Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2004

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5212 is a bill to further respond to the devastation brought upon the State of Florida and other neighboring States by Hurricane Charley, Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Jeanne, and Tropical Storm Bonnie, more adverse weather than a State has seen in hundreds of years.

This is the second supplemental that the House will consider. The first supplemental was introduced on September 7, the day we reconvened. We passed that bill on September 7, the other body deemed it passed on September 7, and it arrived at the President's desk just in time to make sure that the cash flow to the needy folks in Florida would not be disrupted.

We are now reaching a similar situation. The FEMA funds are about to run out once again, and this bill will provide additional funds for FEMA and other disaster recovery and relief efforts.

I want the Members to know how I feel about this bill. This is a good bill, as far as it goes. There is nothing political in this bill, at least not yet. There are no special projects for any Member. We resisted all attempts to add to this supplemental. So this really gets to the point of recovery from five major storms.

I have lived in Florida for 58 years. I have seen the devastation of hurricanes and tornadoes. They go together. Hurricanes are large storms and hurricanes spawn tornadoes.

I have seen homes totally destroyed. I have seen mobile home parks obliterated, gone. I have seen major buildings with their roofs gone. I have seen infrastructure for cities and counties destroyed. I have seen highways, believe it or not, that have been totally destroyed, with large chunks of asphalt just lying around like parts of a jigsaw puzzle waiting to be put together. But you cannot just put them back together. You have to rebuild them.

Last week, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and I went to Florida to Pensacola, to the Naval Air Station; and there we were met by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), and we reviewed some tremendous, very costly damage created by the hurricanes.

There is a lot more to be said about the tremendous pressure of living through a hurricane, and I have lived through a number of hurricanes. These five storms that I have talked about, have affected every section of Florida, and in some cases three of the storms have hit the same section.

Governor Jeb Bush became the manager of the recovery effort, and he has done an outstanding job. He managed the recovery effort on the part of the State. He coordinated the counties, and he coordinated the cities and all of the

relief agencies that have been there to help out the people that really needed help.

President Bush visited the State five times, and visited the hurricane sites and viewed for himself the disaster and visited with the people. He handed out bags of ice and bottles of water. He did a good job, and he made commitments and promises to the people of Florida. It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that no one stands in the way of following through on those promises that President Bush made to the people of Florida.

Mr. Chairman, the bill that we take up today meets a lot of these promises, but it does not meet them all. There is another bill that I introduced today, H.R. 5227, that does include, in fact, the promises that President Bush made to the people of Florida. And, the additional funds that we have included in H.R. 5227, over and above the President's request of approximately $11 billion, we have offset. We have offset $1.6 billion that we would have added to the President's request. We are not permitted to bring this bill up today, but I will tell my colleagues, and I will tell anyone willing to listen on either side of the aisle; this hurricane relief has been very bipartisan, and I appreciate all of the support that Members have given us; and this Chairman is going to do everything possible to see this bill enacted into law because it meets the real requirements of recovery efforts in the great State of Florida. It is not the bill that we are considering today, but we are going to do everything possible to make sure that it ends up on the President's desk.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) would have offered an amendment that would have increased H.R. 5212 by $1.6 billion, and that is what this second bill (H.R. 5227) does, it increases the bill by $1.6 billion. He and I traveled together to many parts of Florida; we visited and we saw for ourselves what the damages were and what the recovery effort was going to take.

So we will do our very best to make sure that the promises that the President made to the people of Florida will not be stymied by some bureaucracy or some group of people who might not want us to move this legislation. But one way or another, we are going to move it.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of Members wish to be heard on this issue, especially Florida Members, so at this point I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06OC04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06OC04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06OC04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06OC04.006

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), whose district enjoyed the visits of several hurricanes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) who has lived through several hurricanes right in his own home town.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the very distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations from Florida's east coast and Cape Canaveral and the Space Center.

Mr. Chairman, last week I had the privilege of accepting an invitation from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) to visit his district where the naval air station at Pensacola is located and was devastated. I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) who has done a tremendous job in helping his people recover from this hurricane.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to how much time is remaining on either side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gentleman that, yes, this is my understanding.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) knows exactly what it is like to live through a hurricane and to suffer severe damage to properties and investments. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to repeat just briefly what I said earlier, that H.R. 5212, which is the bill we have under consideration at this moment, is a good bill as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. It is about $1.6 billion short, and that $1.6 billion we added in H.R. 5227. For those who were concerned about spending the extra money, we have offset it. In our bill, H.R. 5227, we offset that $1.6 billion, so there is no real added cost.

