Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For Hurricane Disasters Assistance Act, 2005

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR HURRICANE DISASTERS ASSISTANCE ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - October 06, 2004)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 819 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5212.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 ½ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. 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?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 5 ½ minutes.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. 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. OBEY. 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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT