[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4082-S4104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                 Amendment No. 83 and Amendment No. 177

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to 
amendment No. 83 offered by the Senator from Wisconsin to S. 672, the 
underlying bill. I gather that Senator Feingold's amendment has been 
second-degreed by the Senator from Texas with amendment No. 177.

  In brief, the underlying amendment to the supplemental appropriations 
bill would prohibit the use of funds for ground deployment in Bosnia 
after September 30 of this year, 1997. The second-degree amendment 
changes the date of September 30, 1997, to June 30, 1998.
  Mr. President, after all the debate and discussion here on the floor 
of this Senate for the last 6 years, really after all of the diplomatic 
effort by our Government and other governments in Europe and throughout 
the world regarding the conflict in Bosnia, after all of the blood that 
has been spilled in Bosnia with hundreds of thousands of people 
displaced and killed, and after the heroic service of the American 
soldiers that have been part of IFOR and SFOR, joined with soldiers of 
other countries in separating the warring parties in the former 
Yugoslavia and stopping the conflict and beginning the peaceful 
reconstruction of that land, it is fundamentally inconceivable to me 
that the Senate here on an amendment to this supplemental 
appropriations bill would direct the military to pull out of this 
conflict, to walk away, in my opinion, before the job is done, to do 
something that is not in the best traditions of American diplomacy, let 
alone the American military.
  So, Mr. President, I strongly oppose these two amendments.
  If I may, I would like to take just a few moments to recall with my 
colleagues some of what has happened in this Chamber, in the former 
Yugoslavia, and in the capitals of the world

[[Page S4083]]

regarding this conflict and why it is as important as I think it is 
that our actions are as constructive and courageous as I believe they 
are. This action would be, by virtue of this amendment, without the 
appropriate hearings by the relevant committees, without hearing from 
our military and civilian leadership, without even hearing from those 
such as Ambassador Holbrooke who negotiated the Dayton peace 
agreement--it would be so wrong for us to adopt these amendments.
  Mr. President, the conflict that broke out in the former Yugoslavia 
was one of the byproducts, if you will, of the collapse of the former 
Soviet Union. There are times, of course, when a war is over--in this 
case I speak of the cold war--when a time of instability and 
uncertainty prevails, and there are those who will seek to take 
advantage of that uncertainty with military force to turn the 
circumstance to their own benefit. That is the context in which I have 
always viewed the war that broke out in the former Yugoslavia. It is 
not, as we have said over and over again, that there are any saints in 
that particular region of the world.
  But it was clear to me that there was an intentional act of war, 
aggression, and genocide against people based on their religion, for 
the most part, if they happened to be Bosnian Muslims, by Serbia. That 
raged on and on--not stopped by the powers in Europe--raged on and on, 
as we witnessed continually on our television sets one horror after 
another. It was hard to believe that in the heart of Europe once again 
so soon after the end of the Second World War we were seeing aggression 
and genocide, even concentration camps for some period of time.
  We debated this here at great length in this Chamber. The United 
States, I think for reasons that were misplaced, I believe, in 1991 
became part of imposing an arms embargo on the parties in the former 
Yugoslavia. The aim was to try to avoid conflict or to avoid the spread 
of conflict by keeping arms out of there--apparently well intentioned. 
Yet, the effect of it was horrendous and devastatingly unfair because 
the Serbs, by virtue of the division of the country, retained most of 
the war-fighting capacity and armaments manufacturing capacity of the 
former Yugoslavia. The Bosnians did not have that capacity.

  So, not only did the world stand by as the war went on and not 
intervene, but we were prohibiting the Bosnians, the Muslims, from 
obtaining the arms that they needed to defend their families, their 
neighbors, and their country.
  Former Senate majority leader, Senator Dole, led the effort to raise 
the arms embargo. It was a bipartisan effort in which I was honored to 
join with him in which we contended, if you will, with two successive 
administrations, one of each political party.
  Finally, after repeated attempts, in the spring of 1995 we were able 
to obtain a majority in this Chamber to lift the arms embargo. This was 
in response to one story after another of horror in Srebrenica, in all 
of that city, mass slaughter of people, discovery of concentration 
camps with bodies all around. And after that embargo was lifted, an act 
of real leadership by this administration, by the President, in calling 
for NATO strikes, which so many of us here continued to say, ``Strike 
from the air. Make the Serbs pay for their aggression.'' No one is 
doing anything to stop them. No one is doing anything which would 
indicate that the rest of the world cares about what is happening there 
or will care if this once again becomes a wider war in Europe, bringing 
in the neighbors all around, including the potential to bring in two of 
our allies in NATO, namely, Greece and Turkey.
  Force was used. The Serbs responded. The Dayton peace began. 
Ambassador Holbrooke was sent in by the President in one of the most 
extraordinary exercises in diplomatic leadership that we have seen in 
recent times, where the Dayton peace accord was signed leading to the 
so-called IFOR presence in Bosnia.
  Mr. President, we have been at a fork in the road in Bosnia before, 
forks that would have, if we took one turn, left the people of Bosnia 
to their own devices, the outcome to be decided by brute strength and 
savagery unknown in Europe for 50 years, risking the expansion of that 
violence to other parts of Europe with possibly much greater harm to 
our vital interests there. The other fork is the one we ultimately 
took, to try to stop the violence and bring peace, order, and justice 
back to the former Yugoslavia.
  The Dayton accords happened because the United States finally 
exercised its leadership and, with NATO, used collective power to bring 
the conflict to an end. IFOR was created to assure that territorial and 
other military-related provisions of the Dayton agreement were 
achieved. But although stopping the fighting was a necessary condition 
for achieving the goal of assuring the continuity of the single State 
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was never considered as a sufficient 
condition for achieving that goal.
  Unfortunately, it was this part of the agreement that received the 
vast majority of the attention and debate in the United States. 
American opponents of U.S. participation made dire predictions of 
disaster and casualties, and the result was a very narrow mission 
statement and an arbitrary 1-year time limit for IFOR deployment. I 
opposed that 1-year time limit because I believed that only when IFOR's 
success could be combined with the implementation of the civilian 
elements of the agreement at Dayton--rehabilitation of infrastructure, 
economic reconstruction, political and constitutional institutions in 
Bosnia-Herzegovina, promotion and respect for human rights, return of 
displaced persons and pursuit of indicted war criminals--would it be 
possible for us to end our participation there.
  When some have started to talk about withdrawing on June 30, 1998, I 
said again I hope that we will be in a position to do that, but has it 
ever made sense in a military involvement to announce the date by which 
we are withdrawing, leaving those who would benefit from our 
withdrawal, who would try to take advantage of it, to lay in wait until 
that withdrawal, until that withdrawal which would leave them a clear 
field to proceed back to war and savagery and the threat of a wider 
conflict which inevitably will cost us more than we have spent to stop 
the conflict and prevent that wider war in the former Yugoslavia.
  So where are we, Mr. President, in the execution of the tasks we set 
at Dayton? I would say we are part of the way to our goal. We have 
officially declared IFOR successful and its mission complete. The first 
part of that task was accomplished magnificently by our forces. The 
violence stopped, an environment of relative stability emerged and not 
one IFOR member, thank God, was killed as a result of military action. 
This performance was due to the skill and professionalism of the IFOR 
soldiers, to the reputation accorded NATO and its soldiers and 
ultimately to the sine quo non of all of this, which is American 
leadership.
  But executing the essential second part of the task has not been as 
successful. The progress in rebuilding Bosnia has been slow, due in 
part to the difficulty of overcoming the antagonism engendered by a 
tragic war and the effects of a creation of ethnic areas, but it is 
also due to the fact that rebuilding a country is much harder than 
stopping the fighting, and we have given far less focus and far less 
support for the difficult tasks necessary to rebuild Bosnia than we 
gave to the military tasks.
  The mission of IFOR was very narrowly stated, and we avoided many 
opportunities for IFOR to support some of the most important civilian 
parts of the agreement. Most notable to me was our failure to direct 
IFOR or some international body to apprehend the indicted war criminals 
that bear such a large part of the responsibility for the afflictions 
of this fated land, the freedom of which, flaunting the indictment of 
an internationally constituted war crimes tribunal, will prevent 
genuine peace in Bosnia from ever occurring. These criminals are still 
at large. They can be seen, particularly Mr. Karadzic, one of the main 
perpetrators of the war crimes, indicted by an established 
international tribunal, seen almost daily controlling so much of what 
happens in the Serb part of Bosnia, still at large. And that freedom 
remains a profoundly serious impediment to attempts to build a civil 
society with functioning democratic institutions.
  Still we have made progress. The efforts of Ambassador Holbrooke 
reduced

[[Page S4084]]

but clearly did not eliminate the deleterious effects of the war 
criminals. Elections for national leaders have been held. The 
government is functioning. So we have reason to be extremely grateful 
for the military and political successes that have been achieved. These 
successes have been extraordinarily important.

  Today we come to another fork in the road as a result of these 
amendments not considered at length by this Chamber, certainly not yet. 
As before, one fork would leave the people of Bosnia to their own 
devices regardless of what the condition on the ground was, first on 
September 30 of this year, an extraordinarily early date, and then on 
June 30, 1998. If we take the fork that leads to withdrawal on a date 
certain, it is axiomatic, it is without doubt that our NATO allies will 
follow us on the way out. They have said repeatedly: We went in 
together; we are going to go out together. This will probably lead 
either to the renewal of violence, bloodshed, genocide, rule of those 
willing to deploy the most savage force. At least I would guess it will 
lead to partition.
  Some will say that does not matter, but I believe it matters a great 
deal, not just to the people of Bosnia but to stability in Europe, 
which has always mattered to the United States--in fact, drew us into 
two world wars in this century at the cost of thousands of American 
lives.
  I have always seen our involvement in Bosnia as preventive. It is an 
attempt to prevent a wider conflict that would cost us more in blood, 
American blood, American lives and, yes, American money. As Ambassador 
Holbrooke recently pointed out in a letter in Foreign Affairs:

       A single Bosnia with two entities was the essential core of 
     the Dayton agreements. The boundary line was to be similar to 
     a boundary between two American States rather than a boundary 
     between two nations. But the Serbs were at Dayton under 
     duress and few expected they would voluntarily accept such a 
     concept. Indeed, they have acted to undermine execution of 
     the political and economic tasks, and are trying to turn the 
     boundary line into a line of partition and ultimately into 
     one of complete separation.

  Mr. President, why is partition, which I would see as the least 
devastating result of a hasty American retreat from Bosnia, why is it 
wrong? In my opinion, it is wrong morally, strategically and 
politically. Partition of Bosnia would be morally wrong because it 
would reward the aggression and the genocide that all of us have 
decried. But it would also be dangerous.
  Partition is strategically wrong because it contains within it seeds 
of violence. The history of places where partition has occurred is sad 
and bloodied, and they all continue to draw us into their sadness and 
blood. Ireland and Cyprus are examples that still threaten America and 
threaten the international order as a result of partition after many 
decades. The problems engendered by partition in Bosnia would, in my 
opinion, be even worse because Bosnia would end up partitioned not just 
into two parts but into three parts--the Muslim part, the Serbian part, 
and the Croatian part. The endless battles over the partition lines 
would have a high probability of impacting others in the neighborhood--
Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and Macedonia. And partition is particularly 
politically wrong because it would send a profoundly undesirable signal 
to ethnic activists in other places where boundaries were arbitrarily 
drawn and which politically divide historic ethnic groups, and that is 
that aggression will be rewarded with partition.
  Mr. President, if we were to withdraw in June 1998, let alone 
September 30, 1997, without successful implementation of Dayton's civil 
tasks, the Serb strategy will have succeeded. The fact is that, setting 
these amendments aside, soon we will conduct the first of the periodic 
assessments of SFOR, the follow-on force to IFOR. While these 
assessments might be envisioned by some as opportunities to determine 
if we can withdraw our forces even faster, I believe we should use them 
in an orderly, thoughtful way as opportunities to conduct a real debate 
about how we can successfully conclude all the tasks laid out at Dayton 
and achieve the objective we agreed on: A single Bosnia, where peace, 
justice, and the rule of law prevail.
  Mr. President, there are lives on the line here and they are American 
lives as well as Bosnian lives. We ought not after the money we have 
invested, the lives we have risked, the conflict we have stopped, the 
blood we have saved, the order we have returned to Europe, the larger 
war we have avoided, by virtue of an amendment not heard by the 
relevant committees direct the end of what up until this time has been 
a signal act of American leadership, American courage, American 
preventive diplomacy, American force used in the interest of peace and 
order and justice.
  So I strongly oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to both of 
these amendments, notwithstanding my great respect for the Senator from 
Wisconsin, and I mean that sincerely. I have great respect for him. But 
I think this is another in a series of bad ideas this floor has 
produced over the last 5 years with regard to Bosnia.
  Mr. President, I echo the sentiments expressed by my friend from 
Connecticut. Let me say it in a slightly different way. In my view, we 
could have avoided the tragedy, the extent of the tragedy in Bosnia, 
had we the courage, the foresight to lift and strike 4 years ago, had 
we stood up to that war criminal Milosevic in Serbia and had we made 
clear to Tudjman in Croatia that we would broker no alternative but 
their ceasing and desisting. Every time America has spoken and followed 
up its speech with action, we have produced the results that we 
suggested would occur.
  It is a sad commentary, Mr. President, that there is no leadership in 
Europe. There is no leadership in Europe. And the ability of the 
Europeans to get together and solve the problem in their own backyard 
and keep it from spreading into other people's front yards is 
nonexistent based upon their actions for the previous 5 years, until 
the United States led, but led at a moment and a time when our options 
were reduced relative to the ones that existed a year or two earlier.

  The Senator from Connecticut and I initially never argued that 
American troops should be put on the ground in Bosnia. We felt very 
strongly that could have been avoided had we used our airpower, had we 
lifted sanctions to allow the Bosnian Government--that at that moment 
was still multi-ethnic--to have a chance to fight for itself. But that 
is water under the bridge. That is past. We are left with Dayton, which 
was making the best out of a bad circumstance. The end result of Dayton 
is that we will have invested about $5 billion by September of this 
year, plus America's prestige and American forces on the ground in 
Bosnia.
  I must tell you straight up, I am opposed even to the 
administration's announcement that we withdraw and have a drop-dead 
date for June 1998. But I think it borders on the ridiculous for the 
U.S. Senate to instruct the President that we must withdraw as early as 
the initial proposal called for, in September.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield right there?
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask the Senator if he would kindly do us the favor and 
not turn this into a motion to instruct. It merely says ``no funds can 
be spent after June 30, 1998.'' I say to the Senator from Delaware, 
there are no funds available after September 30, 1997, under this bill. 
The amendment is merely a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in disguise.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska. He is 
absolutely correct. What he has said, as I translate it, is this 
amendment does not mean anything in the legislative sense.
  But I promise you, I promise you, if this amendment passes today, it 
will mean something to the Republika Srpska; it will mean something in 
Mostar; it will mean something in Belgrade; it will mean something in 
the Balkans; it will mean something in Paris; it will mean something in 
Moscow. It will mean something where it matters, and what matters is 
what the rest of the world believes our resolve is.

[[Page S4085]]

  We sometimes do not focus closely enough, and I acknowledge I do not, 
as well. But we have a situation in Croatia right now where the 
President of Croatia is very ill. To call him a very strong man is 
putting it mildly, and it connotes everything that goes along with 
strongman, a guy who is no box of chocolates. There is already a battle 
for succession going on in Croatia between the nationalists, those who 
to this day wish to see the partition of Bosnia, and those who are 
democrats, who want to become part of the West.
  If we announce now that the U.S. Senate want American troops out of 
there, either this September or next June, we give succor to those in 
Croatia who will argue the following: ``With the United States gone, no 
peace can hold, partition is the answer, and we are going to get our 
piece.''
  The same is taking place in Belgrade. Milosevic is a war criminal. He 
is a thug. Remember the history of why this war took place in the first 
place. What happened there was, in effect, a referendum as to whether 
or not Bosnia would stay part of Yugoslavia. There was a vote. The 
voters said we want to set up an independent nation-state. They set it 
up, recognized by the United Nations, and Milosevic sent the Yugoslav 
National Army across the river. He supplied and gave cover for the use 
of force against the Muslims and Croats, and he instituted a war of 
aggression. He and his cronies instituted a policy of ethnic cleansing, 
a phrase I do not think any of us ever thought we would hear again. 
They actually talked about it out loud. That was their policy.
  Mr. President, our good friend, Mr. Milosevic, is on his last legs in 
Belgrade. Why, at this moment, are we going to indicate to him that 
there is a consensus in this country that the United States should walk 
away? Why are we going to do that now? What possible good would that 
do?

  Secretary Cohen, a man we all respect, has guaranteed we will be out 
of Bosnia in June 1998. He has said this in private meetings, in 
private arguments with me, and in public discussions. The President has 
said it. Madeleine Albright has acknowledged it. As I said, I think 
that, in and of itself, is a mistake. For us to come along now and 
announce to the world that we are not going to appropriate moneys is a 
mistake--and I acknowledge these are moneys we could not appropriate 
anyway. But they are not going to understand all that. All they are 
going to understand is that the United States of America, the U.S. 
Senate, has told the President he has to get out of there.
  I echo the phrase my friend from Connecticut used. He said, when has 
it ever made sense for us, in a circumstance where there is the 
potential for or the immediate past presence of war, to announce that 
we are going to leave and give a lead time to that announcement? When 
has that ever benefited us?
  Our only hope for the peace process is to continue to have an 
international force remain in Bosnia through June 1998. At least 
through June 1998. By then, several things will have shaken themselves 
out, one of which is the political situation in Croatia and the other 
is the political situation in Serbia.
  I am going to refrain from doing what I want to do, speak in more 
depth about this, because my friend from Alaska is technically right. 
He is right that this does not mean anything legislatively. I just want 
it to be known that there are voices in the Senate that think this is a 
very bad policy. When this amendment is written about, when this is 
discussed in other capitals of the world, they should understand not 
all of us share this view.
  This is not a sound policy. At this moment, it is my hope and 
expectation that the administration is leaning on our European allies 
to make it clear to them that we are willing to support a European-led 
follow-on force in Bosnia, composed of European troops, after the SFOR 
mandate ends. Remember what we said: We are going to remove American 
forces from Bosnia. We did not say we are disengaging in every military 
sense from Bosnia. The President did not say that, thank God, and I 
hope he will not say that.
  What we should be doing now, and what I hope we are doing now, is 
meeting with our NATO allies to explain to them that we are willing to 
have a forward force based in Hungary to back them up. We are willing 
to use our airpower and our intelligence apparatus to assist them. We 
are willing to use the capacity of our naval forces in the Adriatic to 
help maintain peace and security in Bosnia. This takes time. This 
amendment undercuts every possible option that exists between now and 
June 1998 by announcing now that the U.S. Senate does not support the 
continued presence of the United States of America in that part of the 
world.
  I do not fully understand what both my friend from Wisconsin and the 
Senator from Texas are saying. I acknowledge the Senator from Alaska is 
correct. This is meaningless in a legislative sense. But I do not 
understand what my two friends hope to accomplish here. Their amendment 
says, ``Provided further, that none of the funds made available under 
this Act may be obligated or expended for operations or activities of 
the armed forces relating to Bosnia ground deployment after June 30, 
1998.''
  Does that mean we cannot use our intelligence apparatus? Does that 
mean we cannot have forward deployment in Hungary? Does that mean we 
cannot use our airpower? Maybe it does. Maybe it does not. But I tell 
you one thing: To merely suggest that we are going to pull out U.S. 
ground forces is a bit disingenuous as well.
  So, again, I do not want to take any more time of the Senate except 
to say that this is a well-intended, very bad idea. It is a very bad 
idea. It does not serve U.S. interests. It does not serve us or aid us 
in our ability to lead an alliance in carrying out its responsibilities 
in Europe, in Bosnia. And it does not lend any support to those in both 
Serbia and in Croatia who are trying to change the political landscape 
of both those countries, which will have an impact upon the 
circumstance in Bosnia.
  So, again, I say as I yield the floor, with due respect to my friend 
from Wisconsin, I think this is a serious mistake. I hope the Senate 
will not go along with this suggestion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have to my right a satellite image of 
the James River in South Dakota; on the left, depicting the river in 
its normal course prior to the flooding. On the right is a satellite 
image showing the current state of the James River--swollen, in places 
miles across, with water in a circumstance where less than 5 percent of 
the farmland in the James River Valley, from North Dakota to Nebraska, 
will be planted this year. This imagery was provided by the aerial data 
center in South Dakota. I think it very ably shows the dire 
circumstances that people in the James River area are facing.
  Amendment No. 70 is an amendment offered by myself and by my 
colleague, Senator Daschle, which addresses the extensive damage that 
has taken place in the James River Valley and which needs to be 
addressed. This amendment addresses the problem, where up to 75 percent 
of the trees in this area have been lost, where bank sloughing and 
levee sloughing has filled the channel and reduced its capability to 
handle water. The amendment would provide a $10 million appropriation 
through the Corps of Engineers to the James River Water Development 
District to use for the badly needed repair and restoration work on the 
James River.
  This is a 25 percent cost share. I am pleased that this amendment has 
been cleared and approved by the majority and the minority of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. I thank Senator Chafee and 
Senator Baucus and their staffs for their willingness to work with us 
on these amendments. I also thank the appropriators, Senator Stevens 
and Senator Byrd, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid from the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Subcommittees and their staffs, for their 
willingness to work with us on the language of this amendment, and to 
accept it as part of the supplemental appropriations legislation being 
considered by the Senate today.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to take this 
opportunity to respond to remarks in opposition to Senator Hutchison's 
amendment by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from 
Delaware.

[[Page S4086]]

  Let me, first of all, reiterate a couple of points about my attitude 
and the attitude of most Senators about this amendment and its purpose. 
First of all, no one can even begin to criticize what a wonderful job 
our troops and our military have done in Bosnia. In fact, all we can do 
is offer praise and gratitude. I feel that way, in particular, about 
the wonderful job some of our folks from Wisconsin, whom I have had a 
chance to speak with about this, have done.
  Second, I want to reiterate that I believe this mission has 
accomplished some very, very positive things. It certainly has not 
accomplished all that would have been hoped. But to suggest somehow 
that this mission has not accomplished anything in terms of saving 
lives and in terms of trying to resolve the situation would be wrong, 
and I do not suggest that.
  I also want to acknowledge that the two Senators who spoke in 
opposition to the amendment, the Senator from Connecticut and the 
Senator from Delaware, are two of the great leaders on this issue, two 
of the most compassionate Senators when it comes to being concerned 
about the tragedy in Bosnia, and I learned that fast when I came here 
to the United States Senate. I wish that we could be in agreement on 
this particular issue about how long this mission should continue, 
because we have been allies on many aspects of the Bosnia operation in 
the past.
  In fact, Mr. President, I just remind my colleagues that when I 
arrived here in 1993, the first resolution I ever submitted, was to 
simply lift the arms embargo that was being enforced against all the 
areas in the region, all the people in the region, but, in particular, 
the Bosnian Muslims.
  The reason I came to that position was because of the inspiration of 
the Senator from Delaware who had taken the lead in developing the 
concept of lifting the arms embargo prior to my arrival in the Senate. 
When I got here, I joined with other Senators, in fact, I think I was 
the first one in that Congress to introduce a resolution to lift the 
arms embargo. The Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from 
Delaware and I and others all got up and talked about the important 
right of self-defense, the importance of people being able to defend 
themselves. We thought that they should be given arms to defend 
themselves, the right that they have, I believe, under unalienable 
human rights and under article 51 of the U.N. Charter to defend 
themselves. That is where many of us wanted to go.
  As the Senator from Connecticut indicated, we tried very hard. We won 
a vote on the Senate floor on a bipartisan basis, although, 
regrettably, it was not carried all the way through. I still believe 
that was the best answer to this situation. But, we did not get that 
done in a timely manner and, as a result, I think we were essentially 
forced into the Dayton accord. I think some of our European allies made 
sure, in effect, that we would be forced into sending troops into the 
region.
  So when many of us spoke about the importance of lifting the arms 
embargo, we discussed that it was the right thing for the Bosnians. But 
it was a way to prevent us from becoming ensnared in a military 
operation that we would not be able to get out of, where American men 
and women would be forced into a situation where an end-game or 
departure justification would be difficult to find.
  That is how we got to where we are today, unfortunately. That is why 
I have offered this amendment, and I believe it is one of the reasons 
the Senator from Texas has offered her second-degree amendment.
  When the Senator from Connecticut--and I say this with all respect, 
because I simply know no one who is more concerned about the situation, 
and I know at a very personal level as well, as a Senator, that he 
cares as deeply, perhaps more deeply than any other Senator about what 
is going on in Bosnia--but when he says it is inconceivable that we 
would try to do this on this bill in this way, let me suggest what I 
consider to be inconceivable.

  It is inconceivable to me that we would not have a clear debate on 
this issue when the initial understanding that was given to the 
American people about this is that it would cost $2 billion and be over 
within 1 year. I took every opportunity I could in the Foreign 
Relations Committee and in every other meeting that I had on this 
subject to ask the question: Is it truly the intent to be out of there 
in 1 year? And the answer was always yes. Even when it was just a few 
months before the December 1996 deadline, I asked many leading military 
and State Department officials about this. I said, ``Is it going to be 
over in a year?'' And they said, ``Well, yes, give or take a few 
weeks.''
  The American people and the Congress were led over and over to 
believe that this was a 1-year operation.
  Then, really quite quietly, it was extended. It was extended by 18 
months beyond that deadline, to a minimum of June of 1998. And even 
then, when I asked whether or not that is the end of the line for this 
operation, the remark has been simply, ``We hope so, we think so, we 
think it's possible.''
  What is also inconceivable to me is that we add another $1.5 billion 
in this supplemental bill and then tell the American people what we are 
on track to do is to spend not just $2 billion--in fact, we are already 
in for $3 billion--but that the minimum estimate now is $6.5 billion 
through the middle of 1998. To me it is somewhat inconceivable that we 
would simply move in that direction without a full and thorough debate 
with regard to these numbers.
  Where is the public accountability on this? Where is the 
congressional accountability with regard to the expenditure of those 
kinds of funds and with regard to the duration of an operation that was 
promised to be over within 1 year?
  Others have suggested today that somehow this is an unprecedented 
kind of amendment, but all I can do is refer my colleagues to what we 
did when it came to the Somalia operation. The distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia offered an amendment, which we voted on on October 
15, 1993, that provided for a cutoff date for the expenditure of funds 
with regard to Somalia.
  No one knows better the power of the purse of the Congress than the 
Senator from West Virginia, and he knows that that is the heart and the 
soul of congressional power when it comes to military operations. Both 
the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Delaware voted for 
the amendment that Senator Byrd offered that would cut off the funds 
for Somalia by a date certain. We signaled what we were going to do in 
that situation --we signaled it clearly--because we knew that it was 
time for us to get out.
  You know what is sad about that one. In the Somalia case, we waited 
until something bad happened. We waited until a tragedy occurred. We 
waited until we had essentially no choice but to extricate ourselves 
from a situation that became a mess. I am very pleased to be able to 
say today that we are not in that situation yet in Bosnia. I hope we 
never will be. But to wait for that moment to signal clearly when we 
intend to get out is the worst thing we can do in terms of our 
credibility in the world. To wait for a moment like that and then just 
run out of Bosnia because the public support may evaporate is the worst 
thing we can do in terms of our credibility. I do not think any of us 
regard what happened in Somalia as one of the finest hours in our 
diplomatic, military or foreign policy moments.
  So, Mr. President, let me simply say that this is a situation where 
we all have to decide whether we are just going to let this $1.5 
billion go forward without asking serious questions. The Senators who 
are opposed to me and Senator Hutchison on this said we have not had 
proper hearings on our amendment. They have indicated they want to have 
a real debate on this matter.
  That is the whole point.
  We have not had real hearings on this. We have not had a real debate 
on whether we should spend $6.5 billion on Bosnia by the middle of 1998 
or on the possibility of even more. We have not had a real national 
discussion about whether we should go forward with this. I think the 
American people and the Congress should be engaged in that kind of 
discussion.
  So let me conclude by saying that I think this amendment is 
appropriate. It does not go too far. It does not hamstring our 
military. There are opportunities for providing more funds later, if 
needed, for extending the operation, if needed. All this does is signal 
that neither this body nor this country is going

[[Page S4087]]

to simply let this continue without any real consideration and public 
debate of where we are heading--especially since the operation is 
already costing $6.5 billion and has already more than doubled the 
duration that was originally promised.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we should be signaling two things relative 
to Bosnia, in my judgment. The first is what this resolution would 
signal, which is that it is our intent to have our ground combat forces 
out of Bosnia by June of next year. It is important that we send that 
signal; it is important that we send that signal clearly. But it is 
also important that we do an additional thing, and that is that we let 
our European allies and the world know that in the event that there is 
a need for a follow-on force after June of 1998, that it is the 
Europeans who must provide that follow-on force and it is not our 
intention to participate with ground troops in that follow-on force.
  Will a follow-on force be necessary? I think it will be. I have 
visited Bosnia. I have spent a lot of time there. In my judgment, there 
is no way that millions of refugees can be repatriated to their homes, 
that war criminals can be captured and tried by June of next year. If 
there is no follow-on force in Bosnia, the likelihood is that the 
progress which has been made will disintegrate and will evaporate, and 
then what we have done in Bosnia will have been to no avail.
  We have accomplished some very important things in Bosnia, and we 
should try, if we can, to protect them, but--and here I agree with the 
Senator from Wisconsin--we should carry out our mission, which ends in 
June of 1998, signal to our allies clearly and tell them in advance 
that it is our intention that our ground combat forces will be out of 
there in June of 1998, but that we would expect that they would show 
some leadership under a new component of NATO, called the European 
Security and Defense Identity, to provide the follow-on forces which 
might be needed after June of 1998.
  Can we do both of those at one time? Can we say that it is our 
intention that our own forces on the ground leave by June of 1998 but 
that we expect there is a need or a likely need for a follow-on force 
and we would be supportive of that force--without having our own troops 
on the ground--through logistics and intelligence and other means of 
supporting a European follow-on force as part of NATO? Can we signal 
both of those things at once? I believe we can. I believe we should. I 
believe this resolution does not do that, and that is the difficulty 
with this resolution.
  Because of the nature of postcloture that we are in, it is restricted 
in language to what it says, which, as the Senator from Alaska points 
out, really has no meaning whatsoever since none of these funds will be 
spent, in any event, after October 1 of 1997. They cannot be and are 
not going to be.
  So in one sense this resolution has no legislative meaning 
whatsoever, through no fault of my friend from Wisconsin, by the way. 
He had no choice. In order to be germane in a post-cloture situation, 
he had to phrase it this way.
  But the signal that he wishes to send is an important signal, one 
that I happen to want to join him in sending, providing it can be sent 
with a second signal which is so critical that we send, which is that a 
new initiative inside of NATO be utilized for any follow-on force, and 
we are willing to support that or at least are open to supporting that 
European initiative inside of NATO.
  I want to spend just a couple of moments on that initiative. It is 
not well known. It is an important initiative. The Europeans have asked 
for additional leadership in NATO for many, many years.
  Finally, at the June 1996 Berlin North Atlantic Council ministerial 
meeting, there was a new initiative adopted, as part of NATO. It is 
called the European Security and Defense Identity initiative [ESDI]. 
What it does, it permits the European NATO nations--these are our 
allies in NATO--with NATO consent, to carry out operations under the 
political control and strategic direction of the Western European 
Union, using NATO assets and NATO capabilities.
  So using NATO assets and capabilities under the strategic direction 
of the Western European Union, a European initiative is being put in 
place as we speak.
  What NATO has agreed to do is to identify the types of what are 
called separable but not separate capabilities, assets, headquarters, 
and command positions that would be required to command and conduct 
these Western European Union-led operations and which could be made 
available, subject to unanimous consent agreement in the North Atlantic 
Council.
  In addition, NATO agreed to develop appropriate multinational 
European command arrangements within NATO to command and conduct the 
Western European Union-led operations.
  And, finally, in support of these arrangements, NATO agreed to 
conduct, at the request of and in coordination with the Western 
European Union, military planning and exercises for illustrative 
missions which were identified by the Western European Union. Included 
in those missions are humanitarian assistance, conflict prevention, 
peacekeeping, and peace enforcement operations. All from peacekeeping 
to peace enforcement are included in the missions which are now being 
organized.
  The ability of our European allies to work together so professionally 
in Bosnia, with French and British commanders responsible for two of 
the three multinational division sectors and with the overall American 
commander having a multinational staff, convinces me that there is no 
reason to question the ability of a European-led follow-on force to 
succeed in Bosnia. There is no reason, either, why the Partnership for 
Peace nations should not be included as they have been in Bosnia in 
both IFOR and SFOR.
  So we have a mechanism now which is being planned to provide, or 
which could provide, to be more accurate, the follow-on force to be 
sure that peace does not unravel in the European neighborhood. The 
United States should remain involved with logistics, intelligence, and 
other support activities. But under this resolution there is no 
provision for that.
  This resolution, because of the way it had to be phrased, ends up 
saying that none of these funds can be obligated or expended for the 
activities of armed forces relating to Bosnia ground deployment.
  Well, should we not consider at least a provision of intelligence 
support, logistics support, other support activities for a European 
follow-on force? I think we ought to.
  During the Armed Services Committee hearing in February on the 
defense budget, Secretary Cohen responded to my questions by stating 
the following:

       I would agree with you that following our departure in June 
     of 1998, I believe there has to be some sort of force 
     in Bosnia. I do not think there is any possibility of 
     ending so many decades, if not centuries, of ethnic 
     conflict in a matter of two or three years.
  Secretary Cohen continued:

       So I think some international type of a force will be 
     necessary. I agree with you that the ESDI, the so-called 
     European Security and Defense Identity, is something that is 
     very worthwhile to pursue.

  And he added:

       I think it is something we should pursue and make it very 
     clear we are leaving and that something will have to replace 
     it, and hopefully it will be something along the lines of the 
     ESDI.

  That is a double message, not a single message.
  The amendment before us, regrettably, has the first of those two 
messages only and is not able to cover the second part of that message. 
That is the difficulty with the pending resolution, in my judgment.
  General Shalikashvili, who was there with Secretary Cohen, said the 
following:

       Following our departure in June 1998, it is very possible 
     that a follow-on force will be required. I think a European 
     force under the WEU is certainly an appropriate candidate for 
     that.

  So he, too, reached the same kind of conclusion.
  So, Mr. President, I think that we should not at this time state in 
resolution form or any other form that we will not be willing to play a 
supporting role in Bosnia after June 1998. Because, after this 
operation is, hopefully, turned over to our NATO allies, assuming it 
continues at all, which I think is

[[Page S4088]]

likely then acting under the Western European Union, they, I believe, 
will need this kind of support--not our combat forces on the ground--
but those other kinds of support. And that is the complexity which is 
not reflected in this resolution.
  Finally, it is my intent during the consideration of the defense 
authorization bill to be offering language along the lines that I have 
just described. I hope that at that time we can have the kind of full 
debate on the future of our forces in Bosnia that this issue really 
requires.
  During the authorization bill, that debate can take into 
consideration both the need, in my judgment, to make the clear 
statement to our allies in Europe that it is our intent to be out of 
there in June 1998, but can also outline what we would be willing to do 
should they determine to stay on after June of 1998 in Bosnia. And 
while it is complex, it is essential. While it has two points to the 
message, both points are, nonetheless, essential.
  So I think, because this resolution is too narrow in its scope and 
sends only one of two messages and it is essential that both be sent 
simultaneously, that it would be a mistake for us to adopt this 
resolution at this time in this form. But I would look forward to my 
friend from Wisconsin working with us in the Armed Services Committee 
to design a resolution which does contain the message that he has in 
his amendment but also the second part of that message as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be very brief because I think I may be the last 
person to address this amendment tonight.
  I first want to acknowledge the contribution made in the debate by 
Senators Levin, Lieberman, Biden, and others who spoke so eloquently 
about the reasons why this amendment is ill-advised. I have great 
respect and admiration for the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and 
the Senator from Texas, but I must say, passage of this amendment, as 
well intended as it might be, is unwise. First, as the Senator from 
Alaska has noted, this amendment has no real legislative effect because 
it appropriates money only for this fiscal year ending September 30, 
1997. But it does have a profound effect in the message it sends to 
people around the world, especially in that part of the world most 
directly affected by our actions and by our intentions.

  For us to say unequivocally that regardless of circumstance, 
regardless of the situation, regardless of whether or not there is 
peace and the kind of stability we have been able to achieve now in the 
last couple of years, that we are removing every vestige of U.S. 
military presence, in my view, sends exactly the wrong message.
  We need to be very careful about the message we send. We need to 
ensure that our military presence there has the maximum effect for as 
long as it may be required. It is somewhat ironic to me that the same 
people--and I am not referring to any particular Senator in this 
regard--but many of the same people who advocate a permanent presence 
in NATO where we do not see any specific need for a U.S. presence today 
are those who are arguing against our presence in Bosnia.
  Mr. President, I think our military efforts in Bosnia have been a 
spectacular success. And they have been successful because we have had 
strong, bipartisan support in Congress for our military presence that 
sends a clear message to the people in the region.
  That message says clearly that we want the genocide to stop. We want 
the warring parties to come to terms. We want to recognize the 
extraordinary effort that has already been made by those who are 
putting their lives on the line to ensure that we succeed in retaining 
the peace and stability and long-term political viability of the 
region.
  U.S. policy through the Dayton accords has succeeded stopping the 
killing in Bosnia and in helping Bosnians forge longer term stability. 
We have succeeded in doing something of great consequence. I just hope 
that we recognize what a tremendous contribution it has been. While we 
all want to see that day when the United States forces are no longer 
deployed in Bosnia, we want them to come home with confidence, knowing 
that, regardless of whether we are there or not, we will continue to 
see the kind of success that we have experienced since implementation 
of the Dayton accords began in December 1995. But for us to say with 
certainty today that we know exactly when that date is, is shortsighted 
and ill-advised. I hope for those reasons the Senate will reject that 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota in 
his remarks.
  Mr. President, I think I am going to have to call for the yeas and 
nays on this amendment because I think it is of serious import.
  I also believe that we should be out of Bosnia. I had severe 
reservations as to going in. I ended up supporting the President, as 
did the former majority leader, Senator Dole. But for us to say that 
unequivocally under no circumstances will American presence be there a 
long time from now, I think would be, from a precedent-setting 
standpoint, very dangerous and, second of all, would be a message that 
I am not sure we want to send at this time.
  There are some very bad people in Bosnia, Mr. President, as we all 
know. And if the administration was unequivocally on record or the 
United States Congress was on record as saying that under no 
circumstances could there be an American presence in Bosnia as of a 
certain date, I think it would have the unintended consequence of 
encouraging those very bad people.
  Mr. President, I think it is something that we should work out with 
the administration. It is well known that the present Secretary of 
Defense, a former Member of this body, has stated we will be out by 
June 1998. But that is not a firm administration policy. And there are 
certain proposals as far as a United States presence is concerned, both 
on sea and in the air, as well as possibly in a neighboring country. I 
am not sure that this amendment would not affect those options as well.
  The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee points out 
very accurately that we do not have any money anyway at that time, so 
this would be largely a symbolic vote. But, Mr. President, I believe 
that if I were one of our European allies or someone who had an 
interest in the situation in Bosnia, either as a participant or an 
observer, I would say that this is a very strong message and one that 
we do not want to send.
  I also remind my colleagues that, yes, we have the right to cut off 
funding, we have that constitutional right as a body. But it is always 
the last resort. Cutting off funding is the last resort that we seek in 
order to salvage Americans when they are placed in great danger.
  I suggest that this is the first option. If June 1998 begins to 
approach and it looks like the administration is in an open-ended 
commitment, I think we would have plenty of opportunity at that time. 
We would be considering lots of legislation in order to express our 
views on this issue. But to act at this time, I think, would send a 
very, very unfortunate and even dangerous signal.

  I was just in conversation with the Senator from Alaska and he 
pointed out that we did, indeed, cut off funding in the Somalia 
situation, but that was also with the agreement of the administration 
that they were leaving at that time. All of us were outraged at the 
wanton murder of some brave young Americans whose bodies were dragged 
through the streets of Mogadishu. There is no doubt in that situation 
there was agreement that we were going to leave.
  The Bosnia situation is very fluid, it is very dangerous. I want us 
out, too, but I greatly fear if we passed a resolution at this 
particular time mandating such a thing--for example, cutting off all 
funds--that this would be an action that would have some unintended 
consequences associated with it. One of the major consequences I just 
mentioned is to encourage our adversaries and the enemies of peace in 
that poor, unfortunate land, who, I think, might take this as a signal 
to just wait, rather than seek national reconciliation, wait until the 
Americans leave and then really ignite the bloodletting and the 
conflict.

[[Page S4089]]

  Mr. President, I have to oppose this amendment, certainly at this 
time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a 
sufficient second.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant 
legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that we have the vote on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment.
  The amendment (No. 177) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 83), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to state for the record what I 
believe the Senate just agreed to in supporting the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Wisconsin that would prohibit the obligation or 
expenditure of funds available in S. 672, the supplemental 
appropriations bill, for operations or activities of the United States 
forces stationed on the ground in Bosnia.
  This amendment in no way endorses the actions taken unilaterally by 
the President to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia 
for an additional 18 months beyond the 1-year time frame stipulated in 
Senate Joint Resolution 44.
  The President never consulted with the Congress to extend the 
presence of United States forces in Bosnia, and the Senate has not 
voted, by accepting this amendment, to approve the President's decision 
to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia until June 
1998.
  The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 
1996 that United States forces would not be withdrawn from Bosnia until 
March 1997. They did not consult with the Congress about this short 
extension, and they assured the committee at the time that there were 
no plans to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia 
beyond that time frame. However, they did note for the record that the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization was reviewing whether a continued 
NATO force presence was needed beyond the March 1997 time frame. The 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs promised that 
the Congress would be consulted prior to agreeing to extend the United 
States force in Bosnia. In fact, the President assured the American 
public prior to the Presidential election in November that United 
States forces would not be in Bosnia beyond the time-frame necessary to 
safely withdraw.
  Very shortly after the United States elections in November 1996, the 
President announced his intention to support a decision by NATO to 
extend the presence of a NATO force in Bosnia to implement the Dayton 
agreement. Following the recommendation of the NATO that a NATO 
presence remain in Bosnia, the President announced in December 1996 
that United States forces would remain in Bosnia, as part of a NATO 
force until June 1998.
  Once again, I want to emphasize what agreeing to this provision does 
not do--it does not provide congressional approval for the President's 
unilateral decision to extend the presence of United States forces in 
Bosnia beyond the 1-year time frame he announced in November 1995 to 
the American public.
  The President has not consulted with the Congress on his decision to 
extend the participation of United States forces in a NATO operation in 
Bosnia. The President has not sought approval of the Congress for that 
decision to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia until 
June 1998. The Senate has not provided its approval, or authorization 
for the President's decision to extend the presence of United States 
forces in Bosnia. The amendment merely ensures that U.S. forces are 
taken care of, until such time as they are withdrawn in June 1998, 
whether or not substantial progress is achieved in the civil 
implementation of the Dayton agreement, as the President promised. The 
amendment does not constitute congressional authorization or approval 
to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I want to make clear, that had the 
Senate taken a rollcall vote on Senator Hutchinson's amendment to 
Senator Feingold's amendment, I would have voted no on the Hutchinson 
amendment. I want our troops home as soon as possible, and I am 
strongly supportive of any effort to bring them home as quickly as 
possible.
  The President promised that our troops would be home in December 
1996. He clearly mislead the Congress and the American people when he 
made this promise.
  Only after the election was over did the President make his decision 
to extend our troop deployment, even though he knew full well that our 
troops would not be coming home in December, well before the election.
  The Bosnian mission is going to cost the taxpayers of this country 
$6.5 billion. The question is what will be changed after our troops 
have been there this long, and we have spent this amount of money. I 
contend that little will be changed. When the deployment was made, a 
principle question was whether the United States had an exit strategy. 
It now appears that we may have no exit.
  Again, I was strongly supportive of the Feingold amendment, and I 
would have liked to have seen it passed without change.


                            Amendment No. 97

 (Purpose: To extend the dredging participation in the Small Business 
                   Demonstration Program Act of 1988)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bumpers, for 
     himself, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 97.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriations place add the following new section:

     ``SEC.   . EXPANDING SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION IN 
                   DREDGING.

       ``Section 722(a) of the Small Business Competitiveness 
     Demonstration Program Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 644 note) is 
     amended by striking `September 30, 1996' and inserting 
     `September 30, 1997'.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment which extends 
the expanding small business participation in dredging section of the 
Small Business Competitive Demonstration Program Act of 1988 to 
September 30, 1997.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 97) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 76

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to collect and 
disseminate statistically reliable information from milk manufacturing 
plants on prices received for bulk cheese and to require the Secretary 
       to report to Congress on the rate of reporting compliance)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.

[[Page S4090]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Specter, for 
     himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Kohl, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 76.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON PRICES 
                   RECEIVED FOR BULK CHEESE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     collect and disseminate, on a weekly basis, statistically 
     reliable information, obtained from cheese manufacturing 
     areas in the United States on prices received and terms of 
     trade involving bulk cheese, including information on the 
     national average price for bulk cheese sold through spot and 
     forward contract transactions. to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Secretary shall report the prices and terms 
     of trade for spot and forward contract transactions 
     separately.
       (b) Confidentiality.--All information provided to, or 
     acquired by, the Secretary under subsection (a) shall be kept 
     confidential by each officer and employee of the Department 
     of Agriculture except that general weekly statements may be 
     issued that are based on the information and that do not 
     identify the information provided by any person.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 150 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to the 
     committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations, of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations, of the Senate, on the rate of 
     reporting compliance by cheese manufacturers with respect to 
     the information collected under subsection (a). At the time 
     of the report, the Secretary may submit legislative 
     recommendations to improve the rate of reporting compliance.
       (d) Termination of Effectiveness.--the authority provided 
     by subsection (a) terminates effective April 5, 1999.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Santorum, Feingold, 
and Kohl be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of amendment 
No. 76, offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] which 
requires the Department of Agriculture to collect and disseminate, on a 
weekly basis, statistically reliable information on bulk cheese prices 
throughout the Nation. Secretary Glickman has already initiated this 
price survey with the voluntary cooperation of cheese manufacturers 
using existing administrative authorities of the Department. The 
amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Senator Specter] 
requires the Secretary to continue doing so until April 5, 1999. 
However, because the Secretary has already implemented this cheese 
price reporting initiative using existing authorities, I wanted to 
clarify that he can continue to collect and report this cheese price 
information after April 5, 1999 using the same authorities he is using 
currently.
  Does the chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 
Committee, Mr. Lugar, concur that the sunset provision in section (d) 
of amendment No. 76 in no way affects or diminishes the Secretary's 
existing authority to continue the voluntary collecting and reporting 
of cheese price information from cheese manufacturers after April 5, 
1999?
  Mr. LUGAR. I concur with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold].
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this deals with the collection and 
dissemination of information on prices received for bulk cheese. It 
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to collect and disseminate 
statistically reliable information from milk manufacturing plants on 
prices received for bulk cheese and requires a report to Congress on 
the rate of reporting compliance.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 76) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, earlier today, I voted against the 
D'Amato amendment, which would reinstate SSI benefits for legal 
nonresidents. I think 11 Senators voted against that amendment.

  Mr. President, I rise to make a statement about why I voted against 
that amendment. I know a lot of people said they voted for it because 
it is part of the budget package that was agreed to by the leadership 
of Congress and the President. They wanted to reinstate that. They said 
they might as well do it anyway because the budget is going to pass and 
the benefit will be reinstated. That may well be. These individuals 
will lose their benefits for 2 weeks in August and the month of 
September--6 weeks--if that happens. But I didn't think that was the 
reason why it should be put in the urgent supplemental.
  Some colleagues probably voted with me on that because they didn't 
think it belonged in there, that it can be included in the budget 
package. It may well be included in a budget package. That is when we 
will do the entire budget.
  So my point is--I informed my colleagues on this side of the aisle--
if we have other amendments on this supplemental that try to pull out 
various pieces of the budget package and put it into the supplemental, 
and they say, ``Everybody has agreed, the leadership has agreed, that 
we are going to spend more money for education, let's go ahead and put 
it in the supplemental, we are going to spend more money for children 
that do not have health care, we will put into a supplemental''--I 
disagree. This is supposed to be an urgent supplemental. It is supposed 
to be helping people with disaster assistance, and not to be prefunding 
part of the budget package.
  At least I for one--and I am the only one--in the future, if we find 
other amendments that try to maybe prefund the budget agreement, I am 
going to object.
  Also, I want to touch on this a little bit. Some people said, ``Well, 
we need to undo part of this welfare package.'' I happen to be one that 
disagrees with that. We passed significant welfare reform, and I think 
rightfully so. We said, yes, we are going to provide more benefits for 
citizens than noncitizens. Somebody said they are here legally. That is 
correct.
  Let me give a couple of facts. Since 1882, an alien who was likely to 
become a public charge has been subject to exclusion from the United 
States. Since 1917, an alien who becomes a public charge within 5 years 
of entry has been subject to deportation from the country. That 
continues to be the immigration policy, that aliens within our Nation's 
borders should not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but 
rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their 
families and their sponsors. That is the way it should be.
  Families of immigrants who enter the United States signed affidavits 
of support. By these affidavits of support they pledge to provide for 
the immigrants themselves and not put them on public assistance. That 
is a pledge. That says they will not become a public charge. That is to 
make sure that when people come to the United States, they are seeking 
citizenship and freedom, and not seeking welfare.
  We found with this program, unfortunately, despite these policies, 
that large numbers of sponsors have failed to live up to their 
obligations, both their moral obligations and their financial 
obligations.
  Just a couple of facts: In 1986, just over 200,000 noncitizens were 
receiving SSI welfare benefits. In 1996, that figure had grown to 
800,000, 4 times as many in a period of 10 years. It didn't double or 
triple--4 times as many; it went from 200,000 to 800,000 in the last 10 
years. The Social Security Administration predicts that the number of 
noncitizens receiving benefits would grow to 1 million by the end of 
the decade.

[[Page S4091]]

  So this is exploding. A lot of people are bringing their families 
over, saying, ``Yes, you can be on welfare. You can be on welfare for 
life. You get cash payments, cash assistance, several hundreds of 
dollars per month, and be eligible for Medicaid concurrently.'' It is a 
pretty good deal. A lot of people said, ``I want in on that.'' So they 
would come over and totally ignore the affidavits of support that they 
and their families pledged they would not became a public charge.
  In the welfare bill that we passed last year, they should get around 
this by becoming citizens. Now, I know a lot of people are becoming 
citizens. Some people said, ``Well, the States don't have the 
resources. Not everybody can become a citizen.'' You have minimal 
English requirements. Maybe they are not able to make that. The States 
save millions, and collectively the States save billions of dollars in 
the welfare changes we made last year. There is plenty of money to 
provide assistance to those people that really need some help.
  Total noncitizen applications for SSI alone increased almost 600 
percent from 1982 to 1994, compared to just a 49-percent increase 
amongst citizens. Most noncitizens apply for welfare within 5 years of 
arriving in the United States.
  Mr. President, I want to make these comments. I know that in the 
budget package we have--I hope that we will pass a budget package--we 
are going to address this issue. I know, in all likelihood, for most 
noncitizens we will be continuing SSI payments for those noncitizens 
who are already here or already here at the time of enactment of the 
welfare bill. That may well be. I might support it as part of an 
overall package.

  But I voted in opposition to this being added to the supplemental 
because I didn't want to cherry-pick a few of the things out of the 
budget package and say, ``Let's put it on this supplemental too.'' This 
wasn't going to happen. No one would lose benefits now for another 3 
months. Our objective is to pass the reconciliation bill to implement 
the balanced budget by July 4, a full month and a half before you would 
have discontinuance of benefits. So we would have time to rectify the 
situation if we have not reached the budget agreement.
  So, Mr. President, I just make mention of that, and maybe forewarn my 
colleagues. At least this Senator's intention is to object strenuously 
if future efforts are made to put parts of the budget package onto this 
urgent supplemental.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 107

    (Purpose: To strike earmarks for unrequested highway and bridge 
          projects, parking garages, and theater restoration)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 107.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 107.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 39, starting on line 22, strike all that appears 
     after ``1997'' through page 40, line 21, and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``.''.
       On page 42, starting on line 11, strike all that appears 
     through page 43, line 4.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment strikes earmarks to fund 
for highway projects:
  $3.6 million for the 2002 Olympics planning in Utah;
  $450,000 for the ATR Institute to continue the Santa Teresa border 
technologies project in New Mexico;
  Additional funding for Warrior Loop project in Alabama;
  $12.6 million to complete the William H. Natcher Bridge in Maceo, KY;
  Additional funding for Highway 17 Cooper River bridges replacement 
project in South Carolina;
  $100,000 for 86th Street Highway Project in Polk County, IA;
  And discretionary authority to spend additional funds to repair or 
reconstruct any portion of Highway 1 in San Mateo, CA, that was 
destroyed in 1982 and 1983;
  The set-aside of $12.3 million for discretionary authority to 
construct the parking garage at a VA medical center in Cleveland, OH;
  Earmark of $500,000 from previously appropriated funds for a parking 
garage in Ashland, KY, to instead restore the Paramount Theater in that 
city.
  Mr. President, this supplemental appropriations bill was an emergency 
appropriations bill. The title, as we all know, is an emergency 
supplemental bill.
  Mr. President, the earmarks I find included in this bill and others 
are not, in my view, of an emergency status. Let me talk about a few 
other earmarks that are in this bill.
  Language that makes College Station, AR, eligible for rural housing 
service program assistance.
  By the way, Mr. President, I understand that College Station, AR, has 
been badly damaged by a tornado, and that is probably a project that 
would qualify under emergency supplemental parameters.
  It makes the cost of repairing the Wapato irrigation project 
nonreimbursable;
  $15 million emergency funding for research on environmental risk 
factors associated with breast cancer. Report language lists Rhode 
Island, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Utah, New York, and 
California as States which should be considered for ``competitive 
grants.'' In other words, the other States are not considered for 
competitive grants.
  There is a $10 million earmark for phase 2 of nonemergency 
transportation planning at Yosemite Valley which is offset by 
rescission of clean coal technology funding;
  $5 million for development of the Legislative Information System in 
the Office of Secretary of the Senate which is transferred from other 
Senate appropriations.
  Let me say on that particular one, Mr. President, that I think the 
Legislative Information System in the Office of Secretary of the Senate 
is important. I do not think it qualifies as an emergency.
  Earmarks funds for highway projects, including $3.6 million for 2002 
Olympic planning in Utah;
  $1.95 million earmarked for Colorado to provide security for the 
Denver Summit of Eight;
  Set-aside of $12.3 million for discretionary authority to construct a 
parking garage, which I mentioned earlier;
  $3 million earmarked from the Justice Department counterterrorism 
fund for Ogden, UT, preparation for 2002 Winter Olympics.
  By the way, Mr. President, we are going to start totaling up how much 
Federal money is going to be spent on the Olympics in Utah. I would 
guess that it will match or exceed the amount of Federal dollars that 
were spent in Atlanta.
  Mr. President, I am proud that these Olympics are being held in the 
United States and that we win these competitions for having the 
Olympics held here in the United States of America. Mr. President, I 
think the taxpayers ought to know what the cost is to the taxpayers.
  Mr. President, I am reminded, as I look over this list, of the need 
for the line-item veto.
  This is another graphic example of why the line-item veto is 
necessary. These projects do not qualify as emergencies, yet they are 
placed in.
  For many years I have come down here and complained about this kind 
of activity. I don't think it does us any good, Mr. President, to do 
these things and call them emergency supplementals. What it does is 
provide grist for the talk show mill. It provides ammunition for those 
who believe we do not act in a responsible fashion. It makes it more 
difficult for us to go home and say that we are trying to be careful of 
every dollar we spend that the taxpayers so much care about--things 
like EPA to provide a Federal grant to Middlebury, VT, to complete a 
project in 1997;
  Direct expenditures for study of flood control mitigation at 
Lualualei Naval Magazine in Hawaii;
  Special emphasis on need for flood prevention efforts at Devils Lake 
and Ramsey County Rural Sewer System.

[[Page S4092]]

  We can't afford to do this. We are trying to embark on an effort to 
balance the budget by the year 2002. We are going to ask the American 
people to make sacrifices as we embark on this effort. There will be 
some reductions in spending.

  Yet, at the same time we are appropriating $250,000 to replace salmon 
fry killed during an April snowstorm in New England, and $1.1 million 
to complete fire restoration at Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  So the bill has grown, I am told, from around $4.4 billion to over $8 
billion. Much of that is necessary spending.
  Let me repeat again. In no way do I believe that we have any other 
obligation but to help those people who are victims of natural 
disasters. We have that obligation. It is a proper role of Government.
  If some of these projects that I mentioned are important and 
worthwhile projects, I believe they should be subject to the normal 
authorization and appropriations process. So my amendment would 
eliminate a few of those.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my intention, Mr. President, to move to table this 
amendment at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain, 
amendment numbered 107, and state that I am not here to oppose any of 
the emergency relief being put forward. I think that is important and I 
think it is appropriate.

  I also think we ought to pay for it as we go along. We are going to 
every year somewhere in this country have a disaster. Each year we do 
this and then we have a disaster and we do not pay for it and it adds 
to the deficit and we create this mortgage disaster for the country on 
a long-term basis. We really ought to pay for it. That is another 
separate debate.
  I am here to support this issue and this amendment in removing those 
items that are not emergency appropriations. I do not want to speak 
about the validity or the need to do any of these specific projects 
that are in here. I think that can rest for another day. But the 
question is, are these emergencies or not? Are they things that should 
appear in an emergency appropriations bill?
  I think Senator McCain has articulated very well the list that he has 
put forward in this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record that list that Senator McCain has been working on, and we 
have worked in support of his amendment, to put this in as a part of 
the Record that these may be good promises.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Objectionable Provisions in S. 672, Senate-Reported Fiscal Year 1997 
                    Supplemental Appropriations Bill


                             bill language

       P. 25: Makes costs of repairing Wapato irrigation project 
     nonreimbursable. [See report p. 22]
       P. 32: $15 million emergency funding for research on 
     environmental risk factors associated with breast cancer. 
     Report language lists Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New 
     Hampshire, New Jersey, Utah, New York, and California as 
     states which should be considered for ``competitive'' grants. 
     [See report p. 27]
       P. 36-37: $10 million earmarked for phase 2 of non-
     emergency transportation planning at Yosemite Valley (offset 
     by rescission of clean coal technology funding). [See report 
     p. 32]
       P. 37: $5 million for development of Legislative 
     Information System in the Office of the Secretary of the 
     Senate (transferred from other Senate appropriations). [See 
     report p. 33]
       P. 39-40: Earmarks of funds for highway projects, 
     including: $3.6 million for 2002 Olympics planning in Utah; 
     $450,000 for the ATR Institute to continue the Santa Teresa 
     border technologies project in New Mexico; additional funding 
     for Warrior Loop project in Alabama; $12.6 million to 
     complete the William H. Natcher Bridge in Maceo, Kentucky; 
     additional funding for Highway 17 Cooper River Bridges 
     replacement project in South Carolina; $100,000 for 86th 
     Street Highway Project in Polk County, Iowa; and 
     discretionary authority to spend additional funds to repair 
     or reconstruct any portion of Highway 1 in San Mateo, 
     California, that was destroyed in 1982-1983. [See report p. 
     34-35]
       P. 41: $1.95 million earmarked for Colorado to provide 
     security for Denver Summit of Eight (June 20-22) concurrently 
     with Oklahoma City bombing trial. [See report p. 35]
       P. 42: Set-aside of $12.3 million for discretionary 
     authority to construct parking garage at VA medical center in 
     Cleveland, Ohio. [See report p. 36]
       P. 42-43: Earmark of $500,000 from previously appropriated 
     funds for a parking garage in Ashland, Kentucky, to instead 
     restore the Paramount Theater in that city. [See report p. 
     36-37]
       P. 47: $3 million earmarked from Justice Department 
     Counterterrorism Fund for Ogden, Utah, preparation for 2002 
     Winter Olympics. [See report p. 41]


                            report language

       P. 8: Directs transfer of $11.2 million in F-15 program 
     contract savings to fund acquisition and installation of 
     High-Speed Anti-Radiation missile target systems on Air 
     National Guard F-16 aircraft.
       P. 13: $10.8 million for emergency expenses to repair 
     damage to fish hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest.
       P. 14: Directs Small Business Administration to provide 
     disaster loans for housing repair and replacement in Arkansas 
     even when no local building permit has been granted.
       P. 16: Special emphasis on need for flood prevention 
     efforts at Devils Lake and Ramsey County Rural Sewer System 
     in North Dakota.
       P. 17: Directs expenditures for study of flood control 
     mitigation at Lualualei Naval Magazine in Hawaii and flood 
     preparedness and warning plan for Reno, Nevada.
       P. 19: $250,000 to replace salmon fry killed during April 
     snowstorm in New England, and $1.1 million to complete fire 
     restoration at Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, 
     New Mexico.
       P. 21: Provides $9.5 million above request for Park Service 
     construction projects, allocated specifically for 8 parks for 
     which no funds were requested and increases funding for 5 
     other parks above requested amount.
       P. 22: Earmarks $486,000 for restoration of Markleeville 
     guard station in region 4 of the National Forest System 
     (Idaho, Nevada, California).
       P. 38: Directs EPA to provide Federal grant to Middlebury, 
     Vermont, to complete project in 1997.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. These projects may be worthwhile. They may be things 
that we should finance, even though we are over $5.4 trillion in debt. 
Maybe they are things we need to do, but they are not emergencies. This 
is an emergency supplemental. We should remove the name ``emergency'' 
from it if that is the case, and we are just going through on a regular 
supplemental proceedings bill.
  I know a lot of people worked very hard in putting these together. At 
the end of the day, I think as you go down Senator McCain's list and 
ask, is the $250,000 to replace salmon fry killed during an April 
snowstorm in New England, is that truly an emergency? Are some of the 
things he listed, spoke about, truly emergencies? I think one would 
have to conclude under any reasonable review of those that they are not 
emergencies. They may be things we ought to do, but they are not things 
we should do here. They are not things we should do in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the McCain amendment, to not table 
this issue, and pull these out and deal with these in the regular 
process in which they should dealt with.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to strongly 
oppose the McCain amendment to strike the funding designation for two 
items I have proposed to the legislation being considered, the Natcher 
Bridge and the grant redirection for the Paramount Theater in Ashland.
  The proponents of this amendment are wrong to characterize these two 
provisions as wasteful and unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that 
these are important projects to the communities of Owensboro and 
Ashland, KY. Elimination of these two provisions will not save a single 
dime. In fact, this amendment would unnecessarily waste more tax 
dollars.
  Mr. President, in 1992, a special purpose grant was included in the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill giving $1 million to the city of Ashland to 
construct a parking garage. City officials have studied this proposal 
further and determined that it would be more cost effective to purchase 
existing lots. This alternative will add more parking spaces overall 
and at a lower price. The city has requested that the remaining funds 
be used to restore a downtown landmark, the Paramount Theater.
  Now, if the McCain amendment passes, the city of Ashland would be 
left with a grant mandating that they build a parking garage that will 
yield fewer spaces at a greater cost. Mr. President, this makes no 
sense.

[[Page S4093]]

  Mr. President, this supplemental appropriations bill also provides 
for a long overdue funding correction in Federal-aid highway funding. 
This bill will provide Kentucky with $29.8 million to correct the 
funding shortfall. I was able to include language that directs the 
State of Kentucky to provide $12.6 million of the $29.8 million 
allocated for completion of the Natcher Bridge. This will ensure the 
completion of Natcher Bridge.
  Again, by striking the language, not one dime will be saved and the 
bridge will be left unfinished. Keep in mind every year this bridge is 
left unfinished the total cost of the project increases. So again, this 
amendment would waste scarce tax dollars and delay the completion of 
this important project.
  Mr. President, I believe the supporters of the amendment have 
mischaracterized this amendment and are doing a disservice to taxpayers 
and the citizens of Kentucky. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have to oppose the amendment of the 
Senator from Arizona.
  With regard to the funds for the Paramount Theater, for instance, in 
Kentucky, these are funds that were already made available for a 
parking garage there in the same area, and those funds are being 
reprogrammed to another project that is involved in the same area which 
is a historic landmark.
  We have another funding request here concerning the VA hospital. 
These funds were appropriated in 1997 for this project, but 
unfortunately the authorizing language was left out of the Veterans 
Housing Act. What we are doing is going through the act again and 
reappropriating it with authorizing legislation. That is a 
technicality, really.
  We do have the money, and there are highway funds allocated, in 
addition to those already allocated in Utah, that will be allocated for 
the planning and engineering design of projects for the Olympics. These 
are the Winter Olympics for 2002, a very historic thing to have 
Olympics in our country. Just as every country, we have to have special 
parking lots, special entrances, security involved in roads, streets, 
and highways in connection with the Winter Olympics. That is a noble 
use of funds for those projects. Of course, the highways and roads and 
parking lots are usable afterward. I do not argue about that. There is 
no question about the need for getting going now to allocate those 
funds for those highway projects that do meet the criteria of past 
allocations.
  We have a whole series of other problems that the Senator mentioned. 
I only say that some of them may be small disasters, such as the salmon 
problem which the Senator has mentioned. Others are items that we put 
in the bill because of the timeliness of the construction that is 
required.
  I will probably be making comments further tomorrow on other matters 
of the bill to try to explain some of these items. There are items here 
in several departments, and the Senator has pointed them out, that are 
not disaster related. That is why this is an emergency and supplemental 
appropriations bill. These amendments go to the supplemental portion, 
normal supplemental allocation of funds for items to be completed this 
year. These are moneys to be used in the remainder of fiscal year 1997.
  I am sad to say I do oppose the amendment of the Senator. I 
understand what he is doing. For the Senator's benefit, I hope he 
understands what I am saying. Senator McCain has become the chairman's 
large image on the wall, and I have to tell everyone that has an 
amendment that is presented to our committee in connection with 
supplementals or even annual bills, ``You better be sure we have the 
justification to get these by the Senator from Arizona because he is 
our watchdog.'' We need watchdogs and we appreciate them, but I have to 
say I will be glad to tell the Senator sometime about the 1,000 
amendments we did not approve. We had more than 1,000, I might add, 
suggested to our committee. These are the ones that survived.
  I defend what we have done, and under the circumstances, it would be 
my intent to table when the Senator is finished with his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think it is important to point out that the Senator 
from Alaska has been very cooperative and has been very helpful. I 
appreciate that. I also appreciate the various influences that the 
Senator is under. I appreciate his understanding. I look forward to 
working with him as we go through the process. He and I, I believe, 
along with the Senator from West Virginia, have a clear understanding 
of where they stand and where I stand, and that relationship is 
characterized by nothing but respect and, indeed, affection. I 
appreciate the Senator from Alaska and I do not intend to call for a 
recorded vote on the motion to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do ask that the amendment be tabled, and I move to 
table this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment No. 107.
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 107) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay it on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                   U.S. Courthouse in Montgomery, AL

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Rhode Island for his assistance with several issues affecting the U.S. 
courthouse to be constructed in Montgomery, AL. Last fall, $6 million 
was included in Public Law 104-208 to help offset cost escalations 
resulting from: An error made by GSA during its Time Out and Review 
exercise; inflation; required security upgrades; historic preservation; 
and, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning improvements.
  Because this supplemental project funding cannot be obligated by GSA 
without authorization by the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
I have worked closely with Senator Chafee and other members of the 
authorizing committee to secure their approval. Appropriately, Senator 
Chafee and others wanted to make sure that this additional funding 
would not cause the project in Montgomery to exceed the GSA 
benchmarking and project budgeting process. At my and Senator Chafee's 
request, GSA confirmed in a letter dated April 21, 1997, that this 
additional $6 million will not cause the Montgomery project to exceed 
its benchmark. That is, this additional funding is necessary for GSA to 
complete the very critical and basic features of a modern courthouse 
facility.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Alabama is correct. After numerous 
conversations with GSA officials, and after receiving the GSA letter my 
colleague referred to, I have confirmed that the $6 million included in 
last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act is necessary and appropriate for 
the courthouse project in Montgomery. Indeed, the additional $6 million 
will not cause this project to exceed its GSA benchmark cost. As such, 
I have no objection to GSA obligating these funds and encourage the 
agency to move expeditiously on this project.
  Mr. President, let me make it clear that absent the extraordinary 
circumstances faced by this project, I would insist upon authorizing 
the additional money through the committee resolution process, in 
accordance with the 1959 Public Buildings Act. As the Senator from 
Alabama mentioned at the outset, this project has already incurred cost 
increases as the result of delayed construction starts. A GSA budgeting 
error on Montgomery has yielded inflationary cost increases of $2.6 
million. In addition, the project recently suffered a bid bust which 
threatens to delay construction further unless additional funds are 
provided expeditiously. This project must proceed as soon as possible 
to prevent further wasteful expenses.
  Mr. SHELBY. I appreciate the Senator from Rhode Island's assistance 
on this matter and am thankful for his recognition of the special 
circumstances. As the former chairman of GSA's appropriations 
subcommittee, I am fully aware and supportive of the need to abide by 
national project cost standards.


                       agricultural credit issues

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, many farmers and ranchers in South Dakota 
have contacted me over the past few months to express their concerns 
with the eligibility requirements and availability of Department of 
Agriculture

[[Page S4094]]

disaster loans. I had hoped these could be addressed in the 
supplemental appropriation bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. I share the concerns of my colleague from South Dakota. 
Our States have witnessed the most devastating series of winter storms 
and spring flooding in memory. Our producers need help in rebuilding 
their farming and ranching operations. However, I am afraid the credit 
needs of many farm and ranch families are not being met.
  For example, some producers cannot access USDA's Emergency Disaster 
Loan Program, even though they have a qualifying disaster loss. Others, 
Native American tribes, do not have a loan program available to them to 
replace livestock lost during the disaster. I believe it is important 
that we give them an opportunity to rebuild their lives and 
livelihoods, by giving serious consideration to updating the programs.
  These are the reasons I filed amendments cosponsored by Senators 
Daschle, Conrad and Johnson.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am sensitive to the concerns expressed by 
my colleagues. At the same time, significant reforms were made to USDA 
lending programs by the 1996 FAIR Act. I want to maintain the integrity 
of these reforms, and therefore believe that any measures which would 
substantially alter the basic terms of the lending programs should be 
subject to review by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I support the amendments offered by my colleague from 
North Dakota but understand the concerns of the distinguished Senator 
from Indiana. Would my colleague from Indiana agree to a review by the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, of these and other 
disaster related credit issues affecting farmers and ranchers?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I believe that is a constructive idea. The 
committee will review not only the issues raised by the Senator from 
South Dakota and our other colleagues, but potentially also other 
issues relating to rural credit, including the effectiveness of certain 
USDA loan guarantee programs, an issue brought to my attention recently 
by several community bankers.
  Mr. DORGAN. While I would prefer to see passage of my amendments, I 
also understand the chairman's concern and will not offer them today. I 
would encourage the Senator from Indiana to move expeditiously. Rural 
Americans from our region need some help soon.


                 1997 DISASTER IN THE RED RIVER VALLEY

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, a good deal has been said about the 
terrible devastation in Minnesota in the Red River Valley and along the 
Minnesota River. When we visualize the disaster, we picture communities 
like Ada, Granite Falls, East Grand Forks, Montevideo, Breckenridge, 
Moorhead, and Warren submerged in river water. I have seen most of 
these communities first hand and have at once anguished over their loss 
and admired them for their courage. We tend to overlook some other 
folks in Minnesota who were equally devastated by the terrible floods 
that came so soon on the heels of a very long and blistering cold 
winter. We tend to overlook the same folks who, year-in and year-out, 
are charged with an enormous responsibility: feeding the world.
  It is estimated that over 3 million acres of prime farmland were 
under water at the height of the flooding. These are the same acres 
that Minnesota farmers use to produce much of the world's supply of 
potatoes, wheat, sugar, barley, corn, and soybeans. In short, without 
any exaggeration, this disaster upset the bread basket of the world.
  But, I am inexpressibly proud to report to my colleagues that it 
takes more than ``hell and high water,'' as the Grand Forks Herald put 
it, to keep Minnesota's farmers down. As a matter of fact, despite the 
absolutely staggering statistics--3 million acres under water, the loss 
of 2,300 farm homes, 2,500 farm buildings, 3,400 pieces of farm 
equipment, countless fences, 10,000 head of cattle, hogs, and sheep, 
130,000 poultry, 2.3 million pounds of milk, and 15 percent of 
Minnesota's stored crop--Minnesota farmers have not shrunk from their 
occupation, or indeed, their avocation. Minnesota farmers have not 
shrunk from their job of feeding the world. In fact, I want my 
colleagues here to know that within 1 week of this calamity, every 
farmer that could manage, was back in the field. Mr. President, when 
one reflects on all the adversity Minnesota farmers have experienced in 
recent years--highlighted by the drought of 1988, the floods of 1993, 
the harsh winter storms in 1996 and 1997, and now the flooding--it 
instills in me a solid respect for our Minnesota farmers who work 
through whatever Mother Nature throws at them--and sometimes even get 
the best of her.
  But, just like everyone else, even the hardiest of people need a hand 
from time to time. And, this is such a time. That is why I am pleased 
that the disaster relief we now consider provides some $18 million in 
additional emergency loan assistance and $77 million in emergency 
conservation cost-share dollars. I am also pleased this legislation, 
which I trust will have speedy consideration and passage, provides $50 
million for a livestock indemnity program to help livestock producers.
  Mr. President, on behalf of Minnesota farmers and ranchers, I am 
grateful for the commitment Congress and the President have made to 
those who guarantee America has the most abundant, most affordable, and 
most wholesome food supply in the world.

  Consistent with this commitment, I hope the administration, 
particularly the Department of Agriculture, will help our farmers 
through this difficult time. Specifically, in recent days, I have 
expressed to the Secretary of Agriculture my concern and the concern of 
many farmers and Farm Service Agency personnel in Minnesota over some 
very important matters. First, I am concerned the existing emergency 
loan assistance (ELA) Program may not assist all our disaster-stricken 
producers as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small 
Business Administration assist homeowners and businesses. Second, under 
current Federal Crop Insurance Corporation regulation, I am concerned 
that farmers may not be able to plant in time to ensure their crops are 
fully insured until fully harvested. And, third, I am concerned about 
many of our farmers who lost program or non-program crops in storage 
since these crops were largely uninsured. In the interest of equity for 
Minnesota's disaster-stricken farmers, I hope the Secretary will use 
his existing authorities to work with me to prevent these inequitable 
results.
  Mr. President, some time ago, Rudyard Kipling fondly wrote about the 
one who could:

       watch the things [he] gave [his] life to, broken, and stoop 
     and build 'em up with worn-out tools . . . [or] make one heap 
     of all [his] winnings, and risk it on one turn of pitch-and-
     toss, and lose, and start again at [his] beginnings, and 
     never breathe a word about [his] loss.

  I suspect Rudyard Kipling would have had a profound respect for 
Minnesota farmers.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill 
should allow the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] to spend 
additional funding on commercially available explosive detection 
systems for the Nation's airports, rather than for only one type of 
system as proposed by the House. The House bill provides an additional 
$40 million for the FAA to purchase this one system, while the Senate 
bill provides no additional funding. When the conference report returns 
to the Senate floor, however, we should make sure that any additional 
funding given to the FAA can be used to purchase whatever explosive 
detection equipment it believes will do the best job.
  The development and deployment of various devices that can detect 
explosives are a key component of the overall security for commercial 
aviation. Unfortunately, the House version of the supplemental 
appropriations bill does not move us in this direction because it 
earmarks additional funding for only one type of explosive detection 
system. This earmarking does not provide for a multilevel approach to 
security as recommended by the White House Commission on Aviation 
Safety and Security. In its recent report, the Commission suggested 
that various explosive detection systems should be implemented at the 
Nation's airports because each one has its strengths and weaknesses. 
The Commission also urged FAA to deploy commercially available systems 
while continuing to

[[Page S4095]]

develop, evaluate, and certify such equipment. Additionally, the 
General Accounting Office has criticized the FAA for ignoring a 
strategy more heavily focused on integrating several different 
procedures and technologies for detecting explosives. Explosive 
detection devices vary in their ability to detect the types, 
quantities, and shapes of explosives. For example, one device excels in 
its ability to detect certain explosive substances but not others. 
Other devices cannot detect explosives in certain shapes.
  The FAA believes that the greatest threat to aviation is explosives 
placed in checked baggage. It was an explosive placed in a checked bag 
that brought down Pan Am 103 more than 8 years ago with the loss of 270 
lives. In response to this tragedy, the Congress approved the Aviation 
Security Improvement Act of 1990. Among other things, the legislation 
directed the FAA to certify explosive detection equipment. It also 
established a goal of having new explosive detection equipment in place 
by November of 1993. The TWA Flight 800 accident last July, however, 
highlighted the fact that no new explosive detection devices had been 
deployed in the United States since the Pan Am bombing. Congress 
responded, in part, in the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 
by mandating that the FAA immediately deploy commercially available 
explosive detection equipment.
  The threat of terrorism against the United States has increased and 
aviation is, and will remain, an attractive terrorist target. The 
terrorist threat faced by the United States overseas has been with us 
for some time, as illustrated by the bombing in Saudi Arabia of the 
United States barracks. However, other incidents, such as the bombings 
of the World Trade Center in New York and the Federal building in 
Oklahoma City have also made terrorism an issue at home. In 1994, the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that the most important 
development concerning terrorism inside the United States was the 
emergence of radical terrorist groups with an infrastructure that can 
support terrorists' activities. That same year, the State Department 
reported an increase in attacks by radical fundamentalist groups, who 
operate more autonomously than state-sponsored, secular terrorist 
groups. Fundamentalist groups are more difficult to infiltrate. 
Consequently, it is difficult to predict and prevent their attacks.
  Given the potential for a terrorist act against aviation, explosive 
detection systems should be deployed as quickly as possible. As the 
General Accounting Office reported in January 1994, terrorists' 
activities are continually evolving and present unique challenges to 
the FAA and law enforcement agencies. The bombing of Philippines 
Airlines Flight 434 in December 1994, which resulted in the death of 
one passenger and injuries to several others, illustrates the extent of 
terrorists' motivation and capabilities as well as the attractiveness 
of aviation as a target. According to information that was uncovered by 
accident in early January 1995, this bombing was a rehearsal for 
multiple attacks on specific United States flights in Asia.
  Today, various explosive detection devices are commercially available 
for checked and carry-on baggage and could improve security. Some of 
these devices are already being used in foreign countries such as the 
United Kingdom and Israel. Other devices are under development and may 
soon be available. We must untie the FAA's hand and allow them to 
dedicate additional resources to the technologies they believe would be 
the most effective in detecting explosives. To see that this occurs as 
quickly as possible, any additional funding appropriated by the 
Congress should be available to purchase commercially available 
explosive detection devices. By taking such action we can move toward 
deploying the best systems for the Nation's airports.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to thank 
Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and 
Senator Harry Reid, the ranking member for the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water Development, for their help in obtaining the Senate's 
unanimous consent for an amendment I had requested to the disaster 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  The Senate on Tuesday accepted the amendment offered by Senator 
Stevens for Senator Reid that would allow the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers to conduct emergency dredging and snagging and clearing of 
the San Joaquin River, CA, as well as the Truckee River, NV, channels. 
Funding for this operation would be obtained from available balances 
from the $137 million appropriated by the Senate for operations and 
maintenance for corps navigation projects.
  I had previously requested $10 million for this operation for about 
20 sites along the San Joaquin River, which filled with debris and 
sediment from the January 1997 floods in California. As a result of 
this flooding, the capacity of the San Joaquin was severely diminished 
and poses a threat of continued flooding before the flood season is 
over. The scope of this debris and fill was not evident until the river 
flows had receded. At that point, however, the emergency authority for 
corps' clearing operations had passed.
  The hazard to navigation and to flooding posed by the debris fill is 
now quite obvious. What is less obvious is the obstruction that the 
deposited debris and sediment created to the migration and passage of 
anadramous and other fish, some of which are federally listed as 
endangered or threatened.
  I appreciate Senators Stevens' and Reid's help on this amendment and 
urge their continued support for this provision when we conference with 
the House.


             funding for u.s. arrears to the united nations

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a provision in the fiscal 
year 1997 supplemental appropriations bill which has received little 
attention so far, but would fund $100 million to begin paying U.S. 
arrears to the United Nations.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations, I 
believe U.N. reform should be one of Congress' top foreign policy 
priorities this year. I know that this view is shared by the Republican 
leadership and other influential Members in both the House and Senate.
  There is general consensus among Republicans, and, perhaps, even some 
agreement among Democrats, that the only way to get real reforms 
enacted at the United Nations is by linking the payment of U.S. 
arrears, in legislation, to their achievement. The appropriation of 
$100 million in fiscal year 1997, which is even earlier than the 
administration had requested, for a down payment on U.S. arrears 
demonstrates congressional seriousness on this issue.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Stevens, and Senator Gregg, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, for working so closely with 
the Foreign Relations Committee on this provision.
  In the past, there has not always been such a cooperative spirit 
between the authorizing and appropriating committees on funding for 
foreign affairs and, therefore, I very much appreciate the efforts that 
Senators Stevens and Gregg have made to consult with those of us on the 
Foreign Relations Committee.
  Indeed, I am supporting this fiscal year 1997 appropriation to pay 
U.S. arrears because the bill specifically states that such funding 
must be subsequently authorized. The language reads that ``none of the 
funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for payment 
of U.S. arrearages to the United Nations may be obligated or expended 
unless such obligation or expenditure is expressly authorized by the 
enactment of a subsequent act.''
  This language explicitly reinforces the role of the Foreign Relations 
Committee in authorizing or approving any funding for U.S. arrears. 
Therefore, let me make absolutely clear what I believe must happen 
before this $100 million appropriation for fiscal year 1997 can be 
expended.
  First, as I stated earlier, any legislation authorizing payment of 
U.S. arrears must condition such payment on the achievement of 
specific, meaningful U.N. reforms.
  Second, legislation authorizing any payment of U.S. arrears must be a 
comprehensive, multiyear plan. I would not support a 1-year 
authorization bill, which would simply allow the $100 million 
appropriated in fiscal year 1997 to be expended, but would fail to 
outline a

[[Page S4096]]

longer-term vision for how this issue should be addressed.
  U.S. arrears provide crucial and unique leverage that can help 
encourage the United Nations and its member states to finally enact 
budget, personnel, and structural changes that will have a lasting, 
positive impact on how the United Nations functions. We should not 
squander or dilute this leverage by failing to enact comprehensive 
legislation that lays out exactly what the United States expects from 
the United Nations in exchange for almost $1 billion.
  Republicans have developed and proposed a 5-year plan to repay all 
legitimate arrears to the United Nations as long as specified reforms 
are achieved. This 5-year plan is fiscally responsible because it gives 
Congress a reasonable opportunity to find funding for U.S. arrears 
within the international affairs budget, known as the 150 account. It 
is sensible because it gives the United Nations a realistic timetable 
for enacting some of the more difficult reforms. And it is accountable 
to the American taxpayers by ensuring that the dollars the United 
States sends to the United Nations will go toward a more efficient 
organization.
  Just last year, President Clinton proposed a 5-year repayment plan 
for U.S. arrears. But this year, the administration has declined to 
support our responsible approach and, instead, insisted that it wants 
all arrears paid in full by the end of fiscal year 1999.
  As part of this request, the administration asked that Congress 
provide $100 million for arrears in fiscal year 1998 to give it 
diplomatic leverage in negotiating U.N. reforms. With the provision in 
S. 672, Congress has indicated that it is willing to begin paying back 
arrears even sooner, provided that an authorization bill is enacted and 
provided that the United Nations meets the reform conditions stipulated 
in that bill for the release of arrears in fiscal year 1997.
  Mr. President, in the next few weeks, the Foreign Relations Committee 
will be moving toward its markup of the fiscal year 1998-99 State 
Department authorization bill. Included in that bill will be our 5-year 
plan for paying U.S. arrears in exchange for U.N. reforms. If the 
administration wishes to have funding available to pay arrears in 
fiscal year 1997 or in future years, it would do well to give this 
legislation more serious consideration and embrace its commonsense 
provisions to advance meaningful reform at the United Nations.
  Mr. STEVENS. I cannot announce there will be no more votes, but it is 
not our intention to call upon amendments that would require votes 
tonight. We do expect to start very early in the morning and have a 
vote at approximately 10 o'clock in the morning on one amendment and 
then a period of debate on Senator Byrd's amendment to strike the 
continuing resolution proposal in the supplemental emergency bill. We 
will have a vote on that. It is our intention to finish this bill 
tomorrow evening.
  I might say to Senators who have amendments, I urge them to come and 
present their amendments and try to work out, to the extent we can, 
time agreements on obtaining time tomorrow. It will be very much in 
short supply, Mr. President. We are going to move to go to third 
reading at or around 6 o'clock. I say that again: We are going to move 
to go to third reading at or around 6 o'clock if that is 
parliamentarily possible at that time. I think it will be.


                           Amendment No. 169

 (Purpose: To increase the number of units available for FHA insurance 
    under the HUD/State Housing Finance Agency Risk-Sharing program)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 169 to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. For the purposes of the remaining amendments, I ask the 
Reid amendment not come before the Senate before tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bond, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. D'Amato, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 169.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In Title III, Chapter 10, add the following new section:
       Sec.   . The first sentence of section 542(c)(4) of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 is amended by 
     striking out ``on not more than 12,000 units during fiscal 
     year 1996'' and inserting in lieu thereof: ``on not more than 
     12,000 units during fiscal year 1996 and not more than an 
     additional 7,500 units during fiscal year 1997.''.

  Mr. STEVENS. This is to increase the number of units available for 
FHA under the HUD/State Housing Finance Agency Risk-Sharing Program. It 
is a matter that deals with adding units for 1997.
  It is cosponsored by, as I understand it, by Senators Sarbanes, 
D'Amato and Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 169) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay it on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 232, 233, and 234, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three 
amendments on behalf of Senator Conrad be considered and agreed to en 
bloc. I am going to send those amendments to the desk in a minute. 
These amendments have been cleared by the chairman and ranking member 
of the subcommittee. They provide additional emergency disaster funding 
for farm operating loans and flood plain easements and offset these 
additional amounts.
  I send these three amendments to the desk and ask they be considered 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] for Mr. Conrad, 
     proposes amendments Nos. 232, 233 and 234, en bloc.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 232, 233, and 234), en bloc, are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 232

 (Purpose: To make an additional $10,000,000 available for the cost of 
 subsidized guaranteed farm operating loans under Title II, Chapter 1)

       On page 9, line 21, strike ``emergency insured'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``direct and guaranteed''.
       On page 9, line 25, strike ``$18,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$28,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $18,000,000 shall be available for emergency insured loans 
     and $10,000,000 shall be available for subsidized guaranteed 
     operating loans''.
       On page 10, line 3, strike ``$18,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$28,000,000''.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 233

 (Purpose: To reduce funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program 
commodity purchases to offset emergency disaster funding for subsidized 
guaranteed farm operating loans and additional funding for flood plain 
                               easements)

       On page 74, between lines 4 and 5, insert:


                       Food and Consumer Service

                 The Emergency Food Assistance Program

       Notwithstanding section 27(a) of the Food Stamp Act, the 
     amount specified for allocation under such section for fiscal 
     year 1997 shall be $80,000,000.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 234

       On page 13, line 1, strike ``$161,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$171,000,000''.
       On page 13, line 15, strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$20,000,000''.

  Mr. STEVENS. They are, as I said, necessary to assure that funding 
during a disaster period now on emergency basis are available for farm 
operating loans and flood plain easements and the offsets for those 
amounts that are necessary.
  I ask the amendments be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.

[[Page S4097]]

  The amendments (No. 232, 233, and 234), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            interior portion

  Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to engage my colleague Senator Gorton, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, in a 
colloquy on the Interior portion of the bill.
  Mr. GORTON. I am happy to do so.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As the Senator knows, the Dakotas and many upper 
Midwestern States were battered by a series of storms this winter and 
spring. Many of the States affected by weather-related emergencies are 
still battling and will not have a complete or accurate assessment of 
the damage until later this spring. Indian tribes, many of which live 
in remote areas, are among those whose communities suffer most in this 
kind of disaster.
  Mr. GORTON. I fully appreciate the sentiments of the Senator from 
South Dakota. The President's request for emergency funding for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs is $10,800,000. The Appropriation Committee's 
recommendation, based on updated information about the costs associated 
with these storms, is $20,566,000. Of the additional amount included in 
the committee-reported bill, $1,059,000 is directly attributable to the 
efforts of Senator Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I want to thank the committee for adding $1,059,000 to 
the supplemental spending bill for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I am 
particularly grateful to the efforts of Senators Gorton, Stevens and 
Byrd in working to ensure sufficient funding in this bill to mitigate 
the impacts of this year's weather disasters on so many tribes, 
including those in South Dakota. It is my hope that of the funds 
appropriated in the bill for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau 
will consider the additional needs of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
for welfare assistance costs, the Mni Sose Intertribal Water Rights 
Coalition to support their work in helping the tribes of my region 
obtain disaster assistance, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe for snow 
removal, and the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe for snow removal.
  Mr. GORTON. I agree that the Bureau should consider the additional 
needs you have identified in distributing the funds provided.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Since the markup, I have received a request for an 
additional $1,200,000 for emergency assistance for the Crow Creek Sioux 
Tribe in South Dakota. The Crow Creek community of Fort Thompson 
suffered damages that require road repairs, monitoring and cleanup of 
sewage, repairs to the tribal administration building, and repair to 
the irrigation pump on the tribal farm. Is it the chairman's belief 
that these repairs can be accomplished within the funding provided?
  Mr. GORTON. Within the $20,566,000 provided for the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, an estimated $4,736,000 has been identified for emergency 
needs in South Dakota, including emergency assistance for the Crow 
Creek Sioux. In distributing these amounts, I agree that the Bureau 
should take into consideration additional needs, including those of the 
Crow Creek Sioux, to the extent that Bureau policy regarding historical 
priorities for funding Indian roads, tribal administration buildings 
and irrigation projects is met. In addition, the Bureau must consider 
the availability of funding through other Federal agencies, including 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Highway 
Administration's emergency road program [ERFO].
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I concur with the Subcommittee Chairman that 
the Bureau should give consideration to the additional requirements 
identified by the Crow Creek Sioux tribe, as well as other tribes. The 
funds provided are to address the most critical health and safety and 
emergency response needs associated with the disasters. If the 
additional emergency appropriations are not sufficient to address all 
requests from all tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs will have to 
prioritize the requests, but they are encouraged to consider the 
particular needs in South Dakota.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 59

                     (Purpose: To strike title VII)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to call up amendment No. 59.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 59.
       On page 81, beginning with line 1, strike all through page 
     85, line 9.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the very last sections of this bill, title 
VII, beginning on page 81, line 1, through page 85, line 9, contains 
language which its proponents call the Government Shutdown Prevention 
Act. I believe it could be more aptly dubbed the Adequate Oversight 
Prevention Act. During a committee markup of this emergency disaster 
assistance bill, after considerable debate, my motion to strike this 
proposal was defeated by a party line vote of 13 yeas to 15 nays.
  The language of title VII is the same language as is contained in S. 
47, which was introduced some weeks ago by Senators McCain, Hutchison, 
Stevens, and others. The provisions provide that if any of the 13 
regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 1998 do not become law 
prior to the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1, there will be 
an automatic appropriation for each such program, project or activity 
contained in that bill at the arbitrary rate of 98 percent of the 
funding that was provided for the program, project or activity in the 
corresponding regular appropriations act for fiscal year 1997. This 
level of funding would continue for each appropriation bill for the 
entirety of fiscal year 1998, unless another continuing resolution or a 
separate appropriation bill is enacted into law to replace it.
  If these provisions were in effect for the entire fiscal year for all 
13 regular appropriations bills, the effect could be cuts totaling $35 
billion, or 7 percent below President Clinton's discretionary budget 
request. This level of cuts would cause severe devastation to worthy 
national efforts in law enforcement, education, transportation and 
transportation safety, Health and Human Services, and a host of other 
programs throughout the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, I am especially concerned about the impact that this 
so-called Government Shutdown Prevention Act would have on our law 
enforcement agencies and the Federal courts. For these agencies, this 
proposal would, in fact, be a shutdown bill. It would itself be a 
severe setback in the war on crime and illegal narcotics. We finally 
have seen positive results from our efforts to bolster the Justice and 
Treasury Departments and our anticrime programs. The Bureau of Justice 
Statistics' most recent crime reports show that we are finally turning 
the corner on violent crime in America. They report a decline of 12.8 
percent in violent crime--rape, robbery and assault. There is far too 
much crime in America. But we are starting to win the war, we hope. We 
should be enhancing our efforts, as the President's budget proposes. 
Instead, this shutdown proposal would hurt our law enforcement 
agencies, our men and women in uniform, as much as any terrorist or 
Mexican drug cartel or gang or organized crime figure could hope to. It 
would cause an about-face and undercut Federal law enforcement right in 
the midst of battle.
  Let us look briefly at what this shutdown proposal would mean to 
specific Federal law enforcement agencies. These are conservative 
estimates that were supplied by the agencies themselves.
  This proposal would cut the Federal Bureau of Investigation by $261 
million below the President's budget request. It would eliminate at 
least 2,281 positions, including 965 FBI agents and 1,316 support 
staff. Reductions would

[[Page S4098]]

include 199 agents that investigate domestic terrorism and 175 agents 
that develop capabilities to counter the threat from chemical, 
biological, and nuclear materials. We have been adding positions to the 
FBI to deal with terrorist acts like the bombings in Oklahoma City and 
at the Atlanta Olympics. This would reverse the gains that we have made 
in mobilizing a Federal response to domestic and international 
terrorism.
  Funding would not be available to complete the new FBI laboratory at 
Quantico, VA. We are all concerned with reports of problems in the 
operations of the current laboratory at headquarters. The FBI must have 
state-of-the-art facilities and continue to be the world's premier law 
enforcement forensic laboratory. We need to complete this $130 million 
laboratory, which is so important to Federal, State and local law 
enforcement.
  Funding would not be available to continue the telephone carrier 
compliance effort called for under the Communications Assistance For 
Law Enforcement Act. All Senators know just how rapidly the 
telecommunications industry is changing. Telephones are now portable, 
and they are adopting digital technologies. Without funding for 
retrofitting telephone switches, we will be unable to conduct court-
ordered wiretaps of drug dealers and organized crime and national 
security threats. This shutdown proposal would cut the Drug Enforcement 
Administration by $106 million. It would require the DEA to absorb $36 
million in must-pay bills for cost-of-living adjustments, inflation and 
contract costs. It would force DEA to stop hiring agents, and we would 
not be able to provide for the 168 new special agents that are proposed 
in the President's budget.
  DEA would have to cut back, rather than increase, its efforts to 
combat methamphetamine, or ``meth,'' as it is known, and drug 
trafficking in cocaine and heroin by the Colombian and Mexican cartels. 
DEA estimates that this bill would require a reduction in force of up 
to 263 special agents. It would stop dead in the water DEA's efforts to 
expand mobile enforcement teams that sweep through rural communities to 
weed out drug dealers. And it would severely set back our efforts to 
combat illegal narcotics on the southwest border, in Texas, California, 
New Mexico and Arizona.

  This shutdown proposal would strike a blow against our efforts to 
make American borders secure against illegal immigration and drug 
smuggling. It would devastate the Customs Service and the Department of 
the Treasury and the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the 
Department of Justice. The proposal would cut $64 million and 201 
agents from the U.S. Customs Service. It would result in reductions in 
antismuggling and drug-interdiction efforts, efforts that are important 
in keeping American borders safe and secure.
  But reductions in staffing are only one component of keeping the 
borders secure. The reduction would also delay acquisition of high-
energy detection systems and eliminate funding for border passenger 
processing systems. These systems identify attempts to smuggle illegal 
chemicals, refrigerants, and illegal aliens across the border. The 
reduction would also delay funding for the automated targeting system, 
which increases Customs' capability to conduct intensive border 
inspection.
  This proposal would destroy the progress that we have made in 
building up the capability of the Border Patrol and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. These efforts really started with hearings on 
illegal immigration that I held in 1994 when I served as chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee. The INS advises that this bill would 
require the reduction of $385 million and would severely impact major 
enforcement programs such as detention and deportation, investigations, 
work site enforcement, and the apprehension of illegal aliens. This 
bill would stop dead in their tracks our efforts to build up the Border 
Patrol by 1,000 agents per year. We just reaffirmed this commitment in 
last year's immigration bill. The Border Patrol and INS advise that if 
they have to operate at 2 percent below current levels during fiscal 
year 1998, they will have to eliminate at least 1,671 personnel that 
were added just this year.
  One of the real success stories in Federal law enforcement has been 
our Bureau of Prisons. We are putting away more criminals under lock 
and key and keeping them away from the public for longer periods. I 
fear that this shutdown bill would reverse this progress. The prison 
system advises us that this bill would require a reduction of $119 
million from the President's budget request. They would be unable to 
activate a new medium security prison in Beaumont, TX. There would be 
no funds for the annualization costs of six new prisons scheduled for 
activation this year, resulting in the loss of more than 7,300 beds. We 
have been funding new construction. Now we need to have the money to 
staff and operate these institutions. Overcrowding would increase to 23 
percent for the overall Federal prison system, rather than the planned 
goal of 12 percent for fiscal year 1998. Of course, we have learned 
that overcrowding is unsafe and often leads to institutional 
disturbances. Mr. President, we should not and we must not risk the 
safety of our dedicated correctional officers who serve in the Federal 
prisons throughout this country.
  This shutdown proposal would require the reduction of $110 million 
and at least 280 personnel at the U.S. attorney offices across the 
country. This would impact our ability to prosecute violent criminals 
and criminal aliens. In case after case, from the current Oklahoma City 
bombing case in Denver to the World Trade Center bombing case, we turn 
to dedicated assistant U.S. attorneys to represent the people of the 
United States. All our investigations by the FBI, DEA and other 
agencies will come to naught; our investigations of the Mafia, drug 
traffickers, terrorists and violent criminals will be meaningless if we 
cannot rely on our prosecutors to fight in court and gain a conviction 
for these criminals. This provision would reduce prosecutors, increase 
caseloads, and delay prosecution.
  This is a bad idea. This proposal would force the U.S. marshals to 
eliminate 61 positions hired in fiscal year 1997. The marshals are 
responsible for custody of presentenced Federal prisoners, finding 
fugitives, administering the court security program, and protection of 
Federal judges. They have advised us that with this reduction of $28 
million, they would be unable to complete security improvements and 
projects at prisoner transportation holding areas. Since Oklahoma City, 
we have tried to build up court security with equipment and security 
guards, and we must not let down our guard.
  I would be remiss if I did not discuss this proposal's impact on the 
Federal judiciary, our third branch of the Government. In short, the 
impact would be devastating. It would require a reduction of $425 
million from the budget request for the courts. It would require the 
reduction of over 3,500 positions. The judiciary estimates that 
appellate and district courts would be reduced by almost 1,200 
positions. There would be reduced staff in courtrooms for filings, 
motions, pleadings and scheduling of cases. The bankruptcy court's 
clerk's offices would be forced to eliminate approximately 1,000 
clerks. This reduction would increase the backlog in issuing 
discharges, closing cases and processing claims. Probation and pretrial 
services would be reduced by approximately 1,330 positions. The 
supervision of offenders and defendants would be cut in half. Panel 
attorney payments would have to be suspended as early as July 1998. Mr. 
President, what we are talking about is failing to provide for basic 
constitutional rights like the right to be represented by counsel.
  For education, the effects of full-year funding for 1998 at 98 
percent of 1997 levels would also do great harm. College aid would be 
cut by $1.8 billion, 400,000 students would lose Pell grants, 52,000 
children would be cut from Head Start, and aid to 2,000 local school 
districts would be cut.
  For Health and Human Services, dramatic cuts would occur to the NIH, 
Ryan White and the Indian Health Service and, moreover, WIC would serve 
several hundred thousand fewer women, infants and children in 1998, and 
the Veterans Administration would have to deny care to 200,000 
veterans.
  In the area of transportation safety, the FAA would be unable to hire 
the

[[Page S4099]]

additional 500 air traffic controllers, 325 flight inspection and 
certification personnel and 173 security staff included in the 1998 
budget.
  Why anyone would think that enacting such a measure is a good idea is 
beyond me. Should we fail to enact one of the 13 bills, this so-called 
automatic measure would go into effect for up to 1 year, making 
mindless cuts in many beneficial programs like the ones I have 
mentioned, and yet all the while continuing funding in other programs 
that may have been slated for elimination because they are no longer 
needed.
  This is mindless legislating. It is very much like saying because we 
have missed the deadline for the budget resolution, which we have by 
more than 2 weeks this year already, we should enact legislation which 
says we will just use last year's budget resolution minus 2 percent 
across the board and get on with our business.
  Furthermore, the same delayed budget resolution has made it highly 
likely the Senate will be unable to pass all of the appropriations 
bills in a timely fashion and, therefore, highly likely that this 
automatic provision will be used. This is not to mention the obvious 
possible misuse of the automatic provision which could be employed by 
the majority if it were intent on cutting certain programs and could 
not get the minority or the President to go along. All that has to 
occur is for an appropriations bill to conveniently bog down beyond 
October 1, and the cuts I have previously mentioned could very 
magically occur without further consideration by the Appropriations 
Committee and without any further vote by the Senate.
  I appreciate the ingenuity and the political acuity demonstrated by 
the authors of this device, but I would like to remind us all that 
making political trump cards on an emergency disaster bill may not be 
appreciated by the American people, especially the disaster victims who 
are waiting for our help.
  It should be obvious to everyone that this is some kind of political 
ploy, else the attempt would not be made to attach it to a bill the 
President naturally would find very difficult to veto. In fact, if one 
can believe what one reads in the press, the reasons for this proposal 
are set out rather starkly in an article which appeared in the April 
18, 1997 issue of a publication called Inside the New Congress. That 
publication discusses this so-called automatic CR provision under a 
heading entitled ``Automatic PR.''
  Mr. President, I will continue my statement in support of my 
amendment on tomorrow. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the concern of the Senator 
from West Virginia. I hope that he will then understand why the Senator 
from Texas, Senator Hutchison, and I have an amendment to raise the 
spending to a full 100 percent of the previous year rather than 98 
percent, rather than force the impact that the Senator from West 
Virginia, as always, so eloquently described. So, therefore, I hope 
that the Senator from West Virginia will have no objection to a 
unanimous-consent request to lay aside his amendment so I can bring up 
my amendment, No. 112, which calls for 100 percent funding at the 
previous year's level and, that way, I hope that most of the concerns 
that the Senator from West Virginia has will be allayed and he then, of 
course, hopes that many of his concerns he voiced will be addressed.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending 
amendment and call up amendment No. 112.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object for the time being. It might not be 
that on tomorrow morning I will have objection. I am not sure. I would 
just like----
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, if he will 
yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I, of course, will have to make a motion to table the 
amendment of the Senator from West Virginia and ask for an immediate 
vote, because I believe that it is only fair to raise the spending 
level to 100 percent. I think that it is important for us to do that. I 
think the Senator from West Virginia, or his staff, knew that Senator 
Hutchison and I had planned on doing that when the original schedule 
was we were going to bring up his amendment and ours tomorrow morning.
  So I hope that the Senator from West Virginia will agree to allow our 
amendment for 100 percent funding to be considered and his amendment be 
laid aside.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I say, I might not object tomorrow 
morning, but as of now, I would like to object and give the matter a 
little thought.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Arizona 
has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to talk for quite a while on the 
issue and hope that perhaps sometime this evening the Senator from West 
Virginia will find it agreeable to raise the spending level, which is a 
very important part of this legislation, to 100 percent.
  Frankly, I do not understand the rationale of why we cannot go ahead 
and just have that done and move forward with the debate on the issue 
itself. The issue itself is whether we are going to subject the 
American people, citizens, both Federal workers and non-Federal 
workers, to the hardship and the incredible discomfort and sometimes 
the wrecking of entire lives as a result of a shutdown of the 
Government.
  In 1995, there were thousands of people in my State, non-Federal 
workers--non-Federal workers--who, unfortunately, were dislocated 
because of the shutdown of the Government and, therefore, not allowed 
to ever recover as the Federal workers were.
  Some people have questioned what we are trying to do here and why. 
Perhaps their memories are not as good as mine as to the impact on my 
State and the Nation. I received this information from the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  The National Park Service facilities were closed. On an average day, 
383,000 people visit National Park Service facilities. Potential per 
day losses for businesses in communities adjacent to national parks 
could reach $14 million due to reduced recreational tourism.
  As a result of the closing of Yosemite National Park, Mariposa County 
declared a state of emergency and asked Governor Wilson of California 
to declare the county an economic disaster area and, therefore, 
eligible for State aid.
  Access to and use of national forests was restricted. The Forest 
Service-operated campgrounds, monuments and visitor centers were closed 
in the 155 national forests. No timber sales activities, including 
preparation, advertising and award of sales, occurred. Harvesting 
continued for sales awarded prior to the shutdown.
  FHA mortgages and housing vouchers were halted. On an average day, 
the Federal Housing Administration processes 2,500 home purchase loans 
and refinancing totaling $230 million worth of mortgage loans for 
moderate- and low-income working families nationwide.
  Last January of 1996, HUD was unable to renew 49,000 vouchers and 
other section 8 rental subsidies for low- and moderate-income 
households, which could have led to the eviction of those families.
  Applications for passports were not processed. Foreign visitors were 
unable to obtain visas. On an average day, the State Department 
receives 23,000 applications for passports. On an average day, the 
State Department issues 20,000 visas to visitors, who spend an average 
of $3,000 on their trips, for a total of $60 million. Foreign students 
studying in the United States and home for the holidays were unable to 
obtain visas to return to the United States for their classes.
  Veterans' benefits were not delivered. When the continuing resolution 
provided funding for certain benefits and payments, it expired and 
consequently contractors providing services and supplies to hospitals 
were not paid and benefits for January were not paid in February.
  In addition, approximately 170,000 veterans did not receive their 
December Montgomery GI bill education benefits and did not receive 
benefits in January. Funding had lapsed for processing veterans' 
claims, for rehabilitation counseling, and veterans were unable to 
obtain VA guaranteed home loans.

[[Page S4100]]

  Programs for the elderly were at risk. Some 600,000 elderly Americans 
faced the loss of Meals on Wheels, transportation, and personal care 
provided by the Health and Human Services Administration on Aging 
because the continuing resolution was not passed.
  Contractors that handled Medicare claims were not paid. Approximately 
24,000 contracting employees were involved in paying Medicare claims 
which averages about $3.5 billion per week, and most had to self-
finance payrolls and other expenses or stop their activities. Federal 
funds to States for Medicaid were limited and will be limited in the 
case of another shutdown. In December 22 States received only 40 
percent of the estimated quarterly payment for Medicaid. Without 
further action, the Federal match for Medicaid and its 36 million 
beneficiaries, including 18 million children, would have run out in 
late January.
  Mr. President, I intend to talk more about the impact of the shutdown 
last time and the potential impact this time of a shutdown.
  Let me just say that in some quarters, the Congress of the United 
States is not held in the highest esteem. When we shut down the 
Government because of our failure to agree with the President of the 
United States, that esteem plummets even further. What we did to the 
American people, average citizens who had no control over the 
situation, in December of 1995, is unconscionable and should not and 
cannot be repeated.
  The whole purpose of what Senator Hutchison and I are trying to do, 
with the able leadership and assistance of the Senator from Alaska, is 
to make sure it does not happen again. We cannot let this kind of thing 
happen again. Too many innocent lives are injured and harmed 
permanently.
  I understand the very eloquent statement of the Senator from West 
Virginia about what a shutdown would do at 98 percent. That is why the 
Senator from Texas and I are willing to raise it to 100 percent of the 
previous year's funding. Every program will be funded at the previous 
year's funding level until such time as there is agreement.
  Mr. President, there are many other arguments that have been made 
against this shutdown-of-the-Government provision, one of them being 
perhaps there would be no incentive for the executive branch and 
legislative branch to agree on an appropriations bill.
  We all know that there are many, many issues addressed in 
appropriations bills, far more than I would like, many of which I have 
complained about from time to time. There are policy changes, if I may 
be so crass, a great deal of earmarked spending which I have objected 
to from time to time.
  It is still clearly in the interest for there to be an agreement. And 
it is still clearly in our interest to work together with the President 
of the United States. But, Mr. President, the option of such 
irresponsible behavior on the part of both branches that we would shut 
down the Government again is not thinkable and inexcusable, and I will 
not be a party--I will not be a party--to a situation again where the 
citizens of my State, who I am responsible for, when I have that 
responsibility will suffer as they did.
  I note that the Senator from Wyoming is in the chair as the Presiding 
Officer. He knows the devastation that was wreaked in the national 
park--I believe Grand Teton in Jackson Hole--when the national park was 
shut down. We cannot have that repetition, and will not. And I would 
hope that the administration would continue to negotiate with us so we 
can avoid this and at the same time come to an agreement where we can 
prevent a future shutdown of the Government.
  I would hope that the Senator from West Virginia would change his 
mind and agree to setting aside his amendment so that we may take up 
the 100 percent funding. And I intend to make that motion in a very 
short time again.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from 
Arizona for his leadership in this area, because actually the Senator 
from Arizona and I have talked about this ever since the Government 
shutdown and then last year when we did not have a shutdown, but it 
really was not the normal course of negotiations when you get toward 
that September 30 deadline.
  We have a freestanding bill that will in fact take care of the needs 
of Government after September 30, if we do not have an appropriations 
agreement. But then when we started looking at the fact that this is 
the supplemental appropriations bill, the first bill that has really 
hit the floor from the Appropriations Committee--it is May--if we 
waited much later than this I think perhaps agencies could say, ``Well, 
but we can't plan.''
  I think it is important that the Federal agencies know exactly what 
is going to happen. I think it is important that we lay the groundwork 
in the first bill that we have on the floor in May before the September 
30 deadline of how the process of appropriations is really going to 
work.
  So that is why Senator McCain and I introduced this, which we 
actually thought and hoped would have bipartisan support. We thought 
that if we did something that would say this is the way we are going to 
do it, if we put it on the table, that everybody would agree, because 
clearly no one wants to shut down Government. The President certainly 
does not. I am sure the distinguished minority leader from North Dakota 
does not. I am sure that Senator Byrd from West Virginia would not want 
to shut down the Government, and neither do any of us.
  So what we are trying to do is say, how can we accomplish this in an 
orderly way? Senator McCain and I and Senator Lott and Senator Stevens 
believe that this is the time to do it, so that we are not talking in 
the heat of a negotiation that is not going well on September the 29th 
of this year. What we are saying is we are going to run Government 
responsibly.
  We had 98 percent of the 1997 expenditure level. Since that original 
amendment was filed, there has been a budget agreement. There has been 
a budget agreement between the President and Congress that has yet to 
pass Congress but nevertheless it is laying some parameters of higher 
spending levels going into 1998. But what we do not have is exactly 
what the policy is going to be in that 1998 level of expenditure. So 
there still is going to be negotiation about where the appropriations 
go within an agency's budget and what the policies might be.
  So it is very important that we continue to work on making sure that 
we do not have a Government shutdown because there may be legitimate 
disagreements that cannot be solved by September 30. Of course, we hope 
they will be solved, but we all have seen that many times this has not 
happened because we have a President who is a Democrat and we have a 
Congress that is Republican, and sometimes our priorities are 
different. And we need the ability to negotiate in good faith without 
the hammer of a shutdown of Government over our heads.
  So since we had the budget agreement that came into play that does 
have higher spending levels for 1998, Senator McCain and I are willing 
to go from 98 percent to 100 percent, because letting the agencies 
continue to spend at the same levels that they are spending now seems 
to be reasonable since we now know that the levels will be higher.
  There was a time last year when the President submitted his budget 
that the spending levels were not higher. Congress, in its original 
budget resolution, did not have the same 1998 level of expenditures. 
They are higher. So now that we know that, I think the 100 percent of 
present spending is certainly reasonable.
  You know, I go back to what I said in the first place. If you cannot 
continue to run Government at a 2 percent discount or 100 percent of 
what you had last year, then you probably should not be managing a 
Federal agency because everybody has had to cut their budgets from time 
to time. They have had to cut them a lot more than 2 percent in small 
businesses around our country, in families that are trying to make ends 
meet because they have two kids in college at the same time. People 
have to stretch. And they do not quite understand why their hard-earned 
tax dollars are out there and we cannot cut

[[Page S4101]]

back 2 percent on Government expenditures that are actually their 
expenditures because they are paying for this Government.
  But 100 percent, since we are going to be going to higher levels, is 
fine and I can go along with that. I am certainly willing to try to 
make sure that we do not disrupt Government, but I think we need to 
take the step. I think we need to go forward and say, here is how we 
are going to run the appropriations process. I think every American can 
understand that if we do not have the ability to negotiate, without the 
threat of shutting down Government, that we are not going to be able to 
stand on our principles. Perhaps the President does not feel that he 
can stand on his principles. And we would like to be able to do that 
and come to terms in the normal course of business.
  So that is why we are trying to plan ahead. That is why we are trying 
to make sure that the Government is not shut down, that Federal 
employees who would like to come to work, but cannot because it is a 
law that they cannot, are not in any way put to the test of wondering 
if they are going to be able to make ends meet because their salary 
will not be there. I cannot imagine, in my wildest dreams, that 
Congress would not pay the salaries of people who would like to come to 
work but cannot because of some artificial deadline that says 
Government stops if we do not have an appropriations bill.
  So we are trying to keep that from happening so that Federal 
employees will not be forced to take leave, so that veterans will not 
worry whether their benefits are going to be there, so that people who 
are traveling back from college to home will not be unable to do that 
because perhaps they do not have their passport, so that people will 
not be inconvenienced with their long-awaited family vacation to the 
Grand Canyon or the Washington Monument. I think it is important that 
we take this process step.
  There is one other point I think is very important to make. And 
Senator Stevens has made it many times on the floor, but I think it 
bears repeating, because there is somehow the implication that the 
flood victims in North Dakota, with whom all of us have great sympathy, 
might not get the payments they need to start rebuilding.
  In fact, Mr. President, they are getting the money now. There is no 
holdup in the emergency money that the flood victims are getting for 
rebuilding their homes or their office buildings. In fact, they are 
getting that money now. What we are talking about is a supplemental 
appropriations that would refill the coffers of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency so that it will be ready for the next emergency. And 
we are trying to make sure that we cover all the expenditures that we 
are having to make right now.
  But does anyone, for 1 minute, think that the loan processors and the 
people who are processing the claims of the flood victims in North 
Dakota are sitting there waiting for an appropriations bill to come 
through? Does anyone really believe that that is not going forward 
right now? I hope not, because nothing could be further from the truth.
  In fact, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is on the job. They 
are on the spot. They are beginning to rebuild in North Dakota. And the 
money is there for them, as it should be. But what we are talking about 
is making sure that the money that is being spent now is replenished. 
So we have time to do this in the right way.
  I think many people are concerned that there are other parts of this 
bill besides the emergency appropriations supplemental for North Dakota 
flood victims and for the people who are serving in Bosnia that--in 
fact, I would just make the same point for those in Bosnia who are 
serving there. They are not not getting what they would have. It is not 
as if this billion dollars that we are appropriating is going to do 
something that they do not now have. We are giving our young men and 
women who are protecting our country--if they are deployed to Bosnia on 
that mission, they are getting everything that they need to do that 
job.
  But what we are talking about in this supplemental appropriations is 
replenishing the money that has been taken out of the Department of 
Defense for training, for equipment, for spare parts, for quality of 
life issues, such as housing and pay raises for our military.
  We are putting the money back in that has been spent from the 
Department of Defense. And the Department of Defense does indeed need 
that money. And we are going to make sure that it goes in so that we do 
not interrupt the training and the equipment purchases and the spare 
parts purchases and the airplane purchases that are needed for our 
Defense Department.

  So we are replenishing the coffers, but no one that is on a mission 
in Bosnia or a flood victim in North Dakota is not getting the services 
that have been authorized in previous legislation, previous bills for 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  So I want to make sure that everyone understands the money is going 
out. But there are some concerns among many of our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle about some of the other parts of the bill. There are 
some clearly nonemergency, nonsupplemental needs that are being met in 
this bill. And I think some people are questioning whether maybe that 
should be put off to an appropriations process that is not in any way 
supplemental but is just the normal course of business.
  So I think certainly debate is warranted. We do not want to in any 
way rush something through, because the people that need this money are 
getting the money that they need. I hope that we will be able to move 
forward on this.
  I hope that at some point all of us will be able to vote on a 
continuing resolution that will assure that our Government goes along 
in an orderly way, that we also are able to negotiate in an orderly way 
on September 30 of this year if we do still have differences. We need 
to provide for those differences in an orderly way. And that is what 
our bill is trying to do.
  I certainly appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Arizona. I 
am certainly with him on the McCain-Hutchison Government Shutdown 
Prevention Act which we believe very strongly is a matter of principle, 
it is a matter of responsible Government, it is a matter of fulfilling 
our responsibility to the Federal employees who serve our country, to 
the men and women in uniform that serve our country, to the people of 
our country who depend on Government services, such as running the 
parks and passports and veterans' benefits. All of these people deserve 
to know that we will make sure that they are taken care of in an 
orderly way, even if we have not been able to come to agreements on 
some appropriations bills by September 30.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I certainly appreciate once again the Senator from Arizona coming up 
and trying to make sure that we talk about this in an orderly way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I want to thank the Senator from Texas for her commitment 
to the people of her State and her efforts now for a long time to make 
sure that never again do we put the American people through the trauma 
of a Government shutdown.
  I, as a conservative, believe in a minimal role of Government, but I 
am not a Libertarian. I do believe that there is a role for Government, 
and that is to provide basic and fundamental services to our citizens. 
That did not happen during the Government shutdown. I think we have an 
obligation to see that it does not happen again.
  Mr. President, I want to point out again, we have been in 
negotiations with the White House on this issue. I believe the 
President of the United States, along with the Senator from West 
Virginia, who has many Federal workers in his State and many people who 
are dependent on the Federal Government, does not want another shutdown 
of the Government. I am still hopeful that at some point before we have 
a real showdown here and a possible veto of this very much needed 
supplemental appropriations bill, emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill, that we can get an agreement worked out that would prevent a 
shutdown of the Government ever again.

[[Page S4102]]

  I have a lot to say, and I know that the Senator from West Virginia 
does, too. In fact, we were discussing the outlines of a unanimous 
consent agreement where the Senator from West Virginia would consume 
about 2\1/2\ hours tomorrow on this issue before we would vote on it. I 
look forward to that debate. I do not think we will need that much 
time.
  I always pay attention to the arguments and discussions of the issues 
as articulated by the Senator from West Virginia. There is no one more 
respected in this body than the Senator from West Virginia. Some day he 
may leave, I am sure it will be after I do, but if and when he ever 
does, we will lose the corporate memory and the standards of conduct 
and behavior that was handed down to us by our predecessors. That flame 
is kept alive by the Senator from West Virginia. Over the past 10 years 
when I have been in the Senate in the company of the Senator from West 
Virginia, we have engaged in spirited but always respectful debate, 
occasionally on issues that the Senator from West Virginia feels the 
most passionate about--the line-item veto, of course, comes to mind.
  I must admit again--I am almost sorry I brought it up--but I must 
admit again that the Senator from West Virginia has won the first 
round, a major victory in a Supreme Court decision concerning the line-
item veto. I say to my friend from West Virginia the words of the 
famous philosopher Casey Stengel, ``It isn't over till it's over,'' and 
I am glad the U.S. Supreme Court has expedited their procedures to give 
us a final rendering on this issue.
  I yield to the Senator from Texas for a question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I correct the Record, because it was 
in fact the great philosopher Yogi Berra who said, ``It ain't over till 
it's over.'' I did not want that to go unchallenged.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Texas, who is always in tune 
with the world's great philosophers, for correcting me on that, and I 
appreciate that.
  But back to the issue at hand, I hope the Senator from West Virginia 
recognizes that I do take to heart his admonitions concerning a 98-
percent funding as opposed to a full funding. It is clearly our 
intention to make this 100 percent funding, and that we could debate 
this issue on those parameters. I think it would be not as useful for 
us to be conducting this debate on this issue of the Prevention of the 
Shutdown of Government Act under conditions which would not prevail in 
the event of a final vote on this issue.
  I respectfully, again, request the Senator from West Virginia if he 
would allow me to raise this to 100 percent and perhaps we could 
adjourn and discuss this issue tomorrow where we would have more 
attention from our colleagues and the American people. I do not mind 
debating and discussing this issue tonight, and the Senator from West 
Virginia and I have spent many evenings in debate and discussion, but I 
think with the importance of this issue, that it deserves tomorrow 
where we have, frankly, our friends in the media who will pay more 
attention and perhaps report this issue to the American people in a 
more accurate fashion than tonight.
  So, having said all that, I request of my friend from West Virginia 
if I could make a unanimous consent agreement to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up amendment 112 for purposes of consideration and 
voice vote, and then return to the amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, first of all, I appreciate 
very much the kind remarks that the distinguished Senator from Arizona 
has made in my direction. I can reciprocate by saying there is no 
Senator in this body who works harder, and few, perhaps, who work as 
hard and as effectively as does the distinguished Senator from Arizona. 
He amazes me with his ability to come up with amendments on almost 
every bill, and he seems to be conversant on virtually any subject to 
come before the Senate. I admire him for that.
  Mr. President, whether it is 98 percent or 100 percent, I have to 
oppose such an amendment. I join with the Senator in expressing the 
hope that we can discuss this tomorrow where we, hopefully, will have a 
larger audience.
  I prefer not to accede to his request tonight. I have lined up 
several speakers who are ready to speak on this language that is in the 
bill, and that is the language I attempted to strike in the committee 
earlier when we had markup. The Senator will get a vote one way or 
another on his proposal, I am sure. I hope, however, he would not press 
the request tonight, and let us return in the morning and think about 
it overnight. It may be I would accede to the request then, or I might 
not. But whether I do, he will find ways to get a vote on his 
amendment, or, as he says, he will move to table mine. He has several 
alternatives open to him. I hope we would not press the matter tonight, 
and we will come back, and, after a good night's rest, I will be 
prepared to take another look at it.
  So I am constrained to object tonight, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am, of course, disappointed in the 
response of the Senator from West Virginia. I guess at this time I have 
to contemplate an amendment to table the motion of the Senator from 
West Virginia based on the grounds that if other speakers came and 
spoke on this issue, Mr. President, they would not be speaking about it 
in its entirety, in its actuality, when the entire Senate would decide 
on this issue.
  In fact, I have already gotten a taste of that debate by saying that 
it would make all these draconian cuts to different programs, et 
cetera. I do not feel it is appropriate not to have an agreement that 
we should debate the issue as the Senator from Texas and I intended. I 
say that with all respect. I do not think it is appropriate not to have 
a debate and discussion until the true parameters and the intention of 
the sponsors of the amendment are taken into consideration.
  So, Mr. President, in a moment I will suggest the absence of a quorum 
and then decide as to whether I will move to table, and call for a 
recorded vote at this time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant 
legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. We had almost arranged for an amendment to be called up 
at 9 o'clock, to be voted on at 10 o'clock, and I discussed with 
Senator Byrd, does the Senator have any objection if we set aside this 
situation now and took up that other amendment and have it argued 
between 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock and come back to this amendment at 10 
o'clock.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. I thank 
the Senator for his indulgence.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am informed another Senator involved in that cannot be 
here before 10 o'clock.
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not see any other option I have except to move to 
table the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the circumstances, under the 
informal agreements we have entered into before, I ask the vote on that 
motion to table be carried over until 10 o'clock in the morning; is 
that agreeable?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The vote will not occur tonight, and we will try to work 
in another amendment and take up this vote on this motion to table at a 
later time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say, in due respect to the Senator from Alaska, I 
cannot agree at this moment that we will not have a recorded vote on a 
motion to table tonight. I have to reserve that right.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct, because we still have to ask for 
unanimous consent, Senator, and we have not gotten that. I stated that 
is our intent not to have a vote tonight. We will try to work out this 
triangle and see if we can get the other amendment in before the vote, 
and if we can, we will do our best.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant 
legislative clerk proceeded to call.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S4103]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to make it clear to the Senator 
from West Virginia that I am not trying to preclude debate and 
discussion on his amendment, and I would like to have an agreement 
which would allow, obviously, what the Senator from Texas and I are 
seeking, and that is raising to a 100 percent level, but also I would 
not presume, after all these years, to make a motion to table which 
would prevent the Senator from West Virginia in making full use of 
whatever time he feels necessary to debate this very important issue. I 
want to make that clear.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his 
characteristic courtesy and generosity. I would hope that we could wait 
until tomorrow so we could have more time, so that others on my side 
could be here to participate in the debate. And may I say, it may very 
well be that, by the time the sun rises on tomorrow, I may decide to 
remove my objection and let the Senator proceed with his amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. May I inquire if the Senator would agree that we could 
come in and start the debate earlier? I know the Senator didn't want to 
vote until later because of other Senators' arrival. Would the Senator 
agree that we could come back on the bill before 10? We are trying to 
finish by 6 o'clock tomorrow night. So the proceedings at that time 
could start.
  Mr. BYRD. Could we begin at 9:30?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be delighted. I shall convey that to the leader. 
That will not be a vote; that will be continued debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Exactly. Leave everything in the status quo until that 
moment.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have other agreements we may get tonight pertaining 
to other Members. I will go back to a quorum call if everybody is 
finished.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment of the Senator from West Virginia be set aside and the 
amendment which is at the desk, No. 112, be called up for immediate 
consideration.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I hope that 
the Senator will simply ask unanimous consent that the ``98 percent'' 
be changed to ``100 percent'' so that my amendment may not be set 
aside.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be raised from ``98 percent'' to ``100 percent'' of funding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For clarification, the words ``98 percent'' 
appear on line 19 of page 81; is that where you are changing that?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes. I asked that it be changed to 100 percent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia, as always, for his courtesy. I look forward to a spirited 
elocution and informative debate on tomorrow.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with comments 
made previously by my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison. 
I rise in support of the Government Shutdown Prevention Act and the 
efforts to add this to the supplemental appropriations bill. This 
provision will create a statutory continuing resolution to safeguard 
Federal and military pay in the event of a Government shutdown. 
Further, it would provide for continuing appropriations for key 
Government functions in the event of a spending impasse like we 
suffered in 1995.
  This provision, when attached to the emergency supplemental, will 
only take effect if the appropriations acts do not become law or if 
there is no continuing resolution in place at the beginning of the new 
fiscal year on October 1.
  Although I am a strong supporter of the balanced budget and the 
reconciliation process, I am deeply concerned that our Federal 
employees could again be held hostage to the politics of the budget 
process between the Congress and the administration. Our Nation's 
dedicated civilian and uniformed Federal personnel should never again 
be penalized for the inability of Congress and the administration to 
agree on spending priorities.
  As stated in a 1991 GAO report on Government shutdowns, closing the 
Government does not save money. In fact, the GAO reported that a mere 
3-day workweek shutdown would cost taxpayers between $245 and $600 
million. In this time of tight budgetary constraints, such 
irresponsible actions make no sense.
  Mr. President, with more than 300,000 Federal employees and retirees 
in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the effects of a Government shutdown, 
even one of a short duration, would be devastating to our local 
economy.
  The impact of the shutdown over the 1996 Federal budget spread beyond 
just our Federal employees in the metropolitan Washington region. It 
caused a ripple effect well beyond the Capital Beltway. From trips 
canceled due to lack of passports; to the closure of our National Parks 
and the economic impact on those communities who depend on tourists for 
their economic well-being; to our prisons and VA hospitals that must 
ask vendors to supply food on credit--the shutdown created havoc.
  Federal employee are not the only group that is affected by a Federal 
Government shutdown. Thousands of companies, who contract with the 
Government, would be impacted unless a safety net is in place. These 
firms are dependent upon revenues for services and goods rendered, in 
order to keep their doors open and to continue paying their employees.
  By an overwhelming majority, the American people are still fearful of 
the reoccurrence of a Government shutdown. Our Federal employees 
remember November 14, 1995, and the following 6-day shutdown as 
Congress feuded over the 1996 Federal budget, at a total cost to the 
taxpayer of $800 million. They remember December 15, 1995, when the 
Government shut down again, this time for 21 days, at a total cost of 
$520 million.
  I applaud the Republican leadership of Senator McCain and Senator 
Hutchison. By providing this safety net against a potential trainwreck, 
we are changing the way that Government does business. We cannot 
continue business as usual when we play politics and appear cavalier in 
attitude toward our Federal employees--both civilian and military.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, the bill before us addresses the effects 
of natural disasters which occurred in the Midwest and California. I 
would like, right now, to address a portion of the bill that is 
designed to prevent a man-made disaster. That provision, the safety net 
continuing resolution for fiscal year 1998, would, as Senator McCain 
has made clear, prevent a Government shutdown in the event the regular 
annual appropriation bills are not enacted into law by October 1.
  Mr. President, just over a year ago, on April 26, 1996, President 
Clinton signed legislation which ended a 7 month budget stalemate. That 
stalemate involved no fewer than 15 continuing resolutions, 2 full-
fledged Government shutdowns--one lasting a record 27 days--and 
numerous Presidential vetoes. By President Clinton's own account, it 
cost the taxpayers $1.5 billion.
  But the costs of this shutdown went beyond this $1.5 billion. 
Thousands upon thousands of Federal employees were furloughed. 
Thousands of small businesses, particularly those near national parks 
closed during the Government shutdown, suffered crippling loss of 
business. And American citizens suffered innumerable inconveniences, 
many of them quite serious.
  For example, Mr. President, 10,000 new Medicare applications, 212,000 
Social Security card requests, 360,000 individual office visits and 
800,000 toll-

[[Page S4104]]

free calls for information and assistance were turned away each day. 
Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans were inconvenienced, or had 
to temporarily forego benefits for which the Government requires things 
like Social Security cards, because we could not reach a budget 
agreement.

  And the problems did not stop there. Some of our most vulnerable 
people suffered from the Government shutdown: 13 million AFDC 
recipients, 273,000 foster care children, over 100,000 children 
receiving adoption assistance services and over 100,000 Head Start 
children had their services delayed. And I have not even mentioned the 
9 million Americans whose vacations and outings were ruined because 
they were turned away from our national parks and museums.
  Mr. President, we must prevent this situation from occurring ever 
again. The Government shutdown caused inconvenience, occasional trauma, 
and a wide-spread increase in the cynicism of the American people, now 
more convinced than ever that our executive and legislative branches of 
Government are incapable of doing their jobs.
  We can do our jobs, Mr. President, and we must see to it that we do 
them without allowing the Federal Government to again shut down. We 
must come to grips with the fact that, under current rules, Government 
shutdowns are a risk that must be addressed. 1995 was not the first 
year in which we had a Government shutdown. Over the last 20 years 
there have been numerous such occurrences, and even more numerous 
stopgap funding bills passed at the last minute to prevent them.
  Part of the problem Mr. President, is our complicated budget process. 
As currently constituted, this process seems designed to confuse the 
people as they seek to understand what we are doing and exactly who is 
holding up agreement. In addition, Mr. President, the American people 
have elected divided government. They have chosen a President with one 
set of priorities, and a majority in Congress that in some ways has 
significantly different priorities.

  As a result of a convoluted process and conflicting priorities, we 
are in the midst of a 2-year budget stalemate. I sincerely hope that 
the budget agreement announced on Friday will produce tax relief for 
the American people, a balanced budget by 2002, sufficient funding for 
our national defense, and much-needed spending restraint. If it 
includes these things, Mr. President, we may at last see an end to the 
budget stalemate.
  But we cannot sit idly by in the hope that all will be well. We can 
and must strive in the meantime to ensure that this year no shutdown 
will occur even if the budget deal breaks down.
  That is why I am urging my colleagues to support provisions in this 
continuing resolution that would put a safety net under our Government, 
and under the American people. It would create a statutory continuing 
resolution, triggered only if the appropriations acts do not become law 
or if there is no governing continuing resolution in place. This 
legislation would ensure that the Government does not shut down by 
funding Government programs next year at 98 percent.
  What this means, Mr. President, is that the Federal Government, in 
case of a budget impasse, would be funded at a level sufficient to 
continue essential services--sufficient to prevent any real 
inconvenience to the American people--without undermining the incentive 
to pass appropriations bills on time.
  It is my hope that we will not need this provision. It is my 
conviction that we should enact it so that the American people will 
continue to receive the services they expect from their Federal 
Government even if there is a budget impasse. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important, safety net provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my pending 
amendment be set aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 235

(Purpose: To assure sufficient funding for Essential Air Service under 
                  the Rural Air Service Survival Act)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Kerrey, for 
     himself, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 235.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new language:
       Sec.   . Section 45301(b)(1)(A) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended inserting before the semicolon ``and at 
     least $50,000,000 in FY 1998 and every year thereafter''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
proponents of amendments Nos. 95 and 96 agree to this language. This 
new language is to be a substitute for the proposals before the body 
regarding international flight user fees. It has been agreed to by both 
sides and, therefore, is ready for passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 235) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________