[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2506-S2526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS AND OVERSEAS 
               PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chair lays before the Senate S. 1768, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1768) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for 
     overseas peacekeeping efforts, for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       McConnell modified amendment No. 2100, to provide 
     supplemental appropriations for the International Monetary 
     Fund for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998.
       Faircloth amendment No. 2103, to establish an Education 
     Stabilization Fund to make loans to States for constructing 
     and modernizing elementary and secondary schools.
       Stevens (for Nickles) amendment No. 2120, to strike certain 
     funding for the Health Care Financing Administration.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2083.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I see Senator Nickles on the floor. I believe his amendment 
would be temporarily set aside. I just would like to know from the 
Senator about what time we might expect to

[[Page S2507]]

have the debate on that? I am glad to be here whatever time. I do not 
want to interfere with the Senator from Texas, but we are here, ready 
to debate that now or whatever time the floor manager would like. But I 
would like at least to get some idea. We are setting the Nickles 
amendment aside. What is the intention?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I might state--and the Senator from 
Oklahoma just raised the same question over here--last evening we had a 
discussion about how to handle the Bosnia issue. I hope the Senator 
from Texas will not mind my saying, we reached agreement with the 
Senator from Texas that she would call up this amendment and discuss it 
for a while and then withdraw it.
  As a result of that, there will not be other Bosnia amendments 
offered at this time. They are waiting for the main bill. It is a 
matter of getting before the Senate the concerns the Senator from Texas 
wants to raise, and then we will go to the Nickles amendment. It will 
be some 15, 20, 30 minutes--I don't know what the Senator wants to 
take. I urge the Senate to allow us to manage the bill that way. The 
Nickles amendment will be the first amendment after the Senator from 
Texas has completed her comments.
  Mr. President, before we yield on this, if I may, is it possible to 
get a time agreement on the Nickles amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I don't think just at the present time, but we will be 
glad to see how we get started with the debate on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I urge the Senators to help us, because we also have 
three other amendments that are going to require votes following the 
Nickles amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2083

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Congress that the President and 
   Congress should create the conditions for a withdrawal by a date 
 certain of U.S. ground combat forces from the NATO-led Stabilization 
                            Force in Bosnia)

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

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2083.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following title:

       TITLE   --UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN BOSNIA WITHDRAWAL

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

       This title may be cited as the ``United States Armed Forces 
     in Bosnia Withdrawal Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.

       (A) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1)(A) On November 27, 1995, the President affirmed that 
     United States participation in the multinational military 
     Implementation Force in the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina would terminate in one year.
       (B) The President declared the expiration date of the 
     mandate for the Implementation Force to be December 20, 1996.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff likewise expressed their confidence that the 
     Implementation Force would complete its mission in one year.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff further expressed the critical importance of 
     establishing a firm deadline, in the absence of which there 
     is a potential for expansion of the mission of U.S. forces;
       (3) The exemplary performance of United States Armed Forces 
     personnel has significantly contributed to the accomplishment 
     of the military mission of the Implementation Force. The 
     courage, dedication, and professionalism of such personnel 
     have permitted a separation of the belligerent parties to the 
     conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and has 
     resulted in a significant mitigation of the violence and 
     suffering in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       On October 3, 1996, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff announced the intention of the United States 
     Administration to delay the removal of United States Armed 
     Forces personnel from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     until March 1997.
       (5) Notwithstanding the fact that the President, the 
     Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff assured the Congress of their resolve to end the 
     mission of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina by December 20, 1996, in November 1996 
     the President announced his intention to further extend the 
     deployment of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina until June 1998.
       (6) Before the announcement of the new policy referred to 
     in paragraph (5), the President did not request authorization 
     by the Congress of a policy that would result in the further 
     deployment of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina until June 1998.
       (7) Notwithstanding the passage of two previously 
     established deadlines, the reaffirmation of those deadlines 
     by senior national security officials, and the endorsement by 
     those same national security officials of the importance of 
     having a deadline as a hedge against an expanded mission, the 
     President announced on December 19, 1997 that establishing a 
     deadline had been a mistake and that U.S. ground combat 
     forces were committed to the NATO-led mission in Bosnia for 
     the indefinite future;
       (8) NATO military forces have increased their participation 
     in law enforcement activities in Bosnia aimed at capturing 
     alleged war criminals.
       (9) U.S. Commanders of NATO have stated on several 
     occasions that, in accordance with the Dayton Peace Accords, 
     the principal responsibility for apprehending war criminals 
     lies with the Bosnia parties themselves.
       (10) The Secretary of Defense has affirmed this 
     understanding on several occasions, including on March 3, 
     1997, when stated that ``[t]he apprehension of war criminals 
     is not a part of the mission . . . It is a police function . 
     . . it is not a military-type mission.''
       (b) Declarations of Policy.--The Congress--
       (1) expresses its serious concerns and opposition to the 
     policy of the President that has resulted in the open-ended 
     deployment of United States Armed Forces on the ground in the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina without prior 
     authorization by the Congress; and
       (2) urges the President to work with our European allies to 
     begin an orderly transition of all peacekeeping functions in 
     the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the United States 
     to appropriate European countries in preparation for a 
     withdrawal of United States Armed Forces ground combat troops 
     by January 1, 1999.
       (3) identifies the following conditions that should be 
     satisfied as a minimum to create the  environment in which 
     such an orderly transition can take place:
       (i) The original parties to the Dayton Accords should be 
     reconvened so that progress towards full implementation can 
     be ascertained and modifications as necessary be made;
       (ii) The process of establishing defensible sectors in 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina that was started in the Dayton Peace 
     Accords should be accelerated;
       (iii) Establishment of a Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) 
     in accordance with the President's Partnership for Peace 
     initiative. The CJTF should be under American command but to 
     be turned over to allied command within 90 days;
       (iv) Establishment of a civilian led/operated police 
     training task force, including the establishment of a police 
     training academy capable of graduating 500 police every 
     quarter. This force would have ultimate responsibility for 
     maintaining peace and order, as envisioned by the Dayton 
     Accords;
       (v) The United States should advise its allies in the NATO-
     led peacekeeping force in Bosnia that no U.S. ground forces 
     shall be deployed to the province of Kosovo should the 
     conflict there escalate;
       (vi) Cessation of U.S. military involvement in local 
     broadcast and print media operations.

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE USE OF DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE FUNDS OR OTHER FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OR 
                   AGENCY FUNDS FOR CONTINUED DEPLOYMENT ON THE 
                   GROUND OF ARMED FORCES IN THE TERRITORY OF THE 
                   REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       (a) Prohibition.--It is the Sense of the Congress that none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the 
     Department of Defense or to any other Federal department or 
     agency may be obligated or expended for the deployment on the 
     ground of United States Armed Forces in the territory of the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina after January 1, 1999.
       (b) Exceptions.--The prohibition contained in subsection 
     (a) shall not apply--
       (1) with respect to the deployment of United States Armed 
     Forces after January 1, 1999, but not later than May 1, 1999, 
     for the express purpose of ensuring the safe and timely 
     withdrawal of such Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina; or
       (2)(A) if the President transmits to the Congress a report 
     containing a request for an extension of deployment of United 
     States Armed Forces for an additional 180 days after the date 
     otherwise applicable under subsection (a); and
       (B) if a joint resolution is enacted, in accordance with 
     section 4, specifically approving such request.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE USE OF DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE FUNDS OR OTHER FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OR 
                   AGENCY FUNDS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR RELATED 
                   ACTIVITIES IN THE TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF 
                   BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       It is the Sense of Congress that U.S. policy in Bosnia, as 
     that relates to the use of our

[[Page S2508]]

     forces as a part of the NATO force, should not be changed to 
     include a NATO military mission to hunt down and arrest 
     alleged war criminals and that there should be no change to 
     U.S. or NATO policy regarding alleged war criminals until the 
     Congress has had the opportunity to review any proposed 
     change in policy and authorize the expenditure of funds for 
     this mission.
       It is the Sense of the Congress that none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of 
     Defense or to any other Federal department or agency may be 
     obligated or expended after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act for the following:
       (1) Conduct of, or direct support for, law enforcement 
     activities in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, except 
     for the training of law enforcement personnel or to prevent 
     imminent loss of life.
       (2) Conduct of, or support for, any activity in the 
     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that may have the effect 
     of jeopardizing the primary mission of the NATO-led force in 
     preventing armed conflict between the Federation of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (`Bosnia Entities').
       (3) Transfer of refugees within the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina that, in the opinion of the commander of NATO 
     Forces involved in such transfer--
       (A) has as one of its purposes the acquisition of control 
     by a Bosnian Entity of territory allocated to the other 
     Bosnian Entity under the Dayton Peace Agreement; or
       (B) may expose United States Armed Forces to substantial 
     risk to their personal safety.
       (4) Implementation of any decision to change the legal 
     status of any territory within the Republic of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina unless expressly agreed to by all signatories to 
     the Dayton Peace Agreement.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I anticipate for those who are trying 
to set a time that we will be ready at about maybe 10:30. I would say 
this will take 30 to 40 minutes.
  Let me just briefly state what the amendment does, and then I am 
going to yield to Senator Inhofe and then Senator Roberts and then 
Senator Craig for their remarks.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment that would express the sense of 
the Senate and the Congress to the President that we should create the 
conditions for withdrawal of U.S. ground troops from the NATO-led 
stabilization force in Bosnia. That is what the amendment does.
  We all know that the President on December 19 of last year declared 
that Bosnia would be an open-ended commitment for the United States. 
Congress was not in session. Congress was not consulted. There was no 
authorization, and the President has made this an open-ended mission. I 
am very concerned about the mission creep, and I am very concerned that 
the President has bypassed the Congress, and the Congress has 
constitutional responsibilities that cannot be bypassed by the 
President. That is why I am calling up this amendment today.
  I very much appreciate the remarks of the majority leader, Senator 
Lott, and the chairman, Senator Stevens, saying that this is going to 
be brought up, we are going to discuss it, we are going to tell the 
President that the Congress of the United States is not asleep, that we 
know our constitutional responsibilities and that we now have a 
commitment that this is going to be discussed and a policy will be set, 
and we will have an up-or-down vote in the defense appropriations bill 
later this year before the June 30 deadline that we now face and that 
we have now seen the President walk away from.
  So, Mr. President, we are going to exercise our responsibilities. We 
can do no less, and that is why we are discussing this today.
  I am very pleased to now ask Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma to take up to 
5 minutes for his views on this issue. I intend to talk about what the 
amendment does as soon as those who have time commitments have been 
able to speak. I yield to Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for 
yielding a little time here.
  I can remember in November of 1995 when the Senator from Texas was 
the primary author of the resolution of disapproval of sending troops 
into Bosnia. I was on the resolution with her. We only lost by three 
votes. In other words, if three Senators had voted the other way, we 
very likely would not have had to send troops into Bosnia to begin 
with.
  In anticipation of this, I went to Bosnia, up to the northeast 
sector, only to find there was never any belief that we could get into 
this thing and be out in 12 months. The reason the President was able 
to get the three votes necessary to defeat the resolution of 
disapproval was the guarantee that our troops that were going to be 
sent over there in November of 1995 would be home for Christmas in 
1996. That was not an expectation; that was a guarantee. I can remember 
so well talking to General Haukland up in the northeast sector when he 
laughed and said, ``You mean 12 years.'' As the years and months are 
going by now, it looks like there is more and more truth to that.
  Let me just mention my concern is a little different than the 
concerns that are expressed by most people. Mine is one as to how this 
involvement in Bosnia is adversely affecting our ability to defend 
America.
  I am chairman of a committee called the Readiness Subcommittee of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee that is in charge of training and 
making sure that we are ready. Until some of the recent scandals have 
taken the headlines off the front page, we have finally broken through 
the national media so that people realize, and the national media 
realizes, that we are facing huge threats today all over the world with 
over 25 nations with weapons of mass destruction with delivery systems 
that can reach the United States from anyplace in the world.

  With all this, we are concentrating our efforts and spending our 
defense dollars on Bosnia. This is the thing that concerns me. We keep 
hearing that there are only 8,500 troops in Bosnia. That is not much of 
a commitment, but I can assure you, Mr. President, it is far greater 
than that. If you just add the troops who are directly affected by the 
Bosnia operation in the rim countries, in Croatia, that adds up to 
12,000. Then you go over to Europe and you see the logistical support 
of that operation. We find that in the 21st TACOM, for example. That is 
the operation that is responsible for logistical support of any ground 
operation, for example, if we should have to send ground troops into 
Iraq.
  I don't think anyone is naive enough to think we could surgically 
bomb Iraq if it became necessary and not have to make a commitment of 
ground troops. But if that happened, we don't have any way to support 
logistically those ground troops that would be sent to Iraq. The 21st 
TACOM, which has to support logistically ground troops anywhere in that 
theater, which includes Iraq, is now totally consumed by their 
participation and their support in Bosnia. Right now they are operating 
at a very high op tempo and pers-tempo rate so individuals are being 
consumed by the operation in Bosnia.
  We are at 115 percent capacity just supporting Bosnia. What does that 
mean? That means in the event we had to send ground troops someplace 
else in the world, we would not have the logistic support for them.
  When you ask the question, ``What would you do if that happened,'' 
the commanding officer at the 21st TACOM said we would be totally 
dependent upon the Guard and Reserves. I suggest to you, Mr. 
President--you know and the rest of us know who are close to this 
subject--we don't have the necessary MOSs and capacity in Guard and 
Reserves to make that support. You go 10 miles up the road to the 86th 
Airlift in Ramstein. In Ramstein, they are right now at 100-percent 
capacity just supporting the airlift to Bosnia.
  So the cost is far greater, even far greater than $8 billion that so 
far we have admitted we have spent in Bosnia. We are making a 
commitment that makes it virtually impossible for us to support any 
other operations should it become necessary.
  So I think there has to be an end to this thing. It is easy to get 
into these things; it is very difficult to get out. We got in; we got 
in with a guarantee it would be a 12-month operation; we got in with 
the expectations it would cost $1.2 billion. We knew better at the 
time. We knew they were not telling the truth about what kind of a 
commitment we were making and, consequently, we have to have some way 
of getting out.
  So this is a major national security issue, Mr. President, that we 
get out of Bosnia so that we can have the capacity to take care of the 
needs of the American people in terms of defending our country.
  With that, I defer to the Senator from Kansas for any comments he 
might want to make.

[[Page S2509]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, and I 
especially want to thank the Senator from Texas for raising this issue.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, before coming to the floor, I 
looked up the definition of ``wise'' in Webster's Third International 
Dictionary--that is the recognized authority with regard to the English 
language--and it read:

       Characterized by wisdom; knowledgeable; exercising sound 
     judgment.

  It even went on to say if you were a wise person that you were 
``alert,'' and further described a wise person as being a person ``in a 
condition where an individual becomes aware of the slow, steady creep 
of the tide, lest they will be in it up to their hubcaps before they 
realize it.''

  Mr. President, I think there is another definition of ``wise'' in 
this body, and perhaps the synonym would be the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who made a speech on Monday that I 
commend to the attention of my colleagues. It is in Monday's Record. It 
is on page S2382. If my colleagues and staff are paying attention to 
the floor, write that down, S2382. It is the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who says:

       With respect to Bosnia, the President has provided a 
     certification and report, required by Fiscal Year 1998 
     Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts, that the 
     continued presence of U.S. armed forces----

  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for just one moment?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield to the distinguished 
chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair 
notify each speaker on the Bosnia issue when 5 minutes have expired. We 
are not under a time agreement, but I think we have an understanding 
that speakers will limit their remarks to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas is now recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask of the Chair if that means I have an 
additional 5 minutes or about a minute has been taken off? I would 
assume that I have an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I will continue with Senator Byrd's remarks:

       Last year, the administration told us that we would be out 
     of Bosnia in about a year.
       All of the witnesses who came up before the Armed Services 
     Committee and the Appropriations Committee assured the 
     committees that that was the expected timeframe which would 
     be needed during which we would have to place our men and 
     women in possible harm's way, but we were assured--we didn't 
     just ask the question once or twice, and the response didn't 
     come forth just once or twice, but the response was always in 
     the context of a year's time.

  Then Senator Byrd went on to comment that he had strong suspicions 
that it really wouldn't work out that way. And he referred to the 
report that was made, and the report said:

       ``We do not propose a fixed end-date for the deployment.'' 
     That says it all. So we are in a different situation now. The 
     exit strategy--in other words, the required conditions for 
     our forces to come out and come home--reads like a nation-
     building strategy.

  That is the concern of this Senator and the Senator from Texas and 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

       What is required for us to leave Bosnia? First, judicial 
     reform--

  The Senator from West Virginia said--

       Just a minor thing, judicial reform. Then, development of 
     an independent media throughout the territory.

  He said that was a pretty big order, and it certainly is.

       Then there is more. Democratic elections. What do we mean 
     by democratic elections? Democratic elections followed by 
     free market economic reforms . . . privatization of the 
     economy, and so on and on.

  And the Senator said:

       We all get the point. This is a formula requiring the 
     completion of a new, integrated democratic state. That is 
     what nation-building is. I didn't buy on to that. The U.S. 
     Senate has not bought onto that. And if the duration of our 
     stay is going to be based on nation-building, as the 
     President is obviously saying in the report, we are [going to 
     be] there for a good, long [period of] time.
  I was in Sarajevo. I talked with our officials there. That was last 
year, I say to the Senator from Texas. The conditions at that time were 
troop protection, refugee relocation, economic restoration, and a 
rather hard-to-understand policy in regard to war criminals.
  That has changed, and the Senator from Texas is precisely correct; we 
have not even had that under consideration or with any kind of talk, 
other than that of the Senators here on the floor and the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia in regard to what the end policy is in 
regard to Bosnia.
  I indicated the definition of somebody being wise, other than being 
Senator Byrd of West Virginia, was that they be alert--and I repeat 
that--further described by Webster's as ``a condition where an 
individual knows and is aware of the slow, steady creep of the tide, 
lest they will be in it up to their hubcaps before they realize 
it.'' Mr. President, we are not only in it to our hubcaps; we are in it 
to the axle with no reverse gear.

  It was Herbert Hoover who said in 1958, ``Wisdom consists not so much 
in knowing what to do in the ultimate as in knowing what to do next.'' 
I do not know what we are going to do next, but it is the 
responsibility of this Senate to consider that.
  We will do it in the 1999 defense authorization and appropriations 
bills. I credit the Senator from Texas for focusing on this, and I 
thank the Senator from West Virginia and remind all of my colleagues 
that it ought to be required reading in regards to his remarks on the 
floor of the Senate last Monday, again, page S2382. Please, my 
colleagues, pay attention to the Senator from West Virginia. He is 
right on in regards to this terribly important and difficult issue.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to Senator 
Craig.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. Others are gathered here 
to speak on the Hutchison amendment.
  But let me first of all recognize the Senator from Texas for 
highlighting and bringing to the surface an issue that is growing in 
the minds of many of us and we hope will alert the minds of many 
Americans.
  We were engaged here for a week on the debate on the expansion of 
NATO. This Senate more than likely will vote to expand NATO in the 
course of this session. But as we do, we ought to remember the 
consequence or the potential impact of that kind of a vote. And I think 
it is reflected in this drifting policy that we have currently in 
Bosnia.
  Peacekeeping operations so designated by our President are important 
and should be well defined. But I will tell you, the Senator from Texas 
is right. Our President operates in an unauthorized situation in Bosnia 
today. The Senator from Oklahoma has brought up the mounting costs. We 
are able to measure some $8 billion in costs. We know they are much 
larger than that.
  The mission appears at date to be endless as it relates to some 
culmination. Do we have to lose American men and women in Bosnia before 
our citizens wake up or, more importantly, the Congress begins to move 
with its constitutional authority to deal directly with this issue? I 
hope not.
  The mission in Bosnia is now just what we were promised it would not 
be. We were promised it would not be an unauthorized, open-ended, 
nation-building deployment with no withdrawal criteria. It is now all 
of those things by definition.
  In 1995, President Clinton vowed that the U.S. troops deployed to 
Bosnia ``should and will take about one year.'' Three years and nearly 
$8 billion later, the administration now admits, ``We do not propose a 
fixed end date for the deployment.''

[[Page S2510]]

  This unauthorized, open-ended deployment is affecting the readiness 
of our troops, their morale. Some anecdotal evidence is clearly 
available if you scratch the surface.
  Increasingly, Army and Air Force units put off combat training 
because they are too busy with low-intensity missions, and they need 
the money elsewhere. We see that great shift of dollars underneath the 
surface that this administration has been unwilling to admit. And, 
finally, just in the last month, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee said we will do no more of that. Following this supplemental, 
the administration must now bring to the Hill as an authorization the 
appropriate expenditures for the mission in Bosnia.
  Another anecdotal piece of evidence: A particular Marine 
expeditionary unit deploys more than 220 days in a 365-day period as if 
we were at war. That is how we are using our men and women in uniform 
today.
  Air Force pilots are fleeing to the commercial sector despite cash 
incentives from the Air Force of up to $22,000 to reenlist. We all know 
the kind of investment we have in these pilots--millions of dollars of 
training and, of course, operational time.
  There are serious problems that the President is turning a blind eye 
on so he can continue to deploy troops to humanitarian missions. If we 
are going to declare humanitarian missions in our national interest, 
then let us declare them. Let us come to Congress and get the 
constitutional authorization necessary for those kinds of actions. Let 
us appropriate the money accordingly instead of slip money and the 
necessary resources away from certain missions to other missions of the 
kind that we have talked about.
  Meanwhile, there are fewer dollars for defense and increasing orders 
to deploy.
  Since 1989, manpower has been cut by nearly one-third, the number of 
missions has quadrupled, and defense spending has been dramatically 
reduced.
  This year's defense budget marks the fourteenth consecutive year of 
decline for defense spending.
  President Clinton's $270 billion 1999 defense budget represents a 
real decline of 1.1 percent from current spending levels, and marks a 
39-percent drop from the spending levels of the mid-1980's.
  While defense spending declines, the U.S. military has been asked to 
do more. Since 1990, U.S. Armed Forces have been used in 36 major 
foreign missions, compared to 22 between 1980 and 1989.
  The commitment of United States troops to Bosnia is a commitment of 
United States blood. The decision to place United States troops in 
harm's way is a commitment that I do not take lightly. The President 
not only broke his promise to have our troops home by December 1996, he 
has also decreased the readiness of our troops by taking scarce dollars 
from an underfunded defense budget and used them to defend causes that 
have little to do with our national security interest.
  I hope my colleagues will support Senator Hutchison's amendment which 
will allow for an honorable exit of U.S. troops from the region, and 
turn over the operation to our European allies.
  That is why it is time to debate this issue. I am proud that the 
Senator from Texas brings it to us, highlights it, gets it on the 
national agenda, not just the agenda of Congress and this Senate, but 
brings it forth for a national agenda. I thank my colleague for doing 
so.
  Mr. President, I stand in support of this amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of a member of our leadership 
team on our side, the Senator from Idaho. I think he is right on. I 
think the Senator from Kansas was right on. The Senator from Oklahoma 
was right on. I want to talk about what my amendment does. It expresses 
the sense of Congress that the President and Congress should create the 
conditions for withdrawal of U.S. ground combat forces from the NATO-
led stabilization force in Bosnia. What we are trying to do is lay the 
groundwork for an honorable exit.
  You know, every time we come up to a deadline that the President 
himself has set, he says we cannot just leave, it would be 
irresponsible to leave, it would throw everything into chaos. That is 
absolutely true. It would be irresponsible to leave right now. But why 
is that? Why would it be irresponsible to leave right now? It would be 
irresponsible to leave right now because we have not laid the 
groundwork for an honorable exit and the President has gone on without 
the authorization of Congress to say this is going to be an unending 
mission.
  On November 27, 1995, the President said, ``First, the mission will 
be precisely defined with clear, realistic goals that can be achieved 
in a definite period of time. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded 
that the mission should and will take about a year.''
  The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
strongly concurred with the President's assessment in their testimony 
before Congress that it would not get involved in such tasks as forcing 
the resettling of refugees or capturing war criminals and that we 
should have an end date.
  The Vice President of the United States also provided additional 
assurances, arguing that the deployment would not lead to mission creep 
and that within a year hostile forces would be separated, the borders 
would be marked, elections would be organized and held, and police 
forces would be established.
  As that deadline approached, the President extended the mission 
further by announcing a new deadline of June 1998, once again assuring 
the American people and Congress that the mission would be achievable.
  The mission creep, which concerned General Shalikashvili when he said 
that, without a fixed end date, mission creep would occur, has come to 
pass with our military now adding missions such as capturing indicted 
war criminals, seizing and controlling broadcast facilities.
  U.S. commanders of NATO have stated on several occasions, in 
accordance with the Dayton peace accords, the principal responsibility 
for apprehending war criminals would be the parties themselves.
  Mr. President, Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint 
Chiefs have said throughout this 3-year period that setting a deadline 
is a good thing. But on December 19, 1997, President Clinton finally 
said he had misjudged the mission and he was committing the U.S. 
military to an open-ended mission which would only end when certain 
unnamed, concrete benchmarks had been accomplished.
  Since then, we have seen the benchmarks, but they are not very 
concrete. I introduced a resolution of disapproval for this mission to 
Bosnia in November 1995. It was narrowly defeated, by three votes. Many 
of my colleagues specifically said they voted against that resolution 
only after receiving solid assurances from the administration regarding 
the length and cost of the deployment. The mission is now in its third 
year, and the President is saying there is no end in sight.

  Mr. President, unless Congress exercises our constitutional 
responsibility, we are going to see an unending mission where there are 
no clear goals and there is no exit strategy.
  I am second to none in appreciating the great work that our military 
has done in Bosnia. I have been there five times. I have met with the 
troops. Their courage, their dedication, their professionalism have 
permitted a separation of the belligerent parties.
  There has been a significant reduction in the violence and suffering 
in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They have accomplished every 
mission they have been given, and they have done it in exemplary 
fashion. But, Mr. President, the administration keeps moving the 
goalposts. Now we have had forces in Bosnia for 3 years, we have spent 
$8 billion of our taxpayers' money, and now we see the President 
expanding the mission without coming to Congress first.
  My resolution today says that Congress is expressing its concern and 
opposition to the policy of the President that has resulted in this 
open-ended deployment without the prior authorization of Congress and 
urges the President to work with our European allies

[[Page S2511]]

to set an orderly transition so that American troops can leave by 
January 1, 1999.
  Mr. President, I think my 5 minutes are up. I want to ask that others 
be allowed to speak. I hope Senator Byrd is going to be able to speak, 
and certainly Senator Feingold. I do have some closing remarks, but I 
would like to yield at this time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I very much would like the opportunity 
to speak on the subject of Bosnia. Does the Senator from Texas control 
the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time control. The Senator is 
advised he is recognized on his own time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me first take this opportunity to----
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me make a parliamentary inquiry.
  Don't we have unanimous consent that there would be a 5-minute 
notification to every speaker?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be notification as to the 5-minute 
time period expiring, but there is no time agreement regarding control 
of the time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would just like to point out I had told Senator 
Stevens that I thought we would be finished by 10:30. If the Senator 
from Wisconsin would look at the time--and also Senator Byrd is on the 
floor, and I would like him to have a chance to speak, if he seeks 
recognition. So with that in mind, I just wanted to set the parameters 
of our informal agreement.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will send an 
amendment to the desk with regard to Bosnia, but let me take this 
opportunity to thank the Senator from Texas once again for her 
leadership on this issue. I have enjoyed working with her on the issue. 
I think the only thing that is regrettable is, we still have to be 
working on it so many years later, after we identified the problem in 
the misrepresentations that have been demonstrated in this Bosnia 
mission.
  I am hearing more and more concern back in my State of Wisconsin 
about the unlimited nature of this engagement. It troubles me a good 
deal that my constituents feel they were told that this was going to be 
a 1-year mission, that it was only going to cost $2 billion, and if 
this didn't work out we would be out of there. Nothing could be further 
from the truth.
  Mr. President, I hope that either on this bill or in the bills that 
come later this year we have an opportunity to get some clarity and 
some time line and some absolute definition to this operation, because 
the American people are just saying, ``Why? Why is it that we are 
bearing this entire burden, or such a huge percentage of this burden, 
when it seems that the European countries could do so much more to 
provide for the needs of this area?''
  I will say a word or two about an amendment I intend to offer later. 
The amendment is a little unusual and requires a little explanation. 
What my amendment would do is strike the ``emergency'' designation from 
each of the line items in this supplemental appropriations bill that 
provide funds to support U.S. peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, but it 
would leave such designation intact for funds to support our additional 
military needs in the southwest Asia area, which, as we know, refers to 
the U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf.
  I will offer this amendment for two reasons. First and foremost, I 
have always had serious questions about our involvement in the Bosnia 
mission. I was the only Democrat to vote against the deployment of U.S. 
troops back in 1995, in large part because I did not believe that the 
United States would be able to complete its mission there within the 
time and within the financial constraints that have been identified. I 
am sorry to say that I have been proven right. I take absolutely no 
pleasure in this. It has been very expensive and very dangerous.
  U.S. forces have now been in Bosnia for more than 2 years--much 
longer than the original 1-year mandate--and I don't think anyone has a 
good idea about how much longer we will be there. More significantly 
perhaps, the cost of our involvement hasn't been $2 billion, it has 
actually been quadrupled from that figure; it has been $8 billion. And 
now Congress is being asked to fork over another half a billion, with 
no end in sight.
  There is a second reason for this amendment, and that is that the 
legislation before the Senate today, S. 1768, is an emergency 
appropriations bill. The President has submitted a supplemental 
appropriations request, and we are debating this bill today precisely 
because we have been faced with some unforeseen emergencies. There have 
been floods in California, tornadoes in Florida, a typhoon in Guam, and 
ice storms in many areas of the Northeast. The showdown with Saddam 
Hussein took on new and frightening intensity in the past 6 months, and 
the United States came very close to carrying out airstrikes on a scale 
that was at least somewhat reminiscent of Desert Storm. We have all 
faced the unforeseen consequences of the so-called ubiquitous El Nino 
effect which has had bizarre and sometimes tragic influences on our 
weather patterns nationwide.
  The Congress has never developed firm rules on how we should define 
an ``emergency.'' Everybody assumes that we will use common sense when 
deciding when to grant special emergency treatment to certain 
expenditures. And common sense tells us that floods and tornados 
clearly are emergencies.
  In my view, however, the mission in Bosnia, is not. It is a 
substantial, long-term commitment. It is something the United States 
has, for better or worse, decided to do for the long-term. If events 
there take an unexpected turn for the worse, it may become an 
emergency. But as we stand here and debate this spending bill, it is 
not an emergency.
  Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word ``emergency'' as 
follows: ``an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting 
state that calls for immediate action.''
  This definition clearly does not apply to the Bosnia mission. The 
Bosnia mission is an emergency only in the strange language of 
appropriations bills. The Bosnia ``emergency'' is a legislative 
fiction.
  The line items in this bill--military personnel, operations and 
maintenance, and contingency funds--are standard military costs that 
would be part of any military mission. U.S. troops have been on the 
ground in Bosnia for more than two years. The change in designation 
from IFOR [eye-fore] to SFOR [ess-fore] was made more than a year ago 
and is scheduled to continue through June of this year. Then, last 
December, the President announced that he would forego imposing a 
deadline altogether, and opt instead for a policy of benchmarks whose 
definitions remain open to interpretation.
  How can Congress and the President possibly profess to the American 
people that the additional costs for the Bosnia mission constitute an 
emergency? On the contrary, it has been clear for quite a while now 
that the cost of this mission would again rise substantially. Some 
would say it has been clear from the start.
  Ironically, Congressional appropriators and our military leaders have 
planned for many months on obtaining these funds in this emergency 
spending bill.
  So that invites my next question: What are these funds doing in this 
bill? I just do not think that you can equate the long anticipated 
needs of the operation in Bosnia with the urgent, unexpected needs of 
the farmers in California or homeowners in Florida who have been 
devastated by natural disaster.
  Despite my long-standing opposition to the mission in Bosnia, I 
believe the Congress should take up and debate the additional 
appropriations needed to advance the administration's goals in that 
war-torn region, but not on an ``emergency'' bill. In the proper 
context of an ordinary appropriation, subject to ordinary budget rules, 
I will state my own reservations about this mission and will listen 
carefully to my colleagues who have supported this mission. Then we can 
decide whether to spend this money and where to get it without 
increasing the deficit.
  This supplemental appropriation, which represents so many dire and 
urgent needs, is not the appropriate legislative vehicle for Bosnia 
spending.

[[Page S2512]]

  Now, I considered offering an amendment that would have stricken all 
of the funds designated for the Bosnia mission based on this same 
rationale. I am not doing that today, because I recognize there is 
little support in the Senate for such an abrupt funding cut-off. My 
amendment is neutral as to the merits of the mission in Bosnia. It 
simply requires us to fund it in a responsible manner.
  This bill should be limited to the true emergencies represented by 
the bulk of the remaining $2 billion and should not include the non-
emergency that is the Bosnia mission. But as important as that 
technical change may be, this amendment has some real substantive 
teeth. By changing the designation in this way, Congress will be 
mandating that funds used to support the Bosnia operation fall under 
the same budgetary scrutiny and discipline that other spending does. If 
this amendment is adopted, and the Senate decides the Bosnia 
appropriations do not merit the special treatment an emergency 
designation confers, the Bosnia-related appropriations would be subject 
to the same budget discipline we impose on all other non-emergencies. 
Congress would have to cut enough spending to offset the cost of this 
new Bosnia money. If that did not happen, OMB would trigger an across-
the-board sequester--in effect doing the work for us.
  The mission in Bosnia does not represent an emergency that 
legitimately calls for us to depart from these, established, vital 
budget rules so casually. We must separate the Bosnia money from the 
true emergencies funded in the rest of this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to think carefully about my amendment, because 
this speaks to our commitment to truly balance the budget. Any Senator 
can support this amendment, and then consider funding for Bosnia 
operations in a more fiscally responsible way, without stepping away 
from any existing commitment to the troops and the mission in Bosnia.
  I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both the distinguished Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, 
Mr. Feingold, for the courtesies they have extended to me.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator who is now presiding over 
the Senate, Senator Pat Roberts, quoted me earlier in respect to the 
Bosnian matter. I wish to quote a great American President--a great 
American President. And that President's comments were pertinent at the 
time and are pertinent today.
  Perhaps I should first thank Senator Hutchison for offering the 
amendment. I can assure her and assure the Senator from Wisconsin that 
when the time comes to discuss and to consider appropriations for the 
fiscal year 1999, I shall be active, the Lord willing, in dealing with 
this matter that is the subject of this amendment; namely, Bosnia and 
our participation in the circumstances and conditions that presently 
prevail in that area.
  The constitutional framework arranged by the framers speaks with 
crystal clarity regarding the war powers. The authority to initiate war 
rests solely with Congress, except for one narrow area, the defensive 
authority to repel sudden attacks which is granted to the Commander in 
Chief. Let us listen, though, for a moment to the words of President 
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter, to William H. Herndon, on the subject of 
the exercise of the unfettered use of the war power by a President.
  Mr. Lincoln wrote:

       Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever 
     he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow 
     him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it 
     necessary for such purpose and you allow him to make war at 
     pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power 
     in this respect after you have given him so much as you 
     propose. If today he should choose to say he thinks it 
     necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from 
     invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ``I 
     see no probability of the British invading us,'' but he will 
     say to you ``Be silent. I see it, if you don't.''

  Lincoln continues:

       The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making 
     power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the 
     following reasons. Kings had always been involving and 
     impoverishing their peoples in war, pretending generally if 
     not always that the good of the people was the object. This 
     our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all 
     kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the 
     Constitution that no one man should hold the power of 
     bringing this oppression upon us.

  So, Mr. President, Lincoln spoke to the subject in his day.
  This is a very difficult area. It is an area of mixed powers, and the 
problem is, Presidents in recent years have been prone to put men and 
women of the U.S. Armed Forces in areas of danger and then call upon 
the Congress for appropriations to sustain that American manpower, and 
Congress is reluctant, of course, once the men are in the area, 
reluctant to be charged with pulling the rug out from beneath them.
  But there has to be an accounting. Congress has to be a part of this 
equation. Congress has the responsibility and duty to make itself heard 
in this matter. The time will come when we will have that opportunity. 
I hope that Congress will rise to the situation.

  I will have considerably more to say on this subject at that time, as 
will others, I am sure. But we cannot just sit back and leave it up to 
the administration to use the term ``Commander in Chief,'' which is a 
British term from the beginning and which was used to designate various 
army officers in various locations during the time of Charles I, 
Charles II, and so on.
  That term is not enough. It is time to use the power of the purse. 
And many of us in this Chamber have fought for that power of the purse. 
We have resisted the efforts to give the President, whether he be a 
Democrat or a Republican, a share in the control of the purse. That 
matter is coming home to roost. We will see here, as we have seen it 
previously, that Congress' power over the purse is the one voice, the 
one voice that every administration, Republican or Democratic, will 
hear and will heed. I hope that we in this body will remember that the 
time was not too long ago when Congress gave to the President of the 
United States the line-item veto. When we did that, we stuck a dagger 
in the back of the Senate. I hope that the Supreme Court will strike 
that nefarious law dead, dead, dead.
  But that is just one example of our being the culprits in giving to 
the Chief Executive a power that the Constitution does not give him. 
But in this case let us speak up. Again, I congratulate the lady from 
Texas. I will be with her, we will talk, we will work together, and I 
have a feeling that the administration will come back to the 
Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, and I 
believe that the administration will be shorn of its trappings, which 
were so impressive, they thought, a year ago as they assured us on the 
Armed Services Committee that our troops would be in Bosnia only, 
perhaps, about a year. I think they were dissimulating at the time. I 
think they knew better than that. I think we had a strong suspicion 
that that would not be the case. They were being a little disingenuous 
at the time--not the first time Congress has been treated in that 
fashion; there have been other times.
  It is time that Congress spoke up and took a stand for this 
Constitution of ours.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for her courtesy.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I so appreciate the great leadership 
of the Senator from West Virginia. He understands better than any 
Member of this body the role of Congress in sending our troops into 
foreign conflicts or into harm's way anywhere overseas. He understands 
and he has spoken eloquently about not only our role but our 
responsibility.
  He well knows that the Founders who wrote the Constitution of the 
United States had a model. They had a model of a king. The king was 
able to declare war and implement it. The king held the purse strings 
and the power. Our Founders very clearly said, ``We are not going to do 
that.'' And in the Constitution they provided that there would be a 
dual power. The President can commit troops; only Congress can declare 
war.
  That is what our Constitution says, and if one side falls down on 
their responsibility, then we have an unlimited power in the President. 
That is not the

[[Page S2513]]

American way; furthermore, it is a dangerous precedent. Congress must 
stand for its responsibility to make sure that if our troops are going 
into harm's way, if our taxpayers are going to spend $3 billion a year 
on a mission overseas, Congress must authorize it, and we do it with 
the power of the purse, which is the appropriations process. That is 
why we are standing here today, to serve notice to the President that 
we are not going to stand here for an unlimited commitment in Bosnia 
until we have a rationale for it, until the President comes to Congress 
and says, ``Here is why we are doing this, here is the United States 
security interest, here is our responsibility as a superpower to our 
allies in NATO, and here is our exit strategy.'' That is what the 
President must come to Congress to give--a responsible exit strategy. I 
think we could ask the President for that. We could ask the President 
to look again at the Dayton accord. Let's see how it goes and what can 
we do to have a better prospect for lasting peace, have a combined 
joint task force that would be led by Americans, but in which we would 
transition out at a specified time. Let's have an orderly transition 
and let our allies know up front what they can expect from us, so that 
we don't come on to a deadline and then have the President say to us, 
``Oh, but it would be irresponsible to leave right now.'' It is 
irresponsible to leave right now because we haven't laid the groundwork 
for an honorable exit, and now is the time to do that. That is why we 
are talking about it today and why we will have, as part of our defense 
appropriations bill this year, a statement of purpose, which we hope 
the President will give us, that will include an honorable exit 
strategy. We can do it if we start now. We can work with the President 
toward this honorable exit, and we can go back to our constitutional 
responsibility to make sure that the President presents a mission 
before he sends our troops into harm's way, and that the President 
makes sure that he provides for the funding when it doesn't take from 
our readiness and the quality of life of the troops that we have all 
over the world for missions that only the United States can fulfill and 
for which we must remain ready.
  Mr. President, that is the responsibility of Congress. That is what 
my amendment would do today. Mr. President, I am going to withdraw this 
amendment because the chairman of the committee and the majority leader 
have given us a time certain when we can vote on a policy statement by 
this Congress which will have the force of law, and I hope the 
President will work with us so that we can agree on an honorable 
strategy that fulfills our commitment to our allies, that fulfills our 
responsibility to the world, that makes sure we have a United States 
security interest and provides for the payment for it, and last but 
certainly not least, an exit strategy that is honorable in line with 
the United States of America.
  Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object on 
behalf of the chairman----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may not reserve the right to 
object.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object on behalf of the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to call the roll.
  The bill clerk continued the call of 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.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 2120 by 
the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be set aside for 1 minute so that I can simply offer the 
amendment I referred to earlier, and I won't discuss it right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. What is 
the amendment?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It is the amendment I discussed during the time of the 
Senator from Texas that removes the emergency designation for the 
Bosnia money. I indicated that I would offer that amendment later this 
morning, and I simply want to offer it, call for the yeas and nays, and 
not discuss it further at this time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object. I am not managing this 
bill, so I ask my colleague from Wisconsin if he would withhold that 
amendment until the Senator from Alaska is back. That would be 
appreciated. So I object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2083

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I had come to the floor to speak very 
briefly on the amendment, now withdrawn, that had been offered by the 
Senator from Texas.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my colleagues. Briefly, I wish 
to speak on the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas and the one 
that has been referred to by the Senator from Wisconsin about our 
Bosnia policy.
  A discussion was offered by the Senator from West Virginia about the 
power of the purse, and that is a power that we, of course, continue to 
have. We have, by explicit and implicit expressions, consented to and 
supported the policy that we are following in Bosnia. It is a 
successful policy. We will return to these discussions, as these two 
amendments suggest, before this year is ended.
  When it comes to discussing the power of the purse and the relations 
between the President and Congress on this matter of Bosnia policy, I 
simply wanted to say that I will be recorded as being in favor of the 
current course of our policy. It has worked. To set a date to create an 
exit strategy other than the one that is there now, which is the 
accomplishment of the Dayton process, would be to snatch defeat from 
the jaws of victory, or more colloquially, as our distinguished former 
majority leader Bob Dole has said, to impose an exit date now on our 
Bosnia policy, to cut off funding would be ``like a football team 
leaving the field in the second half when they are ahead of the game.''
  Remarkable progress has been made in Bosnia, thanks to the presence 
of the NATO troops and, most particularly, our American presence there 
to end the war, to begin to rebuild a civil society. Even in the 
Serbian section there is new hope with new leadership from President 
Plasic and Prime Minister Dodik. We have proven that the reasonable 
exercise that diplomacy matched with force can end conflict and 
genocide in Europe.
  Now, that is a remarkable accomplishment. I would hate to see us 
jeopardize it by congressional termination of the funding or by 
artificially setting an exit date, or even an exit strategy, short of 
the accomplishment of the goals of the Dayton process. I thank my 
colleagues for giving me this opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to take 1 minute to thank my 
colleague from Connecticut for his remarks. I had a chance to meet with 
some educators from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who are actually in the 
gallery. The one thing they said to me is, ``Please support this peace 
process. There is so much appreciation for what America has done. Give 
us time. The world will be a much better place if you are willing to 
make this commitment.''
  I wanted to associate myself with the eloquence of my colleague from 
Connecticut.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

[[Page S2514]]

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of 
both the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Minnesota. I 
hope that we will be able to work something out that they would also be 
comfortable with, because we do want to exercise a responsible approach 
to our role in this whole Bosnia peace process. But I do think we also 
have a responsibility to have clear conditions and a clear exit 
strategy. So I hope we will be able to work together.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions be added as an original 
cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I did not hear the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request of the Senator from Wisconsin was 
to set the pending business aside.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object. Senator Nickles and I have been here for about an hour and 
15 minutes wanting to debate the Nickles amendment. I hope that we at 
least have an opportunity to get to the substance of it. I want to 
accommodate all of our colleagues here.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will reassure the Senator that this is 
merely to offer an amendment, and it will take 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 2121

  (Purpose: To remove the emergency designation for the supplemental 
 appropriations to fund incremental costs of contingency operations in 
                                Bosnia)

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

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2121.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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:
       Beginning on page 7, strike out line 13 and all that 
     follows through page 12, line 1, and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $184,000,000: Provided, That of such amount, $72,500,000 (the 
     amount for funding incremental costs of contingency 
     operations in Southwest Asia) is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $22,300,000: Provided, That of such amount, $19,900,000 (the 
     amount for funding incremental costs of contingency 
     operations in Southwest Asia) is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $5,100,000: Provided, That of such amount, 
     $3,700,000 (the amount for funding incremental costs of 
     contingency operations in Southwest Asia) is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $10,900,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', 
     $4,100,000: Provided, That of such amount, $2,000,000 (the 
     amount for funding incremental costs of contingency 
     operations in Southwest Asia) is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $1,886,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $33,272,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $21,509,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-wide'', $1,390,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-wide'', $44,000,000, for emergency expenses resulting 
     from natural disasters in the United States: Provided, That 
     the entire amount shall be available only to the extent that 
     an official budget request for $44,000,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act; Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     may transfer these funds to current applicable operation and 
     maintenance appropriations, to be merged with and available 
     for the same purposes and for the same time period as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     the transfer authority provided in this provision is in 
     addition to any transfer authority available to the 
     Department.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $650,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force Reserve'', $229,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $175,000: Provided, That such amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Contingency 
     Operations Transfer Fund'', $1,556,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $46,000,000, shall be 
     available for classified programs: Provided, That of such 
     amount, $1,188,800,000 (the amount for funding incremental 
     costs of contingency operations in Southwest Asia) is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is simply an amendment that removes 
the emergency designation for the additional Bosnia money, which I 
mentioned a few minutes ago.
  At this point, I simply ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2120

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Nickles amendment 
No. 2120.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, the 
amendment I am offering today will strike a nonemergency appropriation

[[Page S2515]]

of $16 million for the Health Care Financing Administration, commonly 
called HCFA. This provision in the supplemental bill includes $6 
million for HCFA to hire 65 new Federal employees. That is an average 
of $92,300 per person. Mr. President, I will try to be very blunt and 
very quick with my discussion on this amendment.
  HCFA has today 4,002 employees. It is unbelievably large, and some 
would say not a very well-run agency. It has an administrative function 
that spends $364 million. Its total program management is $1.88 billion 
and it has been growing significantly.
  The administration in their budget request says next year they want 
to hire an additional 215 employees, an increase in their Federal 
administrative request from $364 million to $456 million. This is an 
agency that has been growing and, under the administration's request, 
would continue to grow profusely. It doesn't need to be in this so-
called emergency supplemental bill. The administration requested it, 
and it was initially agreed upon.
  But I started looking at the request, and I am astounded that it 
would be made. Supposedly, the request was made to fund HCFA's 
enforcement of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 
the so-called Kassebaum-Kennedy bill that we passed last Congress. This 
provision would hire an additional 65 bureaucrats. They now have 26 
administering the program. Forty-five States have already complied. 
This is temporary assuming all 50 States are going to comply. Twenty-
six employees were able to help monitor compliance and help achieve 
compliance within 45 States. Five States have not. All five States, I 
believe, will at some point be in compliance.
  Do we really need to hire an additional 65 and expand this 
bureaucracy? I don't think that we should. I think we should save the 
taxpayers the $16 million.
  One of the things that bothers me is how we are paying for this. This 
is paid for by taking money out of a function that is paid for in the 
Medicare trust fund. So we are taking money out of entitlement 
functions and putting it in discretionary funds so we can hire more 
bureaucrats. HCFA already has over 4,000. I really do not think we need 
another 65, especially in an emergency supplemental bill.
  So my amendment would be to delete this amendment to the bill that 
would add $16 million in new federal spending, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from 
Oklahoma should be called ``The Abusive Insurers Protection Act.''
  The Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, which protects consumers against 
insurance company abuses, passed the Senate by 100-0 on April 23, 1996. 
The conference agreement passed it on August 2, 1996, by a vote of 98-
0. It has unanimous support--not once but twice. But now some Senators 
are proposing to effectively gut that legislation by denying HCFA the 
staff and the resources they need to enforce the bill.
  Let us be very clear. This is not about the budget. This is not about 
wasteful spending. The HCFA request is fully paid for by a cut 
elsewhere in the HCFA budget. This is about an inexplicable effort to 
deny millions of people the right to portable, accessible health 
insurance.
  Let me review the history of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and explain 
to the Members why the request for the additional staff and resources 
is needed.
  The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill bans some of the worst abuses by health 
insurers--abuses that affect millions of people a year. It says that 
insurers could not impose preexisting condition exclusions on people 
who have faithfully paid their premiums but changed insurance carrier 
because they changed their job. It says that insurers could not 
penalize members of a group by excluding workers who happen to be in 
poor health or by charging them additional premiums. It says that small 
businesses could not be denied insurance coverage or have their policy 
canceled because one worker developed a health problem. It says that 
people who lost their job through no fault of their own could not be 
denied insurance in the individual market.
  According to the General Accounting Office, as many as 25 million 
people annually benefit from this health insurance bill of rights. But 
patchwork enforcement and a concerted effort by unscrupulous insurers 
to violate the law have raised serious concerns during the early 
implementation period.
  For too many Americans the promise of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill has 
been a broken promise. The President and the Department of HHS are 
moving decisively to address some of the worst abuses, but their 
ability to do so will be crippled if this amendment passes.
  When our legislation initially passed, we envisioned that enforcement 
against insurance carriers would be a State responsibility, since State 
insurance commissioners have traditionally been the regulators of 
health insurance. Federal regulation was the fallback only if States 
failed to act. Most States have passed implementing or conforming 
legislation and are enforcing the law. But there are a significant 
number of States that have not yet come into compliance. Four States 
have failed to pass implementing legislation and have no comparable 
State laws on the books. Many, many more have only implemented parts of 
the law. One of the States that has failed to act is California with 
more than 30 million people.
  The issue goes beyond the insurance performance standards included in 
the original Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. Congress has acted to expand the 
bill by passing the mental health parity requirements and a ban on 
drive-by deliveries. These provisions, too, will remain an empty 
promise if HCFA does not have the staff to enforce the law.
  In every State that has failed to act, in whole or in part, the 
responsibility for assuring compliance in responding to complaints and 
informing the public has fallen on the Health Care Financing 
Administration. But HCFA has just over 20 people working on this issue 
in its headquarters and a handful spread across the regions.
  The recent GAO report expressed concern that HCFA's current resources 
are inadequate to effectively enforce the bill. If this amendment 
passes and the supplemental request is denied, HCFA will have to wait 
for the completion of the regular budget process for next year. But 
consumers cannot afford to have HCFA wait a year or more to hire new 
staff. And because HCFA lacks the institutional expertise to deal with 
private insurance issues, it cannot simply transfer responsibilities to 
existing staff. The GAO report was a preliminary one. If anything, it 
only scratches the surface of insurance companies' attempts to evade or 
subvert the law. But even in the short time the law has been operative, 
it is clear that there is a substantial abuse by greedy insurance 
companies and more rigorous enforcement is needed to make the right 
granted by Kassebaum-Kennedy a reality.
  The GAO found that many companies were engaging in price gouging with 
premiums being charged to consumers exercising their rights to buy 
individual policies when they lost their job. They were charged as much 
as 600 percent above standard rates. These overcharges make a mockery 
of the right to purchase coverage.
  Other carriers continue to illegally impose preexisting condition 
exclusions. Still others, the GAO found, delayed the processing of 
enrollee applications beyond the 63-day window allowed by the law, 
leaving applicants high and dry. Other carriers illegally failed to 
disclose to consumers that they have a right to buy a policy. Some 
carriers refuse to pay commissions to agents who referred eligible 
individuals, and others told agents not to refer any eligibles for 
coverage. Other carriers put all the eligibles with health problems in 
a single insurance product, driving up the rates to unaffordable levels 
while selling regular policies to healthy eligibles. Without the staff 
increase requested in this bill, this situation will get worse--not 
better.
  The Senate should not be voting for a free ride for greedy insurance 
companies, and it should not be an accomplice in denying families the 
health benefits they were promised by unanimous votes just 2 years ago.

  The need for additional staff goes beyond enforcement. The GAO found 
wide

[[Page S2516]]

gaps in consumer knowledge--gaps that prevented consumers from 
exercising their rights under the law. HHS wants to launch a vigorous 
effort to address this problem. But, according to the GAO, because of 
resource constraints the agency is unable to put much effort in 
consumer education.
  I understand that the assistant majority leader believes this isn't 
an emergency situation. This logic makes me wonder if he opposes the 
other nonemergency provisions in the bill. I can count some two dozen.
  For millions of Americans, the failure to enforce this legislation is 
an emergency. Every family who is illegally denied health insurance 
faces an emergency. Every child who goes without timely medical care 
because this bill is not enforced faces an emergency. Every family who 
is bankrupt by medical costs because this bill is not enforced faces an 
emergency. This may not be an emergency for an abusive insurance 
company, but it is an emergency for families all over this country. For 
some, it is literally a matter of life and death.
  The Senate should reject this amendment. We need to toughen the 
Kassebaum-Kennedy bill--not weaken its enforcement. This is a test of 
whether the Senate wants to protect greedy insurance companies that 
break the law or protect American families.
  Mr. President, I see my friend from Minnesota wants to address this 
issue and then I will have more to say with regard to the GAO report.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me, first of all, just associate myself with the 
remarks of Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. And let me talk 
specifically to my colleague, whom I have a lot of respect for even 
though we sometimes sharply disagree on issues.
  I am particularly concerned about the effect this has on the mental 
health parity law that we were able to pass. This was worked out. I was 
able to do it with Senator Domenici and other Senators as well. My 
understanding is that there are actually up to 30 States that have yet 
to comply with this.
  My concern is simple. We passed this legislation. I thought it was a 
real step forward. I think it is. When we passed this legislation, what 
we were trying to say--my colleague from New Mexico is here. He may 
add, and hopefully not detract from what I am saying. But I think what 
we were trying to say with this legislation is let's try to end some of 
this discrimination and let's try to make sure that people who are 
struggling with mental illness get treatment. We ought not to be 
denying treatment. We ought to, to the maximum extent possible, be 
treating this differently than any other kind of illness.
  We were able to at least make some progress when it comes to annual 
caps, and when it comes to lifetime caps, that was kind of a commitment 
we made.
  I say to my colleague from Oklahoma that this money--especially the 
$6 million that deals with the enforcement--is all about making sure 
that HCFA has the capacity that we as a Government have, the capacity 
to do some monitoring to make sure that as a matter of fact what the 
Senate passed and what Congress passed by way of mental health parity 
is implemented around the country.
  In a way, this is an emergency. You can't on the one hand raise 
people's hopes and say finally we are going to end some of this 
discrimination, finally you and your loved ones who have been affected 
by this illness are going to have the opportunity to get some 
treatment, and then turn around and basically gut the mental health 
parity provision.
  I say to colleagues that many Senators, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, voted for this. I would make an appeal to you. When you come to 
the floor of the Senate, either to speak or to vote, please don't vote 
for an amendment which is going to gut part of the enforcement of this. 
We need to make sure that this is enforced around the country.

  We made some progress. It was a step forward. But we still have 30 
States that aren't in compliance with the mental health parity 
legislation. This was legislation that commanded widespread support in 
the U.S. Senate. This was legislation by two authors--Senator Domenici 
and myself, a Republican and a Democrat. It would be cruel to pass that 
legislation and then turn around and deny HCFA--I am not as concerned 
about HCFA as I am the people who would be affected--with having the 
women power and man power to enforce this. We simply have to make sure 
that the health care plans and the insurance companies live up to the 
law. They are not going to do that if we pass a law and then we turn 
around and undercut the enforcement of this. I think that would be 
cruel. I think we ought not to do this.
  The intention of my colleague from Oklahoma is not to deny people 
good coverage. I know that. My colleague from Oklahoma is operating 
within a different framework. But, from all I have been able to glean 
from my understanding of what is at stake here, we have two things 
going on. We have the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation, an important piece 
of legislation which basically said to people in the country: Look, you 
are not going to be denied coverage because you had a bout with cancer 
or because you are a diabetic or whatever the case might be. Now, as it 
turns out, we are having trouble around the country with this, because 
a lot of insurance companies are raising the rates so high that people 
cannot afford it anyway. But it was an important step forward.

  Now we have the situation where there is another part that I want to 
bring to the attention of my colleagues, which is the mental health 
parity part. We are not going to be able to have mental health parity, 
we are not going to be able to make sure there is some enforcement in 
the country, if we turn around and gut HCFA's capacity to do so.
  So I say to colleagues, please, when you come down here to speak or 
when you vote, do not vote for this amendment. Whatever the good 
intentions, the effects of this amendment will be cruel. The effects of 
this amendment are going to turn the clock backwards. This would be a 
huge mistake, and that is why I come to the floor to speak against this 
amendment and urge an overwhelmingly strong vote against this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement of my 
colleague from Minnesota, but he is absolutely wrong. Let me just tell 
my colleague from Minnesota, the administration did not request a dime 
dealing with mental health parity--not a dime, I tell my friend from 
New Mexico.
  Let's go back to the legislation, the original legislation----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me just complete my response. I think I will answer 
my colleague's statement.
  The Senator from Minnesota says if we do not fund this money we are 
jeopardizing mental parity enforcement, and he is absolutely wrong--
absolutely wrong. I want to make sure people understand it. The reason 
why Kassebaum-Kennedy had a lot of support is because it provided major 
reforms to improve access and portability, to make sure if somebody 
loses insurance in a group plan they can have access to coverage in an 
individual plan. I supported that. But we left it under State 
regulation. We gave States the authority to regulate this. Mr. 
President, 45 States have stepped forward. We passed that bill 20 
months ago. The bill became effective, I tell my colleague, in January 
of this year. It has only been in effect for 2\1/2\ months. 45 States 
now comply; 45 States have done what we asked them to do. They have 
amended their State laws, because States regulate insurance.
  I know a lot of people in this body would like the Federal Government 
to regulate all insurance, but a lot of us said no, we should keep that 
under State control, we should let the States do it. We are not 
insurance commissioners. And needs may vary from State to State. Some 
people wanted to nationalize it. They have not been successful. They 
were not successful when they passed the so-called Kennedy-Kassebaum 
legislation in federalizing insurance.
  What the bill did say is: States, make these changes. Make sure 
insurance in

[[Page S2517]]

your State is portable. Make sure there are options to go to individual 
plans if they lose coverage under a group plan. We passed that 
unanimously in the Senate. Mr. President, 45 States have adopted it. 
The law became effective January 1 this year. It has only been in 
effect for 2\1/2\ months. To help the States make that transition, HCFA 
had 26 employees--26. Forty-five States now comply. The other five 
States, as I understand it, are still working on it, and maybe they 
have had a disagreement between the Governor and the legislature or one 
body in the House or the Senate, and so they have not passed 
legislation in their State to be in compliance. So they are working on 
it.
  But wait a minute. Do we need to hire a whole new army? Do we need to 
go from 26 employees and add another 65 on top of it, creating a whole 
new big base or army of HCFA employees to get these 5 States to comply? 
I do not think so. I think it would be a serious mistake. And it has 
absolutely nothing to do with mental health parity.

  I look at the administration's HCFA supplemental request; it doesn't 
mention mental health parity. It doesn't have anything to do with 
mental health parity. Those are all under the State plans. So I just 
mention that. I want to make sure my colleagues understand that.
  Let me now just touch on a couple of other things. Senator Kennedy 
mentioned that GAO came up with a report.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield just for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me conclude, if you don't mind.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry.
  Mr. NICKLES. He said this GAO report mentioned there was widespread 
abuse and so on, and I take issue with that. The GAO report says this, 
and I will just quote:

       HHS regulatory role under this law is not yet known. Some 
     implementation challenges may soon recede. Others are 
     hypothetical and may not materialize. As Federal agencies 
     issue more guidance and States and insurers gain more 
     experience with HCFA, concerns about the clarity of its 
     regulations may diminish.

  In other words, we have 45 States now in compliance, according to 
HCFA; 5 are in the process of working on it, and maybe those 5 will 
never get it together. Then maybe there will have to be some Federal 
implementation of Kassebaum-Kennedy, but that remains to be seen; we 
don't know. This has only been in effect for 2\1/2\ months. So, do we 
really have an emergency of such a magnitude that we must triple the 
staff for HCFA so these five States can get in compliance? Those five 
States may sign up within the next month, or the next 2 months. So 
there is no reason to hire 65 people. There is no reason whatsoever, at 
$92,000 each--or an average cost of $92,000. I don't think it makes 
sense.
  Does HCFA have some other alternatives? Yes; they have over 4,000 
employees. Do we really need to give them 65 more in this so-called 
urgent supplemental? HHS has a total of 58,500 employees--58,000 
employees. Do we really need to give them an extra 65? I don't think 
so. I mean, this administration has shown a great ability to be able to 
borrow employees from agency to agency. The Legal Counsel's Office in 
the White House seems to borrow quite a few from various agencies to 
help in their legal battles that they have ongoing in the White House. 
They can move employees within HHS, they can move employees within 
HCFA, to meet with any temporary demand that is there. This is a 
temporary demand. You only have five States in noncompliance. They may 
be in compliance by this summer. So why in the world would we need to 
hire 65 additional bureaucrats that would be permanent, that would be 
added on forever, that would be looking for other things?
  I might mention, we even found a list from HCFA that says what these 
people will be doing after these five States are in compliance. I might 
tell my colleague from Minnesota, it doesn't have anything to do with 
mental health parity but it is ``review all State legislation''--it has 
a bunch of things that they would be doing. In other words, more 
bureaucrats, more Federal intervention over State law. That is not what 
we passed in Kassebaum-Kennedy.
  My colleague from Minnesota was successful, with the Senator from New 
Mexico. They said, we want to have mental health parity. That passed as 
part of Kennedy-Kassebaum, but I tell my colleague, dealing with 
Federal legislation, it only would deal with the Labor Department on 
ERISA plans. It has nothing to do with State regulation of plans. We do 
not send out an army of bureaucrats to set out and micromanage 
insurance throughout the States. Maybe that is what some in this 
administration would like to do. I hope we will not do it. I hope we 
will have the wisdom to say we will not give them this additional money 
for 65 employees. They have 26, and 45 States signed up--45 States in 
the last 20 months signed up. Do we really need to give them an 
additional 65 employees in hopes that maybe they will be able to run 
the insurance programs of the 5 States that haven't yet signed up? I 
don't think so.

  This is an urgent supplemental. This is an abuse of the process, I 
think, by HCFA, to expand their bureaucracy, and I think it would be a 
serious mistake. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, very briefly, a couple of 
things. First of all, the administration didn't need to mention 
specifically mental health parity, because this is the same staff. The 
65 additional people, man- and women-power to enforce Kennedy-
Kassebaum, it is the same staff that enforces the mental health parity. 
They don't need to list it. We all know it. It is the same staff. We 
need that staff.
  There are 30 States that are not in compliance. We have had to battle 
with companies over the 1 percent rule as well that we had, which said 
to a company: Look, if your costs go up more than 1 percent--we do not 
believe that will happen--you can opt out. We had a big battle on that. 
HCFA is very much a part of making a determination on that question as 
well.
  Ultimately this is a national law. Ultimately HCFA, indeed, has a 
very important role to play in monitoring this and in making sure that 
the law of the land is enforced. So I say to colleagues, this has 
everything in the world to do with the mental health parity bill that 
was passed. That is why I am out here on the floor. I am in complete 
support of the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation. I agree with the Senator 
from Massachusetts, it needs to be strengthened. But right now what I 
am trying to do is fight to make sure that we do not turn the clock 
back half a century.
  It is time to make sure that States are brought into compliance, that 
the mental health parity legislation which was passed by this Senate 
means something in a concrete way for many families, millions of 
families all around the country. That is not going to happen if we turn 
around and gut the enforcement of this.
  So I just want colleagues to know, this has everything in the world 
to do with that mental health parity legislation and it has everything 
in the world to do with making sure that that law of the land really 
becomes the law of the land, because it is implemented, because it is 
enforced, and because it makes a positive difference for millions of 
families. This amendment takes us in exactly the opposite direction. I 
say to my colleague from Oklahoma, he is profoundly mistaken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I beg to differ with my colleague. The 
original legislation set up said: States, do these things. We told the 
States to do them, and 45 States have done them. This is a temporary -- 
temporary -- encouragement to get the States to have portability. We 
did it; 45 States have done it. This was not to have HCFA micromanage 
State insurance plans throughout the land. That was not why this bill 
was passed. If they could not do that with 26 employees, then I would 
be surprised if they could do it with 65 employees.
  Some people are trying to take a bill that passed unanimously and say 
that gives us great authority to be able to micromanage all the health 
care plans in the States. That is not what we passed. That is not what 
we agreed to. What we told the States to do was put in portability and 
put in conversions,

[[Page S2518]]

where you could convert to an individual plan. We did that; 45 States 
said yes; 5 still have not. That is temporary. Even the GAO report that 
was quoted by my colleague from Massachusetts said--he was quoting that 
report where the director who made the report said we may not have this 
need. We don't even know, because those five States may be in 
compliance, and once they sign up, we are done, they are done.
  My colleague is talking about mental parity. The States have that in 
their plans if they are complying. That is a State regulatory function, 
it is not ours, where the Federal Government has an involvement to tell 
my colleague under an ERISA plan, that's enforced under the Department 
of Labor. It is not under HCFA. HCFA did not ask for that, because it 
is not under their domain, their jurisdiction. I don't want people to 
be confused and say this may hinder mental health parity enforcement. 
It does not. It doesn't have a thing to do with that.

  What this whole legislation is about is getting the States to comply 
with HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 
Mr. President, 45 States have done that; 5 are in the process, working 
on it. They have done that with 26 employees. This is a measure to say 
we need another 65, and incidentally, when they finish this, we will 
have them doing something else. This is a massive effort to expand the 
bureaucracy of an agency that already spends $364 million, has 4,000 
employees.
  I might mention, the administration wants to increase that next year 
by about $80 million, just in administration function, and increase 
that by another 215 employees. We will have to wrestle with that in 
next year's appropriation bill, which will just be another few months 
from now. But what we have on the floor now is the so-called urgent 
supplemental that the administration tried to stick in the back-door to 
expand their bureaucracy. They want to use this urgent supplemental as 
an excuse to expand the bureaucracy when there is nothing urgent.
  I think if you have a bill that passed 20 months ago and you have 45 
States in compliance and the bill has only been in effect 2\1/2\ months 
and there are 5 remaining, there is no reason to almost triple the 
bureaucracy to be able to get those 5 States to comply. That is what we 
are talking about. That is a temporary need, and surely HCFA, with 
4,000 employees, if they need a couple more employees, can borrow a 
couple of those employees out of that 4,000. I mean the 26 that are 
already working in this one branch, they still have 3,970-some-odd that 
they could use, that they could borrow. They can borrow a couple of 
people.
  Or there is something like almost 60,000 people in Health and Human 
Services--60,000 employees. Maybe they could borrow a couple of those. 
We don't need to permanently fund an additional 65 employees to expand 
this bureaucracy.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think it is worthwhile to get back to 
the real situation with regard to the implementation of this 
legislation. With all respect, my good friend from Oklahoma has failed 
to describe accurately the kind of crisis that is affecting so many 
families in this country and then differ with what the conclusions 
would be in terms of his amendment on that particular crisis.
  No. 1, there is an emergency. It is an emergency for individual 
families. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill addressed the group-to-group 
issues, where you have large groups moving into other groups in terms 
of the State, where about 80 percent of those have insurance and have 
some preexisting condition. But it has significant problems with regard 
to groups going to individual policies in the State. That is basically 
what we are talking about.
  Let's get serious about understanding what the issue is and the kind 
of pain and anxiety that is taking place. Every Member of this body 
ought to understand and get ready, that if the Nickles amendment goes 
through, you had better put on three or four more people in your office 
to answer the phones, because that is what is going to happen, from 
individuals all across this country who are going to be facing many of 
these kinds of problems, such as gouging by some of the unscrupulous 
insurance companies that have raised the premiums to gouge American 
families some 600 percent. We are not addressing that particular issue 
today, although the administration has a proposal and I have a 
proposal. We didn't believe that was going to be a problem under the 
Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. We said let the States do this, and the 
majority of the States have done it and have done it well with regard 
to the issues of pricing, but not all of them have. We ought to try and 
address that. We will do that but at a different time.
  What we are talking, Mr. President, with all due respect to my 
colleague, is many States, not just five. There are five States that 
have not passed State laws to address this issue, but there are many, 
many other States that have passed laws that are still out of 
compliance. The Senator does not recognize that. Just read in the GAO 
report, which I will.
  Let's think about what we have asked. I am not here to try to defend 
HCFA, although I will on this particular occasion. We have put a very 
heavy burden on HCFA. We put a heavy burden on HCFA to try to implement 
the changes in the Medicaid Program to provide the savings in the 
budget last year.
  We have put a heavy burden on HCFA to try to deal with the fraud and 
abuse issues with new rules and regulations as a result of the 
excellent hearings that were held by Senator Harkin, and that has broad 
bipartisan support.
  We put the burden on HHS and HCFA to implement the legislation 
dealing with children's health insurance last year--that is taking 
place all across the country--to work with States. I have attended 
those conferences. There are HCFA people there trying to work with the 
States to implement the program we passed last year. That is State 
implementation, and HCFA is working with those States--just to mention 
a few of the additional burdens we have put on them.
  We have put on them the drive-by deliveries to make sure the States 
are going to comply with the legislation that was initiated by Senator 
Bradley and others, a bipartisan effort, to make sure we are not going 
to have drive-by deliveries.
  Also, to implement the provisions of mental health that Senator 
Domenici and Senator Wellstone added to it, to make sure that the 
States--and many States have not--are going to be able to include the 
mental health programs that are being included in the existing 
programs. We had a serious debate on that. We made very, very important 
progress. We had bipartisan support.

  Mr. President, it is true this bill went into effect last January, 
but I think it was the height of responsibility that the chairman of 
our Human Resources Committee, Senator Jeffords, asked the GAO to do a 
review of the implementation of the bill to find out where the bugs 
were so we could try to address them before it deteriorated and became 
more serious. That is an important, responsible oversight function. And 
we got the report back on the result of the legislation, being 
implemented now for 2 months, but we have the warning signs out there. 
We have the recommendations, and we have a proposal that doesn't 
increase the burden on the American taxpayer. It is a transfer of 
funds, not an additional burden. It is a recognition by the agency that 
we need to get additional personnel who have a high degree of expertise 
and an understanding of the insurance problems.
  This is the first time HCFA has had to face the various issues on 
insurance. They have to go out and hire people. It isn't somebody you 
are bringing up to run the garage down at HCFA, it isn't that you can 
just hire and fire people at will. These are very specialized and 
important functions, and you need a considerable degree of skill and 
experience in order to make sure that they are going to be done right 
and well to protect the people. That is what we are talking about in 
this circumstance. There is no additional burden or weight in terms of 
expenditures for the taxpayers, but just the recognition within HCFA 
that this is a priority and we need these quality people to be able to 
do it. That is where we are at, Mr. President.
  Let me respond to the Senator from Oklahoma on this issue. And make 
no

[[Page S2519]]

mistake about it, all of us have been around this place long enough to 
know that if you don't have the people in these various agencies, the 
phones just continue to ring. And the people who will be ringing are 
the people who have these preexisting conditions and disabilities--make 
no mistake about it. They are already stretched out, as far as the mind 
and eye can possibly see, and they will not be able to get any kind of 
responses.
  We have in this GAO report the recognition that if you have more than 
a 63-day gap in your coverage, you do not have an entitlement to get 
the insurance at the State level. We have testimony in the GAO report 
that many companies stretch out the period beyond the 63 days in order 
to effectively deny people from receiving what they otherwise would be 
entitled to. That is in the GAO report. We want to stop that.
  So, if you are going to vote for the Nickles amendment, be prepared 
to face a mother in your State or a father in your State who says, ``I 
was strung out; I wasn't aware of the 63 days, and my insurance people 
dragged this thing out; I finally found out after 64 days that I should 
have gotten this proposal, and now I am denied. What am I going to do 
for my child?''
  This does not cost the taxpayers any more. We are responding to real 
needs, not needs that the Senators from Massachusetts or Minnesota are 
saying, but the General Accounting Office is saying and HCFA is saying. 
It is going to make a major difference to people who have these kinds 
of preexisting conditions and illnesses.
  Look at what the General Accounting Office has said:

     preliminary data from an October 1997 NAIIC survey indicate 
     that while most States have made progress in enacting 
     statutes implementing key HIPAA provisions, many gaps remain. 
     For example . . . in the individual market, eight States have 
     not passed laws to implement guaranteed renewal. In the group 
     markets, two States had not passed laws to implement small-
     group guarantee access, and four States had not passed laws 
     to implement guarantee renewal and limits on preexisting 
     condition exclusion periods in the large-group markets. In 
     addition, these preliminary data do not include HIPAA's 
     certificate insurance requirement, and anecdotal evidence 
     suggests that many States have not incorporated this 
     requirement into State statutes.

  There are not just the States that haven't passed the law, there are 
all of these kinds of problems. It is all spelled out.

       While States continue to pass legislation to close some of 
     these gaps, the possibility remains that not all the 
     provisions in all market segments will be addressed, 
     necessitating an expansion of HHS's enforcement role.

  That is what the GAO understood, that is what the appropriators 
understood, that this has a higher priority. Here it is in the GAO 
report.
  Then it goes on in the report, saying:

       HHS resources will be further strained if the enforcement 
     role it is serving in these five States becomes permanent or 
     expands to other States. If HHS determines that other States 
     have not passed one or more of the HIPAA provisions, as the 
     preliminary data suggest, HHS will have to play a regulatory 
     role in these additional States.

  Mr. President, Senator Kassebaum believed all the States should, and 
we want all the States to conform to this. But the fact of the matter 
is, we have the warning signs right out here in this GAO report. We 
have the suggestion in the emergency supplemental, and the reason that 
it is in there is because this is a real emergency for families that 
will not be able to get coverage as the law was intended and as the 
testimony indicated, individuals with preexisting conditions.
  I listened to the Senator talk about his conclusions on the GAO 
report. It was very interesting, but it was limited. He read part of 
one page but did not read the conclusion.
  It points out in the conclusion of the GAO report:

       Finally, two implementation difficulties are substantive 
     and likely to persist unless measures are taken to address 
     them. First, among the 13 Federal fallback States, some 
     consumers are finding it difficult as a result of high 
     premiums to obtain the group-to-individual guaranteed access 
     coverage that HIPAA requires . . . Second, HHS's regulatory 
     role could expand as the status of States' efforts to adopt 
     and implement HIPAA provisions becomes clearer in 1998. HHS's 
     current enforcement capabilities could be inadequate to 
     handle the additional burden unless further resources become 
     available.

  I do not know how much clearer that can be. We can say, Mr. 
President, ``Well, we will just let it go and see what happens.'' It is 
extraordinary to me--extraordinary to me--when we are putting at risk 
families that have, primarily, children or parents or other families 
who have preexisting conditions and disabilities, we are going to say 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate, ``We are going to put you at risk''? 
It might get better; sure, there are one or two people in each State 
that can try and work it all out. We have been put on notice. It is the 
height of irresponsibility to fail to respond to that notice. This is 
not just shuffling papers around, this is not just a question of 
bureaucracy, this is a question of whether we are going to provide the 
protection for those families. That is the issue.
  We know what is happening, and families now--too many of them--are 
being gouged by the 500-, 600-percent increase in the premiums. We had 
hoped the States would address those. Many States have. The majority 
have. We are proud of them. But we know that some have not. What if you 
or someone you knew lived in that State, or family lived in that State, 
and you found out these games were being played? These games are being 
played. The GAO report points out in its study that, ``Some carriers 
initially attempted to discourage the consumer from applying for 
products with guaranteed access rights. Some are charging premiums 140 
to 600 percent of the standard rate.''
  What kind of a chance does a family have with a child with a 
preexisting condition to pay 600 percent more? It is gouging.
  This measure is trying to say, OK, let's implement the enforcement of 
these programs to the extent that we can protect the public. What is 
the point of passing a law on burglary and then saying we are not going 
to have any policemen to enforce it? That is what we are doing.
  We all celebrate the fact that we passed this law--bipartisan--passed 
the law. And then to take away the enforcement of it? What sense does 
that make? Particularly when it isn't costing any more.
  Now, Mr. President, as you go through this GAO report

       After the Federal fallback provisions took place on July 1, 
     1997, many consumers complained to State insurance regulators 
     that carriers did not disclose the fact that a product with 
     HIPAA guaranteed access rates existed, or, when consumers 
     specifically requested one, they were told that the carrier 
     did not have such a product available. One State regulator we 
     visited said that some carriers told consumers HIPAA products 
     were not available because the State had not yet approved 
     them. However, the regulator had notified all carriers that 
     such products were to be issued starting July 1997, 
     regardless of whether the State had yet approved them.

  Here we have examples of various agents who are completely distorting 
and misrepresenting what the bill was all about. All we are saying is, 
let us have an opportunity to work with the States to make sure that 
these individuals and families are going to be protected.
  We have in the GAO report examples where agents are not demonstrating 
the options to eligible individuals. They say the policies are not 
available. We have allegations in this GAO report that some of the 
major insurance companies are docking the agents' fees if they sell 
these policies to people with preexisting conditions. That is happening 
today--today. And the Senator from Oklahoma says that we do not have a 
problem. We will just wait another year and get another GAO report. We 
have this now, here. This isn't just some document that was produced 
for the Senator from Massachusetts or any of the rest of us who are 
going to oppose the Nickles amendment.
  They talk in here about the confusion among consumers. And with the 
confusion among consumers, we find out that these parents are calling 
Members of the Senate or calling whoever they can to find out what the 
information is. There is one individual out in the State. The Senator 
says 24 individuals ought to be able to work this. We have one 
individual in northern California covering about 10 million people, 
responding to all of these questions, all of the kinds of questions 
that have come up.
  What did HHS say when it came and testified? We have had a hearing on 
this very measure in our Human Resources Committee, Mr. President. And

[[Page S2520]]

what the HHS said is that they needed these resources because they 
wanted to go out and help educate consumers--who are the consumers? 
those with the preexisting conditions--about how this law works, if 
they have the protection or if they have not got the protection. And 
that was one of the things that they wanted to do. Because as a result 
of the GAO review that said there is confusion out there, they wanted 
to address this problem. But you are not going to be able to do that if 
the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is accepted. They will not 
be able to reach out and educate because they will not have the 
resources to be able to do it.
  Mr. President, one of the really insidious aspects of this was the 
finding of the GAO report on the questions of the waiting period. They 
had an example. According to NAIIC, the National Association of the 
Independent Insurance Commissioners, some health plans have established 
waiting periods of up to a year during which certain conditions or 
procedures, such as organ transplants, are excluded from an enrollee's 
coverage. Requiring such waiting periods effectively excludes such 
preexisting conditions from coverage, and, according to regulators, it 
is contrary to the statutory intent to provide the portability of 
coverage. It is here in the GAO report. We can take--and I will take--
time to go through this in greater detail.
  But the idea, Mr. President, that we have just five States that have 
not conformed, that they are going to do it, that the bill has just 
been put into effect and we have no problem out there, is a complete 
distortion and misrepresentation of an excellent GAO report that points 
out what is happening out on Main Street--what is happening out on Main 
Street--to the families with these preexisting conditions. Those with 
the disabilities are facing very high hurdles. They are facing those 
hurdles every single day.

  Finally, we have some opportunity to work out in a bipartisan way a 
bill that got votes of 100-0 and 98-0 for some relief for 25 million 
Americans who have some preexisting condition or disability. The GAO 
report flagged for us the need for some oversight as well as some of 
the real problems. Although the solution will not cost the taxpayer 
additional money, we are being told that we do not have to be concerned 
about this, that there really isn't such a need out there, that all of 
these problems are going to be easily resolved. That flies in the face 
of this excellent report, and we should not--we should not--accept it, 
Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just for the information of my 
colleagues, I think we are winding down. Just a couple comments.
  HCFA is not a starved agency. This is not an agency that has been 
ignored by this Congress in last year's appropriations bill. Last year, 
in 1997, we spent $1.77 billion in HCFA. In 1998, this year we are in, 
$1.88 billion. I tell my colleagues, that is $110 million, and an 
increase of $30 million just in the administrative portion of HCFA 
alone.
  And the number of full-time employees, I have mentioned before, is 
over 4,000--4,000. So this is not an agency that has been starved. If 
you ask anybody in the medical community, anybody in a hospital, HCFA 
is a disaster. It takes 10 years sometimes to promulgate regulations. I 
do not think there is a direct relationship between increasing an 
agency's budget and improving the quality of health care for families.
  My colleague from Massachusetts said, ``Boy, if we don't give them 
more money, we're going to have bad quality health care in various 
States.'' I do not think there is a direct correlation between an 
increase in HCFA's budget for bureaucrats and improving quality health 
care.
  It may be just the opposite. It may be that a lot of those 
bureaucrats, instead of increasing the quality health care, frankly, 
cause a lot more headache, a lot more paperwork, a lot more compliance 
costs and less quality health care. And so is this urgent?
  Now, the administration has a big request in 1999. And we are going 
to fight that on the appropriations bill. I am sure they have asked for 
$80 million in new money. They have asked for another 217 employees. 
Now they are trying to squeeze in an extra 65. I do not think we should 
do it. I do not think we should do it. It is not that big of a deal, 
but, hey, do we want to turn that much additional bureaucracy over to 
HCFA, that much more money, or can't they borrow some more of those 
employees that they now have who are probably reading through reports 
that are obsolete and maybe not doing so much good?
  Sixty-five happens to be about 1.5 percent of their work force. 
Surely, they can borrow a few employees if they have this urgent 
request to get these five States in compliance. Heaven forbid, five 
States. It is 2\1/2\ months, and they have not stepped up to do what we 
told them to do.
  Now, does that mean those States do not care about quality health 
care? I do not think so. Maybe they have not passed the bill in their 
legislatures, but, all right, let us borrow some employees from HCFA. 
Maybe that can encourage this process. But do we really need to hire 65 
more when 26 were doing this function for the first 20 months? Do we 
really need to hire an additional 65? That is an increase of 250 
percent, when you only have basically five States that have not 
complied when GAO says that HHS' regulatory role under this law is not 
yet known. Some implementation challenges may soon recede. Others are 
hypothetical and may not materialize. And yet we are going to more than 
double the number of bureaucrats dealing with this? I do not think that 
makes sense.

  And then, Mr. President, I want to touch on--and I have the Budget 
Committee chairman here and the Appropriations Committee chairman here. 
I want to touch on how this was paid for. Now, this is supposedly an 
urgent supplemental. I know on occasion--I know on the highway bill we 
are going to make a change on an entitlement program to help pay for 
the entitlement program, and most everybody signed off on it. Maybe 
that is good; maybe it is not good.
  But the way we are paying for this, I tell my colleague from 
Minnesota, we are taking money out of the Hospital Insurance Fund. We 
are taking money out of an entitlement program, mandated program, that 
is supposed to be dealing with quality health care. We are taking money 
away from that program and saying, well, we want to spend it in an 
urgent supplemental and money going out this year. Now, we only have a 
few months left this year. The HI, the Hospital Insurance Fund, happens 
to have some problems. Its problems are that more money is going out 
than going in. And so now we are all of a sudden saying--and this 
portion of it deals with peer review organizations, and so on. We are 
supposed to be implementing quality, supposed to be improving quality 
for seniors, and we are going to say, ``Oh, no, we're going to take 
money out of that. We'll take enough money out of that to pay for 
this.''
  We are taking money out of the entitlement side to pay on the 
discretionary side, and further compound the problems we have in the 
Medicare trust fund. I just do not think that makes sense. I do not 
think it is right. I told the chairman of the Finance Committee we 
should not do this. I have heard people say we are going to protect the 
Medicare fund and we are going to protect seniors and we are going to 
have quality health care for seniors, and the next thing you know, 
well, we are playing games on HI, on the Hospital Insurance Fund, so we 
can get more bureaucrats for HCFA.
  I do not think we can do it. If HCFA has the need, they have 4,002 
employees. The can borrow, they can get by, they can make sure they can 
make it happen. They have a total of 58,000 employees in their whole 
organization. Health and Human Services has 58,500 employees. Maybe 
they could borrow one or two of those. They could borrow 1 percent of 
those. My land, 58,000--1 percent would be 580. Do we really need that? 
I do not think so.
  So I just urge my colleagues to vote no on expanding bureaucracy. Let 
us allow some common sense and some fiscal discipline to happen for a 
change. Let us not be taking money out of an organization that is 
supposed to be improving quality health care for seniors and further 
jeopardizing the Hospital Insurance Fund at the same time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

[[Page S2521]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if other colleagues want to speak on 
this amendment, I would be pleased to defer to them. If not, I want to 
go on and speak.
  Mr. President, I would like to bring us back to what I think is the 
central question before us, and this will be the vote. We passed the 
Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. It was noncontroversial. We believed it was the 
right thing to do. What we said, the U.S. Senate, in our collective 
wisdom, Democrats and Republicans, was that it was simply wrong for an 
insurance company to deny someone coverage because of a preexisting 
condition. That was part of what we said with that vote.
  In addition, because the mental health parity amendment was passed, 
the law was passed as well, we said that we were going to at least take 
a giant step forward in ending some of the discrimination against 
people struggling with mental illness.
  We had a request, it was part of this supplemental, for 
some additional funding for HCFA to administer this law. That was 
noncontroversial until the Nickles amendment. The Nickles amendment 
eliminates that funding.

  Now my colleague from Oklahoma keeps talking about bureaucrats. 
Sometimes that gets to be a tiresome and tiring argument because 
sometimes it is not like ``bureaucrats'' with a sneer, it is women and 
men in public service with a very important mission, and the mission is 
to make sure that people in our country, families in our country, are 
not denied health care coverage because of discrimination by insurance 
companies, by health care plans. It is not ``bureaucrat'' with a sneer, 
it is men and women who are part of a mission to make sure that we do 
not just pass a law--we pass a law with great fanfare, and we say to 
families in the country: ``Listen. No longer will it be true that 
because your daughter is a diabetic and she has now graduated from 
college, and she is off your health insurance plan, she can't get 
coverage. No longer will it be true that because your husband had a 
bout with cancer when he was 55, now that his company has downsized and 
he is out of work, he won't be able to find any coverage at all. No 
longer will it be true that if you are suffering, struggling with 
mental illness, a company or a plan can say to you, `We are going to 
put a cap on an annual limit of how much coverage you can get, or a 
lifetime limit.' ''

  It won't be like someone who is struggling with a heart condition. It 
won't be like a diabetic. It won't be like someone struggling with 
another illness. We will put you in a whole other category, that is to 
say, second-class citizens. It doesn't matter that we have all this 
research talking about biochemical connection. It doesn't matter we are 
finally getting out of the dark age and getting beyond the stigma. We 
will make sure some of this discrimination ends.
  We said all of that.
  Now the rubber meets the road. That was noncontroversial, I think, 
before this amendment. A request by the administration for some 
additional funding for HCFA to make sure that this law of the land is 
implemented, that people are held accountable should be 
noncontroversial. It is like you give with one hand and you take away 
with another.
  Now, Pennsylvania, for example, has notified HCFA they are not going 
to comply with the mental health law. There are some 20 other States 
that are expected to miss the original deadline. That is just the tip 
of the iceberg.
  The truth of the matter, I say to my colleague, is that when States 
do a great job, insurance companies do a great job. We are pleased with 
that. But if you don't, the way the law of the land reads is that HCFA 
can come in and say, ``You have to; this is the law of the land. That 
is the legislation we passed.''
  What we have here, just be clear about this, is an effort to gut 
this. My colleague from Oklahoma says you can hardly expect, if it is 
such a serious problem, you can hardly expect that an additional 60 
people are going to solve it. You know what. I would rather err on the 
side of trying to make sure that we do everything we can as 
policymakers to make sure that these laws that have been passed, that 
have given people so much hope, given families so much hope, are 
implemented, enforced. Why in the world would we want to pass 
legislation that gives people hope and then dash that hope?
  I will go back to what I think is at stake, and then I will conclude. 
There are other colleagues on the floor. I think this is all about 
living up to a commitment. I think this is about living up to a kind of 
sacred contract we have with a lot of families in this country. I am 
proud of what we did with Kennedy-Kassebaum. Not to be a know-it-all, 
because certainly I am wrong more than I want to be, but I always 
thought there was going to be a problem with the premiums being jacked 
up, and in some States that is indeed the problem, where companies say, 
``Fine, we will cover you--you had a bout with cancer--but we will 
charge you $15,000 a year.'' We have that problem out there. That is 
the problem. With the voice of the U.S. Senate that said to people in 
this country, ``We are going to try to give you some protection that 
you are not denied coverage because your loved one has Parkinson's or 
Alzheimer's or has struggled with cancer or diabetes,'' that was the 
right thing to do.
  On the mental health part, I conclude. That is why I am out here. I 
am sorry, I will err on the side of caution. To me, what that means is 
when I see that States aren't able to comply--not all the States are 
complying--and when I know what the law of the land says and I know 
what a difficult struggle it has been and I know that a lot of people 
have some hope that at least this ends part of the discrimination, when 
I hear we need some additional manpower and womanpower to enforce that 
law, I am not going to support an amendment that guts that.
  Now, I am quite sure that it will never be perfect. And I am quite 
sure that these ``bureaucrats'' may not be able to do it all. But you 
know what. Enforcement of legislation that we pass, it doesn't just 
sort of happen by accident. It is all about women and men who are 
involved in public service, who have certain jobs, and who carry out 
their responsibility. We need that enforcement power. This amendment 
guts it.

  I just want colleagues to understand what is at stake here. There is 
more at stake than just this specific amendment. I certainly agree with 
what the Senator from Massachusetts said about what our offices can 
expect because those of us, and I think probably all of us, Democrats 
and Republicans, I think we understand that part of our work is here, 
but every bit as important is our work back in our States. I find in 
Minnesota, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma--I can get a smile from 
him on this even though we are sort of in disagreement on most things--
we have a great political event, the Minnesota State Fair. Half the 
State's population, in 13 days, over 2 million people, come to the 
Minnesota State Fair. It is unbelievable. Everyone comes up to you. 
People are generally speaking nice, but they give you a piece of their 
mind if they don't agree with you. I have learned at the Minnesota 
State Fair there is hardly anybody talking to me about a lot of bills 
we deal with. The vast majority of people talk about a letter I 
responded to, a phone call that I received, or a specific problem that 
they had as a family that our office in Minnesota was able to help them 
out on. That means more to people than almost anything.
  I tell you something, that is what this is about. This is about 
making sure that we help a whole lot of families, families that have to 
deal with illnesses, and want to make sure they get coverage, families 
that are in pain and look for someone to help them, families that are 
struggling with physical illness and, yes, mental illness, that are 
looking for help and looking for support and looking for protection. 
There are a whole lot of families like that. There but for the grace of 
God go I.
  We should not vote for this amendment. This amendment should be 
soundly defeated, whatever the good intentions of my colleague from 
Oklahoma are. He always has good intentions, but in my humble opinion, 
he is profoundly wrong on this question.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I waited on the floor to see if Senator Kennedy was 
coming back, and I am glad he is here, because

[[Page S2522]]

I have reviewed this as best I can and I am going to support the 
amendment that Senator Nickles has offered.
  There is a very good argument that can be made that, in fact, this 
request that the administration puts forth in a two-thirds sheet of 
paper, may be justified. Let me suggest there is equal reason to say 
the administration has done a very poor job of preparing for the 
implementation the law has referred to with reference to access, with 
reference to portability, and with reference to another law that is 
different from that that has to do with mental parity.
  As a matter of fact, it seems to this Senator that if Senator Nickles 
prevails--and I don't know whether he will or not--HCFA ought to get 
the message that they have two very difficult statutes to enforce and 
they ought to get ready for enforcing them in an orderly manner, not to 
come up here 6 months into a year with a request that all of a sudden 
they found out that they may have to enforce, because of the absence of 
State willingness, they may have to enforce in a number of States.
  Who would ever have thought you could put together a HCFA budget 
charged with these two responsibilities and assume that States will all 
enforce them? Is there anybody who knows what goes on who would agree 
with that? They should have at least in their regular budget 
anticipated that they would have a very major enforcement requirement 
and responsibility.
  Now, I also want to say to those who think that maybe this is harsh 
on HCFA, I have not said this before, but if you want to see some 
action that is harsh on HCFA, look at the President's budget. The 
President's budget on HCFA does the following: It assumes a series of 
user fees, one of which is extremely high that one would hardly believe 
would ever pass, and the President assumes those user fees are going to 
pay for HCFA, so he doesn't put enough money in HCFA. Forget this 
little $6 million. He shortchanges it by many, many millions on a wish 
that user fees will be adopted because he has requested it.

  Now, frankly, I think they better get their act together, and they 
will find a very sympathetic Senator Domenici.
  My second point. I have read everything I can from this 
administration, and I say to my wonderful cosponsor and hard worker on 
mental parity that I find nothing in the written material that suggests 
that mental parity is an issue here, mental illness parity. They are 
talking about the statute that Kennedy referred to.
  Now, they can get up this morning and say, ``Maybe we need some more 
support on the floor, so let's talk about mental illness parity also.'' 
If that is the case, let me just ask, did they ever assume that all the 
States would have taken up the enforcement of mental illness parity? Of 
course not. They should have been prepared for it. They just prepared a 
budget and they will have another one in 6 months. So essentially, 
while I will do everything within my power to see that the letter of 
the law on mental illness parity is enforced, I don't think we ought to 
just accept from the administration, from a HCFA that is rather 
disorganized, to say the least, another request for $16 million.
  Now, I understand $10 million is not nearly as urgent, and probably 
even those who oppose Nickles can agree that the $10 million is not 
necessary. So perhaps I am erring on the wrong side here, but I think 
my judgment is to send a signal back to them, loud and clear, that the 
Senate will put up the money to enforce these two provisions because we 
voted for them very heavily. In fact, we voted almost as heavily for 
parity as we did for the rather famous Kassebaum-Kennedy bill.
  I am very pleased people supported my efforts and the efforts of 
Senator Wellstone on that. I won't take a back seat to anyone in my 
willingness to do anything I can to see if mental illness parity will 
work. I don't think this is necessary to move it down the line and see 
it work.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see other friends and colleagues who want to speak on 
this issue. I want to review just for a minute or two the provisions of 
the legislation.
  First of all, the GAO report came out January 25 and the request for 
the additional funds was made last Thursday. This was all done within a 
relatively short period of time. I am quite amazed they were able to 
get their act together to be able to make the assessment and to be able 
to review the various materials of the Appropriations Committee. The 
Appropriations Committee responded in finding offsets so we weren't 
going to increase the expenditures. These are basically offsets.
  Mr. President, this legislation was put in the form of a request to 
the States to conform. If the HCFA had been up here last year, the 
voices out here would say, ``Well we haven't seen what the States are 
going to do. We believe the States will conform. We have to wait to see 
what has actually happened with the States before we know whether there 
is going to be conformity with this provision or not.''
  At the excellent request of our chairman of our Human Resources 
Committee, 2 months into the bill we get a report that says there are 
these kinds of problems and they need these kinds of solutions. Then we 
had the corresponding action to try to have the personnel to deal with 
this. That is really the history of this.
  I know the Senator from New Mexico has spent an enormous amount of 
time on the whole issues of mental health because he knows that issue 
is of particular importance. Although it was not illustrated in the 
central findings of the GAO, the Senator would know, based upon past 
experience, that it is always the lost child in any kind of discussion 
of health insurance policies. There will always be more complexities 
and difficulties dealing with that. That is just the history. The 
Senator knows this better than I, as well as the Senator from 
Minnesota. So if they are having these kinds of implementation problems 
now with the existing kind of statute, I think it is not unreasonable 
to think that we are going to have those kinds of problems on the 
issues of mental health.
  I am just mindful, Mr. President, and my friend from Oklahoma--
Oklahoma has hired five more people in their insurance department in 
order to help implement this in its State. We are talking about a 
handful of people nationwide, at no additional cost, dealing with 
disability, our most vulnerable citizens. We are on notice. These are 
our most vulnerable citizens, those that have preexisting conditions 
and those that have disabilities, most of them children. We are going 
to be put on notice by the GAO, and through a nonadditional-dollar cost 
to the taxpayer, saying, no, we are not going to permit the agency that 
has the prime responsibility for enforcement to have the adequate 
personnel.
  That may carry the day here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but I 
just hope that our colleagues who support that position--as I mentioned 
before, these parents are going to be calling all of our offices, and 
they are going to be calling the agency asking questions about what to 
do about their children.
  Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I would be happy to.
  Mr. REED. Aren't we missing the point when we look at HCFA and try to 
blame them for the complicated issues that we have asked them to 
enforce? We are missing the point. Who is really suffering, if we do 
this, are the thousands of families in the country that won't have 
access to good health care. It is our responsibility to ensure that 
HCFA and the States provide real access to the hundreds of thousands of 
families that need good health care around the country. We just heard 
yesterday at a hearing about the struggles and travails of a young 
mother who was trying to get good care for her daughter in the context 
of Kennedy-Kassebaum, and without good enforcement she would not 
realize these benefits. I think you are absolutely right, Senator, in 
terms of the message we are sending. It is not, ``HCFA, get your act 
together.'' It is to thousands of families we are not going to enforce 
the right that we thought we gave 2 years ago.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator is absolutely correct. We are on 
notice now. The decision was made--and I give great credit to Senator 
Kassebaum--that we were going to have State implementation of this. 
There were many of us on this side that believed that there would be 
danger, in terms of the escalation of insurance premiums, if we did not 
at least set

[[Page S2523]]

some kind of parameters for the increase. We had testimony based on 
different models to indicate what the framework for that kind of an 
increase was. It was a decision that was made that we would defer and 
then have an examination of what the States would do.
  So we have now had a preliminary finding. In a few States, we have 
seen this dramatic escalation, a 600 percent increase in the premiums. 
But in many States, we find out all of these other kinds of enforcement 
problems, where we have had agents for various insurance companies that 
are being penalized if they include in their various programs children 
with disabilities or those individuals with some preexisting condition. 
They are penalized. Or, if individuals call up, they are given 
misinformation or disinformation about what their rights are. We have 
all of that illustrated in this GAO report. We have had it illustrated 
out there.
  Now, what the Appropriations Committee said is, OK, if we have this 
problem, we have read through this, we have a way of trying to make 
important progress in alleviating the anxiety of these families that 
are facing the most extraordinary kinds of pain and suffering that one 
can imagine when they have disabled children in these circumstances. I 
know that because the Senator from Rhode Island has a superb bill on 
the issues of pediatric patients' rights, the whole issue on children. 
The Senator has been a real leader here. I think he knows this issue 
well. Now we have a way of trying to address this issue and we have our 
colleagues--we are talking about the emergency supplemental, which is 
dealing with these major issues that comes up with an amendment to 
strike this $16 million. Now, as the Senator from New Mexico pointed 
out, $6 million is the most important of that $16 million because that 
will be for the actual implementation of the enforcement. The others, I 
think, are important, too. I think a case, perhaps, can be made if we 
are following a very strict interpretation--and that is another issue--
a strict interpretation about whether we could not defer that, but 
certainly not with regard to the protection of those families.

  Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield again, as I understand it, there 
are 45 States that have adopted local State laws. Even within those 
States, they are not fully complying with the strictures of the 
Kennedy-Kassebaum Act. As a result, even in the States that did what we 
thought they would do, we still need Federal oversight. As a result of 
that, I hope we will elect to pass this measure.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I can answer the question----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor. 
The Senator may yield for a question.
  Mr. REED. My question, if I may, Senator----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is no way to control the floor 
unless a Senator addresses the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I may address the question to the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may ask a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is entitled to ask a question. He was asking 
whether the suggestion that because 45 States passed laws, does that 
mean that all 45 States are in conformity, which is a reasonable 
question since that has been the statement made on the floor. The 
answer to his question is that it is not a fair indication of the 
amount of implementation of this particular program, according to the 
GAO, because even though those States have passed laws, within those 
laws they fail to conform with a number of the other provisions in 
here. I have indicated those particular provisions. They are primarily 
targeted on the group-to-individual. As I pointed out, the record on 
this legislation with regard to group-to-group in the States has been 
good. As it should also be for group-to-individual policies. It was 
supposed to give the States the first crack. There were some general 
criteria established for moving ahead on that. That criteria has been 
spelled out. We can take some time to go through that criteria. But it 
has been spelled out in those areas. I have outlined some of those, and 
I will come back to those at a later time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I may address an additional question to 
the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island may if the 
Senator yields for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I yield. And I intend to yield the floor in a few 
moments. I intend to answer the question now.
  Mr. REED. I understand that last week the Labor Committee had a 
hearing on this issue, and it came with great evidence that we need to 
do more to enforce effectively this bill. And it seems to me that, in 
the context of that hearing, this provision to strike out needed money 
is absolutely the wrong approach in terms of ensuring that American 
citizens have all the benefits of the bill that we all passed, which we 
all thought would be a major breakthrough in health care in the United 
States. I wonder if that is the case, and, in fact, did the Labor 
Committee indicate that these issues were necessary to be enforced?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct about 
the hearing. We had the hearing, and we heard testimony from the 
General Accounting Office. I tried to get the transcript, which has not 
been printed up, because I think any fair presentation on the basis of 
the review of the transcript would support our position very clearly.
  Our position is that States were invited to pass the legislation that 
was going to conform with the various provisions of the legislation, 
and some 45 States have. Some States have not, and some States even at 
this time have indicated that they are not going to conform with the 
mental health various provisions. But even with the States that have 
filed legislation, a number of those States are out of compliance. That 
is illustrated in the GAO report. In the GAO report, as well as in the 
testimony of the individual who made that report--I think his name was 
Bill Scanlon--there was an excellent presentation, basically outlining 
the concerns that I have expressed here. I believe that my 
representation, having attended that hearing, is a fair summary of what 
his position is.

  Nonetheless, what we have, Mr. President--the bottom line is that as 
a result of careful oversight, we have a report on a bill that was just 
passed recently, some 20 months ago, going into effect in January of 
last year, reviewed by the General Accounting Office, some important 
abuses that have been outlined, and the effort by the Appropriations 
Committee--correctly I think--to try to address those abuses. And now 
we have an amendment that will effectively make it much more difficult 
to protect those individuals that have disabilities.
  I have been around here long enough to know the problems that we have 
been facing in order to strike down the barriers of discrimination on 
the basis of disability. We have had a difficult time, and it is 
interesting that we have only in recent years passed the Americans With 
Disabilities Act. It took a long time. This country has been reluctant 
to bring those that have been facing physical and mental challenges 
into the bright sunshine of fair treatment. So it doesn't surprise me 
that we are out here on the floor of the U.S. Senate battling for those 
who have disabilities and preexisting conditions once again. It doesn't 
surprise me all that much. But that is what we are doing. You make a 
step forward and you have a step that goes back. We have been around 
here long enough and we have seen that, unless you are going to provide 
a remedy, a right that you provide is not an awful lot.
  We passed the 1968 Fair Housing Act to try to eliminate 
discrimination on the basis of race in housing. It didn't mean a darn 
thing. A remedy wasn't out there. We passed the 1987 Fair Housing Act 
that had remedies in it and enforcement provisions in it. Now we need 
to have enforcement protections in here for those who have 
disabilities.
  It isn't costing the taxpayer an additional dollar. We are basing it 
not on just our own kind of assessment, but on an independent study by 
the General Accounting Office on a supplemental. Now, I know the good 
Senator, my friend from Alaska, wants to get on with this issue. We are 
not the ones who raised this issue. This was just a small housekeeping 
provision about

[[Page S2524]]

setting some different priorities in HCFA, setting some different 
priorities. But it is more than a housekeeping provision to those 
families that are going to be affected.
  We are not going silently into the night on it. We don't want to be 
labeled as holding up the supplemental on this issue because we are 
contesting something that isn't going to cost the taxpayer another 
dollar, on which the Appropriations Committee itself made a decision 
and a judgment that it ought to go ahead. This is about protecting 
families that have disabilities--mental disabilities, physical 
disabilities, and preexisting conditions. We are standing here to 
protect those individuals, and we have the GAO report that says we 
should.
  So, Mr. President, this is a very important kind of question that we 
are faced with here. I think it takes some time. Some came in last 
evening when it was offered. We have only had a brief time to sort of 
talk about this issue, but there is more that ought to be said about 
it.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for his remarks.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I seek recognition to offer two amendments. 
I would be happy to defer to the distinguished chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments--the Senator from Missouri will offer two budget amendments 
based on budget requests--once introduced, be immediately set aside to 
be in the line for regular order following the amendment of the Senator 
from Wisconsin.
  What is the order now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the Stevens amendment No. 2120.
  Mr. STEVENS. I wish the Bond amendments to be offered after Senator 
Feingold in the regular order. The first regular order would be, as I 
understand it, Senator Faircloth, and then Senator Feingold, and then 
the Bond amendments would be after that, if my unanimous consent 
request is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, can the Senator tell us where we are on 
the list?
  Mr. STEVENS. The one of the Senator from Massachusetts is the pending 
business. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, it is my understanding 
that his is pending business. I want to get to the budget amendments. 
There will be some amendments to those. So they would come after 
Senator Feingold, if my unanimous consent request is granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the 
distinguished chairman of the committee.
  I have two very important amendments that really deal with the 
substance of disaster relief, particularly, in fact, not only New York 
and the New England States, but the Southeastern States and the Western 
States.
  There was a request--I repeat it--that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2122

   (Purpose: To provide emergency community development block grant 
funding to assist States in recovering from natural disasters occurring 
                          in Fiscal Year 1998)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, concerning community development block grant 
programs, on behalf of myself, Senators Mikulski, Stevens, Snowe, 
Collins, D'Amato, Jeffords, Leahy, Mack, Graham of Florida, and Boxer, 
I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), for himself, and Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Collins, Mr. D'Amato, 
     Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Mack, Mr. Graham, 
     and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 2122.

  Mr. BOND. 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:

       Insert at the appropriate place:

              Department of Housing and Urban Development


 community planning and development community development--block grant 
                                 funds

       For an additional amount for ``Community development block 
     grants funds'', as authorized under title I of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1974, $260,000,000, which 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2001, for use only 
     for disaster relief, long-term recovery, and mitigation in 
     communities affected by Presidentially declared natural 
     disasters designated during fiscal year 1998, except for 
     those activities reimbursable or for which funds are made 
     available by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 
     Small Business Administration, or the Army Corps of 
     Engineers: Provided, That in administering these amounts and 
     except as provided in the next proviso, the Secretary may 
     waive or specify alternative requirements for, and provision 
     of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers 
     in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use 
     by the recipient of these funds, except for statutory 
     requirements related to civil rights, fair housing and 
     nondiscrimination, the environment, and labor standards, upon 
     a finding that such a waiver is required to facilitate the 
     use of such funds and would not be inconsistent with the 
     overall purpose of the statute: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may waive the requirements that activities benefit 
     persons of low and moderate income, except that at least 50 
     percent of the funds under this head must benefit primarily 
     persons of low and moderate income unless the Secretary makes 
     a finding of compelling need: Provided further, That all 
     funds under this head shall be allocated by the Secretary to 
     states to be administered by each state in conjunction with 
     its Federal Emergency Management Agency program or its 
     community development block grant program: Provided further, 
     That each state shall provide not less than 25 percent in 
     public or private matching funds or its equivalent value 
     (other than administrative costs) for any funds allocated to 
     the state under this head: Provided further, That, in 
     conjunction with the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency, the Secretary shall allocate funds based 
     on the unmet needs identified by the Director as those which 
     has not or will not be addressed by other federal disaster 
     assistance programs: Provided further, That, in conjunction 
     with the Director, the Secretary shall utilize annual 
     disaster cost estimates in order that the funds under this 
     head shall be available, to the maximum extent feasible, to 
     assist states with all Presidentially declared disasters 
     designated during this fiscal year: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register 
     governing the allocation and use of the community development 
     block grants funds made available under this head for 
     disaster areas and publish a quarterly list of all 
     allocations of funds under this head by state, locality and 
     activity (including all uses of waivers and the reasons 
     therefor): Provided further, That the Secretary and the 
     Director shall submit quarterly reports to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations on all allocations and 
     use of funds under this head, including a review of all unmet 
     needs: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined by the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be temporarily set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2123

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for disaster relief to aid 
                       disaster-stricken States)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk relating 
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency on behalf of myself and 
Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), for himself, and Ms. 
     Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 2123.

  Mr. BOND. 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 46, at the bottom of the page, insert the 
     following:

Independent Agency--Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Relief

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster relief'', 
     $1,600,000,000, to remain available until

[[Page S2525]]

     expended: Provided, That these funds shall be available only 
     to the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     amount, that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount appropriated herein 
     is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now ask that the amendments be temporarily 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is under the order.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  I look forward to debating at the appropriate time these two very 
important amendments which provide roughly $1.86 billion for emergency 
relief. I hope that we will be able to deal with those amendments this 
afternoon. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2124

 (Purpose: To make perfecting and technical amendments to section 404)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I have an amendment 
which was agreed to in the Appropriations Committee. I told the Members 
that we were going to attempt to resolve one issue that was in dispute. 
We have resolved it. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for himself, 
     and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2124.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 29, line 20, strike ``(PANO'', and insert 
     ``(JPANO''. At the end of page 29, insert the following new 
     paragraphs:
       (7) the National Park Service has identified the 
     realignment of Unser Boulevard, depicted on the map referred 
     to in section 102(a) of the Petroglyph National Monument 
     Establishment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-313; 16 U.S.C. 431 
     note), as serving a park purpose in the General Management 
     Plan/Development Concept Plan for Petroglyph National 
     Monument;
       (8) the establishment of a citizens' advisory committee 
     prior to construction of the Unser Boulevard South project, 
     which runs along the eastern boundary of the Atrisco Unit of 
     the monument, allowed the citizens of Albuquerque and the 
     National Park Service to provide significant and meaningful 
     input into the parkway design of the road, and that similar 
     proceedings should occur prior to construction with the Paseo 
     del Norte corridor;
       (9) parkway standards approved by the city of Albuquerque 
     for the construction of Unser Boulevard South along the 
     eastern boundary of the Atrisco Unit of the monument would be 
     appropriate for a road passing through the Paseo del Norte 
     corridor;
       On page 30, redesignate paragraphs (7) and (8) as 
     paragraphs (10) and (11).
       On page 30, beginning on line 13, strike ``STORM WATER 
     DRAINAGE AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.'', and insert ``PLANNING 
     AUTHORITY.''.
       On page 31, beginning on line 1, strike paragraph (2), and 
     insert the following:
       (2) Road design.--
       (A) If the city of Albuquerque decides to proceed with the 
     construction of a roadway within the area excluded from the 
     monument by the amendment made by subsection (d), the design 
     criteria shall be similar to those provided for the Unser 
     Boulevard South project along the eastern boundary of the 
     Atrisco Unit, taking into account topographic differences and 
     the lane, speed and noise requirements of the heavier traffic 
     load that is anticipated for Paseo del Norte, as referenced 
     in section A-2 of the Unser Middle Transportation Corrider 
     Record of Decision prepared by the city of Albuquerque dated 
     December 199? * * *
       (B) At least 180 days before the initiation of any road 
     construction within the area excluded from the monument the 
     amendment made by subsection (d), the city of Albuquerque 
     shall notify the Director of the National Park Service 
     (hereinafter ``the Director''), who may submit suggested 
     modifications to the design specifications of the road 
     construction project within the area excluded from the 
     monument by the amendment made by subsection (d).
       (C) If after 180 days, an agreement on the design 
     specifications is not reached by the city of Albuquerque and 
     the Director, the city may contract with the head of the 
     Department of Civil Engineering at the University of New 
     Mexico, to design a road to meet the design criteria referred 
     to in subparagraph (A). The design specifications developed 
     by the Department of Civil Engineering shall be deemed to 
     have met the requirements of this paragraph, and the city may 
     proceed with the construction project, in accordance with 
     those design specifications.
       On page 33, beginning on line 13, strike all through line 
     22, and insert the following:
       (B) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'';
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), effective as of the 
     date of enactment of this subparagraph--''.
       On page 34, line 9, strike ``Document.--''.
       On page 34, line 12, after ``Corridors','', insert ``dated 
     October 30, 1997,''.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment, that I am offering with 
Senator Bingaman, represents the conclusion of several months of 
constructive discussion between us.
  Together, we have reached an agreement on this legislation, which 
will allow the City of Albuquerque to proceed with the extension of a 
roadway to the west side of Petroglyph National Monument, if it decides 
to do so.
  This amendment also provides that if the city elects to move forward 
with this extension, that: The road will be similar in design to a road 
that is already constructed along the monument boundary; the Park 
Service will have the opportunity to provide constructive comments on 
the road design; if needed, the roadway could be expanded to as many as 
six lanes at some point in the future; and Washington will not stand in 
the way of this local decisionmaking process.
  Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides. It 
is a managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2124) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Minnesota wishes to offer some amendments and have them sort of 
get in line. I yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.


           Amendments Nos. 2125, 2126, 2127, and 2128 En Bloc

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send four amendments to the desk and 
ask that they be separately reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) proposes 
     amendments numbered 2125, 2126, 2127, and 2128.

  The amendments (Nos. 2125, 2126, 2127, and 2128) en bloc are as 
follows:


                           amendment No. 2125

(Purpose: To encourage reform of International Monetary Fund policies, 
                        and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND POLICIES.

       (a) In General.--The United States Government shall employ 
     its best efforts to do the following, and such efforts shall 
     include but not be limited to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     instructing the United States Executive Director at the 
     International Monetary Fund to use the voice and vote of the 
     Executive Director aggressively to these ends:
       (1) Structure the International Monetary Fund programs and 
     assistance so that--
       (A) recipient governments commit, as a condition of loan 
     approval and renewal, to affording workers the right to 
     exercise internationally recognized worker rights, including 
     the right of free association, collective bargaining through 
     unions of their own choosing, and the use of any form of 
     forced or compulsory labor;
       (B) measures designed to facilitate labor market 
     flexibility are consistent with such core worker rights; and
       (C) the staff of the International Monetary Fund adequately 
     takes into account the views of the International Labor 
     Organization, particularly with respect to the importance of 
     labor market flexibility measures in reducing unemployment in 
     recipient countries, and the impact such measures may have on 
     core worker rights in such countries.
       (2) Vigorously promote the adoption and enforcement of laws 
     promoting respect for internationally recognized worker 
     rights (as defined in Section 507(4) of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2467(4)).
       (3) Structure the International Monetary Fund programs and 
     assistance so that recipient governments commit to compliance 
     with

[[Page S2526]]

     all environmental obligations and agreements of which it is a 
     signatory.
       (4) Work with the International Monetary Fund to 
     incorporate the recognition that macroeconomic development 
     and policies can affect and be affected by environmental 
     conditions and policies, including by working independently 
     and with multilateral development banks to encourage 
     countries to correct market failures and to adopt appropriate 
     environmental policies in support of macroeconomic stability 
     and sustainable development.
       (5) Structure the International Monetary Fund programs and 
     assistance so that governments which draw on the 
     International Monetary Fund channel funds away from 
     unproductive purposes, such as excessive military spending, 
     and towards investment in human and physical capital as well 
     as social programs to protect the neediest and promote social 
     equity.
       (6) Work with the International Monetary Fund to foster 
     economic prescriptions that are appropriate to the individual 
     economic circumstances of each recipient country, recognizing 
     that inappropriate stabilization programs may only serve to 
     further destabilize the economy and create unnecessary 
     economic, social, and political dislocation.
       (b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall submit a semi-annual report to Congress on the status 
     of International Monetary Fund programs linked to official 
     United States government financing.
       (c) Contents of Report.--With respect to each program, the 
     report shall include the following:
       (1) Whether International Monetary Fund involvement in 
     labor market flexibility measures has a negative impact on 
     core worker rights, particularly the rights of free 
     association and collective bargaining.
       (2) A description of any abuses of core worker rights and 
     how the International Monetary Fund addresses such abuses.
       (3) Whether the program adequately balances the need for 
     austerity, economic growth, and social equity.
       (4) What measures are included in the program to ensure 
     sustainable development and address environmental 
     devastation.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2126

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the treatment of Muchtar 
                               Pakpahan)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON THE TREATMENT OF MUCHTAR 
                   PAKPAHAN.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Government of 
     Indonesia should immediately release Muchtar Pakpahan from 
     prison and have all criminal charges against him dismissed.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2127

   (Purpose: To encourage the International Monetary Fund to require 
      burden-sharing by private creditors, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . BURDEN-SHARING BY PRIVATE CREDITORS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     instruct the United States Executive Director at the 
     International Monetary Fund to use the voice and vote of the 
     Executive Director aggressively to amend the International 
     Monetary Fund bylaws to provide that the Fund shall not 
     provide funds to any country experiencing a financial crisis 
     resulting from excessive and imprudent borrowing unless the 
     private creditors, investors, and banking institutions that 
     had extended such credit make a significant poor contribution 
     by means of debt relief, rollovers of existing credit, or the 
     provision of new credit, as part of an overall program 
     approved by the International Monetary Fund for resolution of 
     the crisis.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2128

     (Purpose: To provide for an Advisory Committee on IMF Policy)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMF POLICY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     establish an International Monetary Fund Advisory Committee 
     (in this section referred to as ``Advisory Committee'').
       (b) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 8 
     members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, after 
     appropriate consultations with the relevant organizations, as 
     follows:
       (1) at least 2 members shall be representatives from 
     organized labor.
       (2) at least 2 members shall be representatives from 
     nongovernmental environmental organizations.
       (3) at least 2 members shall be representatives from 
     nongovernmental human rights or social justice organizations.
       (c) Duties.--Not less frequently than every six months, the 
     Advisory Committee shall meet with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to review and provide advice on the extent to which 
     individual IMF country programs meet the policy goals set 
     forth in Article I of the Fund's Articles of Agreements and 
     this Act.
       (d) Inapplicability of Termination Provisions of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Section 14(a)(2) of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the 
     Advisory Committee.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, these amendments deal with IMF.
  I ask unanimous consent that they now be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that they be in 
order behind the two amendments offered by the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           amendment no. 2123

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to speak first very briefly on 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri that would help the 
disaster areas of the Northeast.
  First I want to commend the Senator from Missouri for helping the 
areas of the Northeast that were so punished by the recent problems 
with respect to the ice storms. Vermont suffered very significantly in 
the upper part of the State, but with the knowledge that we have with 
respect to what happened in New York and Maine which so far outpaced 
our problems, I can certainly commiserate with their need to have 
assistance, especially with respect to utilities, which have been 
greatly harmed by the weather problem.

                          ____________________