I want a good vote on H.R. 5212. I want to get this bill into conference as soon as we can. We need to finish this job before we leave here for the election break. I do not want the people in Florida to have to wait 3 or 4 weeks before this financial recovery comes to them. I would point out again that FEMA has advised me that by Friday night this week, they will be pretty much out of money. We cannot let that happen.

I wanted to just take a minute and explain what we think should be in this bill that is not, and what is in H.R. 5227. For agriculture, we add $509 million for additional assistance for agriculture and rural areas.

For highways and airports, we add $750 million for the Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief program. Highways, believe it or not, have been seriously damaged and destroyed by the hurricanes that visited Florida.

For NASA, we add $59 million to repair the damage at the Kennedy Space Center, but also to harden the existing facilities to prevent further damage from hurricanes.

For the Army Corps of Engineers, this is very important to a lot of Members, we add $147 million to make emergency repairs to waterways and shore areas, including dredging harbors and inlets that have been filled in by the erosion of the storm and shore protection projects.

For National parks and wildlife refuges, we add $108 million to repair those facilities, to clear debris from the national parks, forests and wildlife refuges based on the most recent estimates from the Federal agencies.

We add $7 million to adequately reflect the most current damages to the United States Coast Guard and their facilities.

As I said earlier, there is nothing political in this bill. These are not Member projects. These are not political projects. These are things that were damaged in disastrous hurricanes, that need to be fixed. H.R. 5227 fixes them; H.R. 5212 does not.

Again, H.R. 5212 is a good bill as far as it goes and it does maintain most of the promises that the President made to Florida. We are going to make sure and I am going to do everything possible to make sure that everything the President promised is going to be delivered by the Congress. I would not do less. I would do everything possible to see the additional hurricane relief, recovery, and disaster funds that I have included in H.R. 5227, become part of the appropriations process, and part of the appropriations bill. And let us get on with rebuilding a great State, a great State where every section of that State was affected by one or more of those disastrous hurricanes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the way you have conducted the consideration of this bill today and the discussion and debate on the floor. I look forward to further discussion on two amendments that I know that the rule has made in order.

But, all in all, I want to pass H.R. 5212 with the hope and expectation that H.R. 5227 will come along behind it, which is the better bill. But H.R. 5212 is a good bill as far as it goes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him very much for all the cooperation that he has shown us as we prepared this legislation for these tremendous supplementals for hurricane disaster relief.

I am not going to speak in opposition to the amendment, but I want to say this. The process is disturbing. The inconsistencies in the process are disturbing.

For example, I have talked often this afternoon about H.R. 5227 that does what I think needs to be done in this hurricane relief, and the additional agriculture disaster assistance that the gentleman offers in his amendment is included in H.R. 5227. But the process would not allow me, as chairman of the committee, to include this additional agriculture disaster funding in H.R. 5212. That inconsistency, to me, is very disturbing and it is not acceptable.

I am not going to argue against the amendment because I tried to include similar funding myself. The gentleman from Texas, I do not know who he knows or what he knows, but he got a chance to do it. But the chairman of the committee could not. The process is not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas and those of his colleagues, our colleagues, who have spoken in favor of this amendment. I will tell my colleagues that, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the committee that must pass legislation, the only bills that have to pass in this place are appropriations bills. Other bills can go by for years, and as my colleagues know, many of them do. We have been working on a transportation bill, not I, but others, working on a transportation bill for 3 or 4 years now and have not passed it. But these gentlemen have done a really good job in making sure that in our must-pass appropriations bills, that we pay close attention to what we are doing, that we make sure that we are able to justify whatever we are suggesting, because we know that if we do not do it right, they are going to be all over us, as they should be.

So I compliment them for their effort. But tonight I have to oppose their amendment, and there are several reasons. One is, when we adopted the budget resolution, well, actually we never did; we deemed the budget resolution as approved by the House. We actually reduced the President's budget request by $2 billion. What is the significance of that? Why do I even bring this up? The President asked for a very austere budget, and I say amen to him. The House budget that we worked under was $2 billion less than that, and, Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, all of the bills that we have passed are within that budget. We did not exceed the budget, except for the emergency designations dealing with things like body armor for troops in Iraq and ammunition and things of that nature. So we were starting with a very austere budget, and we stayed within that budget.

The Committee on Appropriations 2\1/2\ months ago reported its final and last bill. The Committee on Appropriations worked hard and we got the bills out, we had them out. Mr. Chairman, 2\1/2\ months ago, we reported the last one. Twelve of those bills have passed. One has not passed because, as one of our distinguished colleagues said to me, it is not going on the floor because there is not enough money in it. Sort of inconsistent, wanting to hold down the budget, but then complaining that there is not enough money in it.

But the problem that I have with this is that they do not take the across-the-board cut from the bill that is before the House tonight. They take the across-the-board cut from future legislation, the 2005 bills. Now, the problem with that is, none of us really know how much those 2005 bills are going to appropriate. Why is that? Because despite the fact that we have done our job in the House, as I suggested, at the other end of the Capitol, they have not, and we have no control over that. That is the price of a bicameral legislature, and I support a bicameral legislature. There are days when I wish I did not, but I do, from the standpoint of a constitutional government. But borrowing from next year's appropriation to pay for this emergency supplemental tonight to me is not conservative government. That is borrowing in the future. That is borrowing from things that we are going to need to do in fiscal year 2005, this coming year.

So because of that, while, again, I applaud my colleagues for their fiscal conservatism, and probably, I would be more supportive if my job was not to make sure that all of the appropriations bills pass, but that is my job. I have to make sure that all of the appropriations bills pass, because if they do not, the government shuts down, and we do not want that to happen. I do not want that to happen on my watch, and it has not happened on my watch, and it is not going to.

But anyway, for those reasons, I applaud the gentleman from Texas on this amendment and those who spoke in favor of it, but I have to ask my colleagues to vote against it and then get on with passing this very important bill, this very good bill as far as it goes. But as I have repeated myself tonight several times, it just does not go far enough. But we are going to pass this bill tonight, and then we will work on making it a better bill as we go through the process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I first want to commend the chairman and the committee for the manner in which they have attempted to deal with a very serious problem, and not just in his State.

I repeat again, the devastation that has occurred in Florida I recognize, and I recognize the need for this body to step forward and to help, as the gentleman from Wisconsin just expressed. We have some disasters in west Texas, drought, excessive rain, some of it produced by the same storm system that hit Florida.

My frustration, not with the chairman but with the leadership on the Chairman's side of the aisle, is what I expressed by offering the amendment and asking that the previous question be struck. Because, yesterday, we had 44 Members of this body, including 14 on the Republican side of the aisle, that supported the best policy way of dealing with the problems that we are having all over the United States.

The President did not say our bill was bad. The President, in his proposal, said that we should treat disasters just like we have always treated them, as an emergency. The moment we begin to treat disasters as nonemergency and begin to budget for them, we have problems, and we have understood that in this body with the rule over the years, with the budget. Now, all of a sudden, once again, the leadership on the Republican side waves their magic wand, and all of a sudden, everyone falls into line.

And no matter how many times some try to explain we are not reopening the farm bill, we are reopening the farm bill in ways that it will take a few months perhaps to fully understand and appreciate. Because once we begin to tamper with the farm bill, just once, for short-term political benefit, then get ready for what happens next. I have been around here a few years, and I know what happens.

I guess the point I want to make, though, is, what happened between yesterday and today? What is it that yesterday had everyone from non- Florida States saying the best way to deal with this disaster is to treat everyone alike and fairly, 2003 to 2004, declare it an emergency, which is what this whole debate and discussion is about; then, all of a sudden we say, no, we are going to treat agriculture different? Of all of the appropriation bills, of all of the authorization bills, of anything that we have done in this body, we are now saying, treat agriculture different.

In fact, we now have a Member of the House Ag Committee, and to my chagrin, the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, who has adopted this now. Why? Because the leadership of this House said we have to do it this way. Well, 14 Members, and you can start taking a look, there are many Members who voted for the previous question who when they wake up tomorrow will find out that their district has benefitted from the conservation security program and that they have voted now to cut out a program

that many of their producers have said is a good program and should be carried forward. But because they have followed their leadership, not the policymakers of this body, they have decided that that is the way to go.

