[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2587-S2601]
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. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the supplemental appropriations bill.
  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.
       Stevens (for Nickles) amendment No. 2120, to strike certain 
     funding for the Health Care Financing Administration.
       Enzi amendment No. 2133, to prohibit the Secretary of the 
     Interior from promulgating certain regulations relating to 
     Indian gaming activities.

[[Page S2588]]

       Bumpers amendment No. 2134, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that of the rescissions, if any, which Congress makes 
     to offset appropriations made for emergency items in the 
     Fiscal Year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, defense 
     spending should be rescinded to offset increases in spending 
     for defense programs.
       Robb amendment No. 2135, to reform agricultural credit 
     programs of the Department of Agriculture.


                           Amendment No. 2133

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending business 
is amendment 2133, offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.
  There are 50 minutes remaining for debate on the amendment; 15 
minutes is under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, and 35 
minutes under the control of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado from the time of Senator 
Inouye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, related 
to the procedures of the Secretary of the Interior in the Indian gaming 
statute.
  I oppose this amendment first and foremost because it will make 
permanent changes to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act without a single 
hearing on the matter. Later today I intend to introduce a freestanding 
bill to amend the Indian gaming statute. In fact, I was rather 
surprised this amendment would come forward on a bill that is designed 
to be an emergency supplemental for our troops in Bosnia and the gulf 
and to address natural disasters.
  Beginning this Wednesday, our committee will conduct the first of 
several hearings this year dealing with difficult and complex issues 
involving Indian gaming tribes and Indian gaming in itself. These 
issues include: Should there be uniform standards governing Indian 
gaming? What level of regulation of tribal gaming is needed? Is the 
Federal Gaming Commission adequately funded? What remedies do tribes 
have in the wake of the Supreme Court's Seminole decision?
  That is the committee of jurisdiction, and that is the forum through 
which the Senator from Wyoming should have addressed his concerns.
  When Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the States 
were invited to play a significant role in the regulation of gaming 
activities that take place on Indian lands. In fact, the statute 
required tribes to have a gaming compact before the State commenced any 
casino-style gaming within tribal lands. Though few have come to 
understand how significant such a provision is, it was and is a major 
concession by Indian tribes and one that has worked fairly well for the 
last 8 years.
  Congress also realized that tribes need a mechanism to encourage 
States to negotiate these compacts and provided for tribal lawsuits 
against reluctant States. Up until 1996, if a Federal court determined 
that a State was negotiating in bad faith, or if the State decided not 
to negotiate at all, the tribe had the option of filing a lawsuit to 
bring about good-faith negotiations.
  In 1996, the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Seminole Tribe 
of Indians v. The State of Florida. This decision said that a State may 
assert its 11th amendment immunity from lawsuits and preclude tribes 
from suing it in order to conclude a gaming agreement. Just as I 
believe we should respect each State's sovereign right, it seems to me 
we should recognize those of tribes, too.
  Next week at the committee hearing, one of the issues surely to arise 
again will be the matter of whether, in the absence of a State-tribal 
compact, the Secretary of the Interior can issue procedures to govern 
casino gaming on Indian lands. Senator Enzi's amendment would preempt 
the efforts of the committee to fully and fairly look at the issues 
regarding Indian gaming.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement 
from the administration that opposes this amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs


item: proposed bill s. 1572, introduced by senators bryan, enzi, reid, 
                    and sessions on january 27, 1998

       S. 1572 amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and 
     precludes the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating 
     final regulations to deal with Indian gaming compact 
     negotiations between States and Tribes when Tribes have 
     exhausted federal judicial remedies.
       Background: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was 
     enacted to allow Indian tribes the opportunity to pursue 
     gaming as a means of economic development on Indian lands. 
     Since 1988, Indian gaming, regulated under IGRA, has provided 
     benefits to over 150 tribes and to their surrounding 
     communities in over 24 states. As required by law, Indian 
     gaming revenues have been directed to programs and facilities 
     to improve the health, safety, educational opportunities and 
     quality of life for Indian people.
       Under IGRA, Tribes are only authorized to conduct casino-
     style gaming operations if such gaming is permitted by the 
     state. Further, the gaming is allowed in such states only 
     pursuant to a mutually agreed-upon Tribal-State compact; or 
     in the alternative, pursuant to procedures issued by the 
     Secretary if a state fails to consent to a compact arrived at 
     through the mediation process that follows a determination by 
     a United States District Court that the State has failed to 
     negotiate in good faith (25 U.S.C. Section 
     2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). IGRA only authorizes the Secretary to 
     issue ``procedures'' after sates have been provided with a 
     full opportunity to negotiate compact terms.
       Under IGRA, Congress intended to give tribes the right to 
     file suits directly against states that failed to negotiate 
     in good faith with regard to Class III gaming. The right to 
     sue a state for failure to negotiate in good faith was seen 
     by Congress as the best way to ensure that states deal fairly 
     with tribes as sovereign governments. See Senate Report No. 
     446, 100th Congress, 2nd Session 14 (1988).
       In Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida, the U.S. Supreme 
     Court held that Congress was without authority to waive the 
     States' immunity to suits in Federal courts ensured by the 
     Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. As a result of this 
     decision, states can avoid entering into good faith 
     negotiations with Indian tribes without concern about being 
     subject to suit by tribes. Under these circumstances, the 
     Secretary's authority to promulgate regulations may be the 
     only avenue for meeting the Congressional policy of promoting 
     tribal economic development and self sufficiency.
       Effect of Proposed Legislation: The legislation would 
     prohibit the adoption of a rule setting forth the process and 
     standards pursuant to which Class III procedures would be 
     adopted in specific situations where the state has asserted 
     its Eleventh Amendment immunity. If the legislation is 
     included as an amendment to a 1998 supplemental 
     appropriation, the language would remain in effect through FY 
     1998.
       Departmental Position: The Department strongly objects to 
     any attempt to substantially interfere with its ability to 
     administer the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or to thwart 
     Congress' declared policy in IGRA of promoting tribal 
     economic development, self sufficiency and strong tribal 
     government. The Secretary would recommend a veto of any 
     legislation extending beyond FY 1998 that prevents the 
     Secretary from attempting to work out a reasonable solution 
     for dealing with Indian gaming compact negotiations between 
     States and Tribes when Tribes have exhausted federal judicial 
     remedies.
       The Secretary published proposed regulations on January 22, 
     1998 which would authorize the Secretary to approve Class III 
     gaming procedures in cases where the state has asserted an 
     Eleventh Amendment defense. The proposed rule is narrow in 
     scope. It will allow the Secretary to move forward only (1) 
     where a Tribe asserts that a State has not acted in good 
     faith in negotiating a Class III gaming compact and (2) when 
     the State asserts immunity from the lawsuit to resolve the 
     dispute. In the 9-year history of IGRA, these situations have 
     been very rare. Over 150 compacts have been successfully 
     negotiated and are being implemented in more than half the 
     states. Even where negotiations have been unsuccessful and 
     litigation has been filed, a number of States have chosen not 
     to assert immunity from suit. Based on experience to date, 
     relatively few situations will arise requiring Secretarial 
     decisions.
       The publication of the proposed rule is followed by a 90-
     day comment period, with formal public access to and review 
     of the proposed rule. The Department will attempt to maximize 
     State participation and comment during the comment period, 
     with final publication of the rule expected in FY 1998, after 
     careful review and analysis of public comments. In 
     particular, the Department will continue to meet with State 
     Governors to discuss the proposed rule and to work out 
     compromises. A provision in the FY 1998 Department of the 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act precludes 
     the implementation of a final rule this fiscal year.
       State law would continue to be the appropriate reference 
     point for determining the ``scope of gaming'' permitted in 
     any procedures proposed by the Department to resolve Indian 
     gaming compact disputes. This policy is consistent with the 
     Department's position that it does not authorize classes or 
     forms of Indian gaming in any State where they are 
     affirmatively prohibited. See Brief of the

[[Page S2589]]

     United States as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in Rumsey 
     Indian Rancher of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64F.3d 1250 (9th 
     Cir. 1995), as modified on denial of petition for rehearing, 
     99F.3d 321 (9th Cir 1996), cert denied, sub nom. Sycuan Band 
     of Mission Indians v. Wilson, No. 96-1059, 65 U.S.L. W. 3855 
     (June 24, 1997).
       The publication of the proposed rule follows an Advanced 
     Notice of Public Rulemaking published in the Federal Register 
     in May, 1996. In developing the proposed rule, the Department 
     carefully considered over 350 comments submitted by States, 
     Tribes, and others.
       The Department opposes legislation which would in effect 
     provide States with a veto power over Class III Indian gaming 
     when state law permits the gaming at issue ``for any purpose 
     by an person, organization or entity.''
       In addition, the Department of the Interior strongly 
     objects to using the appropriations process for policy 
     amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Including the 
     provision in the FY 1998 supplemental appropriations would 
     circumvent a fair legislative process with hearings involving 
     Indian tribes, state officials and the regulated community. 
     Through the hearing process, all parties involved in Indian 
     gaming are allowed to contribute testimony on how or whether 
     IGRA should be amended.

