Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5212) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance relating to storm damage, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 819 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 819 is a modified, closed rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5212, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance relating to storm damage and for other purposes.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides for consideration of the Hensarling amendment which shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is my inaugural rule, and I want to begin by thanking the Speaker for the honor of serving on this distinguished committee, and what an important rule to begin with, as it impacts the Sunshine State that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I are so honored to represent.

Mr. Speaker, on four occasions in a span of 6 weeks, portions of my home State of Florida have been designated disaster areas. Additionally, areas in nine other States have been declared disaster areas due to hurricane-related damage. Between August 13 and September 26, five hurricanes wreaked havoc upon the eastern and Gulf coasts of the United States. For the first time since 1886, a single State has been hit by four hurricanes in one season.

The widespread devastation caused by these natural disasters is breathtaking. Damage was sustained along the entire eastern seaboard from ravaging winds in the Florida Keys and the Florida panhandle to tornadoes and mudslides in the Carolinas and severe flooding up the east coast.

The emergency supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 5212, provides substantial resources for recovery. This rule brings to the Floor legislation to help families and farmers and businesses rebuild in the aftermath of nature's destruction.

The long-range economic effects of these storms will be severe. All facets of the economy were affected due to power outages, crop losses, and wind and water damage. It is difficult to comprehend the impact of these successive storms on Florida's economy. Florida's largest economic engine is tourism. The land of pristine beaches and world- class attractions has seen significant hardship for the tourism industry, while entire communities along the panhandle have been washed away. Businesses, large and small, are suffering from the aftermath of these storms. Many remained closed for weeks at a time while they went without utilities, losing important revenue. Mom-and-pop shops have fewer beach-goers to serve. Families and businesses now face multiple insurance deductibles following the damage of multiple storms that hit the same areas.

Florida's agriculture industry sustained the loss of up to 40 percent or more of its citrus crop for this season, along with the loss of trees that provide future harvests. In addition to citrus, the vegetable, sugar, cattle, timber, dairy, nursery, and other industries suffered severe losses.

Our infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, was utterly destroyed in some areas. Bridges, interstate bridges were washed away, cutting off evacuation routes and isolating communities. Hospitals were forced to close due to damage. Schools were shut down to serve as shelters. In my county alone, 13 days of school have been missed. The school year has essentially begun anew on four separate occasions. Military bases have been closed following extensive damage to hangars, equipment and training areas. Traffic lights lay in the middle of intersections. Daily life came to consist of searching for ice and batteries and helping neighbors wield a chain saw to remove a tree on top of your home, business or vehicle.

President Bush has recommended a total of $11 billion in assistance to the States that have been affected by these storms. The bill provides for $6.5 billion for disaster recovery efforts for FEMA, which is in addition to the $2 billion that was appropriated for FEMA earlier this month. FEMA uses these resources for a variety of disaster relief activities, including direct assistance to impacted individuals and families, debris removal, utility and infrastructure repairs, emergency food and shelter, and mitigation.

Mr. Speaker $1.1 billion for the Department of Defense; $929 million for

disaster relief activities of the Small Business Administration; $800 million for the Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief program for repairs to roads and highways; $600 million in agricultural assistance to provide needed help to producers suffering crop loss from these hurricanes; $245 million for the Army Corps of Engineers; $150 million for community development grants; $50 million for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund to help provide nutritional, medical and social services to affected elderly individuals; $126 million for NASA; $121 million to repair damage to VA facilities that support our ever-so-important servicemen and women and the veterans; $70 million to support the American Red Cross in their mission to shelter, feed and otherwise support the victims of these storms.

In addition to this enacted and requested emergency funding, Federal agencies will continue to use existing resources and programs for response and recovery efforts from all recent hurricanes and storms.

I am proud that our President has followed through with an assistance package that amounts to more than $12.2 billion in restoration efforts for damages occurring as a result of Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne, storms that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I have come to know by their first name in an all-too-intimate way. I am deeply grateful to our governor Jeb Bush for his tireless efforts throughout this period, and I want to applaud the extraordinary efforts of our chairman, a fellow Floridian of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Largo (Mr. Young), and all of his team. Their hard work guarantees that Floridians can recover from the devastation left by these storms.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to praise the combined efforts of FEMA, local first responders, local cities and counties, recovery operations, managers, utility companies, the men and women and everyday heroes who climb to the top of telephone poles to restore power while the wind is still out there and the water is still coming in; people from around the country who rush in with mobile semis that can feed 10,000 people at a time, giving hope to an entire community. Storms like this tend to bring out the best in people, Mr. Speaker, and it is an impressive thing to see the American spirit alive and well.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the passion of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and I will remind him that in addition to the $11 billion that is in this package, the President delivered $500 million in assistance to citrus, nursery, and fruit vegetable growers just 2 weeks ago in the aftermath of the first two storms. And as we gather data from these storms and whatever else the Atlantic sea may have in store for us, there will be additional assistance forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

I appreciate the work the gentleman has done in agriculture, and I appreciate the gentleman's record in matters affecting the budget, which is why

I draw to his attention the fact that we have improved upon this rule and will be providing for additional assistance beyond the Southeast, beyond the Carolinas, beyond Florida, to assist those affected farmers and ranchers and fully offset it, which is an important piece of fiscal responsibility.

What is so sacred, what is so sacrosanct about a farm bill that my colleague would hold it up so high that he would not use it to help farmers? Farmers in Florida, farmers in Georgia, farmers in the Carolinas, perhaps farmers who do not have access to the billions of dollars that are allocated in the farm bill on an annual basis; but farmers who have suffered from four separate hurricanes, many farmers who had the eye of three storms come over their field, pass over their ranch, we would say to them, we do not want to open the farm bill to help you because that is for other farmers?

The farm bill, as it is today, has a reserve because it has worked. I was on the committee. I voted for it. I supported it. It is a good package, but why would we let that package stand in the way of assistance to farmers? Is that not what the farm bill is for?

Is that not why we put all the effort and time and labor into it, to help people in need, to help farmers who are suffering? Ranchers who have had their fences devastated, their barns blown to the ground? Row crop farmers who have seen all of their plastic torn up? Citrus growers who have seen a sea of brown from Charley and yellow from Frances and green from Jeanne, where Mother Nature has color-coded the devastation that is their crop, that is on the ground rotting? We would say to them, we will not open it up?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, my former chairman and someone who is passionate about all of America's farmers and ranchers.

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

I am disappointed that the gentleman will be voting against the rule. I know his passion for America's farmers, and I know that farmers all across this land have been affected.

Perhaps it is the Floridian in me, but I would argue that this rule goes a long way towards those affected by some very substantial and unforeseen events, and the improvements that have been made would go a long way towards extending that beyond those areas affected by hurricanes. After neglecting those areas who have been dealing with a drought now for years, I know that the reservoirs are going dry.

I know that people are frustrated and they are concerned about what their livelihood will hold because of this drought issue, and frankly, that is why I think these improvements were put in there. I think it is a fiscally responsible approach to helping as many of America's farmers who have been stricken by these disasters as possible, and certainly, the dairy industry is one that has been impacted. It has been impacted in Florida when the power was lost for days at a time, and of course, America's modern agricultural system, if we cannot get power to these milking parlors, the cows go dry.

That is a legitimate problem, and we worked on a bipartisan basis as a delegation and, frankly, as a group of people who are concerned about the future of American agriculture to find ways to solve this disaster assistance problem.

Just as, 18 months ago, we were able to reach down into section 32 funds, which are traditionally designated for fruit and vegetables and marketing and nutrition programs, in providing drought assistance to the Midwest, we are similarly using an account to reach down into and provide assistance for farmers from Florida and Georgia and the Carolinas who are desperately in need.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed certainly a very close working relationship with both of these gentlemen from Florida as we have tried to do everything we can to bring in the appropriate amount of relief for a State that is hurting. There have been heroic efforts in the State of Florida bringing the I-10 bridge back on line in a matter of days and bringing, internally, administrative relief to agriculture and those issues affected early on.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we keep in mind that this is a process. As we reach the end of this congressional session, there has been a rush to pull together the adequate, the accurate and adequate damage numbers, and that is difficult to do. It is difficult to pull together the data on transportation needs. It is particularly difficult to pull together the data on agricultural needs when they are still mounting.

I would say that, 6 months from now, we will still be dealing with damages that are presenting themselves that came about as a result of the hurricanes. So for the other side to say that they would reject all of the relief for lack of marginally additional relief seems a little bit foolhardy, adding to the fact that we are to be accused of ignoring the Midwestern States when we have a proposal to do just that, to expand the relief beyond those hurricane stricken States and take care of those who have been dealing with drought.

I think we are delivering, in a number of ways, and frankly, from all of our working relationships with the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, there is a high level of confidence that those issues will be taken care of in conference and through his additional legislation that he is filing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a tireless advocate for disaster relief and for drought relief.

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

The gentleman will have the opportunity to vote for $600 million in agricultural assistance, and the gentleman will have an opportunity to vote for drought relief.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, as one can tell, I drew a hot one from my inaugural first rule. But I cannot think of a better group of colleagues to work on this with than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd); and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), certainly our senior delegation member.

This Emergency Supplemental Appropriation is so vitally important to rebuilding the infrastructure, the economies, and the communities of the hurricane-damaged areas throughout the Southeast, and now, with the amendment, those communities of the Midwest and far West who have suffered so greatly under the drought. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 819--Rule on H.R. 5212 Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act for FY05

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5212) making

emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2005, for additional disaster assistance

relating to storm damage, and for other purposes. The bill

shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) the amendment

printed in Section 2 of the resolution, if offered by

Representative Stenholm of Texas or his designee, which shall

be in order without intervention of any point of order or

demand for division of the question, shall be considered as

read, and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

Sec. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and on the resolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06OC04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06OC04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06OC04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06OC04.006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title I grants would be cut by $414 million.

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

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

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

NASA would be cut.

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

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

Law enforcement assistance would be cut by $81 million.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my friend, for yielding me the time. I also welcome the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) to the committee and thank him for taking my place as the most junior member on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule which tosses aside bipartisanship and abdicates this body's role to independently craft responsible public policy. This closed rule neglects millions of Americans who are hurting today not only from hurricanes but also from prolonged drought, flood, and freezes.

As all in this body know, my home State of Florida and others throughout the East have been ravaged over the last month by a series of hurricanes. It is the first time in more than a century that any State has been hit by four storms of this magnitude in less than a month. First there was Charley, and then the others that followed; and when the last one passed, millions were left literally picking up the pieces of their homes and lives.

Nineteen States along the eastern seaboard, from Florida to Vermont, were declared disaster areas. Seaports and airports came to a halt and the insurance industry is reporting more than $23 billion in claims, not including the millions of uninsured home owners and renters who lost everything they had in these storms. For them, their only relief is Federal Emergency Assistance.

In my district, the after-effects of these storms will be felt for many years to come. From Ft. Pierce in the north to Pahokee and Clewiston in the west to Ft. Lauderdale in the south, people are hurting.

I thank my colleagues for their encouraging words and support during this trying time. But we need more than consolations, and we need more than understanding.

The underlying supplemental appropriations bill which the House is considering today is deeply appreciated, appreciated by all of us in Florida; but, frankly, it is not enough.

We know that the majority knows that and the President knows that, but the willingness to deliver for those in distress just is not there unless a photo op comes along with it. This closed rule blocks my good friend from Florida (Mr. Boyd) from offering a substitute that would have provided nearly $2 billion in emergency assistance beyond the President's shortchanging proposal, to help all communities recover from the hurricanes.

When I attempted to amend the rule at 7 a.m. this morning, to make the Boyd amendment in order, the majority defeated it along a straight party line vote. The underlying legislation mirrors the President's request and neglects the well-known needs of Florida and her neighboring States. In contrast, the Boyd substitute provides nearly $500 million more than the President's request in emergency agriculture disaster assistance, not only for Florida agriculture, which is suffering from more than $2.2 billion in losses in just 4 short weeks, but also for North Carolina and New York.

Citrus and sugar growers, ranchers, nurseries and dairy farmers are all shortchanged or just plain ignored in the underlying legislation. In contrast, they are helped under the Boyd amendment which was not made in order. The Boyd substitute would also increase emergency funding to the Department of Defense for reimbursements to the National Guard and facility repairs, beach nourishment, and repairs to VA hospitals and the Kennedy Space Center.

Most importantly, the Boyd substitute mirrors the bipartisan agreement that was reached between the outstanding chairman of this committee and the ranking member of the committee equally outstanding but was rejected by the President who seemingly has a knack for leading with a reckless disregard of the obvious.

The rule also blocks the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) from offering an amendment to help States who are suffering from prolonged drought. In doing so, Republicans have dug themselves into a hole, and we are now going to see some true colors shine. Not only are they blocking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), someone who spent his entire life fighting for the well-being of farmers and ranchers across this country, from offering his amendment, but now they are trying to make in order an inferior amendment that the Committee on Rules never heard testimony on.

The amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer). Not only does it provide less assistance than the Stenholm amendment, but it also cuts funding in the Farmland Conservation Program. The Neugebauer amendment literally robs Peter to pay Paul.

As is done here often, we are refusing to help those most in need. We have tried the bipartisan approach led by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, but the President said, no, thank you. We have tried the bipartisan approach in the Committee on Rules, but the Republican leadership said, We are just not interested.

When the Committee on Rules had the opportunity this morning to reject the President's ``my way or the highway approach,'' it balked and folded.

I wish I could be more bipartisan, Mr. Speaker, especially on an issue as critically important to the welfare of all of our constituents in Florida as well as the Northeast. But they are making it difficult on the other side to be bipartisan. How is it that we got money to pass trillions in tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans, but we do not have the money to help Americans recover from natural disasters of all kind.

Where is the compassion? But better yet, where is the outrage? I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and do all that we know we can if we were to pass it to help those most in

need. My constituents are depending on our vote. Please do not let them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend and a leader in this fight.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair tell us, please, how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), an outstanding new Member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). When my colleague from Florida was speaking, he tried to get his attention. I do not know whether he wanted to have a colloquy or whether he wanted to make a statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Disasters know no boundaries, and they certainly know no political affiliation. But what we have created here is a system that pits disaster against disaster and States against States and that just is not right.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) that would add language to the bill to provide nationwide crop loss disaster assistance for weather-related losses for the last two crop years. This would help our Nation's farmers who have been hit so hard by not only hurricanes but by terrible droughts in the West and Midwest and by freezing weather in the North.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering the Stenholm amendment and providing the help that is desperately needed by our farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic. We cannot provide the assistance we need to provide here tonight when by a minuscule comparison of funds, this is just a little more than 1 percent of what we are spending in Baghdad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.