Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
July 25, 2003 • 12:42 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
July 24, 2003
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 108-237, by Mr. Hastings (WA).
July 25, 2003
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2859 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be read by paragraph. Bill is open to amendments.
July 25, 2003 • 3:01 AM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 98.
July 25, 2003
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H7637-7644, H7644-7645; text of measure as introduced: CR H7637)
July 25, 2003 • 11:26 AM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 339.
July 25, 2003 • 11:26 AM
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair put the question on ordering the previous question on the amendment and the resolution by voice vote and announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. McGovern objected to the voice vote pending the absence of a quorum. The Chair postponed further proceedings until later in the legislative day.
July 25, 2003 • 12:15 PM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 200 (Roll no. 448).
July 25, 2003 • 12:42 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
July 25, 2003 • 12:42 PM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
July 25, 2003 • 12:42 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
July 25, 2003 • 12:42 PM
Voting History
1 vote recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 339 on the floor
JPM
CWB
DRO
JN
PJT+17
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 339 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have put us in quite a situation here. We…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have put us in quite a situation here. We all remember the great job that President Clinton and James Lee Witt did in the 1990s by remaking FEMA into the world-class disaster response agency it is today. But earlier this year, the Republicans in the House decided to play games with FEMA's funding levels. They deliberately provided inadequate resources for FEMA in order to meet their arbitrary budget cap. They knew full well that they would have to come back for more FEMA funding; and surprise, surprise, here we are.
We are here to consider a new supplemental appropriations bill that will partially fund FEMA through August and through part of the hurricane season. I am sure almost all of us will vote for this bill, because this funding is so important for FEMA and the families that they help.
But it is important that we discuss the other emergency that is looming, and that is that of AmeriCorp. As many of my colleagues probably know, AmeriCorp is woefully underfunded. Without immediate action, 20,000 AmeriCorp positions will be lost; 20,000 AmeriCorp positions will be lost.
The other body did the right thing, and they added $100 million to AmeriCorp to their version of the supplemental. But on a near party- line vote in the House Committee on Appropriations, the Republican majority killed this funding. This must be another part of the Republican employment plan.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is playing games with the lives of 20,000 AmeriCorp employees. These people are proudly serving their communities and have committed themselves to this important public service program. But without our help, they will be cast aside, at no fault of their own.
After September 11, President Bush issued a challenge to Americans to give back to their communities, right here in this Chamber. He specifically singled out AmeriCorp as one way to give back. Unfortunately, the administration's actions have not matched their rhetoric. While they have talked a good game about the importance of this program, they have done absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, to ensure its long-term stability.
Mr. Speaker, these are real people we are talking about. I recently talked to a young woman in Worcester, Massachusetts. She was thrilled just to be accepted into the AmeriCorp program. But then she told me that her hiring depends directly on whether AmeriCorp receives the emergency funding it needs. Her life is on hold while the Republican leadership plays more games and breaks more promises.
Mr. Speaker, all of us support important funding for FEMA, but we cannot and must not turn our backs on the young people across this country who have stepped up to serve their communities. We owe it to them to do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, I will call for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will provide us the opportunity to debate the Obey amendment, which will provide important AmeriCorp funding.
Mr. Speaker, this is the only way we can help AmeriCorp. Once again we must take this avenue of defeating the previous question because the Republicans on the Committee on Rules shut us out. Last night they shut us out with regard to increasing veterans funding, and, then, after that, they shut us out with regard to finding ways to help 20,000 AmeriCorp volunteers keep their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for setting the record straight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) how many more speakers he has.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record the letter that was sent to us by 43 Governors, including Governor George Pataki and Governor Jeb Bush, in support of funding for AmeriCorps. I would only say to my colleagues, if Members do not want to listen to President Bush, maybe you might listen to his brother and provide the funding that all these Governors are asking for.
The letter is as follows:
July 21, 2003.
President George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Bush: As strong supporters of America's,
national service programs, we are writing to urge you to help
solve the crisis confronting AmeriCorps. This crisis is felt
most directly by states and localities facing the imminent
closure of hundreds of AmeriCorps programs. We hope you will
do everything possible to ensure that these programs are not
closed or drastically cut, that needed services continue to
be provided by AmeriCorps members, and that we can continue
to tap the idealism and patriotism of so many of our citizens
who want to serve.
Your leadership on national service has helped to boast our
nation's civic spirit and we appreciate that, in your 2004
budget request, you proposed that the number of AmeriCorps
volunteers increase from 50,000 to 75,000. Since your 2002
State of the Union Address, when you called upon Americans to
dedicate two years--or 4,000 hours--of their lives to serving
their country, tens of thousands of Americans have responded
by seeking new opportunities to serve their communities and
their nation. Through AmeriCorps, among many other
initiatives, these citizens have worked to meet critical
needs in education, public safety, health, and homeland
security.
Unfortunately, on June 16th the Corporation for National
and Community Service announced dramatic and unprecedented
cuts of approximately 50 to 90 percent to our states'
AmeriCorps programs and corps member slots. We are very
pleased that, following this announcement and under the
leadership of Senators Bond and Mikulski, Congress acted
quickly to pass the Strengthen AmeriCorps Act, which will
alleviate some of this devastation and correct the
Corporation's management of the National Service Trust. This
legislation is an important first step towards assuring
fiscal accountability, increasing the enrollment of
AmeriCorps members, an ensuring the program's long-term
health.
We recognize that prior ``fixes'' to the Trust have helped
put full AmeriCorps staffing for this year in jeopardy. It is
truly a shame that mismanagement might prevent willing
individuals from serving their communities through
AmeriCorps. To avoid such a situation, we hope that you will
consider approving an appropriation of up to $200M for
AmeriCorps as part of the FY03 supplemental spending bill
currently being debated by Congress. Without an emergency
appropriation, the dramatic decrease in AmeriCorps positions
now being proposed could seriously affect communities and
individuals who rely on AmeriCorps members for help. It is
also likely to damage, if not destroy, the infrastructure of
strong programs, which do not have the resources to sustain a
significant budget cut, even if only for one year.
Organizations that have been built over a decade cannot be
eliminated this year and rebuilt the next.
Finally, we look forward to working with you to see the
goal of 75,000 AmeriCorps volunteers realized in the near
future and salute your overall commitment to bringing
Americans together around the ethic of service. Over the past
ten years, AmeriCorps has become an essential resource for
states and their communities to meet pressing needs, train
future leaders through service, and provide access to life-
changing educational awards for thousands of citizens.
AmeriCorps also greatly leverages private sector dollars for
civic initiatives. With your leadership we can work to assure
that it remains a vital force for good across the country for
years to come.
Sincerely,
Gov. Mitt Romney, Massachusetts; Gov. Frank Murkowski,
Alaska; Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arkansas; Gov. John
Rowland, Connecticut; Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida; Gov.
Edward Rendell, Pennsylvania; Gov. Janet Napolitano,
Arizona; Gov. Gray Davis, California; Gov. Ruth Ann
Minner, Delaware; Gov. Sonny Pedue, Georgia. Gov. Dirk
Kempthorne, Idaho; Gov. Frank O'Bannon, Indiana; Gov.
Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas; Gov. Mike Foster, Louisiana;
Gov. Robert Ehrlich, Maryland; Gov. Tim Pawlenty,
Minnesota; Gov. Bob Holden, Missouri; Gov. Mike Johanns,
Nebraska; Gov. James McGreevey, New Jersey; Gov. Rod
Blagojevich, Illinois; Gov. Thomas Vilsack, Iowa; Gov.
Paul Patton, Kentucky; Gov. John Baldacci, Maine; Gov.
Jennifer Granholm, Michigan; Gov. Ronnie Musgrove,
Mississippi; Gov. Judy Martz, Montana; Gov. Kenny Guinn,
Nevada; Gov. Bill Richardson, New Mexico; Gov. George
Pataki, New York; Gov. John Hoeven, North Dakota; Gov.
