[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2601-S2609]
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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           amendment No. 2100

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there are now 20 minutes left for 
further debate.
  I ask unanimous consent that time be divided between the majority and 
minority.
  Does the Senator wish any time?
  Mr. HAGEL. Two minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield on the majority side 2 minutes to the Senator 
from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I rise with about 20 minutes remaining 
before the vote on the IMF package.
  I wish to first thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for his leadership in this 
area. This is a tough issue. It is an important issue. It is an issue 
that has come to the floor with much heated debate and exchange. But I 
wish in just a minute to try to put some perspective on what we are 
doing here.
  First, our economy is connected to all economies of the world. When 
Asian markets go down and currencies are devalued, that means very 
simply that we in the United States cannot sell our products in Asia. 
Asia has represented over the last few years the most important new 
export opportunity for all of the United States--not just commodities 
and agriculture, but all exports. What we are doing today is connected 
to all parts of the world. We understand something very fundamental 
about markets and that is that markets respond to confidence. We in the 
United States--because it is, in fact, in our best interests to 
participate and lead, not to bail people out, not the IMF bailing 
anybody out, but what we are doing through a very deliberate 
businesslike approach, an approach through the IMF established 50 years 
ago--are participating in a loan process where this country has never 
lost $1. We ourselves have used this.
  So today all those colleagues of mine who have been so helpful, so 
involved, I wish to thank and wish also, in these final minutes, to 
encourage all my colleagues to take a look at this, understand the 
perspective, ramifications, the consequences, and the importance of 
what we doing here with this IMF support.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are about to complete action on the 
supplemental appropriation for the International Monetary Fund. I want 
to thank the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator 
McConnell, and Senator Hagel, who have worked hard to reach agreement 
on compromise IMF language that the Treasury Department can support.
  The amendment we are about to vote on provides the full amount 
requested by the President for the IMF, including $3.4 billion for the 
New Arrangements to Borrow, and $14.5 billion for the quota increase. 
None of this money costs the U.S. Treasury. It is repaid with interest. 
In the event of a default, it is backed up by IMF gold reserves.
  This amendment is not perfect. Few are. It does not directly address 
certain issues I am concerned about, including workers' rights, 
military spending, and the environment. Neither the IMF nor the 
Treasury Department have worked aggressively enough to ensure that IMF 
loans do not promote exploitation of workers, subsidize excessive 
military spending, or result in environmental harm. I would have 
strongly preferred conditional language on those issues similar to the 
economic and trade conditions that are in the bill. However, that was 
explicitly rejected by the Republican side. I am encouraged, however, 
that language on these issues is included in the House bill, and will 
be discussed in the conference. I also want to credit Senator 
Wellstone, whose amendment addresses these concerns.
  I should also mention that the McConnell-Hagel amendment does require 
further progress on information disclosure by the IMF, an area that I 
have worked on for many years as it relates to all the international 
financial institutions. The World Bank has

[[Page S2602]]

made considerable progress on this, but the IMF has lagged behind. In 
some instances there are legitimate reasons for protecting the 
confidentiality of IMF documents. But the presumption should favor 
disclosure. Secretary Rubin has indicated that he intends to press the 
IMF harder to expand public access to IMF documents. That should be a 
priority, because that is how we will ultimately deal most effectively 
with the other types of concerns I have mentioned. A process that is 
open to public scrutiny tends to result in better decisions.
  Mr. President, the IMF has a reputation for being an arrogant, 
secretive organization that has too often bailed out corrupt 
governments. There is some truth to that. But I am also convinced that 
as the world's leading economic power the United States has a multitude 
of interests in a strong IMF. Millions of American jobs depend on 
exports. The IMF plays an important role in limiting the adverse impact 
of major financial crises. This amendment, for the first time that I am 
aware of, seeks to address some of the concerns that the IMF has been 
too eager to bail out corrupt governments, or governments whose trade 
policies have discriminated against American companies. Given the 
difficulty the Treasury Department encountered in getting this IMF 
funding passed in a form that Treasury could accept, it is clear that 
unless the IMF follows through on the reforms the Congress is insisting 
on US support for the IMF will soon evaporate.
  Finally, I want to mention one other issue that has concerned me for 
some time, and which has also been a problem at the World Bank and the 
other international financial institutions. That is the lack of 
significant numbers of women in IMF managerial positions, and the lack 
of adequate grievance procedures to effectively respond to cases of 
harassment, retaliation, and gender discrimination. The IMF is 
particularly at fault in these areas. The statistics show that women 
have been systematically denied advancement at the IMF. The grievance 
process, while perhaps measuring up to a standard of years gone by, 
today fails to afford the due process that is necessary to deter abuse 
of power, particularly at an institution that is immune from the court 
system. This is an urgent problem which affects morale and the quality 
of IMF operations, and should be treated as a priority by IMF 
management as well as the Treasury Department. The Appropriations 
Committee first called attention to the problem of gender 
discrimination at the IMF in 1992, and there has been far too little 
progress since then.
  Having said that, I will support this compromise and want to again 
thank Chairman McConnell and Senator Hagel for the considerable time 
and effort they gave to finding an agreement that a majority of 
senators could accept.
  Madam President, the IMF funding has been attached to S. 1768, the 
Bosnia, Iraq and Domestic Disaster Relief supplemental bill, because a 
majority of senators believe, as Senator Stevens, the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee has urged, that the IMF funding should be sent 
to the President on whichever supplemental bill the Congress completes 
action on first. We have agreed that if the House sends us a separate 
IMF supplemental bill we can choose to go to conference on that. But 
there is no requirement that we do so. Our primary concern is that the 
Congress complete action on the IMF as soon as possible and send it to 
the President for signature.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise to discuss the recent vote the 
Senate conducted on the provision of U.S. funding to the International 
Monetary Fund. With that vote, this chamber approved the appropriation 
of over $18 billion with a single vote. Given the size of this 
appropriation, I believe it is critical to spell out exactly why 
Senators voted as they did.
  I opposed this amendment for several reasons. First and foremost, the 
IMF has a very poor track record in its promotion of economic growth. 
According to Johns Hopkins University economist Steve Hanke, Few 
nations graduate from IMF emergency loans. Most stay on the IMF dole 
for years on end.'' Indeed, one study of IMF lending practices in 137 
mostly developing countries from 1965 to 1995 found less than one-third 
have graduated from IMF loan programs. In fact, the IMF often 
encourages loan recipient nations to implement policies that further 
reduce economic growth. These policy recommendations have included 
raising tax rates, devaluing currencies, delaying regulatory reforms, 
and a host of additional austerity measures that compound nations' 
economic distress. Unless the IMF changes these counter-productive 
policies, I see no reason to put more American taxpayer dollars at 
risk.
  Second, this IMF bailout for Asia is entirely unprecedented. All 
previous IMF bailouts, including that of Mexico, have been of the 
governments and central banks to stabilize their macroeconomic 
conditions. This bailout, in contrast, is a microeconomic bailout to 
restore the solvency of clearly insolvent financial institutions. 
Furthermore, the next largest bailout the IMF ever conducted was of 
Mexico at $17 billion. The Indonesian bailout package currently being 
negotiated tops $30 billion, while the Korean package comes in at over 
$57 billion.
  Third, the IMF bailout is simply not needed. The Asian financial 
crisis is essentially over. As usual, markets have responded more 
quickly than any government. The fact of the matter is, the South 
Koreans had a current account surplus last year, and will continue to 
do so for the foreseeable future. Investors are starting to 
differentiate among Asian countries for degree of risk, and stock 
prices are rising, in Korea by over 30%. Further, the potential impact 
of the Asian economic situation on U.S. economic growth must be put in 
perspective: the 5 most afflicted Asian nations--Korea, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore--account for only 8 percent of U.S. 
exports and imports.
  And it is clearly not the case that the IMF will go bankrupt without 
these replenishment funds from the American taxpayer. The IMF has 
plenty of funds to cover these loans and many to come. Even after the 
distribution of the current bailout packages, the IMF will hold $30 
billion in gold reserves, and have access to $25 billion in unused 
General Agreement to Borrow credits. By providing these replenishment 
funds, we are simply empowering the IMF to impose its counterproductive 
economic policies on yet more desperate countries.
  Fourth, this bailout will be counterproductive because it will 
perpetuate a ``moral hazard'' problem within the banking industry, a 
problem it will take years to overcome. Without doubt, this bailout 
package is being pushed in order to restore confidence in the Asian 
banking system (and the bad loans made by Western banks at unsound 
rates), a system that probably shouldn't be restored in the first place 
because of its inherent flaws--flaws that the IMF bailout does not 
address at all.
  The provision of these funds will therefore perpetuate and intensify 
the moral hazard for private banking started by the Mexican bailout. 
Arguing that the Mexicans repaid their debt misses the point--if credit 
card companies and finance houses had been forced to eat their losses 
in Mexico, they would have exercised better elementary judgment 
regarding the over-investment policies of Asia that led to this crisis.
  The IMF is essentially a huge bureaucracy populated by the last 
remaining socialists in the world. The reforms to IMF lending practices 
that are needed to address economic problems in Asia and elsewhere 
would require the IMF to support economic policies that are anathema to 
its Directors and to its fundamental philosophy--cutting tax rates, 
promoting sound monetary policies, cutting government regulation, 
allowing banks and firms to fail, and requiring private investors to 
eat their losses. Unless we reform the IMF as we know it, increasing 
funds to IMF will do little to help the distressed economies of the 
world.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I state to the Senators there is 10 
minutes available on their side. As far as I know they can allocate it 
as they wish.
  Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I request about 2 minutes from the time 
allocated to the minority side to talk about an amendment pending that 
I hope to have cleared in just a few moments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

[[Page S2603]]

                           Amendment No. 2135

  Mr. ROBB. Madam President, a couple of days ago I introduced formally 
the Agriculture Credit Restoration Act of 1998. This has now been 
presented in the form of an amendment to the emergency supplemental, 
amendment 2135. The purpose is very simple. In the 1996 farm bill a 
provision was added in conference that was not considered by the full 
Senate or by the House but was added in the conference that, in effect, 
precluded anybody who had a write-down or loan forgiveness from ever 
being eligible for a loan that was made available by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture is the lender of last resort. They 
don't lend under any circumstances where at least three private lenders 
have not already denied credit and they do not lend to noncreditworthy 
applicants. In this particular bill we have $48 million that is set 
aside to increase the direct operating loan fund, which is presumably 
being made available to those who are most in need. But the provision 
that is currently in the law that this particular amendment would 
change precludes anyone who has had a write-down or had credit 
forgiveness or whatever the case may be.
  In a number of instances, that occurred precisely because the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture discriminated against those individuals. So 
it is a Catch-22. The Agriculture Department acknowledges that there 
was past discrimination. The current Secretary of Agriculture has 
acknowledged this. They are very much supportive of this bill--this 
amendment. It would, in effect, correct the inequity of precluding 
those who, by virtue of a natural disaster, a major family illness, or 
discrimination, from being eligible--not necessarily getting a loan but 
simply being eligible--for a loan of last resort under the Direct 
Operating Loan Fund.
  It has created problems for many of those who had previously sought 
loans when they thought the money was available. We put money in last 
year, and most of the people who then sought the money ran into this 
particular roadblock. It has been approved by all Senators on the 
majority side, and only one Senator has yet to see the particular 
legislation. I hope to have that approval very shortly.
  But I wanted to explain that this does not create any requirement 
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture grant credit to any 
noncreditworthy applicant. Indeed, they have to have already attempted 
to get credit from three private insurers. But it does correct the 
inequity where they were previously denied credit because of specific 
discrimination. We certainly do not want to be perpetuating that.
  With that, Madam President, I will await the affirmation that it has 
been cleared on both sides. I thank the chairman of the full committee 
for his time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2100

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I quote from Joseph Stiglitz, World 
Bank chief economist and senior vice president, in which he called for 
an end to ``misguided policies imposed from Washington.''

       The World Bank senior vice president and chief economist is 
     scathing in what he calls the ``Washington Consensus'' of 
     U.S. economic officials, the International Monetary Fund and 
     the World Bank.

  He talks about a Washington consensus that seeks to increase measured 
GDP, whereas we should seek increases of living standards, including 
improved health and education.

       We seek equitable development which ensures that all groups 
     in society enjoy the fruits of development, not just the few 
     at the top. And we seek democratic development.

  That is what he proposes as an alternative to the Washington 
consensus.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this piece, ``World Bank Chief 
Economist Stiglitz: IMF Policies Are Fundamentally Wrong,'' printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Debt Update, March 1998]

  World Bank Chief Economist Stiglitz: IMF Policies Are Fundamentally 
                                 Wrong