Well, I understand. It takes 218 votes. We lost on the previous question. Fourteen Members who yesterday said treat everybody alike today said, no, we are going to follow the leadership of this body.

Take a good look at the leadership of this body and their opinion of what farm policy should be. That is what they are doing on their side of the aisle. But as long as they have got 218 votes, they can do it.

I conclude my remarks by again commending the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Of all of the people on their side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, I constantly marvel at his demeanor, his patience, the manner in which he accepts his frustrations from time to time and deals with a very difficult job, but he does it well. I know a little bit about what has gone on within his committee, and I want to thank him publicly for what he has tried to do.

I hope that when they get to conference and work with the other body that he does what he said a moment ago, and we will put together a bill that deals with all of the problems in a fair and equitable way. And I will stand with him on that, as I do tonight.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing, listening to my colleague saying that the bill that he cosponsored yesterday would not be accepted. Why? Fourteen Republicans signed onto the bill yesterday. All of my Democratic colleagues indicated their support on a vote. Therefore, if my colleague from west Texas would have chosen to vote his conscience, it would have passed. He can say all he wants to that it would not have passed, but the only reason is that once again when the leadership speaks, folks on that side jump.

On September 27, the President proposed the disaster assistance before the House today. His request included agriculture assistance for hurricane and tropical storm disaster victims. On Monday, I introduced H.R. 5203, which is cosponsored by 42 Members, 16 of them Republicans. This morning at 7 a.m., the leadership of this House, through the Rules Committee, said very clearly, no fairness is required. Disaster aid without offsets was okay for Florida producers, but not producers elsewhere who are hurting just as much.

The cosponsors of my bill, as well as the organizations, 25 farm groups, agree with me and disagree with my friend from Texas.

Instead of taking up this bill at 10 a.m., the leadership took a few hours to see the error of its ways and to at least allow some drought assistance, a flawed one, but drought assistance to be considered. But that leadership has demanded that agriculture disasters be treated differently than other disasters which are alleviated by the bill and that we reopen the farm bill.

The President has not required offsets for the agriculture disaster assistance that he requested. It was the leadership in this House that made that request. The President understands the unpredictable nature of disasters and requested emergency spending appropriately.

In following the leadership and choosing this path of reopening the farm bill, this House and the Members of it who are concerned for agriculture will surely come to regret it. But the House has spoken. I notice that the leadership has spoken. And when the leadership of this body on the other side of the aisle says, this is the way it is going to be, everybody falls in line.

I have never operated that way in 26 years. When I disagreed with my leadership in what I believed was right, not just for west Texas in this concern, but with the other States who have just as much interest in this as we do, we said ``no'' to the leadership.

I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle's consciences are bothering them a little bit right now because deep down in their hearts they know that what we are about to do and the reasons for which we are about to do it are not in the best interests of American agriculture. They know that, but they have chosen to follow a leadership that has put politics ahead of policy and interjected policy and politics into an appropriations process that should never have gotten to this point.

I repeat, the President did not request offsets for agricultural disasters. The only people that have requested this are the leadership of this House. Sixteen Members on the other side of the aisle yesterday were doing the right thing. Today, they are doing the wrong thing for American agriculture, and 25 agricultural groups have said this is wrong and have sent a letter to every Member of this House. Fifteen conservation groups have said this is wrong. And some of you have voted not in the best interest of your districts because the Conservation Security Program is already working within your districts and you have been for it.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), I greatly admire, respect, and appreciate the job that he has done and is doing; but it is curious he would make a fiscally responsible argument for my amendment when he does not make the same one for the $12 billion that we have all agreed is emergency spending.

Why would you come to the floor and defend one small part that does bad policy for agriculture, and you know it? But just as the chairman has expressed his concern about the procedure and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has echoed the procedure, and everybody knows what the procedure is in this, the sad thing about this is that the policy that is going to be interjected because of the misuse of procedure in this body is going to be devastating to American agriculture. It is going to be bad. And that is why 25 groups agree with me and disagree with the gentleman from West Texas.

The chairman has said it more eloquently. The procedure lacks a little bit in common sense.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

And one point I want to make: I will not accept for one-half second the fiscal responsibility comment that was made. For a majority party that has presided over the largest deficits in the history of our country, I will not accept any charge that tonight we get fiscally responsible by choosing to treat agriculture different from any other disaster.

Do not make the fiscally responsible argument. That dog will not hunt. We are talking about policy. Twenty-five agricultural groups are agreeing with me. The majority is agreeing with the leadership of the House and are deciding, for some strange reason, this is a political point that needs to be made.

The President did not ask for offsets. Why did their leadership suddenly ask for offsets for agriculture when we are not offsetting any other part of this bill? If they want to get fiscal responsibility, I will join with them and we will treat agriculture just like every other aspect, but I will not allow agriculture to be singled out, which this amendment is doing tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, what has happened on this bill is that after the four disasters that have been referred to this evening, the committee did what we did after the Congress was hit by anthrax a number of years ago. The committee went around to the agencies to try to figure out exactly what it was they needed to fully meet the needs of people who had been hit by these disasters. They went to the Agriculture Department, and the Agriculture Department people unofficially told the Congress what they thought the real level of need was.

There are some 35 States who have legitimate needs that need to be responded to with respect to refurbishing or reconstructing highways that have been damaged. And there are various other needs that will be listed in a chart which I will ask at the proper time to insert in the record following the remarks I am now making.

Essentially, the chairman, his staff and my staff, tried to work out what we thought was a tightly disciplined package to meet legitimate needs being faced in this unprecedented hurricane year. Unfortunately, the way this place has come to work more and more is that people who know the least about problems are the people who often have the most to say about how they are dealt with.

And so, as a result, people who did not go around looking at the damage on the ground, as some of our Florida colleagues did, people who did not have a direct knowledge of the damage that was done and the kind of relief that was needed, they, for ideological reasons, decided that the committee product did not suit their pure idea of what was good and righteous, and so they decided, well, no, that is too much money. So the bill has been scaled back.

Now, as a result of its being scaled back, we are going to have a couple of amendments that are offered in Rube Goldberg fashion which will try to meet some of these legitimate needs by slashing into funds that meet other Americans' legitimate needs in programs ranging from agriculture conservation to cancer research. So we will be asked to vote for a bill which, as the gentleman from Florida indicated, may be good as far as it goes, but it sure does not go very far given the real need.

Now, this damage did not occur in my district, but there have been times when it did, and I know how badly we needed that help. And I know when my farmers were hit with droughts how badly they needed that help. And if we cannot remember what it was like when our constituents were hit with this kind of problem, then we cannot expect other Members to remember when we have a problem.

So I regret the fact that we have this half-a-loaf approach. I assume people will vote for it in the end because it is about all that we can get out of the system, but this, again, is a sorry mess. This Congress has not hesitated to provide $128,000 tax cuts to people making a million bucks a year. But, oh, if you are a farmer who was hit by drought or if you are a property owner hit by hurricane damage or if you are a town chairman trying to deal with your road problem, sorry, buddy, you take second place, you take third place, you can sit in the caboose. We have to put that millionaire in the front seat, first class.

That is essentially what this Congress has done on program after program all year long. We should not be surprised they would do it again tonight. It is too bad, but there is not much we can do about it because the powers that be in this place have decided this is the way it is going to be.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), committee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. That is what I meant when I said that the way this House is being run these days, the people who know the least about these things are evidently being given the opportunity to do the most about them, which is backwards in terms of my understanding of the legislative body.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, what is happening on this floor tonight is blatant, obvious, raw politics. That is all it is.

The Republican majority leadership is bringing a bill to the floor which has over $10 billion in aid to various areas of the country. No offsets. No offsets at all. But when on this side of the aisle we are trying to deal with disaster problems for farmers on an equal footing with the hurricane disasters that we have just had in Florida and other States, then we are told, Oh, no. All of a sudden a new rule has to apply.

I would say to the gentleman from Nebraska that is like saying that in an Oklahoma-Nebraska football game, Oklahoma has to go 200 yards for a touchdown while Nebraska only has to go 100 yards. It just is not fair. It is not square.

I would make another point. Even if we were going to have offsets, this is a ``let's pretend'' offset. This is a phony offset, because if we take a look at the scoring by the beloved Congressional Budget Office, which the majority party used to stick with, come hell or high water, if we take a look at this, there is no offset whatsoever in the first fiscal year, zero savings by this ``let's pretend'' offset.

In the second year there is a $56 million savings out of a $2.8 billion cost. Who are they kidding?