Brad Henry, Oklahoma; Gov. Don Carcieri, Rhode Island;
Gov. Michael Leavitt, Utah; Gov. Mark Warner, Virginia;
Gov. Bob Wise, West Virginia; Gov. Dave Freudenthal,
Wyoming; Gov. Mike Easley, North Carolina; Gov. Bob Taft,
Ohio; Gov. Ted Kulongoski, Oregon; Gov. Phil Bedesen,
Tennessee; Gov. James Douglas, Vermont; Gov. Gary Locke,
Washington; Gov. Jim Doyle, Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 339, I call up the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and ask for its immediate…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 339, I call up the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the Toomey amendment to H.R. 2859 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do so to present the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, the second supplemental for fiscal year 2003. We have had considerable debate already on the bill as we debated the rule. This is a very simple, straightforward emergency bill that includes $983.6 million for the Disaster Relief Fund, which is now a part of the Department of Homeland Security. We know that there are Members that have other interests, and the administration has other interests. We had already reported from the Committee on Appropriations a supplemental that was more far reaching than this, but it appears the proper thing to do now is to just present this emergency supplemental strictly for Disaster Relief because the Disaster Relief account has a serious problem with running out of money. I do not think we need a lot of debate on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to remind Members that the Committee on Appropriations reported a supplemental appropriations bill that I believe is still in play that would be conferenced as part of the legislative branch bill. That bill did include the money for fighting the fires. We think that is a very important issue. We actually proposed that to the administration and they agreed. They agreed to that part of the supplemental. I hope that is still in play, and I believe that it will be; but today we are faced with the real emergency of a funding emergency for Disaster Relief account.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security and, of course, FEMA falls into his jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget that our process on appropriations was so fouled up last year by some insistent demands of certain Members that, yes, we had to do 11 of the 13 bills in February of this year.
If the Committee on Appropriations would have been permitted to do our work like we have done this year, by the way, we would not have had those kinds of problems where we had to make adjustments in order to cover the balance of the 2003 issues. And I would suggest that what was done was done in agreement with the leadership, it was done in agreement with the President of the United States; and I make no excuse for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's concern. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. Speaker, first let me explain that I agree with everything the gentleman is saying. And I would tell him that just last week when the Committee on Appropriations reported the first supplemental for this particular season, it included a substantial amount of money for fighting fires.
Mr. Speaker, this supplemental is still in play. It has not gone to conference, but it is still in play as part of the legislative branch appropriations bill.
This is a different bill. This one is intended to move smoothly. That is a joke, by the way.
However, that particular bill is stalled, so we are moving this one because this is a real emergency for FEMA. The ability to borrow money to fight the fires is there. They can do that.
However, everybody should be aware that whatever we borrow, we are going to have to pay it back anyway, so we are going to have to make up this money.
My thinking is it would have been smarter to include in this bill the fire
fighting money that is necessary. But it did not happen. I wish it had, but it did not.
We will move this bill and hopefully get to conference quickly on the other bill and take care of the problem at least of paying back the money that they have to borrow.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very important member of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of February's bill, first of all, that was not our fault. We were not permitted to bring the bills in the regular period of time for fiscal year 2003. That was not our fault.
The fact that the numbers were different in February, understand that in February almost half of the fiscal year was gone, and there was not any use funding the early part of the fiscal year because it was already over with.
It is easy for the budget resolution to make assumptions. They can assume that you can find $7 billion, for example, in the plug that was in this 2004 budget resolution. The Committee on Appropriations has to be real. What we write in our bills becomes law. It has to be real. It has to be realistic. That is what we do. We cannot satisfy everybody.
I want to compliment my friend from Pennsylvania for keeping our feet to the fire on spending. He does a really good job. And we try to balance out those who want to spend more and those who want to spend less, just to make sure that we do a responsible job in funding the government and funding essential operations. So I compliment the gentleman. Sometimes I agree with him, and sometimes I do not.
In this case, I must disagree with him. I do so because his amendment would cut money from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency, technology for State and local enforcement. It would cut for embassy security, it would cut NIH, Centers for Disease Control, Head Start, special education grants, grants for disadvantaged students. Cuts would also deal with HIV-AIDS and child survival, world hunger programs, aid to Israel, and the list is very long.
Remember, there are only 2 months left in this fiscal year. If this was across-the-board for the whole 12 months, it might not be so bad, but this is only for 2 months left in the fiscal yield.
I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
The answer is the discretionary spending is about one-third of the total government spending. It is amazing to me how some of those who are constantly arguing about discretionary spending vote for the big mandatory programs, the back-door spending. So it is two to one.
Absolutely.
Mr. Speaker, I have not found much success in the proper committee's dealing with that.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield after I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa and ask him to yield to me.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman did not misunderstand my comments. I agree, the gentleman has, as chairman, done more than previous budget chairmen to recognize the problem with mandatory versus discretionary; and I compliment the gentleman for that.
My comment relative to and in response to the question of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) about the two-thirds, one-third is a fact. But again, that was not to be a criticism of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, because I know that you and I have talked, and I know that you understand totally and you agree that if we cannot control mandatory, we are never going to control discretionary.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss this matter before us, I would like to alert Members of the House to the situation we face on the VA-HUD bill. There have been…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, before I discuss this matter before us, I would like to alert Members of the House to the situation we face on the VA-HUD bill. There have been approximately 40 amendments offered to that bill. Perhaps 10 of them at this point will fall by the wayside, people deciding not to offer them. If the others simply take 5 minutes on each side and if about a third to a half of them have rollcalls, that will take us to probably 7 o'clock tonight. I am sorry. I said that wrong. If we have no rollcalls and if we just have 5 minutes of debate on each side, it will take us until about 7 o'clock tonight. If there are any rollcalls at all, then let us say there are rollcalls on about a third of the amendments, that means we would be here until about 9 o'clock tonight. And if you have one-third of those amendments where you take at least 10 minutes a side, then we are going to be here until about 11 o'clock.
I want Members to understand that now, because I know a lot of them are assuming that they are going to be able to catch 6 o'clock planes. Unless something happens, that is not going to be true. I would urge Members to think through whether they are serious in offering these amendments. If they are, obviously they have a right to offer them. But I think Members need to understand what the realistic time frame is as well and would urge Members to take that into consideration if in fact they are planning to get out of here on a plane this evening.
Mr. Speaker, having given that notice, let me simply say that we have already made quite clear that we think that this supplemental is deficient in a number of areas, especially in the areas of fire fighting and in the area of AmeriCorps, but in my view there is no sense chewing that cud twice. We have already talked about it on the rule.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I agree with the gentleman's observation, but it is obvious we are going to be voting on the amendment so I think I will withhold my comments on it until we are actually at the amending stage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to myself.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that, as I have indicated, we believe that there are a number of other items which should have been included in this supplemental. They were not. The majority determines that; so we have no objection to that which is included in the proposal, and I would certainly intend to vote for it.
I would say with respect to the comments of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, it is my observation that in the world sometimes things change. Events occur, natural disasters occur, matters of a war here and there occur. Things change, except in the world of the Committee on the Budget. So I guess nothing that the Committee on Appropriations does will ever satisfy people who prefer a static world, but I quit worrying about that a long time ago.
I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
I have not.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Let me simply say I am familiar with the gentleman's history on disaster funding. I personally would prefer that there would be no federally financed disaster programs.
I have introduced legislation which would require every State in the Union to buy into a federally run insurance plan so that on an experience-rated basis States would, much as they do with Worker's Compensation, prepay for any expected disaster short of a gargantuan tragedy. We have not been able to get that considered by either party, so we are stuck with what is left.
I am much more concerned with whether this estimate is real than whether it fits within the niceties of the budget resolution, to be frank about it. I do not think that God gives us 2 weeks' notice before we have a hurricane; so we do not have time to send down a proper budget amendment. So I think we do the best we can.
I think the difference between the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from Florida is that the gentleman from Iowa is free to pull numbers out of the air on the Committee on the Budget and describe the world as he and as Committee on the Budget think it ought to exist. But then the Committee on Appropriations and other legislative committees in this place have to implement what happens, and I think it is a whole lot more difficult to implement than it is to pronounce.
So all I would say is, given the limited nature of the recommendations here, I think this is reasonable. I personally believe that this is not going to be enough money in the FEMA account. I think we should have done something on fire fighting. I think we should have done something to prevent 20,000 people from being fired in AmeriCorps, and I recognize we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, I invite any Member of this House on either side of the aisle who is disquieted about this to call my office and indicate their willingness to join me in sponsoring the legislation that I have described that would set up an experience-rated fund into which States would contribute, so that the Feds do not always get hit with the cost of these things.
But absent that kind of legislation being on the books, I think we have no choice but to provide enough money to meet what we know will be unscheduled, irregular natural disasters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, one observation, and then one question.
I do not appreciate having to take lectures from the Committee on the Budget. Let me tell my colleague the sleight of hand that that committee played. They pretended that they provided additional money for veterans. They pretended that they provided additional money for education and for special education in order to get the votes of the moderate Republicans in here for the resolution.
And then, after they pretended, on an account-by-account basis, that they had provided the money, then that same Committee on the Budget provided $7.2 billion in undistributed reductions and assigned those reductions to our committee, without having the guts to spell out what those reductions should be.
And then they squawked when the gentleman from Florida tried to distribute those reductions. That is what is going on here.
The difference is that the gentleman from Florida has to run a real railroad train, it is not an Alice in Wonderland train.
Now, with respect to the amendment at hand, I simply want Members to know how they are going to vote. I mean, the Republicans are running this show, so it is immaterial to me which of your factions wins the argument on that side.
But if this amendment passes, you will be cutting $15 million from the FBI. You will forcing Israel to write a $12 million check back to us because they have already gotten their money. The Drug Enforcement Agency will have to cut $5 million. The Colombian drug initiative, which was just defended in this House this week, you will have to cut $1 million out of that. You will have to cut $15 million out of the Cancer Institute. And you will have to cut $600,000 out of Meals-on- Wheels.
Now, I am not going to debate whether you ought to do any of that stuff; I simply want Members to know what they will be voting on if they vote for the amendment.
I would also simply say that I hope, and I am confident, that this amendment has more to do with concerns about budget than it does a Pennsylvania Senate primary.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does an excellent job in his work and his subcommittee in dealing with this. I am wondering if he could report to us why it is that…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does an excellent job in his work and his subcommittee in dealing with this. I am wondering if he could report to us why it is that there is a shortfall of resources for FEMA for this year.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. Speaker, is it not true, however, that the President requested back in February an additional $1 billion for FEMA to be made part of the omnibus appropriations bill, and that that $1 billion request was not used for FEMA, but rather for other accounts within the omnibus appropriations bill?
Mr. Speaker, again, the chairman has, if not the toughest job, one the toughest jobs on Capitol Hill, and I do not take anything away from that.
My concern about what we are doing with regard to an emergency supplemental, as the gentleman correctly said when he started, is that an emergency, by definition, and has been by definition since the early 1990s, is something that is unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated. And when the President makes a request for $1 billion in order to fund FEMA accounts for problems that while they maybe have not yet manifested themselves, we know there will be forest fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, windstorms, et cetera.
And I think the concern I have and others may have, is that when it is requested, it is not funded as it is traditionally and unfortunately the case for FEMA, and that money is used for other accounts, that we find ourselves now having to take time on the floor to go and do what should have been done in February.
That money has now been used for other accounts, and that is the concern that I have as the Committee on the Budget chairman, and I know a number of other people have, with regard to the process that we are taking here today.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, let me just report to the ranking member that I have supported all of the appropriations bills on the floor this year.
I understand that, but my point is that the Committee on the Budget tries not to meddle other than when it writes the budget itself, which is our prerogative as a committee to write.
And I would just say, I think the gentleman might acknowledge that a war does not have its own account. FEMA has its own account to anticipate natural disasters, to anticipate emergencies; and as the gentleman knows, this is an unfortunate, but yet somewhat traditional exercise that goes on to underfund FEMA, knowing full well that we have a difficult time saying no to natural disasters, so that those resources can be spread among other accounts.
We can all decide how we are going to vote on this, but I would only encourage the very distinguished ranking member, who I know is concerned about this practice, that we prevent this from occurring in the future.
Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time in this debate to adequately acknowledge what this practice of underfunding FEMA means to the victims. So I hope we all keep that in mind here today, because while this bill is important, it is important that we change the practice of underfunding FEMA intentionally, as we did in February to take $1 billion out of what was requested by OMB and to spread it into all these other little goodies, knowing full well that if FEMA needed the money, we would come back here breathlessly to say, oh, yes, we need a little bit of extra money; and that is exactly what happened. That is exactly what was predicted in February, and that is exactly what happened today.
The traditional definition that we have used for emergencies has always been ``unforeseen, unanticipated, and unpredictable.'' Well, how is it that OMB and the President were able to predict that this was going to happen in February; but for some reason now, the last minute on the last day before the recess, before, as my friend from Washington says, offices are ready to close, the lights are ready to be turned off, people are thrown in the street, and that is typically what happens, as people come breathlessly to the floor with an emergency supplemental, knowing full well in February we needed money and waiting until the last minute to try and jam it through.
We are probably going to jam it through again, and it is only, gosh, I hope my mother is not listening, it is only $1 billion. But we have got a deficit, and I want to see all those deficit hawks, all those Democrats in particular that have been down here on the floor railing about the deficit, to come down here today and remind themselves and their friends about how important it is to not add an additional $1 billion to the deficit.
What the gentleman from Pennsylvania says is let us find the money. If you do not like this offset, fix it in conference. That is the power you have. The chairman knows he can increase the bill in conference. You can also fix this amendment and find a true offset in conference. Let us pay for this disaster.
Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I take this time just to respond to my very distinguished appropriations chairman and subcommittee chairman to report to them that I heard their personal conversations to me about the need to take on mandatory spending and not just fight about discretionary spending. That is why in the budget this year we not only asked for the 1 percent from all of the mandatory spending; the first time that has been done, it was because of the interest of the Committee on Appropriations, in particular, that we took on that task.
No, it did not complete the final version of the budget, because there were not enough people who were gutsy enough to do it. I know the gentleman from Kentucky is. I am, as well.
I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is a fair comment. But to suggest that the Committee on the Budget has not been doing its work with regard to mandatory spending is what troubled me in the gentleman's comments.
The gentleman is right that the proof will be in the final product, but I would just say that the committee has attempted to at least fix this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield.
Mr. Speaker, if I can reclaim the time and just report that we have had one successful bill that already has moved to the floor that reduced, for waste, fraud, and abuse, $33 billion in a mandatory program called Medicare. It was part of the bill that was voted on and passed by this House.
So, again, to suggest that nothing has been done is not correct.
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying we do need to fund FEMA properly; but we also need to offset it, as we often have done in…
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying we do need to fund FEMA properly; but we also need to offset it, as we often have done in the past, and that is what this amendment proposes to do.
I want to follow up on the comments of my chairman, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who was exactly right about how we got to this point. I would like to explain that a little bit and make sure that my colleagues understand that for fiscal year 2003 the President requested $1.8 billion for FEMA disaster relief. This is routine annual spending in anticipation of the fact that we know we will have disasters in America.
In October of 2002, the House Committee on Appropriations approved $1.8 billion in committee. In January of this year, the Senate passed an omnibus with only $800 million, $1 billion below the President's level.
In January of 2003, the White House issued a statement of administration policy pointing out that this underfunding of FEMA by $1 billion would cause a problem and we would need to go back and address this. But despite that, despite the fact that everybody knew that we were intentionally and consciously underfunding FEMA by about $1 billion, we passed an omnibus at the lower level, $1 billion below the House Committee on Appropriations level, $1 billion below the President's request.
And what happened to the $1 billion? As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget correctly observed, it was used so we could spend more money in other areas and still pretend we were living within the overall discretionary level that we had all sort of agreed upon.
Well, the fact is, this emergency is an emergency that we have created by virtue of the fact that we chose not to fund this one category, and we all knew that low-balling FEMA would not stand. So now, predictably, we are all back to back-fill the hole that we dug for ourselves in February.
As I said before, FEMA needs the money. That is not the issue about this amendment. What we are simply saying is we ought to offset this so that we do not have just a net increase in the total amount of spending. We are just trying to stick to the budget that we agreed to.
So what this amendment does is it says let us take this $984 million and let us offset it with an across-the-board reduction in all discretionary spending programs except defense, homeland security, and veterans programs. That adds up to about five one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total spending for 2003, about three-tenths of 1 percent of the spending in the categories in which we are going to make this tiny cut. It is about 29 cents out of every $100 dollars.
Now, some people will say, well, even that is too much to cut, especially since there are only 2 months left in the fiscal year. So we have gone on to say, okay, we'll leave it to the discretion of the President to decide whether we cannot find that amount of waste, 29 cents out of $100 is too hard to find; and if that is the case, he has all of 2004 to offset any individual accounts he so chooses.
It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, as a very reasonable and very doable amendment. Over the next 2 months, agencies would be asked to come up with 29 cents out of every $100. And if they cannot, they get another 12 months to do it. We have a history of offsetting non-defense supplementals; and I believe with a deficit of $455 billion, here is a way to reduce that deficit. It is what we ought to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that we have 14 months to find these offsets, not just 2.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and remind my colleagues that we have enacted across-the-board spending cuts in 3 of the last 4 fiscal years.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
I would just remind my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations that in addition to the Committee on the Budget, I offered an alternative budget that actually would significantly restrain the growth of mandatory spending. Very specifically, I frequently vote against many mandatory spending programs as well.
But what we are here today to try to do is not cut a dime out of FEMA. What we want to do is just say, let us offset this. It is 29 cents out of $100. It is not for two months, it is over 14 months, and any single individual line item, if the President thinks it is unreasonable to try to find 29 cents out of the $100 because there are only two months left, and no doubt there are many categories in which that would be difficult, there are another whole 12 months, all of fiscal year 2004, to find those offsets.
This is not that hard. Any family can find 29 cents out of $100 in their family budget. Any business can do likewise. We have an obligation to do the same thing for our taxpayers, especially at a time when we are running the kind of deficits that we are.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and when this amendment succeeds, which I hope it will, and I am sure every Blue Dog is going to vote for it, because I hear them all the time talking about how upset they are about the deficit; well, here is an absolute, straightforward way to reduce the deficits. I am looking forward to a lot of votes from that side of the aisle. I am looking forward to the passage of my amendment, and then passage of the underlying supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the most productive and cost-effective investments our government can make. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a…
Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the most productive and cost-effective investments our government
can make. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their community and their country, which will prove invaluable for the rest of their lives.
National service benefits both the recipient and the giver. Volunteers not only address an immediate need, they lead and teach through example, and through that example, they learn the value of serving and helping others. We need to harness the energy and commitment of those anxious to contribute to their country, not deny them the opportunity to serve.
As an eighth grader, I vividly remember President John Kennedy's call to service when he created the Peace Corps in 1961. He said, ``Life in the Peace Corps will not be easy, but if the life is not easy, it will be rich and satisfying.''
As a former Peace Corps volunteer, and I want to emphasize I had the name ``volunteer,'' I can attest to the positive effect the Peace Corps has on the lives of people around the world.
Peace Corps volunteers are not high-paid consultants. Just like AmeriCorps volunteers, they are hands-on workers in the trenches who live in the communities they serve. Just like the Peace Corps, the challenges are great for those working in domestic service programs, but the rewards are immeasurable. I believe I would not be a Member of Congress today were it not for my experience in the Peace Corps. And I particularly believe I am a better person because of this service. I think the same thing applies to those who serve in AmeriCorps.
Both Democrats and Republicans should speak loudly and passionately in support of all service programs. And we must not stop until citizen service truly becomes a universal opportunity and a common expectation. I want to say parenthetically, in most cases, AmeriCorps volunteers in my communities are young men and women who have no resources whatsoever to serve their community or their country if it were not for AmeriCorps.
As most of you know, AmeriCorps--the most recognizable domestic service program--is experiencing significant challenges this year, and there is danger that countless programs across the country will receive little or no funding. Without question, there have been mistakes and mismanagements by the Corporation for National and Community Service. This summer, however, a series of steps have been taken to help put AmeriCorps on a sound financial footing. Earlier this month, we passed, and the President signed, the Strengthening AmeriCorps Program Act to correct the financial accounting problems. Additionally, the President has named David Eisner, AOL/Time Warner executive, as his nominee to head the Corporation. With these reforms in place, we ought to fulfill our commitment to the thousands of young people who have answered the President's call to service. I believe we must to do that, but not in this legislation.
We are in a war against terrorism, and national service is a vital part of winning that war. AmeriCorps and other service programs are the right prescription during these times because the best antidote to terror and hate in society are acts of kindness and service. If we are truly to expand service opportunities, we must find a way to work with those who see national service so differently.
Recently, I read an op-ed by former Majority Leader Dick Armey stating that programs like AmeriCorps robs the American taxpayer. I could not disagree more, but I know this notion is shared by too many of my colleagues. As a Peace Corps volunteer, I was paid a minimum wage to live, and I was given a small stipend. I have failed to understand why some of my colleagues would object to people earning a degree while serving their community. Isn't that preferable to just being given a grant. I do not understand why we would not be eager and thrilled to have more people participate in community service, particularly those with the least amount of resources.
The current accounting problems at the Corporation offer an opportunity to work together and ensure all service programs are transparent and accountable.
I believe that has to happen, but not in the vehicle we see here today. We need to reauthorize national service. We need to find a way to prevent further mistakes and mismanagement. It will not happen on this legislation. It needs to happen with men and women in this Congress working together. And I believe that there are commitments on both sides of the aisle and in the White House to do that.
The current accounting problems of the Corporation offer an opportunity to work together and in doing so, we will remember that a life of service connects us to generations of Americans who we will never know but whose service and sacrifice enable us to live in freedom. It also connects us to future generations of Americans who will inherit a world be built on the legacy of service we leave them.
Increasing and expanding opportunities to serve will not be easy, but in the words of President Kennedy, the effort will be ``rich and satisfying.'' I hope this Chamber will reauthorize national service. I hope we will find the funds necessary to make sure this program continues unabated, and I believe we will.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The one concern I have in the Toomey amendment which is yet to be offered, since it was not printed in the Record as it was…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The one concern I have in the Toomey amendment which is yet to be offered, since it was not printed in the Record as it was supposed to be, but, anyway, in the Toomey amendment, we are going to have an across-the-board cut. One of the items that was not exempted was fire fighting. We are already not getting the supplemental funding for fire fighting that was promised in this bill. Last year they borrowed money from all the accounts to fund the fire fighting. That is what we are going to have to wind up doing again. But then on top of that, we are going to have to have an across- the-board cut. I am told this would be 7 or $8 million out of the fire fighting funds. I know you can defer it if the President does this and that. All I am saying is, I do not think this amendment is very well thought out, I do not like across-the-board amendments normally; and so I hope that this will at least be thought about as we get into the debate on this supplemental.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleagues, I had a chance last night to meet Mike Brown, who is the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, which used to be FEMA, and I asked him a couple of questions about this problem.
First of all, he said they will have to start shutting down offices all over the country, I think it was by August 8, if we do not get this money. I also asked him can they borrow the money from other accounts? No. They do not have a way of doing this like the Forest Service and the Department of Interior. The BLM does; they can borrow money from other accounts.
EPR, Emergency Preparedness and Response, does not have that authority. So we have to appropriate this money. That is why all of a sudden this supplemental reemerged because it became very clear we could not, in good conscience, doing our jobs, leave here without appropriating the money for FEMA.
We have got disasters all over this country, as we speak, that require this funding. And as I said, I wish we had taken care of fire fighting; I wish we had taken care of AmeriCorps. But at least we have to take care of this. It would be totally irresponsible, and I hope in the other body they will also understand that they have got to pass this as well, though I know there is concern over there about this coming at the last moment.
In my mind, this has to be done.
And I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman is absolutely accurate on this point. We would almost be better off if we took away the borrowing authority, because then they would have to put up the money. We would be like FEMA in that situation. Then they would have to put up the money, because we could not leave here without taking care of this problem.
Now what we do is let them borrow the money from the Forest Service, from BLM, ruin their other programs, put the agency in total chaos, and then, on top of that, we do not pay the money back. This is not good.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I want to associate myself with his remarks and the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
I must say, I worry about the Interior Appropriations, an across-the- board cut like this, especially since it would affect forest fire fighting. It would also affect forest health. Those would both be cut. And all of the other accounts would be cut at a time when we are going to have to borrow money from those accounts to fight the fires of this year, because we do not have enough money in the budget to do that.
So I would say to everyone here, I think that the prudent thing to do, since we do not know all of the consequences of the amendment, and we know that a number of them are bad, and it is the last two months of the year, is to defeat the Toomey amendment and pass the supplemental.
The President of the United States happens to be the person, by the way, who is asking for this money, and he did not ask that it be offset. And this OMB has been as tough on spending as any in modern history.
So they want it as an emergency. They do not want to see their programs cut any further.
So I think, with the risk to fire fighting across this country, we should defeat the Toomey amendment.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
(Mr. Hastings of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 339 is a modified closed rule waiving all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 2859, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2003. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides for a consideration of an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), or his designee, which shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2859 was introduced by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and provides $983.6 million in emergency supplemental funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for fiscal year 2003. This emergency appropriation is necessary to replenish the Disaster Relief Fund to make certain Federal resources available for the current fiscal year to meet the needs of Americans affected by tornadoes, floods, forest fires or other national disasters. The administration has informed Congress that without supplemental funds it is estimated that the Disaster Relief Fund would soon be exhausted. Additional funds are needed to respond to emergencies created by extreme weather and deadly wildfires.
Our Nation was struck by a record 562 tornadoes, Mr. Speaker, in May alone. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecasters predict an above average season for tropical storms and for flooding, with Hurricane Claudette already striking the Gulf Coast of Texas.
The summer fire season is also fully upon the Western United States. The National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho reported yesterday that there are currently 45 large fires burning in 12 western States. Three of these fires are burning in my State of Washington. The largest of the fires in Washington State is the Farewell Creek fire burning in the arid north central portion of the State. This fire has grown so large that it could burn, Mr. Speaker, for 3 months and not be fully extinguished until the first heavy rainfall or snowfall this winter.
The emergency appropriation included in H.R. 2859 will make certain that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security have the funding and resources needed to meet the needs of Americans affected by these tornadoes, floods, wildfires and other national disasters. H.R. 2859 was introduced by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to allow for prompt consideration by the House of Representatives and by the Congress. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule, H. Res. 339, and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
I am prepared to yield back after we go through the amendment process.
Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise to say that I think the supplemental appropriations bill makes an irreversible mistake by letting one of our Nation's preeminent…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise to say that I think the supplemental appropriations bill makes an irreversible mistake by letting one of our Nation's preeminent volunteer programs die.
AmeriCorp helps thousands each year, and now it is our turn to help them. AmeriCorp members dedicated thousands of hours, providing health care, tutoring, food and public safety services to some of our neediest citizens. We must resolve the accounting crisis that put them in danger in the first place, but we need not destroy the program in the process.
At a time of record unemployment and rising poverty, it is foolish to deny our AmeriCorp volunteers the opportunity to serve. These are Americans who have not asked what their Nation can do for them; they have asked what they can do for our Nation. And the answer they are getting back is basically, nothing.
In Rochester, this funding crisis means a loss of over 100 AmeriCorp volunteers by the end of August. Each year the members much the Rochester, New York, AmeriCorp and other volunteers contribute over 150,000 hours of service to our community. Their services reach over 10,000 children and young people.
Volunteers help to revitalize communities in countless ways. They mentor youth, they build affordable housing for families, they teach computer skills to people of all ages, they clean the parks and the streams that have been polluted, and they run the after-school programs.
The value of even one AmeriCorp participant is simply staggering. A single AmeriCorp volunteer can create a reading program to help dozens, even hundreds, of students at a school. AmeriCorp has made thousands of American cities and towns safer and cleaner and better places to live.
In Buffalo, the AmeriCorp volunteers increased the capacity of 225 small community and faith-based organizations. One example is the Response to Love Center on Buffalo's east side, which was founded by Sister Johnice.
She told me when heavy snow paralyzed the city last winter, she worked with AmeriCorp volunteers packing thousands of food bags, delivering heavy packages of food to the homebound that she could never have managed on her own. ``I saw AmeriCorp volunteers walk miles,'' she said, for a prescription for a new mother after having a baby. I looked at the workers shuffling snow for hours so the emergency vehicles could move, and I witnessed faith and love in action.''
It is not only our community as a whole that benefits from AmeriCorp. In return for serving our community, the volunteer members receive an education award of up to $4,725 to help pay for college or pay back student loans. What a cheap price we pay for all that help.
Today, more than 13,000 New York residents have qualified for those awards. Now, when the State budget crunches are hitting and we expect college tuition to rise, it is not the time to make it more difficult for people who have public service in mind to be disallowed their education benefits.
Social programs are being cut to ribbons in the United States, Mr. Speaker, as the deficits mount on all the levels of government; and we should not close AmeriCorp, which gives so much for so little.
If I might be allowed a personal note, I am so proud of my granddaughter, who graduated last year from Wake Forest, and was so pleased to be accepted into the Teach for America program. Unfortunately, as AmeriCorp dies, so does Teach for America; and that child, who was so excited about that program, waits now in some limbo again to start her future, hoping that somehow some miracle will happen and that program, which will mean so much to so many children, will be saved.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want the record to reflect that it is not correct that AmeriCorps volunteers make $30,000. They have a small stipend to pay for their living expenses and $5,000 on their college loans. That is it. It is a bargain.
Mr. Speaker, this is a stripped-down version of the disaster supplemental. It is $983.6 million purely for disaster relief activities. It fully funds all the anticipated Federal disaster relief…
Mr. Speaker, this is a stripped-down version of the disaster supplemental. It is $983.6 million purely for disaster relief activities. It fully funds all the anticipated Federal disaster relief activities for the balance of this year. The administration, you recollect, had requested $1.55 billion for these activities, but a portion of that request was for fiscal year 2004 activities; and because we anticipate that we will be able to complete the 2004 appropriations bill before October 1, it is not necessary to include 2004 moneys in this 2003 supplemental. All fiscal year 2004 program requirements can be accommodated in the regular 2004 bill.
Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding in the Midwest and South have taken their toll on the disaster relief fund. Combined with severe snow and ice storms this past winter and the Columbia shuttle recovery efforts, this fund will be depleted within the next 2 weeks. As of July 21, the balance in the disaster relief fund was $89 million. FEMA is currently spending at $5.7 million a day; and as expenses for Hurricane Claudette come in, obligations will jump to $6.3 million a day. That means the fund will be gone on or about August 4.
FEMA has done all they can to hold expenses down. They have put all nonessential projects on hold, including all reconstruction and mitigation projects. In total, $400 million in spending is on hold. The only activities being supported by FEMA are emergency and essential services such as debris removal, individual assistance, shelter, and medical care.
To date for fiscal 2003 there have been 32 major disasters declared, 15 emergencies and 18 fire management events. We are at the height of the wildfire and hurricane seasons, and an active hurricane season is predicted.
FEMA estimates that they will need about $10 million a day to support Federal disaster relief effort for the months of August and September. The proposed $983.6 million in this bill assumes that FEMA will fully fund these efforts as well as resume work on mitigation, repair and reconstruction projects. It also assumes there will be a zero balance in the fund on September 30.
I urge support for this supplemental. It is streamlined. It is stripped down to its bare essentials. Without it, FEMA funds will dry up August 4, leaving communities and individuals without Federal assistance and laying off personnel.
I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. Speaker, unanticipated disasters. There is no way obviously to accurately predict what Mother Nature is going to do. This is not a huge amount of money, as it goes, for disaster relief. It is simply replenishing or allowing that fund to be able to exist until we can get through the next 2 months.
Mr. Speaker, that is something I will yield to the big chairman on. I am not conversant with the details of it.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, what portion of all Federal spending is actually appropriated by the appropriations?
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, is that two-thirds of the Federal spending that the mandatory accounts account for? Are those accounts adding to the Federal deficit even as we speak?
Has the Committee on the Budget done anything about mandatory spending?
Mr. Speaker, assuming, and the gentleman is correct about its being in the budget as a request, but where is the reconciliation bill that makes that happen?
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a stripped-down supplemental appropriations bill that contains funding for FEMA disaster relief. As a representative from a State that benefits from this…
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a stripped-down supplemental appropriations bill that contains funding for FEMA disaster relief.
As a representative from a State that benefits from this funding, I have no problem with including FEMA funding in an emergency supplemental, but I do have a problem with what is omitted from this bill.
I am concerned about what we are failing to do for AmeriCorps and all of the faith-based and community-based groups who depend on AmeriCorps participants.
The Senate supplemental appropriations bill which was completed 2 weeks ago contains $100 million for AmeriCorps, the amount needed to sustain 50,000 AmeriCorps participants this year. This funding has strong bipartisan support, in the Senate if not in the House. It was sustained on a 71-21 vote in the other body. Without this funding, AmeriCorps will see its numbers reduced by something like 40 percent, a drastic reduction to around 30,000 participants.
Why has it taken so long for the House to act? The Committee on Appropriations did not even consider the supplemental until this past Monday, with no intention of actually bringing it to the floor. And where has the President been? The President spoke in this Chamber, urging us to increase AmeriCorps enrollment to 75,000 participants. But, up to now, he has hardly lifted a finger to maintain even the current enrollment of 50,000 participants.
Now we have a bill before us, at the last minute, just before the House recesses for 5 weeks, leaving the Senate with the option of either passing our version or passing nothing until at least September. And our version, the House version, omits AmeriCorps. It was defeated on a party-line vote in the Committee on Appropriations this week. Our only resource now is to defeat the previous question and add the $100 million to the bill on the House floor today.
Failing to provide this funding will deny hundreds of faith-based and community-based organizations around the country the AmeriCorps positions they depend on. We are talking about groups like Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, hundreds of home-grown programs in the districts of everyone here that make a difference every day.
A letter was sent Monday to the House leadership from 43 of our Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, in support of this AmeriCorps funding, and it articulates very well what is at stake.
I will close by quoting from this letter: ``Without an emergency appropriation,'' the Governors say, ``the dramatic decrease in AmeriCorps positions now being proposed could seriously affect communities and individuals who rely on AmeriCorps members for help. It is also likely to damage, if not destroy, the infrastructure of strong programs which do not have the resources to sustain a significant budget cut, even if only for 1 year. Organizations that have been built over a decade cannot be eliminated this year and rebuilt the next.''
These faith-based and community-based groups, who are doing good works in our communities with just a little help from their Federal Government, depend on AmeriCorps participants, and right now they are depending on us to come through for them. September will be too late. Fiscal year 04 will be too late. Let us include the AmeriCorps emergency funding in this supplemental appropriation. Vote against the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. I am pleased that the House is taking quick action to address the critical shortfalls facing the Director of Emergency Preparedness and…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
I am pleased that the House is taking quick action to address the critical shortfalls facing the Director of Emergency Preparedness and Response, the entity we used to know as FEMA. In fact, I was speaking with the new Under Secretary, Mike Brown, just last night, who informed me that EPR will have to close regional offices within 2 weeks if funding is not approved. So I strongly support the approval of this money.
However, there are other important programs that will have to start closing down in August if funds are not approved immediately.
As was mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York, Teach for America, there are 2,700 people in this country who were signed up for Teach for America. They would be trained in August and start working in September. So obviously if we do not appropriate the money now, we appropriate the money in September, it is going to completely disrupt this program, which has been so important for helping kids in school who need special training and special help.
These young people all across this country who think that they are going
to have a contract are not going to have one because we have failed to act here in the House of Representatives. We tried to offer this amendment in committee to add $100 million for this important program, and on a straight party-line vote it was voted down.
We certainly can do this now if we can defeat the previous question. We can add this $100 million and take care of FEMA, take care of AmeriCorp and send the bill to the Senate. Frankly, as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Interior, I am worried about the money for forest fires. Again, we are not putting up the money for the forest fires either.
Now we use the old adage, well, we can borrow the money and then pay it back. But they have not paid back the money from the last year that they have borrowed. I was pleased that the administration requested, I think, $289 million, maybe it was $320 when you add BLM and Forest Service together; but that money is not in here.
I just had a conversation with the distinguished chairman in the other body on the interior appropriations, and he is very concerned about the fact that we do not have the forest fire money in here as well.
So I understand that the problem with FEMA is very urgent, but these other issues are also important. So I wish we could do a broader supplemental and deal with them. I hope that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to have an amendment that will deal with the problem of AmeriCorp. I just hate to see, if we are going to solve this thing in September anyway, why screw up the entire program and not get it done now when we have an opportunity to.
There are 224 Members of the House who have signed a letter, a majority, Democrats and Republicans, in favor of adding the $100 million. I am told the President now has changed his mind and he is in favor of it. So if everybody wants to do it, why not do it?
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today because of the fire fighting funds being stricken from this bill. This is an enormous problem for those of us from the West. Outside the city of Bend,…
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today because of the fire fighting funds being stricken from this bill.
This is an enormous problem for those of us from the West. Outside the city of Bend, Oregon, a fire burned 600 acres yesterday. This morning that fire is up to 4,000 acres; it is burning. The Forest Service tells us they will run out of money to fight these fires next week. OMB says we can borrow from other accounts; they can get us through until the fall.
Here is what happens year after year after year after year. We get through all the paperwork and the environmental process to be able to go out to do the healthy forest things that need to be done to thin the forests, get out the flammable fuels, do all that work.
We get into fire season. We have not budgeted for it properly. We pull the money out to fight the fires. And what does the Forest Service have to do? They borrow from the accounts, and they are ready to do the work to make America's forests healthier by doing the thinning, and they put the work off for another year. We come back in the fall and the winter, we replenish the accounts for the fires, and we do the process all over again. We delay what we need to do to fix problem that will get us to where we do not have as expensive a fire to fight, because it would not be as catastrophic.
Mr. Speaker, if I could enter into an unscripted colloquy with the chairman, my concern is this.
Do we have any assurance from the Forest Service that they will be able to go ahead with these contracts that they are planning to let for this summer and the work that they are planning to do, to do forest thinning and fuels reduction and categorical exclusion work to make our forests healthier and safer, or will any of those funds be pulled back to go into fire fighting instead?
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
And we are appreciative of that.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman says, and he has been most gracious and wonderful to work with on this issue. But the problem is, as we wait, the forests burn, the work does not get done, the issue is compounded. This is penny wise and pound foolish.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I admire his legislation and will take a close look at it. The State of Oregon for many years has done precisely that, buy an insurance policy to help pay for the cost of fire fighting. Of course, that cost continues to go up; but we do participate in that. So I think it is a good idea to consider.
So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I rise in great, great frustration about where we find ourselves today, especially with the lack of notice that these funds were going to be cut out, when we thought they were going to be there.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment in today's bill that would ban using funds in the supplemental to support FEMA's Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. The…
Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment in today's bill that would ban using funds in the supplemental to support FEMA's Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. The amendments were born out of my frustration in dealing with FEMA which, up to now, had an excellent working relationship with my office and many other congressional offices.
The problems relate to the very serious floodings in part of my district in May of this year. More than $100 million in damage resulted from floods. FEMA's recommended denial of Michigan Governor Granholm's request for a Federal major disaster declaration that would permit Federal aid to the hard-pressed local governments, businesses, and individuals affected.
My district is rural, mostly low income, and these 4 counties just cannot bear this kind of financial hardship and economic burden without our help.
My frustration with FEMA is not with the men and women who actually do the work for the agency in the Region 5 office. In fact, FEMA responded with impressive speed immediately after the disaster to put people on the ground and to investigate, even before a formal disaster request was made. My frustration is the runaround I received from the Washington office since the decision in June not to declare a major disaster.
For the first time in my 11 years in Congress, I was forced to file a Freedom of Information request to receive the factual information I needed to represent my constituents. When I asked for the reasons for their decisions and the copies of correspondence related to the decision process, FEMA refused to give me this basic information. In fact, they refused to even voluntarily tell me whether the decision to deny disaster relief was made in FEMA in Chicago, or FEMA at headquarters here in Washington.
