[Pages H3281-H3291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2216, 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 171, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 171

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
Points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended,
for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
The amendment printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules may be offered only by a Member designated
in the report and only at the appropriate point in the
reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall not
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against the amendment
printed in part B of the report are waived. During
consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee on the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. During consideration of the bill, as amended, points of
order against amendments for failure to comply with clause
2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for
H.R. 2216. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill. It provides for one hour of general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
The rule provides that an amendment printed in Part A of the
Committee on Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as
adopted. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the
bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI,
prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in a
general appropriations bill.
The rule provides that the bill will be considered for amendment by
paragraph. The rule makes in order the amendment printed in part B of
the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the
reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in
part B of the Committee on Rules report. The rule waives points of
order during consideration of the bill against amendments for failure
to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency
designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill
containing an emergency designation.
The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is totally
open. Members can offer all of the amendments that they want, as long
as the amendments comply with the regular rules of this House.
Meanwhile, the underlying bill provides vital relief to our Nation's
Armed Forces and aid to areas that have been devastated by natural
disasters; and, unfortunately, we had a lot of that last year.

[[Page H3282]]

My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who is managing this
rule for the minority, has always been a strong advocate for the
military; and I am sure that he appreciates the defense items in this
bill.
Without help from Congress, our Nation may fall short on its promise
to provide adequate health care for our men and women in uniform. So
today, we will provide an additional $1.4 billion for Department of
Defense health programs.
At the same time, we are providing an additional $6.3 billion largely
to help our military maintain its facilities and its top-notch training
and equipment. We know we have had a problem with that in the last few
years. Interestingly, we will also allocate a small amount of funds to
make the U.S.S. Cole, which was bombed by terrorists in Yemen,
seaworthy again.
We are not only taking care of the emergency needs of our military,
though. Several communities in the Midwest have been devastated by
floods and tornadoes, so we are giving the Army Corps of Engineers $116
million to mitigate the damages from these natural disasters.
I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and to support the
underlying bill. This legislation is a strong step forward, as we work
to take care of our military personnel and take care of those who are
hurting here at home.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to one of the most unfair, bizarre,
and partisan rules reported by the Committee on Rules in a very long
time. If the issues were not so serious, this rule would be laughable.
Let us start with the unfair part. Repeatedly during the Presidential
campaign last year, then-candidate President Bush told the American
public, and especially every man and woman in uniform, ``help is on the
way'' for our military. Many who serve in our armed services as well as
many others concerned about our national defense believed what
candidate Bush promised. Many other Republicans ran last fall making
the same kind of promises. This rule proves those campaign promises
were made with a wink.
Last night on a straight party-line vote, the Committee on Rules
refused to give our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the
opportunity to offer an amendment that would increase supplemental
funding for the Department of Defense by $2.7 billion. The gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is a strong advocate for our military but
he is especially an advocate for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines who serve their Nation and each and every one of us. The $2.7
billion he included in his amendment is some but certainly not all that
the Department of Defense desperately needs for readiness and quality
of life issues.
If we do not appropriate the funds the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) is seeking, our armed services will not have the resources
they need for training for the rest of the year, nor will there be
funds to move forward on improving housing or making other quality of
life improvements for our troops.
Mr. Speaker, every single Republican on the Committee on Rules voted
against the President's promise that help is on the way. Every single
Democrat on the committee voted in favor of the men and women who serve
our Nation and to provide them with the help they need to ensure our
national defense is second to none.
Now let us examine the bizarre part of the rule. Everyone in this
country knows what tropical storm Allison did in Houston, in parts of
Texas and Louisiana and now in Pennsylvania. This storm has left a
major disaster in its wake. What did the Keystone Cops on the other
side of the aisle do on this bill and rule? First, the Committee on
Appropriations cut the money for the Federal Emergency Management
Administration just after this disaster hit the Gulf Coast and at the
very beginning of the hurricane and tornado system. They cut the money
for FEMA. The committee cut $389 million out of the money available for
the rest of the fiscal year, money that had already been appropriated
by this Congress just when the extent of the disaster in Houston has
been preliminarily estimated to total $2 billion and will very likely
continue to rise.
And that figure, Mr. Speaker, does not even take into account the
damage in Louisiana, other areas affected along the Gulf Coast, and
what will be needed to clean up in Pennsylvania. So the committee cut
$389 million from FEMA. What did the Committee on Rules do? Their
solution is even more bizarre than the action taken by the Committee on
Appropriations.
Last night the Republicans on the Committee on Rules made in order an
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) which
would restore the cuts in FEMA funding, but that comes at a very steep
price. The House is being offered the chance to restore the $389
million in FEMA, only if we are willing to make over $1 billion in cuts
in nondefense discretionary programs in the current year.
To translate this, that means that we can restore FEMA emergency
money only if we are willing to cut Head Start, cut funds for
education, $70 million from the Veterans' Administration medical
program, cut public safety officers for our schools and neighborhood
health centers. What have these people been smoking, Mr. Speaker?
All the Republicans on the Committee on Rules had to do was make in
order a bipartisan amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones), a Republican; by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), a
Democrat; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a
Democrat. Their amendment would simply have restored these funds to
FEMA, funds which have previously been appropriated by this Congress.
Just ask the constituents of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones) or the constituents of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) in
Houston or the people outside of Philadelphia represented by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel). They know firsthand how
important the Federal Government can be, especially when disaster
strikes close to home.
It is beyond me, and many Members of this body as well, why it is
necessary to cut 2\1/2\ times more out of the budget already approved
by the Congress in order to restore funds already appropriated by this
Congress that helps thousands of Americans who have been affected by
this storm.
I cannot find a good reason to justify cutting $70 million out of the
medical services for the Veterans' Administration in order to not make
cuts in disaster assistance. This move on the part of the Republicans
on the Committee on Rules is truly one of the most bizarre and mean-
spirited things they have done in a very long time. Let me be very
clear what we are talking about.
The Congress appropriated this money for FEMA. That was last year.
Appropriated this money. And then the Congress, the Committee on
Appropriations, came in and said we want to cut this money that was
already appropriated last year, we want to take it away from FEMA so
they do not have enough money to help the people down in Houston and
Louisiana and Pennsylvania. The Committee on Rules said we should not
cut this money, we should not take away the money from FEMA that
Congress already appropriated, so let us give it back to FEMA but let
us take it out of Head Start and community police officers and
veterans' medical care. What a crazy result, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, let us talk about the partisan nature of this rule. West
Coast Democrats appeared before the committee to seek permission to
offer the Inslee-Pelosi amendment that would require the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to impose cost-based pricing for electricity in
the Western power market. Now on Monday FERC did order some relief for
electricity customers on the West Coast. But even though their order is
an improvement over the current pricing mechanism, there are many who
believe this action will not offer enough relief to consumers and
businesses on the West Coast as we move into the hottest summer months.

{time} 1315

Our colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),

[[Page H3283]]

the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and many, many others
asked for the opportunity for the House to at least debate this issue.
This supplemental is the only train leaving the station, and it
represents the only real opportunity the House will have to debate
equitable, just, and reasonable pricing for electricity. This bill
represents the only opportunity to debate the issue of refunds for
overcharges FERC admits were made but for which it will not provide a
remedy.
With the most partisan of intent, the Republicans on the Committee on
Rules rejected these requests made by west coast Democrats seeking to
find some relief for their constituents. For example, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Baird) also requested that an amendment be made in
order that could help local school districts who in the coming months
may be forced to lay off teachers, cancel purchases of new books or
computers, shut down after-school programs or cancel arts, music or
technology classes in order to pay for the rising cost of heating and
cooling schools. But instead of putting children first, the Republican
majority on the Committee on Rules refused to make this important
amendment in order. This is partisan politics at its worst, Mr.
Speaker. For that reason, I will oppose the previous question on this
rule.
It is my intention to oppose the previous question in order to be
able to offer an amendment to this rule that would make it less
partisan, less unfair, and certainly a lot less bizarre. The House
should have the opportunity to debate adding funds for the Department
of Defense to meet its highest priorities in the remaining month of the
fiscal year; the House should have an opportunity to restore funds to
FEMA without cutting Head Start and veterans' medical care; and the
House should debate the energy issues that are so disastrous to so many
communities on the west coast.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous
question and oppose the passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do want to remind my colleagues that this is an open rule. It is
the first I have heard an open rule called bizarre and mean-spirited.
It does quite honestly provide $5.5 billion for urgent defense needs.
But I want to remind my colleagues, we are waiting on the Rumsfeld
report before we do the defense budget; and then we will be dealing
with the other needs of the military, as well as we are going to be
doing an energy bill, and that is the appropriate time to deal with the
energy question that we are facing now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
North Carolina for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying
legislation. Today, I would like to focus on the provisions within this
bill dealing with nuclear cleanup. As the chairman of the Nuclear
Cleanup Caucus, I have expressed clear reservations with the
administration's initial budget request for this program. I am very
pleased that they now have requested, and the Committee on
Appropriations has included, $180 million in supplemental funding for
this vital effort. Specifically, over $50 million of this money will
provide a necessary bridge at the Hanford site for this fiscal year to
prevent layoffs. I would hope that our field managers be provided with
the maximum flexibility to mitigate shortfalls and reduce impacts with
this money.
The administration should be commended for including this money in
their supplemental request. After submitting their initial budget, I
have had multiple opportunities to meet with Office of Management and
Budget Director Daniels regarding the legal, contractual, and moral
obligation the government has to ensure the cleanup program stays on
schedule throughout this Nation. Recognizing the shortfall in the
administration's request, the congressional budget resolution provides
for up to $1 billion in additional money for nuclear cleanup in fiscal
year 2002. The inclusion of this money in the supplemental is the first
step in fulfillment of that requirement.
I would also like to commend the Committee on Appropriations for
their commitment to environmental cleanup. Throughout this process, the
Committee on Appropriations, and specifically the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), has worked with me and other caucus members to
ensure that adequate funding is provided in fiscal year 2002.
Yesterday's markup of Energy and Water appropriations to me is a great
step in ensuring that this shortfall is eliminated. I look forward to
working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) in the future to ensure that this funding
is a reality.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because
it blocks critical amendments which would have helped vulnerable
Americans with soaring energy bills. My amendment would have provided
$600 million this year for emergency low-income heating energy
assistance, a funding increase of $300 million. It would have provided
$1.4 billion in these emergency low-income energy assistance funds for
next year. It would have restored $300 million to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA's, disaster relief fund. These funds are
critical for Americans who are facing skyrocketing energy bills this
summer and those communities that have been devastated by Tropical
Storm Allison.
Low-income energy funds appropriated for this year have all been
released. We have 19 States that have exhausted all of their LIHEAP
funds, or they soon will. This amendment would have provided immediate
relief for those States that are trying to deal with delinquent energy
payments and that are preparing for the scorching temperatures this
summer.
This past winter, 3.6 million families in nearly half of the United
States risked having their energy cut off because of outrageous energy
costs. It really is incredible and it is wrong. Further, the amendment
would have provided advance funding for later this year, after
September 30. There will be no Labor-HHS bill at that time. That means
that people who are going to be struggling with energy costs into the
winter are going to have to just suck it up because there will not be
funding there until this body makes a decision to deal with low-income
energy funds in the future.
Finally, the amendment would have said to FEMA, we will restore $300
million of your resources to deal with Tropical Storm Allison. Today,
the director of FEMA has said that it will take not the $2 billion that
he thought but now $4 billion to deal with the cleanup and to deal with
what is happening with mosquitoes following that storm. And what do we
want to do at this juncture? Instead of making that money available for
the folks in this Nation, we are rescinding the money, taking back $300
million, in fact, so that the people of this country, people in the
South and who are suffering from what happened with Tropical Storm
Allison are going to be on their own.
I oppose this rule because it jeopardizes our most vulnerable
populations. Vote it down.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague
from Connecticut wanting to offer further amendments to expand LIHEAP,
which is the low-income heating assistance program. This bill increases
LIHEAP by $300 million, which is twice what the President requested,
and the gentlewoman from Connecticut can offer her amendment as long as
there is an offset. It is an open rule. I think that is a very
reasonable approach to this problem.
There has been some criticism that we are not waiving the rules of
the

