chairman of the full committee needs to be congratulated
for the yeoman's work that he has done in crafting this bill--an $8.4
billion emergency supplemental bill that is fully offset. That was no
easy task. He has been forced to make some difficult decisions and has
done a commendable job under equally difficult circumstances.
I am disappointed, however, that the leadership and the Rules
Committee chose not to protect from points of order a total of $1.6
billion in rescissions of contract authority. These rescissions are
necessary to ensure that the spending contained in this bill is fully
offset. Without them, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill
will add more than $1.6 billion to the deficit.
This action is disturbing and painful.
In the area of transportation, the emergency supplemental bill
includes $650 million in emergency highway program funds, $40 million
for the FAA to procure additional explosive detection equipment, $22
million for the National Transportation Safety Board, and $10 million
for emergency railroad rehabilitation. These funds are needed
desperately to respond to the devastating floods that occurred
throughout our country this spring and to ensure safety in our skies.
The bill also includes $318 million in additional fiscal year 1997
obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway program. These funds
were requested by the President and are intended to compensate those
States that were given an expectation of what they would receive--a
false expectation, based on an arithmetic error by the Treasury
Department--which they then calculated into their State highway fund.
The committee has been responsible and diligent in responding to the
needs of the people in the flooded areas while being mindful of the
desire of the American people to balance the budget and to offset this
additional spending.
I am concerned, however, that the other body has gone much further
than is necessary or warranted. I want to alert my colleagues to the
other body's actions on its version of the supplemental bill--
particularly with respect to two troubling issues. These issues have
the potential to delay unnecessarily the emergency funding contained in
this bill.
The other body has provided a total of $933 million in additional
fiscal year 1997 obligation authority for the Federal-aid highway
program. Of this amount, $457 million was added to address the Treasury
error that I alluded to earlier in my remarks.
Moreover, the other body has provided almost a half a billion dollars
more in additional fiscal year 1997 Federal-aid highway spending. This
spending was not requested by the President and is not necessary as an
emergency requirement.
This funding has nothing to do with the arithmetic error. It has to
do with providing a hold-harmless provision to donee States to address
what the donee States now see as a problem in the highway authorization
act of 1991.
That act, ISTEA, contained a provision for donor States--those States
that had traditionally received back substantially less than they had
contributed to the highway trust-fund--that in the last year of the 6
years of ISTEA authorization, which is this year, there would be
inserted a 90-percent floor. That is, no State would get back less than
90 percent of what it contributed to the highway fund. The 90-percent
standard has been the holy grail of those States that have gotten less
back than they have contributed to the fund.
This program, the 90 percent of payments program, was part of the
common understanding of the Congress and the States when President Bush
signed the bill in 1991. It was the understanding of the donee States.
It is now the law of the land.
Well, now the donee States want more--more than what they have
received in excess of their contributions over the last 6 years, more
than what they would get under current law, more that what they are
entitled to under ISTEA. The donee States would get a half a billion
dollars more from the other body. This is not fair to the donor States.
While the majority of the other body is represented by donee, States,
the overwhelming majority of this House is elected from donor States.
Mr. Chairman, this urgent supplemental appropriations bill is not the
place--nor is it the time--to debate the donor/donee States issue. The
reauthorization of ISTEA is the proper and appropriate legislation to
debate this divisive issue.
In addition to this item, the other body has taken the unprecedented
step of earmarking seven highway demonstration projects from the funds
provided to the States under the regular Federal-aid highway program.
Rather than provide additional highway funds to the States without
strings attached or to earmark funds in excess of the regular Federal-
aid highway program for specific projects, as has been the norm, the
other body directs certain States to spend a portion--and in some cases
all--of their Federal-aid highway fund on specific highway
demonstration projects.
As an example, in the Senate bill, the State of Alabama would receive
$21 million in additional Federal-aid highway funds in fiscal year
1997. The State of Alabama would be required to spend all of that money
on one specific project, the Warrior Loop project.
Now, under the provisions of the Senate's bill, the State of Alabama
either uses its Federal-aid highway funds on this one particular
project by the end of September, or it loses all of it.
The State is afforded no elasticity as they have under current law.
The process advocated by the other body will significantly change the
manner in which the Federal Highway Administration manages the Federal-
aid highway program. It will also impact each of the States' ability to
fund the projects of greatest need. And it eliminates the flexibility
afforded the States and local units of government under current law to
determine what project or program is best for them.
This process undermines the planning process established by ISTEA and
forces the States to give a higher priority on these projects than on
other potentially more worthy projects.
The House is well aware of our position on the earmarking of highway
demonstration projects. As a result of not earmarking highway
demonstration projects, the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation has been able to increase the Federal-aid highway
program by almost $1 billion.
In doing so, we have allowed the States and people at the local level
to determine the appropriate use of these funds--not people here in
Washington in their ivory towers.
These issues are surely to be contentious in conference and I felt
compelled to inform my colleagues at this stage of the process.
I am afraid that a protracted debate on Federal-aid highway formulas
and the underlying donor/donee State problem as well as the earmarking
highway demonstration projects will delay the necessary funding to
respond to the devastating floods that occurred this spring.
I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
(Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
{time} 1300
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
1469, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, because it
contains very important money for our region for the disaster that we
just went through, a disaster like we have never seen in 500 years in
Minnesota.
In East Grand Forks, pictured here, in Breckenridge, in Ada, in
Warren, and all the rural communities along the Red River, we were
under water. Nobody can remember anything like this. We had snowstorms,
ice storms, and then, last, the flood of 1997.
There is the city of East Grand Forks, a town of 9,000 people, that
got hit probably the hardest of any community in this flood. Everyone,
the entire town was under water. It had to be evacuated because the
water kept rising. In the end it just could not be stopped. Every
street, every home, every business went under water, and the water did
not go down for 2 weeks.
In true Minnesota style, the people of Crookston, Thief River Falls,
Red Lake Falls, Bemidji, and many other communities opened their doors
and provided shelter and people to help us get through, and to help the
people driven out by the floods.
Now, although the water has receded, the damage and desolation that
is everywhere is reminiscent of a nuclear blast. There are no children
playing, and life is now just returning to normal. There is garbage and
debris every place you look. People's entire lives are sitting on the
berms waiting to be scooped up by payloaders. East Grand Forks has lost
four of their six schools,
[[Page
H2708]]
their city hall, their library, and neighborhood after neighborhood.
Thirty-five to forty percent of this community is going to have to be
rebuilt and moved to another part of the area so we do not do this
again.
Mr. Chairman, in all of the flood-ravaged communities in the Red
River Valley, the challenge now is to rebuild. On behalf of all of the
Minnesotans in the Seventh District, I want to thank the President, the
Vice President, the Speaker, the majority leader and other Members who
came out to look at the damage for themselves, and thank them for all
the help they have given us to get to this point.
The work of FEMA and the director, James Lee Witt, have been
outstanding. I want to thank each and every one of the agency personnel
who have been out in the Seventh District helping our people and
communities get back on their feet.
I also want to thank the National Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and
the mayors. I thank them and I encourage everyone to support this bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], chairman of the
Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I
would like to urge our colleagues to do everything possible to expedite
this bill. The money for the Department of Defense that we provide in
this bill is offset from the Department of Defense budget. There is no
new money here. It is basically a transfer within the department's
funding. But if we cannot get this done expeditiously, the operation
and maintenance accounts, the training accounts for all of the
services, are going to be severely affected.
I just urge our colleagues, however they intend to vote on the bill,
help us expedite the consideration of this bill so we do not have to
stand down any flight training or stand down any training on the part
of any of the services, or affect any of the operations and
maintenance, because that is what will happen if we do not get this
funding resolution, this supplemental appropriations bills, through
here quickly.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Reyes].
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer an amendment today, but it
was ruled not germane to the bill. The amendment would have provided
for displaced workers affected by NAFTA, which I believe qualify for
disaster relief. I appreciate the opportunity to enter my remarks,
written remarks, into the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to offer an amendment today but I've been told
that, under the rule, my amendment is not germane so I'm not going to
offer it but I would like to tell my colleagues about it.
Last week, the New York Times ran a lengthy article about workers who
have been dislocated by NAFTA. The dateline on the story was El Paso,
TX, which I represent.
Mr. Chairman, during the first 2\1/2\ years of NAFTA, Texas had
almost 8,000 certified job losses as a result of NAFTA.
More than half of those dislocated workers were in El Paso.
Under current law, after these workers exhaust their unemployment
compensation, they are entitled to cash benefits for 52 weeks while
they are retraining.
Many of these workers have exhausted those cash benefits and they are
still jobless.
My amendment would have appropriated an additional $10 million for
these workers and extend their eligibility for benefits an additional 6
months.
My amendment would also have appropriated an additional $1.6 million
for the retraining programs, which would bring the appropriation up to
$30 million, the maximum amount authorized.
Today we're considering a supplemental appropriations bill primarily
for disaster relief.
As far as I'm concerned, these dislocated workers need disaster
relief, too. Unfortunately, under this rule, we're not going to be able
to help them.
Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to these workers and I will be on
this floor every chance I get to speak on their behalf.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I thank very, very sincerely the Committee on
Appropriations chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations for their assistance in working up an appropriate
disaster relief proposal, formed as the Thune amendment.
Mr. Chairman, what we have in North Dakota is an absolute disaster,
the dimensions of which we have never experienced before. Grand Forks,
ND, second largest town in the State, A town of 50,000, was under
water, and the consequences of it are absolutely devastating for the
businesses and the homeowners that reside there.
What we are finding as we begin tackling the rebuilding component of
this is the additional needs that are simply not met with the existing
programs. For example, we literally have hundreds of homes in the
floodway, a floodway that is proposed to be razed, and a permanent dike
established so we do not have this problem ever again.
These individuals need to know right now whether or not funds will be
available on a home buyout proposal so they might have the means to
build on higher ground while the city's enhanced flood protection
program moves forward.
The Thune amendment allows this to happen by transferring funds from
FEMA into the Community Development Block Grant, to be more flexibly
applied to the unique needs that this situation presents. The CDBG
funds in the Thune amendment are not exclusively for the area, and
other areas that have had disasters may also access these funds to
augment the existing structure of disaster relief programs.
What we have seen with the Thune amendment is a bipartisan response
to a truly national disaster. President Clinton, Speaker Gingrich, the
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, all have visited
the area. The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] and the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] have worked at great length putting this
together. Please support the Thune amendment and the bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], a new and valued member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 1469, the
Disaster Recovery Act of 1997, which will get money needed as a result
of the floods to Kentucky residents. I am sorry for so many of the
people that suffered in my community because of this extraordinary
flood that occurred this spring. We had 12 inches of rain in 1 day. We
had flash flooding, and then a major flood when the river overflowed as
it drained off and the river flooded.
This flood was the worst since 1964. There is no amount of personal
insurance, of personal precautions, that would prepare a person or a
community for this size flood. It is in this bill where we reach out to
those people who were struck so badly.
My constituents have said this is when Government should become
involved in citizens' lives, when Government is truly the last resort
for assistance. It is a bill which will help many States and citizens,
and it was developed in a teamwork approach. That is why I urge my
colleagues to vote for this bill.
I hope the President will listen to the needs of my constituents from
Kentucky, Arkansas, and throughout the Nation, and please, sign this
bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations and our ranking member for their hard work to bring
this legislation to the floor. When natural disaster strikes, the
people of our country have a right to have a response from us, and a
response that is quick and appropriate. That is why I hope that we can
do that with this legislation, and why it is hard to understand why
anyone would want to throw up an obstacle to the very quickest response
to the needs of the American people.
That obstacle is in the form, in this legislation, of having in order
the Gekas amendment. President Clinton has rightfully said that if the
Gekas
[[Page
H2709]]
amendment is included in this bill, that he would veto the bill. So I
urge my colleagues, when it comes time to vote on the Gekas amendment,
to vote against it.
Who wins under the Gekas amendment? I think just the House
Republicans, because this month's balanced budget agreement includes
several new investments in education and other priorities for American
families, but Republicans are hoping they can ignore those bipartisan
commitments by ramming through this amendment, which would allow them
to impose automatic $25 billion cuts in education and other priorities.
If the Gekas amendment passes today, here is what could happen:
86,000 fewer children would be enrolled in Head Start, 360,000 fewer
students would receive Pell grants for college or job training, 31,000
fewer students would get college work study jobs. If you are a veteran
you should be concerned, because 60,000 veterans could be denied
medical care, 66,000 people would lose job training and job placement.
The list goes on and on. If you are concerned about the environment,
the cleanup of 900 toxic waste sites could be delayed, 500,000 fewer
at-risk pregnant women and children would get milk, cereal, and other
foods. We will be debating that under the WIC provision that our
colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], is proposing. It is
hard to understand how the Republican majority rejected the WIC
funding. It is hard to understand why they would allow the Gekas
amendment to stand in the way of the quickest possible aid to people
suffering from disaster in America.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Quinn].
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment today. Our
amendment adds $38 million to the supplemental food program for
nutritionally at-risk pregnant women, infants, and children under the
age of 5. We propose to take unused dollars from a NASA wind tunnel
project to offset the cost of the additional dollars.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the interest from Members on both sides
of the aisle. If we do not include these funds, 180,000 women, infants,
and children will be removed from the program. Because of an increased
need, food price inflation, along with an underestimated caseload for
fiscal year 1997, a serious reduction of women, infants, and children
served through the WIC Program this year is inescapable.
The WIC participation for 1996 fiscal year exceeded the initial
projection by 100,000 women, infants, and children. Innocent children
are facing unique and challenging circumstances at this time. We should
be there to help them. For instance, the flooding in North Dakota has
caused 3,000 additional caseloads with the WIC Program.
There has been some controversy surrounding our request for these
additional funds, there is no question. However, if we cannot continue
to serve these people who need our help, who are experiencing temporary
difficulty with maintaining a healthful diet at their most critical
time of growth and development, if we cannot do this, we are
essentially cutting the program.
WIC is a well-managed program that would put these additional
dollars, I believe and others believe, to efficient use. In fact, it
includes the most successful cost-containment system of any Federal
health-related program. We all know, and it has been justified, it has
been talked about, that for every dollar WIC spends on prenatal care,
we save $3.50 spent on Medicaid.
WIC is one Federal program that I believe and others do that is truly
deserving, and it delivers what it promises to the American taxpayer.
Medical evidence shows that the WIC Program reduces low birthweight,
infant mortality, and child anemia. This amendment is proof that we can
do what we want when we work from both sides of the aisle.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations for yielding me the time, and also the
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. Chairman, I stand to lend my support to the bill as reported by
the committee, and I want to thank them for their skill and sensitivity
in bringing this before the floor.
On behalf of myself and my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Diaz-Balart, the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Clay Shaw, and the gentleman from Rhode
Island, Mr. Patrick Kennedy, our amendment, which has been allowed as a
part of this particular exercise here this morning, it takes through
the fiscal year the cutoff of SSI income and Medicaid checks to legal
immigrants, including refugees and asylees. This delay will give
Congress a chance, Mr. Chairman, to agree on a permanent solution to
help and assist these vulnerable people.
Our amendment provides an offsetting rescission in budget authority
that will allow us to do this, so that when Congress takes its recess,
these very worthy legal immigrants will continue to receive their
benefits. Our amendment, which they have been so helpful in letting us
offer this morning, is identical to the one that has already been
passed by the Senate on May 7.
We all know that the Social Security Administration has sent out over
800,000 letters to people letting them know they may or may not have a
cutoff of their benefits. We know they have let them know, and this has
caused quite a bit of consternation with the many people who received
them.
But now, because of the sensitivity of this Congress and because of
this supplemental bill, we will hopefully, with our amendment, be
allowed to help these people. This cutoff was required by the welfare
law that was enacted last year.
SSI checks, as we know, they go to needy people, they go to aged and
frail people and disabled people. They are the most vulnerable people
in our society. These people, most of them are over 64 years of age,
blind or disabled, and certainly this Congress does not want to see
their SSI cut off. We want to thank this Congress, Mr. Chairman, for
this wonderful act.
{time} 1315
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
I would simply like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida. The
history of this provision is that when we first marked up the
supplemental in the Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from
Florida tried to offer an amendment which would have provided for a
long-term extension of the restoration of the benefits that this
amendment covers. She understood fully that it was not the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Appropriations, and she understood why the
gentleman from Louisiana and I had to oppose that amendment.
But she then offered this amendment in committee which would provide
in essence for a 1-month bridge so that we would not have people lose
their benefits in August, be out of benefits for a month, only to then
have them resume if the budget agreement passes which restores these
benefits. So she agreed to withhold offering that amendment in
committee, so long as her right to offer this amendment was protected
on the floor, as in fact now has occurred.
I simply want to say that this is the responsible way to approach
this problem. It would be ludicrous for these people to be bounced off
the rolls for one month and then go back on. I appreciate her
commitment on the issue. That is why this matter is before us today.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I agree with everything that
the gentleman from Wisconsin has just said but would add that this
amendment became necessary because of a shortfall created in the
welfare reform program.
I want to say that I totally agree with, concur with and support the
welfare reform activities that this Congress entered into in the 104th
Congress. But when we reduced welfare, in effect we created savings in
the entitlement side of the equation or the mandatory portion of the
budget, and now we are making up for the differential out of the
discretionary portion of the budget.
For the average person throughout America, they do not know the
difference between mandatory spending
[[Page
H2710]]
and discretionary spending, and they do not care and they need not
care. It does not matter to them. But for us who have to work with the
numbers day in and day out, we know that we are making great gains in
the discretionary portion of the budget pie, saving the American
taxpayers money, and we are not making significant or we made less
gains on the entitlement side.
Hopefully with this budget agreement we will make significantly more
gains. But it just seems unfortunate that we have to make up for the
shortfall on the discretionary side of the budget that was created on
the entitlement side of the budget recognizing that what I just said is
inside-the-Beltway jargon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Walsh], the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Legislative. He did an outstanding job previously on the Subcommittee
on the District of Columbia.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], for the terrific job that he is doing under very difficult
conditions.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss the intent of the provision included
in this bill by the Committee on Appropriations that would place a 14-
million acre limitation on the number of acres that could be enrolled
in the Conservation Reserve Program in 1997.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of
the CRP program, and I support efforts to ensure a full 36-million acre
enrollment. However, my purpose in placing this limitation language in
the bill was to ensure that only the most environmentally sensitive
land is enrolled in the CRP. USDA maintains that they plan on enrolling
acreage that provides the greatest environmental benefit for the dollar
spent. Our language merely was giving USDA breathing room to do the job
right in accordance with the 1995 farm bill.
Currently, over 75 percent of the acres enrolled in the CRP is
concentrated in nine States. Much of this acreage was enrolled back in
the mid-1980's, when the CRP program was a price support program. Our
bill language was meant to ensure that the USDA did not re-enroll some
of these highly productive lands when world stocks of grain are
exceedingly low. Idling productive acres is not what Congress intended
when it passed the farm bill last year. Taxpayer money should not be
used to re-enroll productive lands in the CRP program.
One of the problems with this new sign up is that this year's bidding
occurred only 3 weeks after the new rules were finalized by USDA. This
did not leave sufficient time for outreach to farmers who had not
previously participated in the program. It is only reasonable to assume
that most of the States need some time to disseminate information about
the new program.
Even more troubling to us was the fact that USDA policies on rental
rates discouraged enrollments in the East and the West coastal regions
while USDA administrative policies also discouraged Western rangeland
from participating in the program.
We also wanted to ensure that adequate CRP acreage was provided for
the continuous enrollment of buffer strips which are perhaps the most
effective way of controlling farm runoff.
A final point is that tight Federal dollars must buy maximum
conservation benefits. Our appropriations bill language was fiscally
responsible in that it saved, in fiscal year 1998, $31 million, and in
1999, $177 million. These moneys could have been available to spend on
other critical agricultural programs that we will not otherwise be able
to fund at sufficient levels in the upcoming bills.
I thank the chairman for yielding me the time on this important issue
to express the intent of the CRP bill language. I look forward to
continued work with the committee and with USDA to ensure that regional
inequities in the administration's CRP program are addressed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I appreciate the gentleman's
concern for his region. It is perfectly appropriate.
I would simply say that I think there are many in Congress who have a
different view of the provision in the bill at this point with respect
to the CRP. It seems to me that on an emergency supplemental, we should
not be making this kind of change in basic law. It insures to the
detriment of a good many farmers in the upper Midwest. I trust that at
the time it will be properly stricken on a point of order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We are concerned
in the Northeast, the Southeast, the Southwest and the far West that
all of the acres will be enrolled within this year in one section of
the country. This was meant to be a national program.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is a national program.
it should be allowed to proceed the way the department and farmers
expected it to. If other regions of the country are behind, I suspect
over time that will be a self-correcting phenomenon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Boswell].
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise in support of this emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
As many of my colleagues have done, I, too, have been an appropriations
person in another life. I realize there is a temptation for Members on
supplementals to want to do other things. But I want to remind my
colleagues that the intended target of this funding would be the people
affected by the flooding which has devastated parts of North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, and California.
We need to help our neighbors in their time of need, and it is the
right thing to do. Nearly 4 years ago my State of Iowa suffered from
the great flood of 1993, a 500-year flood. I remember the assistance
the Federal Government provided us in our communities in our time of
great need. There may be provisions in this massive funding bill that
we may find objectionable; that will always be the case. But please do
not derail this because of wanting to attach to a supplemental
something that would actually delay the needed relief.
I ask my colleagues to join me in extending a neighborly helping hand
to the affected States and provide them with the help they need to
improve their situation. Anyone who has been through a devastational
flood can attest it takes time, money, and a lot of sweat and hard work
to get back to some semblance of normalcy. Let us provide one part of
that equation by adopting this emergency funding bill. It only makes
sense.
Hopefully, no amendments will be adopted that will cause a veto or
delay this much needed assistance. We owe it to our neighbors. Let us
pass this and get this help to them right away.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the great
gentleman from the Great State of Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], a great
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston], the great chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, for his great introduction.
Mr. Speaker, I am here pleased to support the work of the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations and working with the ranking minority
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to bring to the
Congress, to the House, a wonderful effort to meet the needs of the
flood victims of last year. It is absolutely critical that we pass this
bill today, and I totally support it.
I also appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Walsh], my colleague who was here a moment ago, speaking with regard to
CRP. I want my colleagues to understand that, as a member of the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations, we really resisted the amendment of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Walsh] to cap CRP, Conservation Reserve Program, acres at
14 million acres. We want it to
[[Page
H2711]]
be the 19 million acres that are intended to be enrolled in 1997.
This is supported by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. It
is supported by people who care deeply about agriculture across this
country, not the least of whom are in my own district, the Fifth
District of the State of Washington. CRP is a great program. We should
not fool with it in an appropriations bill, especially an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill.
I happened to be pleased to join with the chairman of the Committee
on Agriculture today in raising a point of order to have the cap lifted
and the language that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] was able
to insert in the subcommittee and full committee and have that language
removed from the bill, because it is bad policy on an emergency
supplemental. It is also bad policy for agriculture.
The Conservation Reserve Program helps habitat, it helps the
environment, it helps agriculture, it does all of those things for the
good of the Nation. The program has been fairly distributed. I am happy
to work with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and anybody else
to get the Department of Agriculture to enroll acres that are properly
to be enrolled, highly erodible acreage.
So I will offer this point of order with the gentleman from Oregon
[Mr. Smith] today, and I urge the support of my colleagues.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
(Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill that is under
consideration and the Thune amendment. The area of Minnesota which I
represent is one of the hardest hit by this spring's flooding. The
work, the spirit of the local officials, the residents, the volunteers,
State and local officers, and others have prevailed in our area's
recovery. This is a tribute to all of this hard work.
I also wish to signal my support for the Smith point of order that
would strike the limitation on the Conservation Reserve Program. This
is an important program for our country. It ought to be allowed to move
ahead as the U.S. Department of Agriculture is implementing it.
I rise today to commend the community leaders, volunteers, and public
servants of flood ravaged communities along the Minnesota River. The
flooded communities in my district will begin to put their lives back
together with the passage of the fiscal year 1997 emergency
supplemental appropriations bill before the House today.
From treacherous November windstorms, to unprecedented January
snowstorms, to the flood of the century, Minnesota weather has
certainly tested our wills. Cleanup and recovery efforts from the
floods have just begun. I have held numerous town meetings in flood-
ravaged areas along the Minnesota River, and I have seen that, in the
true Minnesota spirit, folks are moving on with their lives with their
heads held high. The passage of this bill today is a long-awaited,
important step toward recovery.