FEMA headquarters even refused to have a meeting with me, our two State U.S. Senators, the Governor's representative, and the Under Secretary responsible for emergency aid to discuss this issue.
In order to properly appeal the decision, the Governor's office should have had the information they needed and any documentation we needed to make the appeal. Congressional liaison offices are there to facilitate the needs of Members' offices, not throw up roadblocks.
I realize my amendment was not made in order, but I wanted to bring to the attention of the House this situation. There is no reason for not giving me the information I need to respond to my constituents when they ask me whether the refusal for disaster aid is political. There is no reason to refuse to have a meeting with top-level FEMA officials, a Member of Congress, two U.S. Senators, and representatives from the Governor's office.
I hope that speaking out on the floor will make our point, and I am here to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about a glaring omission from this emergency supplemental--funding for AmeriCorps. We must include $100 million in funding for AmeriCorps. Without this funding AmeriCorps…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about a glaring omission from this emergency supplemental--funding for AmeriCorps. We must include $100 million in funding for AmeriCorps. Without this funding AmeriCorps will suffer a nearly 60 percent cut and 20,000 service members will be eliminated.
Cutting AmeriCorps at a time when Americans are facing a stagnant economy, the worst unemployment in more than a decade, and deep cuts in State and Federal social programs is not just inconsiderate and wrong, it is unwise. That's why I have signed a letter along with many of my colleagues in Congress calling on the President and the Congressional Leadership to push for emergency funding for AmeriCorps. Young people who are qualified and willing to serve our communities should not be turned away. We should not be trampling on the spirit of service that AmeriCorps has inspired in so many of our young people to give back to our communities. Since 1994, more than 250,000 men and women have served in AmeriCorps, providing needed assistance to millions of Americans.
President Bush has called for expanding AmeriCorps from 50,000 to 75,000 volunteers. Volunteerism was a major theme of his State of the Union address and as recently as April 9, while speaking at a Connecticut community center where AmeriCorps volunteers mentor students, President Bush said, ``We need to encourage programs to expand, to give people an outlet, a chance to participate.'' Words are cheap--the efforts of these volunteers are dear.
Without additional funding the service programs, as well as the volunteers and communities that rely on their help, will be devastated. The infrastructure of many small programs, which do not have the resources to sustain a significant budget cut for even one year, will be destroyed.
The people of central New Jersey will lose if this funding is not restored. In Trenton, New Jersey, the Crisis Ministry, the Trenton Soup Kitchen, and the ARC (which helps kids and adults with mental disabilities) could all face cutbacks in AmeriCorps volunteers. These programs provide services that are vital to my district all the time, but especially in tough economic times. AmeriCorps is an outstanding program with a proven track record of meeting the critical needs of New Jersey's communities. We cannot allow it to be downsized. I ask my colleagues to include funding for AmeriCorps in the conference committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. To my colleagues, several of us on the Committee on Appropriations have fought now for many years to try to hold the line on spending and have…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
To my colleagues, several of us on the Committee on Appropriations have fought now for many years to try to hold the line on spending and have a record there and are in agreement with these efforts to do this. But this is not only not workable; it is actually the wrong thing to do at the wrong time, and let me explain why.
OMB, if you have not worked with them since this administration took over, ``OMB'' are the three most dreaded letters in Washington, D.C. They are about the business of carving and cutting, and rightly so, in many directions. But they are not offering offsets, they do not have offsets for this spending, and the administration has requested the money without offsets because even those carvers at OMB cannot find the offsets. You gentlemen know it, and you know that it will not work because of that.
I hope we do not just cede the constitutional responsibility to spend money to the executive branch. That is not in our best interests, it is not in the constitutional best interest, and I do not want to just say, administration, you can start spending money discretionarily or saving money discretionarily. That is the power that belongs here in the Congress, and that is our responsibility.
Now, the money you are talking about offsetting in the final 2 months of the fiscal year is not from mandatory programs; it is not Social Security, Medicare, any of the mandatories. It cannot come from that. It cannot come from defense, it cannot come from homeland security. So the offsets must come from about 14 percent of the Federal budget, and then it is only for one-sixth of the fiscal year. So now you are down to a very narrow pool of discretionary funds to take the offsets from. And then it does not work out to 29 cents on every $100. It gets into specific small accounts, most of which are already obligated, most of which are obligated to be spent in the final 2 months of the fiscal year.
So, frankly, it is not a workable solution. Even though I am all for offsetting early, you cannot wait until the end of the fiscal year and say we are going to have offsets. The money is obligated by the end of the fiscal year.
Once again, the most important thing here is that we have to carry out our responsibilities and not just say, White House, you find these offsets.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this bill does not include funding for AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps is about fortifying our democracy, energizing and unlocking the potential of young people, and…
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this bill does not include funding for AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps is about fortifying our democracy, energizing and unlocking the potential of young people, and improving our communities. AmeriCorps has given a quarter million Americans the opportunity to serve millions of their fellow citizens in countless ways, fighting poverty, tutoring and mentoring neglected youngsters, cleaning up the environment, and providing long-term care to the elderly, to name a few. It is the premier national service program of the United States.
Critical vital services in our communities would not be the same without the efforts of the dedicated young volunteers whose energy, compassion, and commitment touch people's lives every single day.
The Corporation for National Community Services, yes, has had management problems. They have been identified. They are being addressed by the managers and administrators, and it is vital that we remain vigilant that these reforms continue.
In doing so, we should not punish the communities, the thousands of young volunteers. Why do we want to dampen their enthusiasm and their spirit? Why do we want to hurt those people who rely on their services, simply because top administrators failed to do their jobs? And without funding, more than 20,000 AmeriCorps volunteers will lose their positions. Counselors at the LEAP program in my hometown of New Haven, Connecticut provides mentoring and service opportunities for area kids. It shows 1,300 children across Connecticut with over 350 college and high school students lending their time.
One hundred percent of LEAP's junior counselors graduate from public high schools, and 80 percent go on to college. If we lose that sense of community spirit, shared responsibility, and shared purpose of our young people, in addition to the services they provide to millions of Americans, everybody in this country loses.
Mr. Speaker, 228 Members of Congress and 43 Governors have written to the President of the United States asking for his support. The President says that he supports AmeriCorps and the idea of public service and national service. Keep this program alive. Let us defeat the previous question, and make sure we provide this opportunity for our youngsters.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of defeating the previous question so we will have an opportunity to properly fund AmeriCorp. AmeriCorp…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of defeating the previous question so we will have an opportunity to properly fund AmeriCorp. AmeriCorp is desperately in need of $100 million to make sure we do not provide the kinds of cuts that can be devastating, not only to the AmeriCorp volunteers, but to our communities.
In my own State of California, we are talking about cuts if this funding is not realized of some 64 percent. That means some 2,000 service members in AmeriCorp, young people volunteering, will not be eligible to have their positions continued.
This is not just about them; it is about the work they do in our communities, in after-school programs, building affordable housing, to help the communities respond to disaster, and helping to train a new core of teachers. Those are the services they provide. That is the multiplier that they provide.
Many of us have witnessed AmeriCorp workers at work. We spend time with them at social occasions and you start to appreciate their infectious enthusiasm and their desire to help their country and help our communities and help young people and older people. They provide a huge amount of services. And yet because of a squabble, because of a mistake by the executives in the corporation, we are now going to hold these young people liable. We are going to decimate this program.
And we do that in light of the fact that the President of the United States asked us to increase AmeriCorps from between 50,000 to 75,000 new volunteers, recognizing the spirit and the contribution that AmeriCorps makes to our communities and to our Nation. But now, what we find out is that this supplemental, if we do not defeat the previous question, will provide for 28,000 positions. That is an anemic form of AmeriCorps in a country that has so many needs and has the ability to attract the best of these young people with their talents, with their education, and with their desire to help our communities.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can open up this supplemental to provide fpr the funding for AmeriCorps that is so urgently needed.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. As I speak here on the floor, there are fires burning across the West, a major fire in my own district, and others elsewhere. The President…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
As I speak here on the floor, there are fires burning across the West, a major fire in my own district, and others elsewhere. The President asked for an additional $280 million to fight these fires because the Forest Service has already spent 84 percent of the inadequate budget for this year, 16 percent left; and the years fires have hardly begun. Last year we spent $1.6 billion.