[[Page H3284]]

House which are long established here to deal with the problem of
electricity and energy in this country.
On Monday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission passed an order
that extended their price mitigation and price monitoring program in
California and across the West. I think that is a wonderful step and
will probably ensure that consumers in California and the West are
going to be paying reasonable prices for electricity in the West. In
fact, in the other body, Senator Feinstein of California, who
coauthored the bill on price caps, said yesterday that the FERC action
was a giant step forward and they do not intend to move forward and
press this issue. It is only a small number of folks in the House that
seem to be wanting to move in that direction. The reality is, in the
Committee on Energy and Commerce for about a 2-week period, we
struggled privately and in a bipartisan way with the issue of what we
can do to reduce the cost and the price of electricity in California
and the West.
Through that process, I think a lot of us came to realize just how
badly we could mess this up if we try to go back to a system of setting
prices at the Federal level from the Congress. FERC has a lot more
flexibility, a lot more expertise and latitude than we do in this body.
We should not set price caps in legislation. Trying to solve the
problem with price caps is going to make the supply problem even worse
and prolong the crisis. It would probably deny electricity to
California because States like New Mexico would not sell on the spot
market to California if they were going to be forced to sell below
their own cost. As a result, we would see more blackouts, more problems
in the State of California, a lack of investment in the real problem,
which is a shortage of supply and California's failure to build for the
future.
Price caps never produced another kilowatt of electricity. It is
unreasonable when we are going to be facing major energy legislation in
this Congress, sometime in the next 6 weeks, to ask to put this price
cap measure on something completely unrelated and to ask us as a House
to waive the longstanding rules of the House to make this up today
rather than the context of what we really should be doing, which is a
long-term, balanced approach to national energy policy, an approach
that includes conservation, that includes increased supply, that fixes
our aging infrastructure, and that includes government reform.
I look forward to that debate and to bringing that comprehensive bill
to the floor of the House. But today is not the day. I do not think we
should be willing to waive the longstanding rules of the House to take
this up in a mishmash fashion.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to oppose the
previous question and rule so that we can give people immediate relief
with their energy needs. Today, we have an opportunity to do something
to help millions of Americans. We should vote to put temporary caps on
wholesale electric prices in the western United States and take a
commonsense step to give consumers substantial help with low-income
energy assistance.
Unfortunately, the Republican majority has been unwilling to take
real action on this critical issue. They continue to ignore people's
real needs and today will not even let us take a vote on one of the
most compelling problems facing America.
In San Francisco last month, one small business owner lost between
$3,000 and $4,000 in 1 hour during a rolling blackout. This bill does
nothing for him. Thousands of people are on life support machines on
the west coast. This bill does nothing for them. Millions of people are
paying through the nose for a commodity that is like air and water in
their lives. This bill does nothing for them. A large percentage of
small businesses in the San Diego area are at or near bankruptcy. This
bill does nothing for them. Thousands of families in California and the
west coast have seen their residential energy prices go up twice, three
times, five times, in some cases 10 times. This bill does nothing for
them.
We have an emergency in our country. Yet the Republican leadership
treats it as if it does not exist. We are glad that Federal regulators
are finally listening and moving in the right direction. But their
recent order is still a day late and a dollar short. It lets generators
continue to make record profits and does nothing to help those affected
by overcharges recover their losses. It opens the door to market
manipulation and does nothing to stop the blackouts that are
threatening people even this week.

{time} 1330

So the time has come for sensible steps that will actually do
something for people. We have been regulating utilities for decades,
including wholesale electric prices; and we have one of the best power
systems in the world. All we say is that we need temporary relief to
this historic model so we can stabilize the market and give people real
relief. We recognize this is not a long-term answer to the problem. In
California, the Governor has permitted 16 new plants to bring in new
supply. Four of them will be online this summer. Help is on the way,
but help is needed now. This is a financial emergency. We need to
address this emergency in this bill. It is unreasonable to bring a
supplemental appropriation out on this floor and not even allow the
minority the right to debate and vote on such a measure.
I urge Members to vote against the previous question and vote against
the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, under the President's leadership, the country is
beginning to focus on the need to take firm steps to enhance our energy
security. The President is putting people over politics. I wish the
minority would do the same.
Across the Nation, we are seeing the predictable consequences of
allowing regulatory red tape and government intrusions to constrain our
ability to produce the energy that we need.
Mr. Speaker, our energy security sustains our quality of life. The
amendments offered by the minority threaten our freedom and our energy
security, and that is why they should be rejected and not allowed in
this rule. We need to solve the shortage of energy with a broad and a
balanced plan. We need to encourage initiatives to reduce demand by
conserving energy. We need to encourage the introduction of new
technology that will allow us to accomplish more with the energy that
we use. But there should be no confusion about the unmistakable need to
expand the diversity of supply and to increase the production of
energy.
Unfortunately, the electricity crisis in California offers an object
lesson in the danger of allowing political half measures to be
substituted for a successful market-based solution. We are talking
about price caps.
Today, politicians in California are demanding additional government
regulation as the pathway to relief from the consequences of earlier
government regulation. Let us be clear about this. In every place
government price controls have been tried, those price controls have
failed to achieve the results that their supporters have promised. They
failed when Republican Presidents used them; they failed when Democrat
Presidents used them. All government price controls can offer
California is the specter of longer and more frequent blackouts.
The electricity marketplace in California, as we all know, is
severely dysfunctional. The people of California are suffering today
because the demand of electricity exceeds the available supply. Until
that fundamental imbalance is resolved, their problems will continue.
It happened because politicians in California place so much red tape
and regulation on the energy sector that energy suppliers could not
build the power plants needed to supply California's energy-hungry
economy. That is the fundamental problem in California.
Government price controls cannot work because all they do is prolong
and exacerbate the problem. California

[[Page H3285]]

must begin building the capacity it needs to create the additional
electricity that its markets demand. That is the only way out. Price
controls will not create an additional, not one additional, megawatt of
electricity. What they will do is discourage the construction of new
power plants and dissuade electricity generators from investing in the
improvements and advancements that will actually increase the supply of
electricity in California.
Government price controls fly in the face of the most basic laws of
economics. They swim against supply and demand. Members should reject
that siren song of price caps. Remember this, government price controls
will mean more blackouts. I urge the adoption of this rule and reject
the opposition.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has
actually made some very interesting points, points that ought to be
debated on the floor. What the Committee on Rules is doing is saying,
no, we are not going to let the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) speak
at length about his points, or people that believe the way he does; and
we are not going to let people from California, the west coast, speak
on the other side. They will not even permit this debate to occur; and
that is why we object to this rule, and that is why we are going to
fight the previous question.
I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) ought to have lots of
time to make his arguments, and I think people on the other side ought
to have an equal amount of time. Their rule would prevent that from
happening.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule considering the
supplemental appropriation bill that is before us. Although many of my
colleagues are upset because the rule does not permit various
amendments as it relates to the energy crisis or disaster relief, my
reason for opposing the rule is quite simple. It does not permit an
amendment that would allow us to do more for our American men and women
in uniform. This is a serious matter.
At the outset, I want to note that the $5.6 billion included in the
bill for the Defense Department by the Committee on Appropriations,
which is recommended by the OMB, is helpful but not adequate to address
acute funding shortfalls that all the military services are
experiencing.
I proposed an amendment to the bill to increase funding for the
Department by $2.7 billion. That amendment has not been made in order
by the rule and protected against points of order, and that is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret to anyone that the armed services are
called on to perform a myriad of missions all around the world, many of
them on short notice. Whether it is defending against adversaries like
Saddam Hussein or protecting our allies in Korea, or building a
democracy in the Balkans, our military does a wonderful job, a great
job, of protecting our national security interests. We owe it to our
servicemen and women to ensure that they are trained and ready to
perform those missions, that they have the best equipment we can
provide and have adequate compensation and quality of life for their
families.
The roofs are leaking on the family housing. The spare-parts bins are
empty. The training is being curtailed, and unfortunately this
supplemental bill as reported does not go far enough in meeting these
goals, and follows the OMB recommendations. My amendment would add
$2.74 billion to the bill all for additional defense appropriations. Of
this total, the vast majority, about $2 billion, would be for operation
and maintenance for flying hours and spare parts and real property
maintenance and depot maintenance and uniforms, the unglamorous nuts
and bolts, essentials that really make our military work. Another $400
million would fund military personnel and priorities, subsistence
allowances, housing allowances, to keep our service members off food
stamps, to pay for unbudgeted National Guard and Reserve personnel
costs.
My amendment would also add about $300 million for high-priority
procurement costs. For example, I would add $65 million to replace the
EP-3 that is being cut to pieces on Hainan Island, China, and $49
million in additional funds to expedite the repair of the U.S.S. Cole.
Finally, my amendment would appropriate additional funds for
ammunition. I oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and
I rise in support of the previous question and also will be rising in
support of the supplemental appropriations bill.
There are 435 of us in this Chamber and if each one of us were to
write our own version of this supplemental, there would probably be 435
different versions; and we cannot have that. In our process, that is
not the way it works. So the Committee on Appropriations, in an effort
to allow Members to make a major contribution to the final product, the
Committee on Appropriations asks for an open rule. I have never asked
the Committee on Rules to give me a closed rule on any appropriations
bill.
This is an open rule, meaning that any Member who has an amendment
that is germane to the bill, that is an appropriations item, that they
will be able to offer that amendment.
We would possibly agree with some; possibly we will not agree with
some. We will make that determination once the debate takes place.
As an announcement to our Members, I wanted to tell them that
although we were late getting our numbers, specific numbers, from the
administration, we are still well under way. This is the first
appropriations bill of the season. However, if we look at it
technically, it is the last appropriations because of the fiscal year
2001 season because it is a fiscal year 2001 supplemental. For the
benefit of the Members, the Committee on Appropriations has reported
out this supplemental, plus three other of the major appropriations
bills for fiscal year 2002. The fourth appropriations bill has already
been reported by the subcommittee, and next week there will be four
additional subcommittee markups. I say this so that Members will know
that the Committee on Appropriations is moving expeditiously, despite
the fact that we got off to a very, very late start.
I listened with interest to what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) said on the amendment that he would offer, and I cannot
disagree with him. There is a large list of shortfalls in our military
services. There are many things that they need that we are not
providing. We are anticipating a very substantial budget amendment from
the President sometime within the next couple of weeks that will
address many of the issues that the amendment of the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) raises. Those of us who work with national
defense issues every day of our legislative lives are concerned that
there are tremendous shortfalls in the needs of our national defense
establishment, shortfalls in the needs of quality-of-life issues for
our men and women who serve in uniform, and we are going to address
those.
The bill that we provide today has certain budgetary constraints. The
budget resolution for fiscal year 2001 sets certain budgetary
restraints. The $6.5 billion presented by this bill is the top line in
those budgetary constraints. There is not much we can do about that. So
we present a bill with the best advice and consent that we could have
from the appropriations members to use that $6.5 billion in a cost-
effective way.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) for giving me this opportunity, and I do hope that we can
expedite consideration of the previous question, the rule and get right
to the bill. This could be a long day.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the Committee on Rules for a rather simple
amendment that would have allowed for the

[[Page H3286]]

House to vote on whether or not to strike the rescission in the
supplemental of $389 million from the FEMA disaster account. Now, the
distinguished chairman of the committee just spoke, and I know he
worked very hard on putting this bill together, and he talked about the
budgetary constraints.
I appreciate that fact, but we have to remember some of the budgetary
constraints in this bill are self-imposed by the committee because the
committee added $273 million in spending in the defense accounts that
was not requested by the administration. It added $469 million in
nondefense accounts that was not requested by the administration, and
then it found the impetus to declare $388 million in spending emergency
but in order to meet the constraints it took the money that the
Congress had appropriated and been signed into law for emergency relief
and rescinded it and then it says, well, that money is not needed; we
are not going to need it. If we need it, we will get it later.

{time} 1345

But that is not a real savings. Mathematically, you know we are going
to spend that money. But the fact is, FEMA does not have sufficient
money. The storm in Harris County is now estimated to cost $4 billion.
FEMA has already put out a couple of hundred million dollars, and they
expect to put out another $130 million in the next 30 days.
There are storms happening all over the country. The district of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just got hit yesterday with a
storm. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a Republican, was
there asking for the same waiver, because FEMA is still paying for
Hurricane Floyd that happened 2 years ago.
Now we are playing budget politics with FEMA money. Fifty thousand
people in Harris County have either been displaced from their homes or
are having to replace their homes. FEMA is estimating that the number
of claims is going to rise to 90,000, and the three major hospitals and
the largest medical center in the world are effectively shut down. The
estimated damage to the Texas Medical Center alone will probably equal
$2 billion.
Yet the committee thought it would make sense to cut at least a
quarter and ultimately really a third of the available FEMA money in
the current fiscal year in order to pay for additional spending on
other projects that the White House did not even ask for. Here is a
letter from the White House. They agree. They say they are puzzled.
They are puzzled by the action taken by the committee.
I know the committee worked very hard. In fact, when the committee
did this, Allison had not even occurred yet. But it has occurred now,
and we can very simply fix this matter. You were able to declare
sufficient funding for projects you thought were important emergencies.
Do it for another 39 million, but put back the money that the Congress
voted on, that the President signed into law, so it can be spent on
disaster assistance, because I assure you we will be back. It will take
more. This is like the California earthquake in 1992 and 1993.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and
defeat the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. The Emergency
Supplemental is a paradox in its truest of forms. While donning the
mask of emergency relief, this bill actually rescinds funding from
FEMA's Disaster Recovery Fund in order to finance new and often
unrequested projects.
Mr. Speaker, in the wake of Tropical Storm Allison, more than 50,000
Texans from Harris County, are either in temporary housing or working
to make their homes livable again. With preliminary damage assessments
totaling $4.88 billion in Harris County alone, now is not the time to
rescind $389 million from FEMA's Disaster Recovery Fund. According to
FEMA's latest estimates, the amount of Disaster Recovery Funds
necessary to assist the state of Texas total $1.98 billion. And that
cost will certainly rise. This legislation is setting all of us up for
another messy supplemental down the road. We are just 19 days into
hurricane season, a recision of nearly one-third of FEMA's available
assistance funding is unconscionable.
This measure has not garnered the support of the Administration. In
fact, OMB Director Daniels said, ``this action would preclude prompt
assistance'' for future disasters. The Disaster Recovery Fund is
appropriated for the specific purpose of assisting local communities in
the event of unforeseen disasters. The authors of this bill felt this
account to be money burning a hole in their pockets. The Disaster
Recovery Fund is not a savings account for new projects. This money is
critical to the recovery process of hard-working taxpayers in the wake
of natural disasters.
To impede or delay FEMA aid in favor of new spending is a desertion
of our duty in this body. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
rule because it fails to protect the amendment I offered and a similar
proposal offered by my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Jones.
Furthermore, it protects an amendment that inexplicably, calls for
offsetting previously appropriated disaster funds.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is an
amendment being offered to replace the FEMA money in this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from North Carolina that the
peculiar amendment that the Committee on Rules made in order to restore
the FEMA money takes it out of Head Start and takes it out of Community
Policing. We are saying that is a legitimate emergency. There is no
reason to do that in the bizarre and peculiar way in which they have
put the money back in.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that this emergency supplemental
bill coming up when it did right on the heels of the storm damage and
flooding to Houston, it would have provided an opportunity for this
Congress to speak very clearly to the people in that area that their
contract with our country is one that, in time of distress or natural
disaster, we are there for them. Instead, we are sending the exact
opposite message, a message of no confidence, by reducing the funding
in FEMA.
As a person who represents an area beset by earthquakes, I know how
important the message from Washington is in the recovery. As a
grandmother of grandchildren in Houston seeing the onset of mosquitos
following the flood, I know personally the need for the increased
funding in the emergency bill, and am bewildered, again from my own
experience representing an area that is disaster-prone, that this
committee would not rise to the occasion.
So I rise in opposition to the rule on the supplemental
appropriations bill because it misses opportunities on many scores. All
we were asking for was a legitimate debate on spending priorities that
are of an emergency nature for this Congress to address.
We have missed the opportunity because of this rule to have the
chance to stabilize the electricity markets in the western United
States. We have missed the opportunity to discuss the Eshoo amendment
to ensure refunds for electricity charges in the western regions that
were not just and reasonable. In fact, there are about $8.9 billion in
refunds. We have missed the opportunity to ensure that the DeLauro
amendment would be discussed, which would increase the LIHEAP funding
so it would be available to low income families throughout the summer
and fall. Finally, we have missed the opportunity to provide the
leadership required for this country in the fight to treat AIDS and
prevent new infections globally.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule because it is a
gag rule on discussion of issues of an emergency nature.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Coast Guard is
included in the supplemental budget, but I am very concerned about the
direction of the 2002 Coast Guard budget. If there are no changes, it
is predictable that we will be standing here again this time next year,
hat in hand, advocating for the Coast Guard, just as happened last
year, when we painted ourselves into the same corner requiring $655
million in supplemental Coast Guard funding.

[[Page H3287]]

Now, everyone knows that budget constraints have been so severe and
chronic that the Coast Guard can barely keep its fleet in the water and
its planes in the air. By the way, the Coast Guard operates the second
oldest major naval fleet in the world, 39th out of 40. That is
shameful.
We reduce operational funding while cutting back on capital
investment; we short-change housing, health coverage and retirement.
Then we wonder why retention and training suffer. We admire the
rescues, such as depicted in the movie ``Perfect Storm,'' but divert
assets away from the core mission of saving lives. And, remember, the
Coast Guard saves 5,000 lives each and every year.
The 2002 authorization bill passed by this House just 2 weeks ago
responded to these challenges by boosting the Coast Guard's operating
budget for next year by $300 million. That promise stands unfulfilled
thus far in the appropriations process. The funding bill approved since
by the Subcommittee on Appropriations cut that $300 million, as well as
an additional $60 million to embark on a program of replacing aging
Coast Guard cutters that, on the average, are 27 years old.
The consequences are real, Mr. Speaker. Just this week came reports
that the Coast Guard recalled port security forces that were sent
overseas to protect U.S. naval units after the Destroyer Cole was
attacked. Why? Because we cannot afford it any more.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on
Monday ruled that they are not going to offer any true relief to
California. What they said was that they were going to engage in a
faith-based energy policy. They would pray for consumers in California
and across the West, but they really would not do anything for them.
In the TV game show, the weakest link gets kicked off the show. But
on Monday, the Republican-controlled FERC decided that the weakest link
gets to set the prices for the entire western electricity market. This
FERC order perpetuates the nonsense of having the least efficient
generator of electricity set the benchmark price for all of the other
generators.
This is a formula for allowing energy generators to continue to tip
consumers across the West upside down and to shake money out of their
pockets. While saying we are going to mitigate the size of the
windfall, it does not in any way deal with the fact that a windfall
will be enjoyed by these energy producers of historic size. Instead,
they should have imposed a cost of service time-out on California and
the West.
That is why the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) wanted to bring amendments out here on the
floor to deal with the pricing issues, to deal with the refunds for
overcharges. But they have been denied. That is why, in a larger sense,
Congresswoman DeLauro wanted to bring out a LIHEAP amendment of an
additional $600 million for emergency funding and $1.2 billion for the
year 2002. We should reject this proposal.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey), and he is my good friend, we work together on privacy issues
and telecommunications issues, this is one we agree to disagree on.
The great State of California has buy-cap authority today. If the
Governor of California thinks that electricity prices are too high,
since the State is buying all the wholesale power, all he has got to do
is pick up the phone and call the gentleman who is negotiating these
contracts, I do not know if it is on a day-to-day basis, but it is
generally a man named David Freeman, a very smart individual, and say
do not pay more than $100 a megawatt, or more than $50, or more than
$200, whatever it is. The Governor of California has buy-cap authority
right now.
What has happened? What has happened is in the last 6 months, as
California began to grapple with the fact that they are a part of the
real world, they cannot suspend economic laws, they have begun to
negotiate contracts, and long-term contracts from 1 year to 5 years to
10 years, some of those contracts are becoming public and they are
finding out they are paying above market prices.
Now, I do not think the political leadership in the great State of
California started out to pay above market prices. I think just the
opposite. But it is fundamental; if you try to pick a political price
for any commodity, and, almost by definition, you are going to pick the
wrong price, because markets change. Every time we have tried price
caps on any commodity in this country for any length of time, the only
certainty has been it has led to shortages, disruptions, it has led to
unequal distribution of that commodity.
So I think the Committee on Rules was eminently fair. This is a
spending supplemental. It is not a policy supplemental. We should not
have extraneous amendments on items like price caps that do not make
sense in the real world, and I hope we vote for the rule.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague
yielding. I want my colleagues to know that the gentleman who chairs
the subcommittee, the appropriate subcommittee in this policy arena,
has been more than cooperative with those of us from California worried
about the challenges that we face in the West. Indeed, he spent hours
and hours trying to examine where in the Federal law we might make
changes that would improve that condition.
Finally he came to the conclusion that, outside of the FERC taking a
temporary action to try to help California, that literally the
flexibility was available already. The reality, as the chairman has
said, is that over months now, and indeed years now, California has
been headed towards a crisis that finally we are bearing the fruit of.
I want the chairman to know how much we appreciate his cooperation, his
efforts to help us. I want the body to know I very much appreciate the
gentleman's efforts to try to cooperate with us, and in turn he has
essentially sent the message, you have the flexibility at home; solve
the problem at home where it started in the first place.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank
the gentleman.
Briefly, the recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday
was unanimous, three Republicans, two Democrats; the old commissioners,
the new commissioners. It is a price mitigation strategy that lets the
market work, but it does not let any particular supplier manipulate the
market.
The partial version of this that was put in back in April has been
working. This version, which goes 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, will
help California and the West Coast this summer.