  Mr. STEVENS. I urge Members who have colloquies that they wish to 
enter into with myself or Senator Byrd to come over now, and we can get 
those done. We have two significant--maybe three significant colloquies 
pertaining to amendments that will not be necessary if the colloquies 
are properly presented.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as Chairman Campbell of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs has observed, I believe it is very important that our 
colleagues have a clear understanding of the context in which this 
amendment is being offered. I say this because one might infer that the 
Secretary of the Interior is pursuing a course of action that is either 
unwarranted or one which the Congress would never sanction, and I 
believe it is critically important that we understand that drawing such 
inferences would be wrong.
  As Senator Campbell has indicated, in 1988 the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act was enacted into law. It followed a ruling by the 
Supreme Court in 1987 in which the Court once again reaffirmed one of 
the fundamental principles of Federal Indian law; namely, that the 
civil regulatory laws of the State do not apply in Indian country. In 
so ruling, the Court concluded that the State of California could not 
regulate gaming on Indian lands.
  As often happens, the Congress responded with the enactment of a law 
that gave to the States that which they did not have after the Court's 
decision--an ability to enter into a compact with a tribal government 
under which State laws might apply if the parties so agreed.
  That law has proven to work well.
  In fact, twenty-three of the twenty-eight States in which Indian 
reservations are located, have elected to enter into compacts with the 
tribal governments in their respective States.
  Thus, it is clear that the law is working.
  However, in 1996, the Supreme Court ruled again.
  The Court found that while the Congress intended to enable the 
parties to go to a Federal court to resolve any outstanding questions 
of law relative to gaming activities permitted within each State, or 
relative to tribal-state compact negotiations, the Congress could not 
waive the States' eleventh amendment immunity to suit.
  The result was that if a State refused to negotiate a tribal-state 
compact for the conduct of gaming, there is no Federal forum to which 
the parties can go to secure the assistance of the courts in reaching a 
resolution.
  So the Secretary of the Department of the Interior--as the Federal 
official to whom authority has been delegated to manage matters of 
Indian affairs--took the next step and did what many believe was the 
responsible thing to do.
  In the fall of 1996, the Secretary invited comments from the public 
as to how he should proceed.
  He posed a question--``should the remaining tribal governments--those 
that did not have compacts before the Supreme Court's ruling--be 
precluded from conducting gaming on their lands if a State elects not 
to enter into compact negotiations?''
  Taken together, the responses, I assume were that the Supreme Court 
and the Congress have recognized the right of tribal governments, as 
sovereigns, to conduct gaming activities on their lands--and that if 
the process set forth in the act was no longer workable, then another 
process ought to be put in place.
  And so the Secretary proceeded to issue an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking, once again inviting comments from the public.
  Put another way, this whole process that the Secretary has pursued 
has been conducted in the full light of day, with maximum input from 
all interested parties. There was ample opportunity provided for 
everyone to weigh in and have their voices heard. And, because we have 
yet to enact a legislative remedy to the problem created by the Supreme 
Court's ruling--it was a necessary and proper action for the Secretary 
to take.
  Nonetheless, my colleagues felt it necessary to propose an amendment 
to the Interior appropriations bill, last fall, that would prevent the 
Secretary from proceeding any further. I was opposed to that amendment, 
because I believe that through our passage of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, we have clearly sent a message to Indian country.
  That message is that we recognize the right to Indian country to seek 
a means--other than a reliance on Federal appropriations--to foster 
economic growth in their communities--communities, which have 
historically been plagued with poverty, the highest rates of 
unemployment in the Nation, not to mention the sorry state of housing, 
health care, and education.
  My colleagues' amendment seeks to send a message to those tribes that 
have yet to secure compacts--that if for one reason or another, you 
don't have a compact with a State--you will never have any other way to 
have gaming activities authorized on your lands. That you will be 
permanently foreclosed from the one activity that has proven to hold 
any potential for the economic well-being of Indian communities. That 
if your tribal economy has been devastated--if there are no jobs to be 
had on your reservation--that is just too bad.
  Mr. President, I don't think we can--in all clear conscience--send 
that message to Indian country.
  It isn't as though Indian reservations are located on another planet. 
The strength of tribal economies is every bit as important to our 
national economy as those of the States and local governments.
  If there are no jobs on the reservations, people will be, as they 
have been forced to do in the past, become increasingly more dependent 
on Federal programs. And this just flies in the face of all good sense 
and sound judgment.
  For the past 28 years, our national policy has been to support tribal 
governments in their quest to become economically self-sufficient.
  My friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, could give 
us chapter and verse as to the scarcity of Federal dollars when it 
comes to meeting the needs in Indian country.
  For 28 years, we have been saying to the tribes--``get on your feet 
economically--we will do whatever we can to support you. Like you, we 
want to see the day when you are self-determining people who no longer 
need to have your lives dominated by the actions or inaction of the 
Federal Government.''
  The adoption of this amendment will send a decidedly different 
message. That message is that--``we will cut off Your right, as 
sovereigns, to determine whether gaming is something you want to employ 
as an economic tool to lift your communities out of the economic 
devastation and despair that has plagued Indian country for so long.''

  Mr. President, my colleagues know that I am not one who supports 
gaming. Hawaii is one of two States in the Union that criminally 
prohibits all forms of gaming.
  But I have seen what gaming has brought to Indian country and I 
support gaming for Indian country because

[[Page S2590]]

I believe that it is one of their Rights as sovereigns within our 
system of government to determine how to develop the economic base of 
tribal communities.
  So while I do not question the good intentions of my colleagues, I 
would suggest to them and to my other colleagues, that this simply is 
not a matter that has to be or should be addressed in an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  The better course of action, in my view, would be to address this 
matter either in the authorizing committee or as part of the regulatory 
process.
  I am advised that the National Governor's Association has already 
notified the Department that it will be requesting a 30-day extension 
of the rulemaking procedure--which would take us into the end of May.
  Finally, the administration has sent up a statement of administration 
policy on this amendment which makes abundantly clear that the 
Department of the Interior will recommend a veto of the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bills, should this amendment be included in 
the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It does not involve an 
emergency situation--there are other forums in which this matter is 
more appropriately addressed. There is more than sufficient time to 
take action, if it is necessary, before the rulemaking process is 
complete.
  Clearly, we would not be acting today if there were not victims who 
are desperately in need of the emergency assistance that this bill will 
make available.
  I don't think we can responsibly tell them that the help that is so 
critical to them will not be forthcoming because this bill was vetoed. 
And we knew that it would be--simply because of an Indian gaming 
amendment that so obviously did not need to be treated as if it were an 
emergency and thereby addressed in this bill.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I would note that each of my colleagues 
who spoke in support of this amendment yesterday, all made one and the 
same assumption--the assumption that States have a right to consent to 
the conduct of gaming on Indian lands. However, under the Supreme 
Court's ruling in Cabazon, the States do not have such a right.
  This is what the Court explicitly held.
  It is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that carved out a role for the 
States to play in Indian gaming.
  In my view, if a State elects not to avail itself of this role--
either by refusing to negotiate for a compact or by asserting it's 
eleventh amendment immunity to suit--then the State is knowingly opting 
out of its prerogatives under the act.
  In so doing, a State has voluntarily passed the responsibility back 
to the Federal Government.
  All that the Interior Secretary is doing here is fulfilling his role 
as trustee by assuring that the action on the part of a State does not 
abrogate the rights of the tribal governments.
  When my colleagues suggest that the statute does not envision the 
Secretary acting without the consent of a State--it is because the 
statute is premised upon a simple assumption.
  In 1988, the States aggressively pursued having a role to play in 
Indian gaming. It was and is then natural to assume that they would act 
in conformance with what they said they wanted.
  If a State doesn't want this role, then I would suggest that a State 
would be hard pressed to object to the Federal Government fulfilling 
its responsibilities in lieu of the State. This is simple equity.
  We can always repeal this law. But let us all be clear about what the 
state of the law would be in the absence of this statute. Tribal 
governments could conduct gaming on their lands without regard to State 
law and without the consent of any State.
  Mr. President, I don't think that is what my colleagues want.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Senator 
Campbell and Senator Inouye, in strong opposition to the amendment 
sponsored by Senators Enzi, Reid and Bryan to S. 1768. I regret that I 
was not able to participate more fully in the debate on this amendment. 
However, I want to make it clear that I take strong exception to this 
amendment, as I did last September when a similar amendment was before 
the Senate. If I had been able to be on the floor, I would have fought 
against and voted against this amendment.
  The adoption of this amendment in any form disturbs the careful 
balance of State, Tribal and Federal interests which is embodied in the 
Indian Gaming law. The amendment was offered and debated without the 
benefit of any hearings or the consideration of the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  I recognize the Indian gaming law is not perfect. However, this is 
not the time nor the proper manner for consideration of amendments to 
the Act. The Committee on Indian Affairs has before it several 
proposals to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. As all of my 
colleagues know, I have proposed amendments to the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act. My colleagues from Wyoming and Nevada should follow our 
established procedures and introduce legislation which can be referred 
to the Committee for hearings and proper consideration. Fairness and a 
respect for our laws and the views of all concerned parties requires 
such deliberation.
  Mr. President, I am disappointed that this body approved such an ill-
advised policy which, in effect, interferes with and side-steps the on-
going work of the authorizing Committee. I urge the conferees who will 
be appointed to finalize this supplemental appropriations bill to 
eliminate this provision from the final conference agreement.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senators Enzi and Bryan with respect to 
restrictions on the activities of the Secretary of the Interior. While 
I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on this issue, I do not 
believe that this emergency supplemental bill is the appropriate 
vehicle for this amendment and, I encourage my colleagues on the 
appropriations conference committee to carefully consider the impact 
that this amendment will have on the potential for progress between 
Indian tribes and state governments in this area.
  As written, this amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the 
Interior from proceeding with proposed regulations to create procedures 
to permit class III gaming, procedures which would basically facilitate 
state-tribal negotiations when other avenues are exhausted. There has 
been a stalemate in Indian gaming compact negotiations since the 1996 
Supreme Court Seminole decision. In response, the Senate included 
language in the FY1998 Interior Appropriations bill sending a strong 
message to the Secretary that gaming compacts should not be entered 
into without state involvement. I believe the Secretary has heeded that 
Congressional directive through the rulemaking process, and that states 
have been encouraged to participate in the comment period required in 
the formation of federal regulations.
  Proponents of this amendment believe they are acting in the best 
interest of the states. However, eliminating the Secretary's ability to 
gather commentary and issue procedures to help facilitate dialog on 
Indian gaming goes against the states' interests.
  We are fortunate in South Dakota to have a relatively productive 
relationship between the state and the tribes on gaming issues. 
However, this amendment, offered without committee consideration or 
extensive debate, directly limits the federal role in maintaining the 
balance of tribal, state and federal interests in the gaming 
negotiation process and I must oppose this step.
  Federal law requires tribal governments to use gaming revenue to fund 
essential services such as education, law enforcement and economic 
development. Without due protection of the rights of tribal governments 
to negotiate gaming compacts, the entire foundation of tribal 
sovereignty and government-to-government relations is jeopardized. The 
uncertainty left by the Seminole case demands that the Department of 
the Interior and the Congress revisit existing gaming regulations and 
law. I will urge the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to continue moving 
forward on legislation to revisit the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
(IGRA).
  Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by Senators Enzi

[[Page S2591]]

and Bryan and encourage my colleagues to closely examine any language 
agreed to by the conferees to ensure that the interests of states, 
tribes, and the federal government are maintained in the Indian gaming 
regulatory process.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about 
the continuing efforts of some in Congress to undermine the rights of 
the first Americans--the American Indian and Alaska Native people of 
our country, their tribal governments, and their unique and historic 
government-to-government relationship with the United States. In 
America today, there are 557 federally recognized tribes. In hundreds 
of treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate over the 
years, Indian tribes have traded vast amounts of land for the right to 
live on their reservations and govern themselves. An honorable country 
keeps its promises, even those made many years ago. We must reaffirm 
our commitment to self-determination for tribal governments.
  In the first session of this Congress, numerous proposals were 
introduced to limit the sovereign rights of tribal governments. One of 
the most objectionable of the proposals would have required tribal 
governments to waive all sovereign immunity against suit as a condition 
of receiving federal funds. It would have authorized suits against 
tribal governments to be heard in federal courts rather than tribal 
courts.
  Other legislation similar in scope contains extremely broad waivers 
of tribal sovereign immunity, and would subject tribal governments to 
virtually any type of suit in both federal and state courts. Any such 
measure would make it nearly impossible for tribal governments to carry 
out basic governmental functions and would jeopardize the resources and 
the future of tribal governments.
  Indian nations are forms of government recognized in the U.S. 
Constitution and hundreds of treaties, court decisions and federal 
laws. Tribal governments are analogous to state and local governments. 
They carry out basic governmental functions such as law enforcement and 
education on Indian lands throughout the country. Tribal governments 
are modern, democratic, fair and as deserving of respect by Congress 
just as Congress respects state and local governments.
  Sovereign immunity is not an anachronism It is alive and well as 
legal doctrine that protects the essential functions of government from 
unreasonable litigation and damage claims. Like other forms of 
government, tribal governments are not perfect, but any changes should 
be based on a careful study of current needs and circumstances, and be 
guided by the fundamental principle that it is the federal government's 
role to protect tribal self-government.
  In addition to challenges to their sovereign immunity, tribal 
governments also face constant attempts to undermine their ability to 
take land into trust, to impose taxes upon their revenues, and to 
impose ``means testing'' on their federal funding.
  As the Senate deals with these issues, I urge the Senate to act 
responsibly. Broad generalizations and one-size-fits-all solutions may 
seem tempting, but they will have disastrous effects when applied to 
the diversity of Indian Nations in this country. A realistic review of 
the variety of circumstances and specific issues is far more likely to 
lead to workable solutions.
  Many of the issues that are being raised today involve matters of 
purely local concern that can be resolved at the local level by the 
tribes and states. The role of the federal government in these cases 
should be to encourage local cooperation, rather than to create new 
legislation with broad, unintended consequences.
  Above all, any solutions by Congress should be guided by the 
principle that it is the federal government's role to protect tribal 
self-government.
  Tribal self-government serves the same purpose today that it has 
always served. It enables Indian tribes to protect their cultures and 
identities and provide for the needs of their people. By doing so, 
tribal self-government enriches American life and provides economic 
opportunities where few would otherwise exist.
  A common misperception is the belief that most tribes are growing 
wealthy from gaming proceeds. Nothing is further from the truth. Indian 
reservations have a 31% poverty rate--the highest poverty rate in 
America. Indian unemployment is six times the national average. Indian 
health, education and income are the worst in the country. Only a very 
small number of tribes have been fortunate enough to have successful 
gaming operations.
  Instead of undermining them, Congress should be doing more to help 
tribes create jobs, raise incomes, and develop capital for new 
businesses. We should also be doing more to invest in the health, the 
education and the skills of American Indians and Alaska Natives, as we 
do for all Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues 
in the Senate and House to do so.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that that time be charged 
against the Senator's time on the time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I may inquire, my understanding is that 
Senator Enzi controls 15 minutes on the Enzi-Bryan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BRYAN. In the interest of accommodating the time of the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee--I note that 
Senator Enzi joins us on the floor at this moment. If I might engage 
him in a colloquy, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has 
indicated that it would be permissible for us to move forward. The 
distinguished Senator from Hawaii has made a statement, all of which is 
charged on our time. There are 15 minutes remaining. I would be happy 
to yield to the primary sponsor of the amendment and then take my time, 
if he prefers to go first.
  Mr. ENZI. I will yield time to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the distinguished author of the amendment yield me 5 
minutes?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes; I yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRYAN. It will be charged against the Senator's 15 minutes on 
this bill.
  Mr. ENZI. Yes. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, what is at issue here is whether States, 
through their elected Governors and State legislatures, will determine 
what the scope of gaming is in a particular State, or whether that 
decision should be made by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary 
of the Interior has proceeded with regulations that are subject to 
public comment and are currently being reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget that, in effect, would constitute a preemptive 
strike. That is, the Secretary of the Interior would determine the 
scope of Indian gaming. We believe that is inappropriate.
  This amendment seeks to reaffirm a policy which the Congress agreed 
to last year; and that is that the Congress should retain the authority 
to make any changes in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The chairman 
of the Committee on Indian Affairs has indicated that he intends to 
move forward with the piece of legislation. I assured him that we will 
work cooperatively with him about what the Secretary of the Interior 
has done. Notwithstanding the actions taken by the Congress last year, 
which would prevent the implementation of a regulation which would give 
to him the ability to establish the scope of gambling activity in a 
State contrary to what I believe is the clear intent of the Congress, 
this amendment simply says he may not go forward at this point with the 
processing of those regulations. So completely consistent with what we 
agreed to last year, no compact that currently exists between any tribe 
or any Governor is affected.

[[Page S2592]]

 We in Nevada have five such compacts. Many other States have compacts 
as well.
  What is involved here is not a question of bad faith between a 
Governor and a tribe. It is that several tribes, particularly in the 
State of California and in the State of Florida, have been pressing 
Governors to provide Indian tribes with the ability to conduct gaming 
activities that are prohibited under State law. In the State of 
Florida, for example, there have been three public referendums. And the 
public in Florida has rejected open casino gaming, as my State of 
Nevada has adopted. The tribes, nevertheless, pressed forward and 
challenged the Governor of Florida, accusing him of bad faith in not 
being willing to negotiate such gaming activity.
  My view is that it is a province that ought to be left to the State 
Governors and the elected State legislatures. In California, currently 
20 tribes have 14,000 illegal slot machines, contrary to State law. The 
Governor of California has recently negotiated a compact with the Pala 
Band of Indian tribes that do not permit, as some tribes want, slot 
machines in California. California's Governor and its State legislature 
ought to make the determination.
  So what this amendment does is to preempt the Secretary of the 
Interior from making that decision and retains the authority and 
jurisdiction in the Congress. If there are to be changes in the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act, if there are perceived shortcomings, let us in a 
deliberative fashion make those changes --not the Secretary of the 
Interior.
  As I have indicated, I look forward to working with my colleagues who 
serve on that committee.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of the time to be 
allocated by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming on our side of the 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I thank Senator 
Bryan for his comments.
  I am pleased that we have the opportunity to talk about this. I 
thought we had talked about it last year. I thought that would give 
enough direction to the Secretary of the Interior that we would not 
have a problem.
  I want to mention that this amendment is an emergency. That is why we 
are attaching it to this bill. The comment period for the rules that he 
has gone ahead and promulgated will run out before we have another 
opportunity to debate this. I do not want the Department of the 
Interior to be spending the money to do the process they are doing 
which bypasses Congress, and it bypasses States rights.
  I want to read a portion of a letter that I have from the National 
Governors' Association.
       This letter is to confirm Governors' support for the Indian 
     gaming-related amendment offered by Senators Michael B. Enzi, 
     Richard H. Bryan, and Harry Reid to the Senate supplemental 
     appropriations bill. This amendment prevents the secretary of 
     the U.S. Department of the Interior from promulgating a 
     regulation or implementing a procedure that could result in 
     tribal Class III gaming in the absence of a tribal-state 
     compact, as required by law.
       The nation's Governors strongly believe that no statute or 
     court decision provides the secretary of the U.S. Department 
     of the Interior with authority to intervene in dispute over 
     compacts between Indian tribes and states about casino 
     gambling on Indian lands. Such action would constitute an 
     attempt by the Secretary of the Interior to preempt states' 
     authority under existing laws and recent court decisions and 
     would create an incentive for tribes to avoid negotiating 
     gambling compacts with states.
       Further, the secretary's inherent authority includes a 
     responsibility to protect the interests of Indian tribes, 
     making it impossible for the secretary to avoid a conflict of 
     interest or exercise objective judgment in disputes between 
     states and tribes.
  That is from the National Governors' Association.
  I see that Senator Reid is on the floor. I yield 5 minutes to Senator 
Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate very much the leadership of 
the Senator from Wyoming on this issue. It is an important issue, and 
it is bipartisan.
  We hear a lot in this body about States rights. But where the 
illustration is clearly defined is this in States rights. I was part of 
the Indian Affairs Committee when we drew up legislation under the 
Indian Control Act, and, of course, the purpose of that act was to 
allow Indians to do anything in a State that non-Indians could do 
relating to gaming.
  For various reasons, the courts have interposed themselves, and now 
there is controversy as to really what the act stands for. But one 
thing we do know is that the clear intent of the Gaming Control Act was 
that Indians could not do more in a State related to gaming than non-
Indians, and that is, in effect, what the Secretary is trying to do 
with the proposed rule--to have him be the arbiter of what goes on 
regarding gaming, no matter how the State might feel. It certainly 
would be unfair, and it would be in derogation of the intent of the 
original law.
  It has already been explained here that clearly the Secretary has a 
conflict of interest in this regard. He is someone who has as one of 
his main obligations the obligation to look out for Indians in regard 
to the trust responsibility. How can someone who has this obligation 
also say that he is going to be the interpreter of whether or not the 
State is dealing in a fair fashion in good faith? It is clear he 
cannot, and that is the reason for this amendment.
  Last year's Interior appropriations bill included language 
prohibiting the Secretary from approving Class III gaming compacts 
through September 30, 1998. This was done to address a problem created 
as the result of the Supreme Court's decision in Seminole v. Florida. 
Our concern was that after Seminole, tribes would immediately seek 
assistance from the Secretary in those situations where the tribe 
believed the state was not negotiating in good faith.
  It is important to recognize that Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 
does not permit secretarial intervention without a finding that a State 
has negotiated with a tribe in bad faith. The Secretary now proposes 
that he make that finding himself. There is nothing in IGRA that gives 
the Secretary this broad authority. Indeed, this authority is vested in 
the Federal courts.
  I state clearly and without any qualification that I would be very 
happy to work as closely and as quickly as possible with the chairman 
of the Indian Affairs Committee, the senior Senator from Colorado, and 
the ranking senior Senator from Hawaii, to come up with statutory 
authority to work out this problem. But, the way the law now stands, it 
is up to the courts to do this. Certainly, there would never be 
legislation that would give the Secretary the authority to determine 
whether or not the State was acting in good faith.
  The consequences of permitting an appointed federal official to 
permit gambling on Indian lands based on tribal allegations of a 
State's bargaining position raises troubling federalism questions about 
the sovereign prerogatives of a State.
  By announcing a proposed Rulemaking on this issue in January, the 
Secretary seeks to disregard what this body affirmatively stated last 
year.
  This proposal makes no sense.
  By inviting the tribes to seek resolution with Secretary, the states, 
and the Governors, are placed at a severe disadvantage.
  We can not expect the Secretary of Interior to be able to arbitrate 
these types of contentious disputes over Indian gaming.
  I repeat, as I have said earlier. The Secretary has a fiduciary and 
trust responsibility to the tribe and thus can not fairly arbitrate 
these types of disagreements.
  The Secretary's decision in January to propose regulations on this 
issue circumvents the intent of what we sought to do on last year's 
Interior Bill.
  Essentially, the Secretary announced his intention to do everything 
but promulgate a final rule on this issue.
  My amendment is very simple.
  It prevents the Secretary from promulgating as final regulations the 
proposed regulations he published on January 22, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 
3289).
  Additionally, he cannot issue a proposed rulemaking, or promulgate, 
any similar regulations to provide for procedures for gaming activities 
under IGRA in any case in which a state asserts a defense of sovereign 
immunity

[[Page S2593]]

to a lawsuit brought by an Indian tribe in Federal court to compel the 
State to participate in compact negotaitions for Class III gaming.
  I believe any effort by Interior on this issue would be opposed by 
the states and the governors.
  The Western Governors' Association has already weighed in in 
opposition to this proposed rule.
  This is an issue involving states rights.
  The states and the governors should be able to negotiate with the 
tribes without duress.
  They should not be placed on an uneven playing field in these 
negotiations.
  How can they reasonably expect to get an impartial hearing from an 
arbiter who has a fiduciary and trust obligation to the tribes?
  With all of the problems we are now experiencing with Indian Gaming, 
the Secretary should not be undertaking action that will promote its 
expansion to the detriment of states rights.
  I repeat. I would be very happy to work as a member of the Indian 
Affairs Committee with the chairman and the ranking member to come up 
with statutory authority to work up a way out of this so it doesn't 
have to be determined in the courts. But the courts are a better place 
to determine what is good or bad faith, and the Secretary is in 
absolute conflict of interest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, how much time remains on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 4 minutes 1 
second. The Senator from Hawaii has 30 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have listened with great interest to 
the comments on both sides and state to the authors of the bill, as 
well as those who oppose it, that I would be prepared to accept this 
amendment without a vote and to take it to conference to see if we can 
work out something that might be acceptable and not have as much 
controversy between those who have spoken on the amendment. So, if that 
would be acceptable to all concerned, I would suggest that we have a 
yielding back of time and adopt the amendment on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do both Senators yield their time?
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to 
comment on that. I hope we could be a part of working that out. We see 
this as only an extension of the work that was done last year, so we 
have no problem in agreeing to continue to extend that work and hope 
that would be done in a very cooperative spirit. I look forward to 
working with the other people. But we do anticipate that the States 
rights will be preserved, and that we will be a part of the process in 
conference.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I will say 
there is no one in the body who is more concerned about States rights 
than the Senator from Alaska. He will be the chairman or the cochairman 
in conference, and I have every hope that we can work something out 
that would be acceptable to everyone.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, under those circumstances, I am pleased 
to yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, before I do, I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record the policy of the administration on this 
matter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs


Item: Proposed bill s. 1572, introduced by Senators Bryan, Enzi, Reid, 
                    and Sessions on january 27, 1998

       S. 1572 amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and 
     precludes the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating 
     final regulations to deal with Indian gaming compact 
     negotiations between States and Tribes when Tribes have 
     exhausted federal judicial remedies.
       Background: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was 
     enacted to allow Indian tribes the opportunity to pursue 
     gaming as a means of economic development on Indian lands. 
     Since 1988, Indian gaming, regulate under IGRA, has provided 
     benefits to over 150 tribes and to their surrounding 
     communities in over 24 states. As required by law, Indian 
     gaming revenues have been directed to programs and facilities 
     to improve the health, safety, educational opportunities and 
     quality of life for Indian people.
       Under IGRA, Tribes are only authorized to conduct casino-
     style gaming operations if such gaming is permitted by the 
     state. Further, the gaming is allowed in such states only 
     pursuant to a mutually agreed-upon Tribal-State compact; or 
     in the alternative, pursuant to procedures issued by the 
     Secretary if a state fails to consent to a compact arrived at 
     through the medication process that follows a determination 
     by a United States District Court that the State has failed 
     to negotiate in good faith (25 U.S.C. Section 
     2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). IGRA only authorizes the Secretary to 
     issue ``procedures'' after states have been provided with a 
     full opportunity to negotiate compact terms.
       Under IGRA, Congress intended to give tribes the right to 
     file suits directly against states that failed to negotiate 
     in good faith with regard to Class III gaming. The right to 
     sue a state for failure to negotiate in good faith was seen 
     by Congress as the best way to ensure that states deal fairly 
     with tribes as sovereign governments. See Senate Report No. 
     446, 100th Congress, 2nd Session 14 (1988).
       In Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida, the U.S. Supreme 
     Court held that Congress was without authority to waive the 
     States' immunity to suits in Federal courts ensured by the 
     Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. As a result of this 
     decision, states can avoid entering into good faith 
     negotiations with Indian tribes without concern about being 
     subject to suit by tribes. Under these circumstances, the 
     Secretary's authority to promulgate regulations may be the 
     only avenue for meeting the Congressional policy of promoting 
     tribal economic development and self sufficiency.
       Effect of Proposed Legislation: The legislation would 
     prohibit the adoption of a rule setting forth the process and 
     standards pursuant to which Class III procedures would be 
     adopted in specific situations where the state has asserted 
     its Eleventh Amendment immunity. If the legislation is 
     included as an amendment to a 1998 supplemental 
     appropriation, the language would remain in effect through FY 
     1998.
       Departmental Position: The Department strongly objects to 
     any attempt to substantially interfere with its ability to 
     administer the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or to thwart 
     Congress' declared policy in IGRA of promoting tribal 
     economic development, self sufficiency and strong tribal 
     governments. The Secretary would recommend a veto of any 
     legislation extending beyond FY 1998 that prevents the 
     Secretary from attempting to work out a reasonable solution 
     for dealing with Indian gaming compact negotiations between 
     states and Tribes when Tribes have exhausted federal judicial 
     remedies.
       The Secretary published proposed regulation on January 22, 
     1998 which would authorize the Secretary to approve Class III 
     gaming procedures in cases where the state has asserted an 
     Eleventh Amendment defense. The proposed rule is narrow in 
     scope. It will allow the Secretary to move forward only 1) 
     where a Tribe asserts that a State has not acted in good 
     faith in negotiating a Class III gaming compact and 2) when 
     the State asserts immunity from the lawsuit to resolve the 
     dispute. In the 9-year history of IGRA, these situations have 
     been very rare. Over 150 compacts have been successfully 
     negotiated and are being implemented in more than half the 
     states. Even where negotiations have been unsuccessful and 
     litigation has been filed, a number of States have chosen not 
     to assert immunity from suit. Based on experience to date, 
     relatively few situations will arise requiring Secretarial 
     decisions.
       The publication of the proposed rule is followed by a 90-
     day comment period, with formal public access to and review 
     of the proposed rule. The Department will attempt to maximize 
     State participation and comment during the comment period, 
     with final publication of the rule expected in FY 1998, after 
     careful review and analysis of public comments. In 
     particular, the Department will continue to meet with State 
     Governors to discuss the proposed rule and to work out 
     compromises. A provision in the FY 1998 Department of the 
     Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act precludes 
     the implementation of a final rule this fiscal year.
       State law would continue to be the appropriate reference 
     point for determining the ``scope of gaming'' permitted in 
     any procedures proposed by the Department to resolve Indian 
     gaming compact disputes. This policy is consistent with the 
     Department's position that it does not authorize classes or 
     forms of Indian gaming in any State where they are 
     affirmatively prohibited. See Brief of the United States as 
     amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in Rumsey Indian Rancheria 
     of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1995), as 
     modified on denial of petition for rehearing, 99F.3d 321 (9th 
     Cir 1996), cert. denied, sub nom. Sycuan Band of Mission 
     Indians v. Wilson, No. 96-1059, 65 U.S.L. W. 3855 (June 24, 
     1997).
       The publication of the proposed rule follows an Advanced 
     Notice of Public Rulemaking, published in the Federal 
     Register in May, 1996. In developing the proposed rule, the 
     Department carefully considered over 350 comments submitted 
     by States, Tribes, and others.
       The Department opposes legislation which would in effect 
     provide States with a veto

[[Page S2594]]

     power over Class III Indian gaming when state law permits the 
     gaming at issue ``for any purpose by any person, organization 
     or entity.''
       In addition, the Department of the Interior strongly 
     objects to using the appropriations process for policy 
     amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Including the 
     provision in the FY 1998 supplemental appropriations would 
     circumvent a fair legislative process with hearings involving 
     Indian tribes, state officials and the regulated community. 
     Through the hearing process, all parties involved in Indian 
     gaming are allowed to contribute testimony on how or whether 
     IGRA should be amended.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Wyoming.
  The amendment (No. 2133) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there are several amendments that are 
on what we call the finite list here. My staff and I believe they are 
amendments that we could accept, maybe with some change to make sure we 
do not have budget problems. So I request the staffs of Senator Boxer, 
Senator Cleland, Senator Gramm, Senator Hutchison, and Senator 
Murkowski to see us as soon as possible concerning those amendments so 
we might see what we might be able to work out.
  I will state to the Senate that there are a series of amendments that 
we have already worked out. We will offer them very quickly as the 
managers' package. We still have pending before the Senate the Nickles 
and McConnell amendments. In addition to that, 24 other amendments, 
Madam President. I invite any Senator to come present his or her 
amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 2136 through 2151, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to announce that the first 
portion of the managers' package has been cleared. I would like to read 
to the Senate what these are and then send this portion of the package 
to the Chair so we can consider these amendments en bloc.
  The first amendment is on behalf of Senator McCain to clarify that 
adult unmarried children of Vietnamese reeducation camp internees are 
eligible for refugee status under the Orderly Departure Program. I 
would like to have his statement printed in the Record before the 
adoption of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is an amendment on behalf of Senator Murkowski, 
which I have cosponsored, to make technical corrections to the Michigan 
Indian Land Claims Settlement Act to provide certain health care 
services for Alaska Natives;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Murkowski and myself to make 
technical corrections to the fiscal year 1998 Department of Interior 
appropriations bill;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Bond and myself to provide 
emergency funds available for the purchase of certain F/A-18 aircraft;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Chafee to modify the Energy and 
Water Development section of the bill. I am also sending a statement to 
the desk on behalf of Senator Chafee and ask it be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. An amendment on behalf of Senator Wyden to eliminate 
secrecy in international financial trade organizations;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Bond to make technical corrections 
to the Economic Development Grant Program funded in 1992 as part of the 
Empowerment Zone Act;
  an amendment in behalf of Senator Craig to make technical corrections 
to section 405 of the bill regarding the Forest Service transportation 
system moratorium;
  an amendment on behalf of Senators Cochran and Bumpers to make a 
technical correction to the Livestock Disaster Assistance Program;

  an amendment on behalf of Senators Wellstone, Conrad, and Dorgan 
dealing with Farm Operating and Emergency Loans;
  an amendment on behalf of Senators Jeffords and Leahy dealing with 
the Mackville Dam in Hardwick, VT;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Lott making a technical correction 
to the McConnell amendment, which is amendment No. 2100;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Daschle to provide funds for 
humanitarian demining activity in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Gregg to make a technical 
correction to the Patent and Trademark section of the bill;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Levin to the McConnell amendment 
numbered 2100 dealing with consultation by the Secretary of Treasury;
  an amendment on behalf of Senator Grassley and myself regarding a 
U.S. Customs Service P-3 aircraft hangar.
  Madam President, I send those amendments to the desk and ask for 
their consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2136 through 2151, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2136

   (Purpose: To clarify that unmarried adult children of Vietnamese 
 reeducation camp internees are eligible for refugee status under the 
                       Orderly Departure Program)

       At the appropriate place in Title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ELIGIBILITY FOR REFUGEE STATUS.

       Section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
     and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 
     104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-171) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``fiscal year 1997'' and inserting ``fiscal 
     years 1998 and 1999''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Aliens Covered.--
       ``(1) In general.-- An alien described in this subsection 
     is an alien who--
       ``(A) is the son or daughter of a qualified national;
       ``(B) is 21 years of age or older; and
       ``(C) was unmarried as of the date of acceptance of the 
     alien's parent for resettlement under the Orderly Departure 
     Program.
       ``(2) Qualified national.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `qualified national' means a national of Vietnam 
     who--
       ``(A)(i) was formerly interned in a reeducation camp in 
     Vietnam by the Government of the Socialist Republic of 
     Vietnam; or
       ``(ii) is the widow or widower of an individual described 
     in clause (i); and
       ``(B)(i) qualified for refugee processing under the 
     reeducation camp internees subprogram of the Orderly 
     Departure Program; and
       ``(ii) on or after April 1, 1995, is accepted--
       ``(I) for resettlement as a refugee; or
       ``(II) for admission as an immigrant under the Orderly 
     Departure Program.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I offer an amendment that is basically a 
technical correction to language that I had included in the Fiscal Year 
1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. That language, and the 
amendment I offer today, are designed to make humanitarian exceptions 
for the unmarried adult children of former re-education camp detainees 
seeking to emigrate to the United States under the Orderly Departure 
Program. Despite what I considered to have been pretty unambiguous 
legislation in both word and intent, the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service and Department of State interpreted my amendment to the 1997 
bill so as to exclude the very people to whom the provision was 
targeted. This amendment was accepted as part of the State Department 
Authorization bill for fiscal year 1998, which has not passed into law. 
It is, therefore, necessary to include this language in the Emergency 
Supplemental in order to permit the State Department to begin to 
process the backlog of cases that accumulated since the program's 
expiration last year.
  Prior to April 1995, the adult unmarried children of former 
Vietnamese re-education camp prisoners were granted derivative refugee 
status and were permitted to accompany their parents to the United 
States under a sub-program of the Orderly Departure Program (ODP).

[[Page S2595]]

  This policy changed in April 1995. My amendment to FY1997 Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Bill, which comprises part of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act, was intended to restore the status quo ante 
regarding the adult unmarried children of former prisoners. My comments 
in the Congressional Record from July 25, 1996, clearly spelled this 
out.
  Unfortunately, certain categories of children who, prior to April 
1995 had received derivative refugee status and whom Congress intended 
to be covered by last year's amendment, are now considered ineligible 
to benefit from that legislation.
  First, prior to April 1995, the widows of prisoners who died in re-
education camps were permitted to be resettled in the U.S. under this 
sub-program of the ODP, and their unmarried adult children were allowed 
to accompany them. These children are now considered ineligible to 
benefit from last year's legislation.
  To ask these widows to come to the United States without their 
children is equal to denying them entry under the program. Many of 
these women are elderly and in poor health, and the presence of their 
children is essential to providing the semblance of a family unit with 
the care that includes.
  The second problem stemming from INS and the State Department's 
interpretation of the 1997 language involves the roughly 20% of former 
Vietnamese re-education camp prisoners resettled in the United States 
who were processed as immigrants, at the convenience of the U.S. 
Government.
  Their unmarried adult children, prior to April 1995, were still given 
derivative refugee status, however, the position of INS and State is 
that these children are now ineligible because the language in the 
FY1997 bill included the phrase ``processed as refugees for 
resettlement in the United States.''
  That phrase was intended to identify the children of former prisoners 
being brought to the United States under the sub-program of the ODP and 
eligible to be processed as a refugee--which all clearly were--as 
distinct from the children of former prisoners who were not being 
processed for resettlement in the United States.
  The fact that a former prisoner, eligible to be processed as a 
refugee under the ODP sub-program, was processed as an immigrant had no 
effect prior to April 1995, and their children were granted refugee 
status. The intention of the 1996 legislation was to restore the status 
quo ante, including for the unmarried adult children of former 
prisoners eligible for and included in this sub-program but resettled 
as migrants. This amendment will correct the problem once and for all, 
and I urge its support.


                           amendment no. 2137

(Purpose: To make technical corrections to Sec. 203(a) of the Michigan 
Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 105-143, 111 Stat. 2666))

     SEC.    . PROVISION OF CERTAIN HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR 
                   ALASKA NATIVES.

       Section 203(a) of the Michigan Indian Land Claims 
     Settlement Act (Public Law 105-143, 111 Stat. 2666) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``other than community based alcohol 
     services,'' after ``Ketchikan Gateway Borough,''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such contract 
     or compact shall provide services to all Indian Alaska Native 
     beneficiaries of the Indian Health Service in the Ketchikan 
     Gateway Borough without the need for resolutions of support 
     from any Indian tribe as defined in the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2138

   (Purpose: To make technical corrections to Sec. 326(a) of the Act 
 making Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related 
 agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998 and for other 
             purposes (Public Law 105-83, 111 Stat. 1543))

       On page 38, following line 18, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec.    . Section 326(a) of the Act making Appropriations 
     for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998 and for other 
     purposes (Public Law 105-83, 111 Stat. 1543) is amended by 
     striking ``with any Alaska Native village or Alaska Native 
     village corporation'' and inserting ``to any Indian tribe as 
     defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e))''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2139

 (Purpose: To provide contingent emergency funds for the purchase of F/
                             A-18 aircraft)

       On page 15, after line 21, add the following:
       Sec. 205. In addition to the amounts provided in Public Law 
     105-56, $272,500,000 is appropriated under the heading 
     ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'': Provided, That the additional 
     amount shall be made available only for the procurement of 
     eight F/A-18 aircraft for the United States Marine Corps: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $272,500,000, 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.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2140

       On page 17, beginning on line 10, strike ``to be conducted 
     at full Federal expense''.
                                  ____



                           amendment on. 2141

    (Purpose: To eliminate secrecy in international financial trade 
                             organizations)

       At the appropriate place in the bill in Title II, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC.   . ELIMINATION OF SECRECY IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       The President shall instruct the United States 
     Representatives to the World Trade Organization to seek the 
     adoption of procedures that will ensure broader application 
     of the principles of transparency and openness in the 
     activities of the organization, including by urging the World 
     Trade Organization General Council to--
       (1) permit appropriate meetings of the Council, the 
     Ministerial Conference, dispute settlement panels, and the 
     Appellate Body to be made open to the public; and
       (2) provide for timely public summaries of the matters 
     discussed and decisions made in any closed meeting of the 
     Conference or Council.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2142

(Purpose: Technical Correction to Economic Development Grant funded in 
                   1992 as part of Empowerment Zone)

       On page 46, after line 25, Insert:


                           general provision

       Sec. 1001. Section 206 of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-65; October 
     27, 1997) is amended by inserting the following before the 
     period: ``, and for loans and grants for economic development 
     in and around 18th and Vine''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 2143

       Beginning on line 10 on page 35, strike all through line 18 
     on page 38 and insert in lieu thereof the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 405. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MORATORIUM.

       (a)(1) The Chief of the Forest Service, Department of 
     Agriculture, in his sole discretion, may offer any timber 
     sales that were previously scheduled to be offered in fiscal 
     year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 even if such sales would have 
     been delayed or halted as a result of, any moratorium on 
     construction of roads in roadless areas within the National 
     Forest System adopted as policy or by regulation that would 
     otherwise be applicable to such sales.
       (2) Any sales authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1) 
     shall--
       (A) comply with all applicable laws and regulations and be 
     consistent with applicable land and resource management 
     plans. except any regulations or plan amendments which 
     establish or implement the moratorium referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) be subject to administrative appeals pursuant to Part 
     215 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulation and to 
     judicial review.
       (b)(1) For any previously scheduled sales that are not 
     offered pursuant to, subsection (a)(1), the Chief may, to the 
     extent practicable, offer substitute sales within the same 
     state in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. Such 
     substitute sales shall be subject to the requirements of 
     subsection (a)(2).
       (2)(A) The Chief shall pay as soon as practicable after 
     fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 to any State in which 
     sales previously scheduled to be offered that are referred to 
     in, but not offered pursuant to, subsection (a)(1) would have 
     occurred, 25 percentum of any receipts from such sales that--
       (i) were anticipated from fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 
     1999 sales in the absence of any moratorium referred to in 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (ii) are not offset by revenues received in such fiscal 
     years from substitute projects authorized pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (B) After reporting the amount of funds required to make 
     any payments required by subsection (b)(2)(A), and the source 
     from which such funds are to be derived, to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, the Chief shall make any payments required by 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) from--
       (i) the $2,000,000 appropriated for the purposes of this 
     section in Chapter 4 of this Act; or

[[Page S2596]]

       (ii) in the event that the amount referred to in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(i) is not sufficient to cover the payments required 
     under subsection (b)(2), from any funds appropriated to the 
     Forest Service in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999, as 
     the case may be, that are not specifically earmarked for 
     another purpose by the applicable appropriation act or a 
     committee or conference report thereon.
       (C) Any State which receives payments required by 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) shall expend such funds only in the 
     manner, and for the purposes, prescribed in section 500 of 
     title 16 of the United States Code.
       (c)(1) During the term of the moratorium referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1), the Chief shall prepare, and submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a report on, each of the following:
       (A) a study of whether standards and guidelines in existing 
     land and resource management plans compel or encourage entry 
     into roadless areas within the National Forest System for the 
     purpose of constructing roads or undertaking any other 
     ground-disturbing activities;
       (B) an inventory of all roads within the National Forest 
     System and the uses which they serve, in a format that will 
     inform and facilitate the development of a long-term Forest 
     Service transportation policy; and
       (C) a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the economic 
     and social effects of the moratorium referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) on county, State, and regional levels.
       (2) The Chief shall fund the study, inventory and analysis 
     required by subsection (c)(1) in fiscal year 1998 from funds 
     appropriated for Forest Research in such fiscal year that are 
     not specifically earmarked for another purpose in the 
     applicable appropriation act or a committee or conference 
     report thereon.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2144

    (Purpose: To make a technical correction in the language of the 
                 Livestock Disaster Assistant program)

       On page 5, line 10, strike ``that had been produced but not 
     marketed''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2145

   (Purpose: To subsidize the cost of additional farm operating and 
                            emergency loans)

       On page 3, line 6, beginning with ``emer-'', strike all 
     down through and including ``insured,'' on line 7 and insert 
     ``direct and guaranteed''.
       On page 3, line 11, following ``disasters'' insert: ``as 
     follows: operating loans, $8,600,000, of which $5,400,000 
     shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; emergency insured 
     loans''.
       On page 3, line 14, strike ``$21,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following: ``$29,600,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2146

(Purpose: To appropriate funds for emergency construction to repair the 
                  Machville Dam in Hardwick, Vermont)

       On page 18, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       An additional amount for emergency construction to repair 
     the Machville Dam in Hardwick, Vermont: $500,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of the 
     Army may obligate and expend the funds appropriated for 
     repair of the Mackville Dam if the Secretary of the Army 
     certifies that the repair is necessary to provide flood 
     control benefits: Provided further, That the Corps of 
     Engineers shall not be responsible for the future costs of 
     operation, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of the 
     project: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     of $500,000 that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)) is transmitted by 
     the President to Congress: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act.
                                  ____



                Amendment No. 2147 to Amendment No. 2100

       On page 8 line 14 and 18 of amendment 2100 after the word 
     ``automobile,'' insert the following ``shipbuilding.''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 2148

 (Purpose: To provide $35,000,000 for humanitarian demining activities 
                       in Bosnia and Herzegovina)

       At the appropriate place in Title II, insert the following:
       Sec. In addition to the amounts provided in Public Law 105-
     56, $35,000,000 is appropriated and shall be available for 
     deposit in the International Trust Fund of the Republic of 
     Solvenia for Demining, Minc Clearance, and Assistance to Mine 
     Victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Provided, That such amount 
     may be deposited in that Fund only if the President 
     determines that such amount could be used effectively and for 
     objectives consistent with on-going multilateral efforts to 
     remove landmines in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Provided further, 
     That such amount may be deposited in that Fund only to the 
     extent of deposits of matching amounts in that Fund by other 
     government, entities, or persons: Provided further, That the 
     amount of such amount deposited by the United States in that 
     Fund may be expended by the Republic of Slovenia only in 
     consultation with the United States Government: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request, for a specific dollar 
     amount, that includes a designation of the entire amount as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is transmitted to 
     Congress by the President: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 2149

       On page 51, line 8, strike the word ``design,'' and on line 
     13, strike the words ``federal construction,''.
                                  ____



                  Amendment No. 2150 to Amendment 2100

       At the appropriate place in the IMF title of the bill, 
     insert the following:
       Sec.   . The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with 
     the office of the United States Trade Representative 
     regarding prospective IMF borrower countries, including their 
     status with respect to title III of the Trade Act of 1974 or 
     any executive order issued pursuant to the aforementioned 
     title, and shall take these consultations into account before 
     instructing the United States Executive Director of the IMF 
     on the United States position regarding loans or credits to 
     such borrowing countries.
       In the section of the bill entitled ``SEC. .REPORTS.'' 
     after the first word ``account,'' insert the following:
       ``(i) of outcomes related to the requirements of section 
     (described above); and (ii).''
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 2151

       On page 46, after line 16, insert:

                     United States Customs Service


             customs facilities, construction, improvements

       In addition to the amounts made available for the United 
     States Customs Service in Public Law 105-61, $5,512,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000: Provided, That 
     this amount may be made available for construction of a P3-
     AEW hangar in Corpus Christi, Texas: Provided further, That 
     the funds appropriated under this heading may only be 
     obligated 30 days after the Commissioner of the Customs 
     Service certifies to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations that the construction of this facility is 
     necessary for the operation of the P-3 aircraft for the 
     counternarcotics mission.
       On page 50, after line 14, insert:


             customs facilities, construction, improvements

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 102-393, $4,470,000 and Public Law 103-123, $1,041,754 
     are rescinded.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the amendments en bloc.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 2136 through 2151) were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to reconsider that action and to 
lay my motion on the table, en bloc.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2140

  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I want to comment very briefly on an 
amendment of mine that has been accepted by the managers. My amendment 
deals with cost-sharing for a levee and waterway project included in 
the Supplemental Appropriations bill for Elba and Geneva, Alabama. 
Specifically, the amendment strikes the phrase, ``to be conducted at 
full Federal expense'' as found on page 17, lines 10 and 11 of the 
bill.
  By striking this phrase, the appropriate, lawful cost-sharing ratio 
would be applied. It would be my strong preference, Mr. President, that 
we not include any authorization for this or other water projects in 
the Supplemental bill. These are matters more appropriately dealt with 
in the Water Resources Development Act, which we plan to take up this 
summer.
  However, recognizing the urgency of the situation in these Alabama 
communities, I am willing to go forward with the expedited process 
provided here; as long as the cost-sharing is consistent with current 
water resources law. My amendment ensures that the levee repair and 
associated work in Elba and Geneva will be cost-shared. I want to thank 
Senator Shelby and the bill's managers for working with me today to 
favorably resolve this matter.


                           amendment no. 2145

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill, as 
well as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, for accepting my amendment. I offered it 
on behalf of

[[Page S2597]]

myself and Senators Conrad, Dorgan and Daschle to address a shortfall 
in funding during the current fiscal year of USDA farm credit programs 
in our states and across the country as a result of disastrous weather 
and economic conditions.
  The amendment is simple. It adds $8.6 million in appropriation to 
this emergency supplemental spending bill for Farm Service Agency 
operating loans, both guaranteed and direct. The amendment adds $3.2 
million in appropriation for direct farm operating loans, which allows 
lending authority of $52 million nationwide. This is in addition to the 
$3.1 million of appropriation and approximately $48 million in lending 
authority that already was in the bill, bringing the total amount of 
lending authority for FSA direct operating loans in the bill to 
approximately $100 million. The amendment also adds $5.4 million in 
appropriation for guaranteed subsidized interest loans, allowing 
lending authority of approximately $56 million for that existing FSA 
program. Previously there was no money in the bill for this type of 
credit.
  I will include in the Record a letter from my state's Farm Service 
Agency office, signed by the state director and FSA state committee 
members from Minnesota. The letter not only documents the dire need for 
additional funding in this bill for these two important programs, but 
explains what has become a farm crisis in parts of Minnesota. I don't 
use the word crisis lightly. It causes me some pain to observe that it 
is an accurate word. I attended a meeting in Crookston, Minnesota a 
number of weekends ago, called for the purpose of addressing the 
increasingly disturbing economic conditions, especially in the 
Northwestern part of the state, as well as in North Dakota. There was a 
sign on the building that announced, ``Farm crisis meeting.'' I 
attended far too many farm crisis meetings in Minnesota during the 
1980s, and it was with some dismay that I read that sign as I entered 
the meeting in Crookston. But I must note that from what farmers and 
bankers in these communities are telling me, from what I saw and heard 
in Crookston, we have a grave situation.
  I will also include in the Record an article from the Star Tribune, 
Minnesota's largest-circulation newspaper, titled, ``Red River Valley 
farmers tell of sorrow that is fallout of 5 hard years.'' I am sure 
that colleagues will recall pictures and descriptions of hardship and 
travail in the Red River Valley following last year's calamitous 
floods. But I am hearing disturbing news that farmers elsewhere in the 
state also are struggling, in many cases due to low prices.
  Madam President, my Dakota colleagues and I do not imagine that the 
additional farm credit that we are including in this emergency bill 
will solve the very difficult economic problems in portions of our 
states' farm economy. It will, however, allow a number of farmers to 
stay in business this year, to keep operating and, hopefully, to get 
past immediate difficulty in a way that allows them to maintain an 
operation that is viable into the future. Each of us also supports 
legislative proposals aimed at improving federal farm policy. I believe 
current policy is on a wrong track, that the so-called Freedom to Farm 
legislation enacted in 1996 was a mistake, and that we should act to 
raise loan rates for a targeted amount of production on each farm. I 
also believe that the repayment period for marketing loans should be 
extended and that crop insurance should be repaired so that affordable 
coverage can do a better job of covering losses. Further, I intend to 
push very hard this year for an increase in research to find a means to 
eradicate a very damaging disease known as scab which is affecting 
wheat in our region.
  Still, without the additional loan money we are including, serious 
need for credit would go unmet in our states. In the letter I have 
included in the Record, Minnesota FSA officials note that the shortfall 
this year in funds for these two types of operating loans will be $24 
million.
  The letter from the state FSA officials points out that some experts 
believe that as many as one in five farm families in Northwestern 
Minnesota may be on the brink of failure. It correctly observes that 
for much of Minnesota agriculture 1997 was a year ``wrought with 
disaster.'' I appreciate the help of my colleagues in including this 
urgently needed assistance. I am very pleased that if we can hold this 
amount in the bill's conference, we will be coming through for farm 
families in Minnesota and around the country.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter and article 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         USDA Farm Service Agency,


                                       Minnesota State Office,

                                     St. Paul, MN, March 18, 1998.
     Hon. Paul D. Wellstone,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: The purpose of this letter is to 
     provide an update to concerns previously expressed to you in 
     regard to the utilization of Farm Service Agency Loan 
     Programs to meet the needs of Minnesota farmers this coming 
     year. An update on additional funding needs is also included.
       As you are aware, the 1997 year in Minnesota was wrought 
     with disaster. The winter brought record snows and livestock 
     deaths. The spring brought record flooding, property damage 
     and slow drying fields. The summer brought late planting and 
     prime conditions for scab in the wheat as well as midge in 
     the sunflowers. The fall brought a harvest of diminished 
     yields and low prices.
       The severest economic problems are being experienced in a 
     nine county area in northwestern Minnesota. While financial/
     economic problems plague all parts of Minnesota, the 
     northwest part of the State has experienced the most severe 
     devastation due to the disasters noted above.
       Contacts with producers, lenders and employees (including 
     County Committee members) leads us to believe that the 
     financial/economic conditions has deteriorated to the lowest 
     levels since the mid-1980's. Some experts believe that as 
     many as one in five farmers are on the brink of failure in 
     northwest Minnesota and will be unable to continue their 
     framing operations.
       Two public forums were held on Saturday, March 7, 1998 in 
     Crookston, MN and Hallock, MN to discuss the economic plight 
     of rural businesses and farms. Approximately 400 people 
     attended each of these forums including members of the 
     Minnesota congressional delegation and State legislators.
       During FY 97 Minnesota Farm Service Agency extended 
     $126,000,000 in loan funds to approximately 1350 farm 
     families. The supplemental appropriations bill passed last 
     spring enabled us to meet the needs of many farm families. 
     Minnesota received approximately $26,000,000 from this 
     supplemental appropriation.
       We cannot stress enough the importance of the federal 
     government providing sufficient assistance in a timely manner 
     to avoid an economic collapse. We believe the government has 
     a responsibility to do everything possible to help these farm 
     families that so desperately need assistance due to events 
     that are beyond their control.
       We have estimated the shortfall in State loan allocations 
     for Farm Loan Programs as follows:


                            Direct Operating

       During FY 97, Minnesota obligated approximately $30,000,000 
     in loan funds. Our FY 98 allocation is $26,400,000. We will 
     likely exhaust our State allocation by mid-April.
       An additional $12,000,000 would assist in meeting 
     anticipated demand to meet the needs of Minnesota farm 
     families.


          Guaranteed Operating Loans with Interest Assistance

       During FY 97, Minnesota obligated approximately $27,200,000 
     in loan funds. Our FY 98 allocation is $17,300,000. We will 
     likely exhaust our State allocation by the first part of 
     April.
       An additional $12,000,000 would assist in meeting 
     anticipated demand to meet the needs of Minnesota farm 
     families.


                       Guaranteed Farm Ownership

       During FY 97, Minnesota obligated approximately $22,700,000 
     in loan funds. Our FY 98 allocation is $15,400,000. We will 
     likely exhaust our allocation by the middle of May. (Usage of 
     guaranteed farm ownership funds usually trails other programs 
     by a couple of months as lenders focus on farm operating 
     needs ahead of real estate needs.)
       An additional $10,000,000 would assist in meeting 
     anticipated demand to meet the needs of Minnesota farm 
     families.
       Any additional loan funding assistance that can be obtained 
     would be greatly appreciated.
       The attached news articles portray the severity of the 
     problems people are facing and accurately provide insight 
     into the human side of the dire straits that families are 
     experiencing.
       Please do no hesitate to contract us if you have any 
     questions or suggestions on what more we can do to provide 
     additional help or games support for additional assistance.
       Your continued support and interest in the Farm Service 
     Agency Farm Loan Programs is greatly appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Wally Sparby,
       State Executive Director.
     Kent Kanten,
       State Committee Member.
     Harlan Beaulieu,

[[Page S2598]]

       State Committee Member, Minority Advisory.
     Clarence Bertram,
       State Committee Members.
     David Haugo,
       Chairman, State Committee.
     Mary Donkers,
       State Committee Member.
     Carl Johnson,
       State Committee Member.

                 [From the Star Tribune, Mar. 8, 1998]

Red River Valley farmers tell of sorrow that is fallout of 5 hard years

                            (By Chuck Haga)

       Crookston, Minn.--After meeting Saturday with hundreds of 
     northwestern Minnesota farmers humbled by five years of 
     adverse weather, crop diseases and low crop prices, 
     legislative leaders promised they'd get right to work on a 
     relief program.
       But there's a limit to what the state can do, they warned 
     the farmers, many of whom indicated they're close to failing.
       ``We'll have a bill in Monday morning to make a 
     difference,'' said Rep. Steve Wenzel, DFL-Little Falls, 
     chairman of the Minnesota House Agriculture Committee.
       Wenzel said he'll seek to have some of the state's current 
     budget surplus earmarked for special tax relief. The state 
     also could shore up federal crop insurance programs, which 
     many farmers said don't come close to covering their losses.
       ``We've got some other things we can reach back and dust 
     off from the old farm crisis [of the 1980s],'' Wenzel said.
       Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who helped organize farm 
     protests in the 1980s, winced when he saw a sign that read 
     ``Farm crisis meeting'' outside the auditorium at the 
     University of Minnesota at Crookston.
       ``I didn't want to see another sign like that,'' he said. 
     ``But you can see it in people's faces here: This is not 
     good.''
       Saturday's meetings in Crookston and Hallock, Minn., were 
     organized by U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and state 
     Rep. Jim Tunheim, DFL-Kennedy, to call attention to ``a 
     silent crisis'' that threatens family farming in the upper 
     Red River Valley.
       ``We are a little pocket of the country,'' Peterson said. 
     ``The rest of the country doesn't notice, because the rest of 
     the country is doing pretty well.''
       Others attending included state Attorney General Hubert 
     Humphrey III; Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe, DFL-Erskine; 
     House Speaker Phil Carruthers, DFL-Brooklyn Center, and 
     Senate Tax Chairman Doug Johnson, DFL-Tower.
       ``Some of the ideas the farmers shared are kind of 
     interesting,'' Moe said, such as a state funding pool for 
     credit backup and supplements for crop insurance.
       ``We'll look at some changes in the property tax,'' he 
     said. ``We'll probably put some additional money into 
     research, but that's a longer-term solution.''
       Bob Bergland, a retired farmer from Roseau, Minn., who 
     represented northwestern Minnesota in Congress and was 
     President Jimmy Carter's secretary of agriculture, said state 
     researchers are working to find wheat and barley varieties 
     resistant to scab, a fungus that thrives in wet years and 
     cuts grain yields and quality.
       ``So far, we've found no miracle solution,'' he said.


                            a silent sorrow

       Larry Smith, superintendent of the Northwest Experiment 
     Station at Crookston, held up a regional farm publication 
     with seven pages of farm auctions.
       ``These are farmers I grew up with in northwestern 
     Minnesota,'' he said. ``The most prosperous business in 
     northwestern Minnesota now is the auction business.''
       Tim Dufault, president of the Minnesota Wheat Growers 
     Association, said scab has cost Minnesota farmers $1.5 
     billion and North Dakota farmers $1 billion since the current 
     wet cycle started five years ago. And those losses are 
     sending farmers packing.
       Rod Nelson, president of First American Bank in Crookston, 
     said that 20 of the farmers financed by his bank are quitting 
     or significantly downsizing this year, ``and many more are 
     thinking about next year or the year after.''
       And the bank has main-street business customers drowning in 
     accounts receivable that can't be collected, he said.
       ``That's just our bank,'' Nelson said, ``and that's just 
     the start of what's going to happen if we don't get relief.''
       The Rev. Greg Isaacson, pastor at Grace Lutheran Church in 
     Ada, Minn., noted similarities between last spring's flood 
     disaster and the regional farm crisis. In both cases, people 
     felt that they had lost control, he said.
       ``But in this silent crisis, there are no groups coming in 
     to help like during the flood,'' he said. ``There isn't the 
     media coverage. Our people have not felt the compassion and 
     understanding coming their way.
       ``They have a sense of failure, and that changes the way a 
     community lives and operates. It changes not only the 
     economy, but also the character of the community.''


                           one farmer's story

       When the politicians and other featured speakers finished, 
     people from the audience spoke.
       Don Fredrickson started telling his story slowly, softly, 
     as if he were talking with a few friends at a coffee shop, 
     not addressing 350 fellow farmers, a dozen legislators, two 
     members of Congress and the attorney general.
       By the time he finished, he had gone through many emotions 
     and seemed close to tears. So did more than a few of the 
     people listening.
       ``I started farming when I was 4, milking cows,'' said the 
     79-year-old potato farmer from Bagley, Minn. ``At 5, I 
     remember my dad putting me on the binder with four horses.''
       When he was 10, his grandfather lost the family farm. It 
     was the Depression. A few years later, with Franklin 
     Roosevelt's help, ``we got it back,'' he said.
       He was married at 21; his wife was 17. After their 
     honeymoon, they returned to the farm. They had $5 and a 
     dream, he said, and through the next decades, the dream came 
     true as they built a large, profitable farming operation.
       ``It's been a great life,'' Fredrickson said. ``But now, 
     after working hard all my life, I daresay that if I sold out 
     today, I wouldn't have $5 in my pocket.''
       ``Our 1996 crop was the best crop we've ever had,'' he 
     said. ``But there was no price. We gave it away.''
       Last year, he lost his crop when 15 inches of rain fell 
     from late June to mid-July. ``We are not going to be able to 
     farm this year because we lost that crop,'' he said.
       ``I've got two sons who should be farming. How am I going 
     to tell them, `You take over this debt'? I can't sleep nights 
     thinking about it.
       ``I'm tired. I'm depressed. I'm crabby. You spend all your 
     life raising food that's essential, and . . .''
       His voice trailed off. He smiled at the politicians and 
     thanked them for listening, and he sat down.
       Everybody else stood, and sent him to his seat with a 
     thundering ovation because he had said what they were 
     feeling.

                   modification to amendment no. 2062

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of 
Senator Byrd, to make technical modifications to amendment 2062, which 
was agreed to yesterday. That has been cleared by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

       On page 15, line 11 shall read as follows:
       ``The Administrator of the General Services Administration 
     shall''.

  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2062), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to reconsider that action and to 
lay my motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendments Nos. 2152, 2153, and 2154 en bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I do report success on some of the 
matters I earlier mentioned. I send to the desk an amendment offered by 
Senator Hutchison which deals with damage repairs, an amendment offered 
by Senator Boxer which deals with issues in the Department of the 
Interior section of the bill, and an amendment offered by Senator 
Dorgan which pertains to Indian reservations. They have been cleared on 
both sides. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2152, 2153 and 2154 en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2152

       On page 26, after line 11, insert the following:
       For an additional amount for ``Wildland and Fire 
     Management'' for wildland and fire management operations to 
     be carried out to rectify damages caused by the windstorms in 
     Texas on February 10, 1998, $2,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, that the entire amount shall be 
     available only at the discretion of the Chief of the National 
     Forest: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for $2,000,000 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,

[[Page S2599]]

     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 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 2153

       On page 21, line 20, delete the number ``$28,938,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``32,818,000''.
       On page 21, line 23, delete the number ``$28,938,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``32,818,000''.
       On page 22, line 11, delete the number ``$8,500,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``9,506,000''.
       On page 22, line 13, delete the number ``$8,500,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``9,506,000''.
       On page 22, line 25, delete the number ``$1,000,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``1,198,000''.
       On page 23, line 3, delete the number ``$1,000,000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``1,198,000''.
       On page 24, insert a new section:

                       Bureau of Land Management


                              construction

       For an additional amount for `Construction', $1,837,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to repair damage caused by 
     floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That the entire 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request for $1,837,000, 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 the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       On page 24, insert a new section:

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


                              construction

       For an additional amount for `Construction', $700,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to repair damage caused by 
     floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That the entire 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request for $700,000, 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 the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2154

   (Purpose: To fund emergency PCB remediation in schools and other 
           facilities at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation)

       On page 24, after line 17, insert the following:


                              construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction, Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs,'' $365,000 to remain available until 
     expended, for replacement of fixtures and testing for and 
     remediation of Polylchlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in BIA 
     schools and administrative facilities, Provided that the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for $365,000 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 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask for their adoption en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2152, 2153, and 2154) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments 
were agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 2154

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am pleased that the committee included 
my amendment, numbered 2154, to provide $365,000 for replacement of 
electrical fixtures and testing for and remediation of Polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs) at schools and Bureau of Indian Affairs facilities 
located at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. These 
funds will remain available until expended.
  The amendment provides direct funding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
so that the agency may replenish funds depleted by past activities 
related to the PCB emergency and provides for future remediation and 
testing activities and replacement of electric fixtures.
  Students at two Standing Rock Sioux schools and employees at a Bureau 
of Indian Affairs administrative building in my State have been exposed 
to leaking fixtures containing dangerous PCBs. In an effort to protect 
students and Federal employees from contamination, parts of three 
buildings have been evacuated, disrupting classes and vital agency 
functions. While testing, remediation activities and fixture 
replacement are already underway, further work by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and its contractors remains unfinished. I commend the committee 
for providing the funds to insure the safety of those who work and 
study on the Standing Rock Reservation.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if the Chair will address the list we 
prepared last evening, I will indicate that the Boxer amendment is now 
off the list, the Daschle amendment is now off the list--the first 
Daschle amendment--the Dorgan amendment is now off the list, the 
Feingold amendment is off the list, the Hatch amendment is off the 
list, the Hutchison amendment is off the list, the Levin IMF amendment 
is off the list, a portion of the managers' package is off the list, 
and the Wyden amendment is off the list.
  I urge Senators, again, to come work with me and my staff to 
determine if we can handle some of these matters.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2150

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill for 
accepting my amendment which requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
consult with the Office of the Trade Representative regarding 
prospective IMF borrowing countries, including their status with 
respect to our trade laws, and to take these consultations with our 
Trade Representative into account before the U.S. Executive Director of 
the IMF is given instructions on the U.S. position regarding approving 
loans to those countries.
  I have had some difficulty supporting IMF reauthorization in the 
absence of requiring countries who are benefiting from an IMF funding 
bailout to remove restrictive trade practices and barriers that 
discriminate against American goods and American services. This 
amendment would put our trading partners on notice that the United 
States is going to take into consideration a country's discriminatory 
trade barriers to American goods and services as part of the process of 
determining American support for IMF loans.
  Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 includes both section 301 and 
super 301 trade laws. These are some of our strongest trade tools in 
the arsenal to fight unfair and discriminatory trade practices.
  If a foreign country is identified under these trade laws, it means 
that some of the most egregious discriminatory trade barriers are being 
kept in place to keep out American goods and services, and we have to 
use our trade laws to try to knock down barriers to our goods. We face 
discriminatory trade barriers too often. Trade is too often a one-way 
street, and where that is true with countries that are being considered 
for IMF loans, we should have the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF 
take into account those barriers and try to negotiate them away before 
approving the loan.

  That is the point of this amendment--to make sure that those 
discussions and considerations take place before IMF loans are 
approved. Countries that discriminate against our goods and our 
services should not benefit from these loans until they have taken 
steps to remove the barriers. I hope that this provision will send a 
strong message to any country in question that has these barriers and 
is seeking IMF loans; that it must take significant steps to remove 
trade barriers if it wants to be assured of U.S. approval of those IMF 
loans.
  Again, I thank the managers for accepting this amendment. I very much 
appreciate it. Those of us representing States that have industries and 
services that face these barriers in countries that are being 
considered for IMF

[[Page S2600]]

loans very much want this kind of action to be taken. They want our 
trade laws to be enforced, and want any discriminatory barriers that 
continue to exist that are maintained by these countries to be removed, 
to be negotiated away before we decide what to do on the request for 
the IMF loan.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Amendment No. 2100

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this has been cleared on both sides. I 
ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2100, which has been held at 
the desk, be placed before the Senate for a vote at 11:45 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to 
order the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The yeas and nays were already ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments to 
amendment 2100 be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am authorized to state to the Chair that Senator 
Hollings has agreed to remove his proposed amendment from the list. I 
do not think it is at the desk. I state that it has been removed from 
the list.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I wish to make a statement to the 
Senate. We have a finite list now, and we are going to go through it 
today until we finish. I think it is very advisable for Senators to 
come over here and raise their amendments or work them out with us. It 
will be a lot better than doing it tonight at midnight.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. What is the parliamentary situation? Let me rephrase 
that. Is an amendment pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment pending.


                           Amendment No. 2134

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, but I 
think the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and I have a pretty 
good understanding about the amendment and its intent. And I am not 
saying that he agrees with every jot and tittle of it, but I think that 
he feels pretty much the way I do about it.
  Let me just say for the Record that here is what I am trying to 
accomplish with the amendment. As you know, an emergency appropriation 
does not require an offset. An appropriation in this bill which is not 
an emergency does require an offset. And under the Budget Act, spending 
that is not an emergency and nondefense discretionary spending must be 
offset with nondefense discretionary spending and defense spending that 
is not an emergency must be offset by defense spending cuts--offsets.
  And the House has done something--the thing that really sort of got 
me interested in this--the House has done something which is really 
very strange and, frankly, I consider to be a violation of the Budget 
Act. What they have said is, we are declaring these items--for example, 
assistance to Bosnia and the Iraqi operation--as emergencies. And, as I 
said, under the law they do not require offsets if they are 
emergencies, but the House has chosen to offset them anyway. And they 
have offset them totally from nondefense discretionary spending, such 
as housing, AmeriCorps, and other things that may not be popular to 
some people but they are fairly popular with me.
  So what I want to do is emphasize that the Senate is proceeding 
exactly the way we should and in accordance with the Budget Act. We 
have declared these things emergencies. The ones that have not been 
declared emergencies we have offsets for. And when we go to conference 
with the House, we are going to be in a strange position. They are 
going to be saying this is an emergency, but we are going to offset it 
anyway.
  I think that the chairman agrees with me that if the conference does, 
in fact, have any offsets--and particularly offsets of emergency 
matters--that we will comply with the requirement of the Budget Act; 
and that is, defense spending increases for emergency purposes will be 
offset by defense funds, and the same way with nondefense discretionary 
spending.
  And I would like, if I could, to get the chairman of the committee to 
comment on what I have just said.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, as the Senator from Arkansas is aware, 
the bill now before the Senate does contain emergency appropriations 
for both defense and domestic emergencies. As such, those 
appropriations have not been offset. I agree with the Senator's 
understanding that when offsets are required, the defense accounts must 
pay for defense appropriations, the nondefense must pay for nondefense 
appropriations. And that would comply with the so-called walls that 
exist between defense and nondefense spending.
  As I understand the situation, should we bring back a bill that has 
defense appropriations which are offset with reductions in nondefense 
accounts, the Budget Act would treat the defense funds to be over the 
cap that exists for 1998 and would not allow the treatment of the 
nondefense offsets to reduce that amount down below the cap.

  I call attention to the fact that our committee is the only committee 
that is subject to the point of order under the Budget Act. The House 
can propose whatever it wants to propose, but should we bring such a 
bill back to the Senate floor, it would be subject to a point of order, 
and it would certainly not be my intention to do that.
  Furthermore, as the Senator knows, it has already been indicated that 
the budget, the account for defense, has already been rescored and is 
$22 million over the cap now, which we will have to deal with later. 
But this bill is not over the cap. The defense account is over the cap 
before this bill. And we have a real problem with dealing with any 
funds that might attempt to be appropriated for defense on a 
nonemergency basis because they would automatically be subject to a 
point of order.
  So the Senator's amendment No. 2134, as I stated to him yesterday, in 
this Senator's opinion--and I checked with Senator Byrd yesterday--we 
believe that the Senator's amendment states the interpretation of the 
Budget Act as it applies to the Senate now and therefore is 
unnecessary.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I just want to thank the chairman for 
his remarks. And with that understanding, my amendment was a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution, and, quite frankly, I would rather have the 
chairman's word.
  Mr. STEVENS. I stand corrected by the staff director. It is the total 
spending that is over the caps. The defense right now is under the cap, 
although before the year is over it will be right up to the cap.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Fine. As I was saying, Madam President, the Senator from 
Alaska will be presiding as chairman on the Senate side in the 
conference committee. He and I have a deep reverence for the law as we 
understand it. And, as I say, I think I would rather have his word on 
this than to have my amendment adopted. So with that, I withdraw the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2134) was withdrawn.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S2601]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator withhold that request?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is some question as to amendment 2100, Madam 
President. It is the IMF amendment. It is Senator McConnell's 
amendment, which now has been amended by two amendments which were 
adopted this morning. No further amendments are in order. But I was 
informed that some Senators do wish to speak on the McConnell amendment 
before it is voted on. And it will be voted on at 11:45.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I announce that Senator Graham will not 
offer his amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for 2 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________