Now, the majority here wants to pretend that we can do this all on the cheap. We do not need money to fight fires. We do not need money to prevent fires. They have jammed through a so-called Healthy Forest Bill after stripping out the money we proposed last fall in a bipartisan way to fund fuel reduction efforts. You cannot do that for nothing, but they want to pretend you can; and now they want to pretend that you can fight fires for nothing.
There is not an additional penny in this bill for the fire emergency in the western U.S. So you know what the Forest Service is going to do? They are going to borrow money. You know where they are going to borrow the money? They are going to borrow money from the already underfunded fuel reduction programs. Guess what? We have created a little endless cycle here. We are going to pretend we are doing something about fuel reduction in healthy forests, but we are not really going to do it. But it is a great political issue.
In fact, the little bit that we are already doing, we are going to rob it to fight this year's fires. The Forest Service is already preparing those cuts. That means this year's fuel reduction program will not go forward because the majority here will not even meet the President's meager request to help fight the fires that are burning today in the western United States.
Come on, you can find the money for everything else around here, tax cuts, for all sorts of other things; but somehow we get fires burning, we cannot find the money to fight the fires. And what is worse, we are going to create worse fires in the future because you are going to borrow that money and stop those programs in their tracks. It is a sad day for the United States Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor in the reality of representing a district, 10 counties of which are, at this hour,…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor in the reality of representing a district, 10 counties of which are, at this hour, recognized as Federal disaster areas. The flood of 2003 saw the waters of the Wabash River and the St. Mary's River rise and devastate families and homes in much of the eastern Indiana district that I represent.
But there is another rising tide that I am here to support the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) on as he seeks this amendment's passage, and that is the rising tide of red ink that is engulfing the American taxpayer, and a modest effort today that we attempt to stem.
The Federal deficit today stands at $455 billion, and I would offer humbly, with deep respect for the gentleman from Florida and his outstanding leadership of this Committee on Appropriations, that now is not the time to add another $1 billion, another new massive player to that deficit.
Two important points, I think, in this discussion. We have heard from the Committee on the Budget chairman, and I would not enter that debate
between chairmen, as unwise as that might be, but it is accurate to say that the dollars that are being asked for today are not in the budget resolution that we passed narrowly on this floor.
Number two, in defense of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the House Members gathered here on both sides of the aisle, the money that we are considering today was in the House bill. We did our work, it seems to me important to say today; the House Committee on Appropriations met the President's request for FEMA, and somewhere in the midst of the conference committee, it was lost.
As people across the 10 counties of my eastern Indiana district struggle against the weight of the flood of 2003, I think we ought to try and do two things at once today: pass the Toomey amendment; speed much-needed relief by the end of this day to make sure FEMA has the resources it needs, but speed relief to the American taxpayer who earnestly desires that we confront the rising tide of red ink in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that before this year is done, we are going to need a lot more supplemental funding than we have before us in the bill that will be brought to the floor under this…
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that before this year is done, we are going to need a lot more supplemental funding than we have before us in the bill that will be brought to the floor under this rule. There is no question we are going to need money for Iraq. I personally have doubts that the money being requested for FEMA is going to be sufficient, unless we get by with virtually a storm-free summer, and I would not expect that. And as the gentleman from Massachusetts has indicated, if we do not fund AmeriCorp, we are going to have thousands of people who have offered to give their services to their communities in various capacities who are going to get laid off. It is as simple as that.
So if we want to ignore that fact, as we earlier today ignored the problem of children from families who get the earned income tax credit, if we want to follow that example and again turn our backs on them, the House has the power to do that. But it should not do that. That is why we are asking the House to vote against the previous question on the rule, so that we could amend the rule to provide for consideration of funding for AmeriCorp, as well as FEMA.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that that is what the House would do, but we shall see when the votes are counted.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my friend that there are 42 Governors of both parties who have asked us to take this action, so I think they must feel that the investment is well worth the cost. I think that most mayors around the country receive the services these volunteers would also approve.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Well, they are still volunteers. They have not been drafted.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. As a fiscal conservative I certainly can…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
As a fiscal conservative I certainly can appreciate the spirit of what this amendment seeks to accomplish. But as a member of the House I cannot support the abrogation of our constitutional ``power of the purse'' responsibilities to the executive branch.
The funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in this supplemental is precisely the level to meet the unexpected--and emergency--disaster expenses the Bush Administration has said it requires.
The amendment before the House stipulates that the executive branch make unspecified cuts to unspecified programs. Funds could be cut from the FBI, DEA, FEMA, Special Education, NASA, transportation and other projects that this House has already acted upon. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to make these types of funding decisions not the executive branch.
Early on in my tenure I had the chance to support a recission bill that pared back billions in previously appropriated funding. So my dispute with this amendment is much more about process than substance.
This underlying bill is fiscally responsible. It is important to note that it is almost $1 billion below the original amount requested by the President. If we are serious about fiscal responsibility, we should identify specific programs for specific reductions. This amendment shirks the difficult choices in favor of an easy vote.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment and pass the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to raise an issue that I know many of my colleagues have been very concerned about, and that is additional funding for AmeriCorps. Currently,…
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to raise an issue that I know many of my colleagues have been very concerned about, and that is additional funding for AmeriCorps. Currently, AmeriCorps is facing a very severe funding crisis. Local programs around the country are facing severe cuts.
Thousands of social service organizations across the country depend on AmeriCorps for manpower and service for constituents. If we do nothing, many of these programs won't be able to survive or make up the difference in funding in another way. This means that fewer meals will be delivered to the elderly and fewer children will be mentored. When national AmeriCorps officials announced a major cut last month in grants for volunteer positions, leaders of hundreds of volunteer programs across the country warned they will have to reduce operations or shut down. These programs and the people they serve should not be made to suffer because of problems in Washington that could be addressed by short-term solutions, such as agreeing to $100 million in supplemental funding for AmeriCorps.
While I realize that today's bill is focused only on addressing issues facing FEMA, I did want to make sure to note that a majority of members of this House signed letters in support of additional funding for AmeriCorps. We have heard from the wonderful programs all around this country that are doing such important work. I will continue to work to see if additional funding can be provided to improve this situation which is so critical to so many non-profit programs in all of our districts.
Mr. Speaker, whether one supports AmeriCorps or not, recently they got over $60 million. Now they want another $100 million. Just do the math; 50,000 AmeriCorps, what they call volunteers, take…
Mr. Speaker, whether one supports AmeriCorps or not, recently they got over $60 million. Now they want another $100 million. Just do the math; 50,000 AmeriCorps, what they call volunteers, take 50,000 into $162 million. They are making over $30,000 each per volunteer, if you take the cost of it.
Now, the individuals do not do that, but that is the cost of the program per person that is in there. We do not need this.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). My friend, and she is my friend; she is a valued Member, she is a close friend. But I want to tell the gentlewoman, I never said AmeriCorps volunteers got $30,000. As a matter of fact, I said they do not individually get that amount.
But my colleagues, we want to increase AmeriCorps $100 million. Look at the money we have already put in AmeriCorps last year, I think $260 million. If we look at this, to me a volunteer at a church, they get coffee and doughnuts. If we take all of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we put into AmeriCorps each year and want to put another $100 million in this year, if you take 50,000 workers into that, that is over $30,000 per person cost. Now, a lot of that goes into administration. But when we define volunteer, let us make sure that volunteer is volunteer, not paid worker. That was my point.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, I did not say the program was not supported, to the gentleman, my friend. But I would say that be careful when we talk about volunteer, because the cost of this is very high per person.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 339 Reported in House (RH)]
House Calendar No. 98
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 339
[Report No. 108-237]
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2003.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 25 (legislative day, July 24), 2003
Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the
following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2003.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the
House the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency supplemental appropriations
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on
the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) an amendment
printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII,
if offered by Representative Toomey of Pennsylvania or his designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or
demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and
shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
House Calendar No. 98
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 339
[Report No. 108-237]
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2859) making emergency
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2003.
_______________________________________________________________________
July 25 (legislative day, July 24), 2003
Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed