C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining on each side?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that enlightening comment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Since we have debated this issue five or six times here this afternoon and this evening, I just want to make the point again that Congress, since in the times that I have been here, has never refused to meet its responsibility when it came to natural disasters, not only in the United States but in many parts of the world, and we will continue to do so. If the gentleman were to be correct that we are wrong, and I do not think we are, but if he were to be correct, Congress would react quickly to meet any problems that might occur from a natural disaster.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 19, 2001. That was House Report 107-104. This amendment would strike a rescission and, therefore, provide in effect a new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. And so, Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this amendment, but I will not exercise the point of order until the gentleman has had his 5 minutes to explain his amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill; therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect, and I insist on my point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Definitely and enthusiastically, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to recommit. Number one, the way the motion is written, it would send this bill back to the committee. The process would start all over again, and that process takes a long time to get back to the floor. In the meantime, the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps and the United States Coast Guard are doing without money that they really need for operations today, that they need for fuel costs that have been increasing so dramatically, that they need to pay medical expenses that are $1.5 billion in arrears already. We do not want to see this problem being created with our military services. This would kill the bill. We do not want to kill this bill. We spent all day long here getting it ready to pass. I sure do not want to have to do it again. Let us vote down this motion to recommit, come back here tomorrow, and let us do the Interior Appropriations and get out for the weekend so that we can all go home and see our constituents.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The Rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and as such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the House the 2001 Supplemental Appropriations bill. While this is the first appropriations activity on the floor of this Congress, it is actually the last appropriations action for the last Congress because this is a supplemental dealing with fiscal year 2001 funding. The bill before us represents our best attempt to address funding shortfalls for our military, provide emergency assistance to communities impacted by natural disasters, and secure relief for consumers affected by high energy costs. We have accomplished this within the funding levels requested by the President and approved by the Congress in the budget resolution. In other words, if we were to go above the $6.5 billion provided in this bill, we would be violating budgetary constraints which would cause serious problems. And in the other body, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has said publicly that $6.5 billion is the maximum because if they were to go over that, they would be subject to a 60- vote point of order. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly discuss the highlights of the bill and after the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) makes his comments, I would yield to several of the subcommittee chairmen who have played a major role in preparation of this bill. The net funding in this bill is $6.5 billion. However, it provides for $6.75 billion to address these urgent defense needs, including rising fuel costs, military health care, readiness and operations requirements, substandard housing for our troops scattered throughout the world and especially in Korea, repair of damages to the U.S.S. Cole, disaster assistance for damage to U.S. military installations, and implementation of the Department of Defense's energy conservation plan in California and the western United States. Also included is $92 million sum for the Coast Guard operational needs. The bill also includes $380 million for emergency natural disaster assistance to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service for the Forest Service for the recent midwestern floods, ice storms, earthquakes, and wildfire land management. Additional energy needs are met by adding $150 million to the President's budget request of $150 million for LIHEAP. We doubled that to $300 million. It provides $161 million to implement last year's conference agreement on title I education for the disadvantaged program, $44.2 million to avert a potential deficit in the House Member's representation allowances, and $115 million to enable the Department of the Treasury to mail out the tax rebate checks that go to almost every American taxpayer. As I said earlier, the bill includes offsets in order to stay within the 2001 budget, so the $6.75 billion is netted at $6.5 billion. There will be an issue discussed at length today in our offsets. We have a one-for-one offset of unobligated FEMA balances to support nondefense emergency spending needs for natural disasters. FEMA will still have large carryover balances in excess of $1.6 billion even after this rescission. I would say to the Members who are concerned about the use of the emergency designation, normally and in the past, we have declared emergencies which allowed us to spend money over and above the top line in the bill. That is not the case here. These emergency declarations do not increase any funding because they have been offset. The reason we use the emergency designation is because the funds were rescinded or transferred from a fund that was created by an emergency designation in the last Congress. And so it is a one-for-one offset. The emergency designation is technical. It does not add any additional money to this bill. Mr. Chairman, those are the highlights of this bill. There is a lot more detail. We have a point paper that indicates all of the major items included in this bill which is available to any Member that would like to have it. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the House the 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. The bill before you represents our best attempt to address funding shortfalls in our military, provide emergency assistance to communities impacted by natural disasters, and secure relief for consumers affected by high energy costs. We have accomplished this within the funding levels requested by the President and approved by the Congress in the Budget Resolution. We made a commitment to stay within the $6.5 billion provided under the Budget Resolution even though we had a number of emergency natural disaster requirements and other non-emergency requirements that were not requested by the Administration. We found offsets for the additional spending. So even with emergencies, the FY 2001 cap provided in the Budget Resolution has not been exceeded. The emergencies are offset. The bill includes over $6.75 billion to address urgent defense needs, including rising fuel costs, military health care program needs, readiness and operations requirements, substandard housing for our troops stationed in Korea, repair of damages to the U.S.S. Cole; disaster assistance for damage to U.S. military installations and implementation of DOD's energy conservation plan in California and the Western United States. Also included is $92 million for Coast Guard operational needs. The bill also includes $389 million for emergency natural disaster assistance to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service from the recent Midwestern floods, ice storms, and earthquakes and for wildland fire management. Funding is also included for the Bureau of Indian Affairs San Carlos Irrigation Project to avert potential electricity blackouts in rural Arizona. Additional energy needs are met by $300 million included in the bill for the Low Income Home and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), twice the amount requested by the President and highest level in the program's history. The bill provides $161 million to implement last year's conference agreement on Title 1, Education for the Disadvantaged program; $44.2 million to avert a potential deficit in House Members Representational Allowances and $115 million to enable the Department of Treasury to mail out tax rebate checks. As I said earlier, the bill includes offsets in order to stay within the FY 2001 budget cap. We have included a one-for-one offset of unobligated FEMA balances to support non-defense emergency spending needs for natural disasters. We believe FEMA still has large carryover balances in excess of $1.6 billion after this reduction which should be sufficient to meet emerging needs, such as the floods in Texas. There are many other important issues addressed in this bill. The report provides a more complete description of them. While I recognize that this bill is not going to please everybody, a lot of people need this bill, including us, because of badly needed funds to operate the House of Representatives. Now, the bill is before the entire House for consideration. One amendment has been made in order under the rule, but I expect that many more will be offered. We will have a long day, and I urge all members to be brief as the House perfects this bill. The bill as reported by the Committee is a good bill. I hope that throughout the day we can improve it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has indicated, the largest amount of dollars in this bill goes to the Department of Defense. There are many, many more needs than this bill provides for. However, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, to describe in more detail the defense part of this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tables for the Record. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN01.006

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request that has been worked out with the minority, and it has to do with amendments that are subject to a point of order. We are more than willing to allow some debate on those amendments before they are either withdrawn or the point of order pressed. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the following specified amendments to the bill, and any amendments thereto, be limited to the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself: Number 1, an amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) regarding energy price caps for 30 minutes; Number 2, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) regarding the national power grid for 20 minutes; Number 3, an amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) relating to LIHEAP for 20 minutes; Number 4, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) relating to dams and hydroelectric power for 20 minutes; Number 5, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) relating to FEMA for 20 minutes; and Number 6, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) relating to funding for the Department of Defense for 20 minutes; and that such debate may occur pending the reservation of a point of order on each amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thought we had one by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), one by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), and LIHEAP I would think would be considered an energy issue; the Visclosky amendment relating to dams and hydroelectric is certainly energy related.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The Pelosi amendment, yes, regarding energy price caps.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes. The point is that these would be subject to a point of order and there could be no debate if we raised the point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. So in our spirit of generosity, bipartisanship and comradeship, we are prepared to allow the debate; and then I expect that the amendments would either be withdrawn or the point of order would be pressed.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?