{time} 1400

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the Eighth
District of Texas. We have had many homes and businesses destroyed in
Tropical Storm Allison. Let me tell the Members, the last thing people
in Houston need are politicians trying to score points off our misery.
That is exactly what we have heard here today.
I am 100 percent certain, and FEMA is 100 percent certain, that there
is today and will continue to be sufficient funding within our Federal
aid and FEMA to ensure disaster aid to victims of Tropical Storm
Allison. My colleagues in Congress who are using scare tactics to
needlessly heap even more misery onto the families and businesses
harmed by Allison ought to be ashamed of themselves.
The only debate is whether Congress will fund future FEMA
emergencies, future FEMA emergencies out of this

[[Page H3288]]

bill now, or within the FEMA budget that will be taken up in a few
short weeks. I believe that playing petty politics when people's lives
have been destroyed is absolutely despicable.
My advice to my friends on the other side is to knock it off. Let us
work together for the sake of our State and communities. Let us stop
pointing fingers. Let us join hands, Republicans and Democrats alike,
to help those in our Houston region, the Texas Medical Center, our
families, and our businesses that desperately need help today, and to
knock off the politics and stop trying to score points off their
misery.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the previous speaker was confused. Perhaps he
did not realize that this supplemental bill has money in it for this
fiscal year. We are talking about the fiscal year that is currently in
process, fiscal year 2001, and it is the money that the Republicans
sought to strip from this bill. They now have a bizarre scheme to back
the money back in, but are taking it out of other domestic programs,
like Head Start and community policing.
We are just saying, do the right thing, the rational thing: just
permit the money to be restored. It is an emergency. Do not take it out
of other programs.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, no one is playing politics with this. This
is the White House position, and they are Republicans. On the other
side, the junior Senator from our home State, who is a Republican, is
talking about adding money to FEMA, not taking money out.
All we are saying is, strike the rescission. The fact is, the
committee is the one that added money above what the White House
requested. They are using the FEMA money to pay for it.
My colleague knows, even from today's Houston Chronicle, FEMA has
already spent about $400 million. FEMA tells us that of the $1.6
billion in the account, there is only about $1.1 billion left. If we
have this rescission, that takes the amount of money available down to
$700 million. That means the amount of money FEMA has to just do what
they are doing right now is going to be reduced. FEMA is going to need
money to move quickly while they are still paying for North Carolina,
while they are still paying for other things.
There is no politics in this. If politics is standing up for one's
constituents to get what they need to get back on their feet, than I am
guilty of those kinds of politics, and so is Mr. Bush in the White
House, because we are of the same position.
The fact is, we are not pointing fingers at anybody. All we are
saying, make in order an amendment so it is not subject to a point of
order. They can find the money elsewhere. They made this designation
before the storm occurred.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Let me state the facts directly from FEMA, those
on the ground and working:
``FEMA's disaster account has sufficient funding to ensure disaster
aid to those victims of Tropical Storm Allison flooding. FEMA assures
those in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, fighting to recover now, that FEMA
stands ready and able to help them.''
This issue deals with affecting future response efforts and our
ability to help them.
The fact of the matter is, the gentleman and I are friends, but the
gentleman is playing politics at a time when our community simply
cannot afford it. We need to work together.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quickly address a subject in
support of this rule that has arisen on the floor regarding California.
Our committee, led by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), did a
marvelous job of producing a set of solutions that could help the
California problem out that included both demand reduction and supply
increases, getting the QS back on, getting the Governor and the
President to make some administrative decisions that have helped
California, I think, a great deal.
One of the recommendations we made in that bill and passed on to the
FERC was the recommendations to do price mitigation on a 24-hour basis
7 days a week. Unanimously, Democrats and Republicans have now endorsed
that proposal. It is now the order of the FERC. Senator Feinstein has
said with this order in place she is not even asking for the price
control bill that she originally sponsored on the Senate side.
This notion of putting price controls into this debate is absolutely
ludicrous. The reason California got in trouble was because California
had price caps at the retail level, and attempted price caps at the
wholesale level. Those price caps did something very remarkable. Those
price caps reduced conservation in California by 8 percent, encouraged
excessive demand, a 6 percent growth, the highest in the Nation, and
put California in a shortage position where it did not have enough
power plants to supply the needs of that economy.
This price mitigation plan now adopted by the FERC, as recommended by
our committee, together with 17 Members of the Republican California
delegation, a plan first suggested to us by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose), is now in place and will serve to make sure that
price spikes do not occur in those periods of time when California is
really short.
This has been a rough and tumble negotiated process, but we have
produced a solution that does in fact help order that market without
doing what California did incorrectly, without putting hard price caps
in place that do nothing but shorten supply, increase demand, and
dampen the need for conservation.
Since the price caps on rates have been lifted in California, guess
what, conservation has increased 13 percent. Now that the Governor has
authorized the construction of new plants in California, put old plants
back online, put QS back on, there is less of a danger of blackouts; it
is not solved yet, but there is much less of a danger of blackouts.
In short, the work done by the subcommittee led by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton), with the help and counsel of the California Members
of the Republican party and with the President and the FERC now
following in a bipartisan fashion the adoption of the price mitigation
plan, we are well on our way, at least, to beginning to settle the
California problem that unfortunately the policymakers in California
put the people of California through.
Let me say something else: California is 12 percent of this Nation's
economy. We could not afford not to help. California needs to have a
good supply of energy. It needs to have prices people can afford. It
needs to have a market that is reasonable, like the rest of America,
where supply meets demand; where conservation is encouraged, not
dampened or weakened; and where new supplies are always brought on
board when there is a real and honest demand for those supplies.
Silicon Valley cannot afford to go dark. America cannot afford to
have this new economy darken because we have not solved those problems.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the
courageous work he has done. I want to thank the FERC for making I
think a very wise decision in this price mitigation plan. I want to
thank all of the Members who agree with me that this issue ought to be
put to bed.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the previous question.
There is an amendment to the rule that would have been offered if the
previous question is defeated.
The amendment would allow for the consideration of two very important
amendments to the supplemental.
The first is the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton). The Skelton amendment would add $2.7 million to the
Department of Defense so in the last 3 months of the fiscal year the
Armed Forces are not forced to cut back on training and operations and
maintenance because of the shortfall in funds.
The second is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington

[[Page H3289]]

(Mr. Inslee) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). This
amendment would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
impose cost-of-service-based rates on electricity in the West.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce said,
that this is not about policy. We have done some good things, along
with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), and we do appreciate
very much their hard work.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the FY 2001 Supplemental Appropriations
bill should be an opportunity for Congress to address some important
funding shortfalls facing our country. Instead, we are seeing self-
fulfilling prophecy played out that is the direct result of the
misguided Republican strategy to disconnect spending for tax policy.
The $389 million FEMA disaster relief cut in the FY 2001 Supplemental
Appropriations bill is the first manifestation of what's wrong with the
Republican budget strategy.
Today's rule limits debate on the bill and prevents important
Democratic alternatives from being brought to the floor, rather than
having an open debate on the trade-offs that Congress has made to cut
taxes and limit spending. We are prevented from voting on amendments
aimed at restoring funding to assist the thousands of people needing
disaster relief, ensuring that low-income families have access to
affordable energy and heating, or addressing the energy crisis that is
crippling the West Coast.
The FEMA cut, in particular, could not come at a more inopportune
time. Earlier this month we witnessed an example of the type of
destructive results that may be a result of global climate change. We
are seeing an increase in both frequency and intensity of extreme
weather incidents. The devastating efforts of Tropical Storm Allison on
Texas, Louisiana, and Florida killed almost 60 people, dumped 3 feet of
rain in 6 days, and damaged 20,000 homes. Just today, FEMA director Joe
Albaugh stated that the damage from Tropical Storm Allison may be as
high as $4 billion to deal with clean-up and related health threats
associated with storm damage.
Today's Supplemental Appropriations bill illustrates how we in
Congress have put ourselves into a tax cut and budget box. The cuts to
FEMA's disaster relief program are one of the most egregious aspects of
our shortsighted tax and budget policy. For these reasons, I urge
Members to vote against the previous question and oppose the rule.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for
the supplemental appropriations bill because the Rules Committee failed
to protect several key amendments--including the Inslee/Pelosi
amendment and the Eshoo amendment--and have prevented us from acting on
California's emergency needs today.
There is the mistaken belief by some that the recent action by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has solved California's
energy concerns.
But the FERC decision falls far short of what is needed in
California. For example, because FERC based the price caps on the most
inefficient operators, Californians will continue to pay high energy
costs.
Further, FERC does not address the price gouging that has already
taken place. Therefore, it has no provisions for the $6 billion in
potential illegal overcharges that have been referred to FERC for
action.
These two concerns would have been appropriate for the House to
consider today, but the Rules Committee has prevented us from taking up
two key amendments that would have addressed them.
Essentially, the Republican leadership has decided that the big
electric generators can continue to make windfall profits at the
expense of business and residential customers across California.
The impact of this price gouging on the jobs and lives of my
constituents has already taken a toll.
L.A. Dye & Print Works Incorporated, one of southern California's
largest textile firms, employing 700 people, closed its doors at the
end of April. There natural gas costs had soared from about $120,000
per month to over $600,000 per month--that's five times higher than
their costs at the start of 2000.
Some have argued that this crisis is one of California's making, but
California has stepped forward vigorously to meet this challenge.
We were one of the most energy efficient states--now we've cut energy
use by 11 percent during this crisis to become the most energy
efficient state in the union.
We've acted to bring additional generating capacity on line as
quickly as possible, and 16 major power plants with a generation
capacity of over 10,000 megawatts have received siting approval.
Ten of these power plants are currently under construction, and four
are scheduled to be on line this summer.
But we have immediate problems because as many as 30 days of rolling
black-outs have been predicted for this summer.
The impact of black-outs will be severe on families suffering through
California's 100+ degree days without air-conditioning.
The impact will also be severe on the senior citizens who have
medications that need refrigeration.
Our businesses and manufacturers face unpredictable electricity
shortages, requiring them to shut down operations during black-outs and
send workers home.
And let's not a forget a black-out's impact on our public safety
officials--our police officers, fire fighters and emergency medical
personnel--as they try to cope with a community whose stoplights are
suddenly out of order, or whose emergency communications system is
inoperative.
We are facing an emergency in California, and that is why we wanted
the House to consider emergency provisions today during consideration
of the supplemental appropriations bill.
This emergency in California is quickly spilling over to other
western states and eventually will make its way to states across this
nation.
As the 5th largest economy in the world, California's energy crisis
is having an enormous detrimental impact on the nation's economy.
Unfortunately, we have heard the message from the Republican
leadership to the 33 million citizens in California and Americans
across this country loud and clear.
That message is: we won't discuss your emergency, we don't care about
its impact on California and the nation, and therefore we will not
support relief for your businesses and citizens.
By preventing amendments affecting millions of Americans from even
being debated and voted on, the leadership of the House of
Representatives turns their back on every American they have sworn to
serve.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed immediately by a 5-
minute vote, if ordered, on adoption of the resolution, and a 5-minute
vote on the motion to suspend the rules debated earlier today.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 205, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 169]

YEAS--222

[[Page H3290]]

McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--205

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

NOT VOTING--5

Cox
Dooley
Eshoo
Etheridge
Houghton

{time} 1433

Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, LANGEVIN, BACA, DAVIS of Illinois,
BERRY, RUSH, TAYLOR of Mississippi, and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PORTMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 205, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 170]

AYES--223

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

NOES--205

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

NOT VOTING--5

Conyers
Cox
Eshoo
Houghton
Smith (WA)

{time} 1444

So the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page H3291]]

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

____________________