This disaster experience has summoned an unprecedented level of
commitment from all levels of government starting at the local level.
Mayor Jim Curtis and City Manager Jim Norman of my hometown of
Montevideo, as well as Granite Falls' Mayor Dave Smiglewski and City
Manager Bill Lavin; Dawson's Mayor Al Schacherer and City Manager David
Bovee; Redwood Falls Mayor Sara Triplett and City Manager Jeff Weldon;
New Ulm's Mayor Bert Schapekahm and City Manager Richard Salvati; St.
Peter's Mayor Jerry Hawbacker and Daniel Jordet; Morton's Mayor David
Mude and City Clerk Shirley Dove; Appleton's Mayor Hugo ``Bob'' Roggatz
and Coordinator Robert Thompson; Ortonville's Mayor David Ellingson and
Clerk Administrator John Jenkins; and Beardsley's Mayor Glenn Burgess;
Boyd's Mayor Gary Steinke and Clerk Karen Schmitt; Clara City Mayor
Todd Prekker; Maynard's Mayor Richard Groothuis; and Odessa's Mayor
Donald Teske, along with numerous county commissioners and emergency
management officials, are just a few of the many community leaders who
showed remarkable courage and perseverance when their communities were
under crisis.
The Federal Government worked together with these officials as well.
When our region was devastated with drastic winter storms, Federal
employees from the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] were on
hand to assess the damage of our public roads, buildings, and
utilities. Other employees worked efficiently to open roads after
unprecedented winter snowfall. During the flooding of the Minnesota and
Red Rivers, FEMA employees were immediately disseminating information
and helping flood victims get back on their feet. I even heard from
several of our local county officials that FEMA responded so quickly,
local officials had to speed up their assessment of the damage so that
the Federal employees could proceed with their response.
These are but a few examples of good government and cooperation we
have witnessed throughout this disaster. City mayors to local emergency
teams, to county and State representatives, to Federal officials have
demonstrated that government can be effective.
I am pleased that the Speaker recognized the extent of the damage in
our area and vowed his assistance. According to Minnesota Gov. Arne
Carlson's office, the Speaker has promised Minnesota Federal
reimbursement aid at 90 percent when that level is accorded to the
States of North Dakota and South Dakota. This would allow the Federal
Government to cover 90 percent of the costs while the State and local
governments would be responsible for 10 percent. Minnesota's counties
who were ravaged by the unprecedented floods should not be excluded
from this reimbursement ratio that recognizes the severity of the
damage, and I commend the Speaker for lending his support to Minnesota.
I would also like to voice my strong support for the inclusion of
Community Development Block Grants [CDBG's] in the supplemental
appropriations bill. After consultations with the FEMA and local
officials in Minnesota, I agree that CDBG's will effectively serve
flood victims and I urge my colleagues to support Representative
Thune's amendment that provides the inclusion of Community Development
Block Grants [CDBG's]. This is the best way for the Federal Government
to quickly and efficiently aid flood victims and restore our devastated
communities to economic vitality.
Unfortunately, this bill came before the House with several
extraneous provisions and its consideration was delayed because of
several superfluous additions. I was disappointed that the bill was not
brought to the floor as a clean, emergency appropriations bill. The
extraneous provisions took the focus away from providing aid to the
victims of the flood.
I am pleased, however, that the Speaker allowed my colleague,
Representative Ray LaHood and I to bring forward an amendment to strike
one of the extraneous provisions. The bill called for a cap on
enrollment of the Conservation Reserve Program [C.R.P.]. The C.R.P. has
enabled Minnesota to protect environmentally-sensitive land and has
revitalized the wildlife habitat in our region. Our amendment would
maintain C.R.P. enrollment at the current level and allow farmers and
landowners to continue to take advantage of this popular, efficient,
conservation program.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the urgency of our situation in
Minnesota and allow the House to come to the aid of the flood victims
in the Midwest immediately. The passage of this bill will enable local
governments to continue to help the people in their flood-ravaged
communities put their lives back together.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I am in a similar
position as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. I had seven
Members who desperately wanted to speak, none of whom are now here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate
the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this bill to the House
so we can help and assist the flood victims and also provide more
financial aid to the troops in Bosnia.
There are two issues that I would like the House Members support. One
issue deals with WIC. As you know, it should be the objective of this
House to fully fund WIC. In my former political life as a county board
supervisor and being in charge of an indigent hospital, we would see
that women who came in and were enrolled in the WIC Program delivered
children that were healthy and probably the children would have a
better life of quality, where women who were not enrolled in the WIC
Program delivered a low-weight baby and we found the children would
experience problems.
{time} 1330
So it makes good sense to support WIC because it is humane and also
it will save costs in the future.
[[Page
H2712]]
The second issue that I would ask support for deals with the Diaz-
Balart-Meek amendment, and this is to extend the social services that
will be denied to legal immigrants.
What is happening today, Mr. Speaker, is that legal immigrants,
people who have lived in this country for many years, have raised their
children, have paid their taxes, and because of the new welfare reform
legislation, will be denied social services.
Many legal immigrants today are receiving notices that they will no
longer receive social services due to their status of not being
citizens. That is causing a lot of problems, especially to the elderly;
people who are in nursing homes, people who need the assistance of food
stamps because they are not making enough on their pensions, and also
young people will be affected.
So I would ask the Members to support the Meek amendment. All it does
is extend the services until the end of the fiscal year so that the
people will continue to receive services and, once we pass the budget,
hopefully all those services will be restored to the legal immigrants.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would just take a minute to say that this is an important bill. The
President initially requested about $2 billion for disaster relief for
people devastated in California and various other States, and then the
incredible flooding of the Dakotas and Minnesota occurred in the
interim. All of these people, not only in those States I have
mentioned, but all told in some 35 States, have suffered the ill
effects of terrible weather and the tremendous adversity of nature.
Unfortunately, in recent years, the American taxpayer has become the
insurer of last resort. So it seems that year after year we have to
come up with these supplemental appropriations bills to deal with this
devastation. We are happy to do that. We want to make sure that we try
to repair some of the damage. There is no way on God's green Earth we
will be able to repair all of the damage but, at the same time, we owe
the taxpayer the responsibility to make sure that the money is spent
wisely; that it is not wasted; that it is simply not just thrown at the
problem.
In addition to the disaster relief, President Clinton, of course, has
detailed troops to Bosnia and to Haiti and other places throughout the
world and those expeditions have exceeded their budget and have
exceeded the money previously appropriated to the Defense Department,
and so we have to pay for those ventures. Unless we, at some point,
pull our troops out of those places, that expense goes on from day to
day. We cannot simply tell our troops to go out and do the job, but we
will not pay for it.
So it is important, I think, that we pass this bill, that we pay for
the troops, that we pay for the devastation, but that we offset it
within the existing budget. We have done that in this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
yielding.
I wanted to mention for the Record that there are a number of
colleagues who will have colloquies with myself regarding some items on
the emergency side of this bill. There are some complicated
difficulties we are having on housing programs. I want my colleagues to
know that we are very aware of those circumstances and plan to work
with our colleagues.
In view of the fact that many were not able to be here at this
moment, I would suggest that the gentleman has done fabulous work on
this bill, I congratulate him for his efforts, and certainly those
people facing disasters across the country owe him a good deal of
gratitude.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I want to
say this is a bipartisan bill. We have gotten this far in joint
agreement because Members across this House of Representatives, working
in tandem with the other body, have decided that these items must be
paid for, and yet we have also joined forces to make sure that we find
the budget authority within our previously appropriated items to offset
the increased costs.
So right now there are no additional costs to the U.S. taxpayer for
what is spent in this bill. I think that makes it a reasonable bill, a
bill that meets the demands of the American people and a bill that
should be passed with as few amendments as absolutely possible.
I do hope that we can get this bill passed without undue political
wrangling, that we can put it on the President's desk and that we can
get his signature within the next few days, certainly before we leave
on the Memorial Day recess. In fact, I would encourage all of our
Members on both sides of the aisle and the leadership to make sure they
do everything possible to assure that this bill becomes law before the
Memorial Day recess.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to announce my support for
H.R. 1469, the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
Included in this bill are several compon