This is a political maneuver. This is not a financial or budgetary offset. It is a joke. And if it did not do so much damage to farmers, I would laugh at it. Over 3 years, it provides only one-tenth the offset that is required to meet the standard budget rules around here.

What we have got here tonight is not an offset, it is a political shell game, and the problem is that shell game results in sticking it to farmers. Shame on you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out some of the budget reductions which will be caused by this amendment: The National Institutes of Health would be cut by $884 million from the House-passed bill.

The Centers For Disease Control, who told us yesterday we have a crisis on our hands with respect to childhood influenza, this amendment would cut $136 million from the House-passed bill for that agency.

Head Start, this amendment would cut $214 million, $10 million below last year's level.

The Low Income Heating Assistance Program, LIHEAP, would be cut $62 million from the House level.

The Federal Aviation Administration, they would be funded nearly one- half billion dollars below the fiscal 2004 level.

Education would be cut by $1.8 billion below the House-passed labor- health bill.

No Child Left Behind would be cut by $440 million. The vice president last night in the debate talked about the importance of that program.

Title I grants would be cut by $414 million.

Special education, which both political parties posed for holy political pictures on for the last 4 years, that program is being cut by $400 million.

Pell Grants, the President at the national convention talked about the need to expand Pell Grants. This would cut Pell Grants, would exacerbate the shortfall by $300 million.

The FBI would be cut $161 million, including personnel resources for the Office of Intelligence and counterterrorism field investigations.

NASA would be cut.

National parks would be cut by $70 million, meaning a layoff of some 800 park rangers and maintenance staff.

Nuclear nonproliferation programs, which both presidential candidates said last week were their number one concern, would be cut by $40 million.

Law enforcement assistance would be cut by $81 million.

This is a family-friendly amendment? Give me a break.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our senior chairman for the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, for bringing the bill to the floor. I want to thank them on their speediness. I know $2 billion has already been appropriated. This allows another $10 billion, not near enough, but it is certainly a start.

Florida very definitely must be helped. The residents there have shown that they are true patriots and Americans, and yes, they need the help.

Also, the countries in the Caribbean, I thank my colleagues for the $100 million, and it is most important that we help our neighbors in this time of devastation. Whole countries have been devastated, 80 percent of some of their housing, their schools, their hospitals. This will begin to help them, and I thank my colleagues for that. It is not enough, but it is a start, and I hope we will continue to work on it.

There is much more to be done in the Caribbean, in Florida, and as was mentioned, I am sure this Congress will be there.

In Darfur, as has been mentioned, in the Sudan, they, too, are in a crisis. People are dying every day, Mr. Chairman. We need to help them. The President has declared a genocide. The Secretary of State has declared a genocide. We need to help them.

I call on the World Bank and the Inter-Development Bank to forgive the loans of those Caribbean nations, to offer grants for those nations. Those people need to get back on their feet as well.

I call on the World Bank and the Inter-Development Bank to help Darfur, to help the Sudanese people. I think it is time to issue sanctions against Sudan. That would help to make sure that the Janjaweed would not terrorize the community, the nation, the people; and they are doing just that.

So I ask for our President and this Congress, we must be the leaders that God intends that we be. We must stand up, yes, help Florida, give those people what they need. They have been there with us, and we owe it to them. The Caribbean neighbors that we have, Haiti devastated, and this appropriations bill that is now a supplemental moving quickly, and we thank the leadership for that.

We need to do more for Darfur. We have got to do it. We ask for one- half

percent of the money that was appropriated to Iraq, $20 billion appropriated, $2 billion spent. We can do better and I hope we will.

Today we are considering H.R. 5212, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Disasters. The funding levels within the supplemental will provide $100 million for the Caribbean region which has been devastated by recent hurricanes and tropical storms. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I have advocated for funds sufficient to address humanitarian and reconstruction needs for countries affected in the Caribbean.

While I am happy that funds have been provided, I am dismayed that more funds were not provided. The good news is that Haiti, which is in dire need of assistance, will receive perhaps as much as $72 million in aid. The bad news is that other countries in the region will not receive anything close to the monies necessary to rebuild schools and to repair their infrastructures.

The country of Jamaica will receive only $17 million, but the government estimates that it will take $250 million to rebuild homes, replant crops, and build seawalls to protect against future hurricanes and tropical storms. Grenada was also hit hard by storms and will receive approximately $9 million in aid. Preliminary government estimates are that 80 percent of the housing stock has been damaged, 10 percent or 10,000 homes will need to be replaced and 82,000 persons have been displaced from their homes. Clearly Grenada needs more money, and so do the countries of the Bahamas and St. Vincent and the Grenadines that will receive $500,000 respectively.

Mr. Chairman, our Caribbean neighbors and friends are confronting destruction of such magnitude that it will take them years to recover. Many of these countries have previously received loans from the World Bank and Inter-Development Bank. Virtually all of the countries affected by the hurricanes can ill afford to carry more loan debt. I call on the World Bank and the Inter-Development Bank to forgive the debt of Caribbean countries affected by recent hurricanes. I also ask both institutions to issue immediate grants to these countries to help restore their schools, hospitals, food production capability, and the other essentials of everyday life. These international lending institutions must re-evaluate how to facilitate a policy of loan forgiveness or grants for these storm ravaged Caribbean countries.

It is an unfortunate reality that the region will continue to confront seasonal hurricanes and storms. Invariably, the region will continue to rely on the United States to provide humanitarian and disaster assistance in the future. Although our nation is limited in its ability to fully fund post-hurricane reconstruction efforts, we must endeavor to provide greater resources than the allocation in the supplemental. I support the bill before us. I regret that we could not provide greater funding to address the dire circumstances that exist in the Caribbean.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself of such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for his good work to help those devastated by the recent hurricanes.

My amendment represents a very simple proposition. But before stating that proposition, let me state the proposition it does not stand for. Specifically, nothing contained in this amendment would deny one penny of relief to those who suffered the ravages of the hurricanes that hit Florida; not one penny less, not one penny delay.

The proposition this amendment does stand for is that so-called emergency spending for natural disasters should come out of the budget. In other words, this supplemental spending should be offset with lower- priority spending, which, frankly, was our practice throughout the decade of the nineties. In every single year of the nineties, when supplemental spending bills were enacted, so were rescissions of other spending.

In that spirit, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce 2005 discretionary spending approximately 3 percent, exempting national defense, homeland security and veterans spending.

Unfortunately, today, when we pass supplemental spending, we just add it to the deficit. We pass the bill along to our children and grandchildren. Many, many Members have come to the floor to decry deficit spending. It will be interesting to see how many of them truly want to do something about it and support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the true question before us is, who will tighten their belt to pay for this $10.9 billion of hurricane damage? Families, or government. I vote for the government.

Opponents of this amendment will argue that it will gut vital government programs. I simply reject that notion. I believe the government spending is already out of control. For only the fourth time in our Nation's history, the Federal Government is now spending over $20,000 per household. Over the last decade, almost every major department of government has grown way beyond the rate of inflation. Interior is up 42 percent; HHS, 110 percent; education, 125 percent; and the list goes on.

Mr. Chairman, much of the Federal budget helps our Nation in vital ways,

but much of it does not: $800,000 outhouses, rain forests constructed in Iowa, wheelchairs costing four times as much as they should. Again, the $10.9 billion will either come out of the Federal budget, or the family budget.

Let us look at the family budget. The average down payment on a home in America is $21,600. If we defeat this amendment, might we be denying half a million Americans their first home? The average home computer costs $482. If we defeat this amendment, might we be denying over 20 million school children an invaluable educational tool?

To pay for hurricane relief, we must either tighten the Federal budget, or ask families to tighten theirs. This amendment comes down on the side of families.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, such reductions can be made by department heads.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), who has seen hurricanes up close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), the author of the rainy day amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Florida have the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity tonight to aid Florida without imposing costs on our families, on our children, on our grandchildren. Either we must tighten the Federal budget, or we must force families to tighten their budget.

I would ask each Member to think about families in their district before they make this vote. I think about the Kings in Athens, Texas, and how this supplemental will impact their ability to pay for that last tuition payment for their son. I think about the Williams in Mesquite, Texas, and their small business, their paint and body shop. How is this supplemental going to impact their ability to hire two more workers? I think about the Evans in Garland, Texas, and I wonder how this supplemental will impact their ability to make those health insurance premiums.

We are going to relieve the people in Florida. The question is, is the $10 billion going to come out of the government budget, or is it going to come out of the family budget? Again, we believe it should come out of the government budget. We believe that we should protect the family budget. I would urge all Members to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.