                   bank admits hipc conditions wrong

       `Greater humility' is needed, admitted the World Bank's 
     chief economist and senior vice president Joseph Stiglitz, in 
     a speech in which he called for an end to `misguided' 
     policies imposed from Washington.
       Joseph Stiglitz's wide-ranging condemnation of the 
     `Washington Consensus' and the conditions imposed on poor 
     countries must raise fundamental questions about the entire 
     debt relief process now being coordinated by the IMF and 
     World Bank. Debt relief under the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor 
     Countries) initiative is conditional on six years of 
     faithfully obeying demands from the Fund and Bank which 
     Stiglitz now calls `misguided'.
       The World Bank's senior vice president and chief economist 
     is scathing about what he calls the ` ``Washington 
     Consensus'' of U.S. economic officials, the International 
     Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank'. He says that `the 
     set of policies which underlay the Washington Consensus are 
     neither necessary nor sufficient, either for macro-stability 
     or longer-term development.' They are `sometimes misguided', 
     `neglect . . . fundamental issues', are `sometimes even 
     misleading, and do `not even address . . . vital questions'.
       `Had this advice been followed [in the United States], the 
     remarkable expansion of the U.S. economy . . . would have 
     been thwarted.' Russia followed the Washington Consensus line 
     while China did not, Stiglitz notes, and `real incomes and 
     consumption have fallen in the former Soviet empire, and real 
     incomes and consumption have risen remarkably rapidly in 
     China.'
       The Washington Consensus only sought to achieve increases 
     in measured GDP, whereas `we seek increases in living 
     standards including improved health and education. . . . We 
     seek equitable development which ensures that all groups in 
     society enjoy the fruits of development, not just the few at 
     the top. And we seek democratic development.'
       Joseph Stiglitz made his speech in Helsinki, Finland, on 7 
     January 1998, and so far it has been little reported. Perhaps 
     he needed to be as far away from Washington as possible, 
     because he undermined virtually every pillar of the 
     structural adjustment and stabilization policies that serve 
     as necessary conditions under HIPC. He asserts:
       Moderate inflation is not harmful. Hyper-inflation is 
     costly, but below 40% inflation per year, `there is no 
     evidence that inflation is costly'. Furthermore, there is no 
     evidence of a `slippery slope' there is no evidence that one 
     increase in inflation causes further increases. Thus `the 
     focus on inflation . . . has led to macroeconomic policies 
     which may not be the most conducive for long-term economic 
     growth.'
       Budget deficits can be OK, `given the high returns to 
     government investment in such crucial areas as primary 
     education and physical infrastructure (especially roads and 
     energy).' Thus `it may make sense for the government to treat 
     foreign aid as a legitimate source of revenue, just like 
     taxes, and balance the budget inclusive of foreign aid.'
       Macro-economic stability is the wrong target. `Ironically, 
     macroeconomic stability, as seen by the Washington Consensus, 
     typically down-plays the most fundamental sense of stability: 
     stabilizing output or unemployment. Minimizing or avoiding 
     major economic contractions should be one of the most 
     important goals of policy. In the short run, large-scale 
     involuntary unemployment is clearly inefficient in purely 
     economic terms it represents idle resources that could be 
     used more productively.'
       The advocates of privatization overestimated the benefits 
     of privatization and underestimated the costs.' And the gains 
     occur prior to privatization, through a process of 
     `corporation' which involves creating proper incentives. 
     China `eschewed a strategy of outright privatization'.
       Competition, not ownership, is key. Private monopolies can 
     lead to excess profits and inefficiency. Government must 
     intervene to create competition.
       Markets are not automatically better. `The unspoken premise 
     [of the Washington Consensus] is that governments are 
     presumed to be worse than markets. . . . I do not believe 
     [that]'. Stiglitz notes, in particular, that `left to itself, 
     the market will tend to under provide human capital' and 
     technology. `Without government action there will be too 
     little investment in the production and adoption of new 
     technology.'
       The dogma of liberalization has become an end in itself and 
     not a means to a better financial system. Financial markets 
     do not do a good job of selecting the most productive 
     recipients of funds or of monitoring the use of funds, and 
     must be controlled. Deregulation led to the crisis in 
     Thailand the `notorious Savings and Loan debacle in the 
     United States.'
       Perhaps the key problem is that Washington Consensus 
     `political recommendations could be administered by 
     economists using little more than simple accounting 
     frameworks.' This led to `cases where economists would fly 
     into a country, look at and attempt to verify these data, and 
     make macroeconomic recommendations for policy reforms, all in 
     the space of a couple of weeks.'
       Stiglitz calls for a new `post-Washington Consensus' which, 
     he says, `cannot be based on Washington'. And, he adds, one 
     `one principle of the emerging consensus is a greater degree 
     of humility, the frank acknowledgment that we do not have all 
     the answers.'

  Mr. WELLSTONE. ``United Auto Workers International Executive Board 
Resolution on U.S. Contributions to the International Monetary Fund.'' 
I will quote one section:

       To achieve [an] increase in exports, the IMF insists on 
     austerity measures that include slashing public spending, 
     jacking up

[[Page S2604]]

     interest rates to exorbitant levels, deregulating markets, 
     devaluing currencies, and reducing existing labor 
     protections. The impact on workers and their families is 
     devastating. Workers face massive layoffs and wage cuts, 
     while the prices of basics such as food, housing, energy and 
     transportation skyrocket.

  I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record, as well as a 
``Dear Colleague'' letter from Representative Kucinich.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 United Auto Workers International Executive Board Resolution on U.S. 
            Contributions to the International Monetary Fund

  International Monetary Fund (IMF) involvement in the recent financial 
crisis in Asia, and the 1994-95 crisis in Mexico, dramatizes the 
tremendous burden that Imposed austerity measures place on working 
people around the world. The purpose of IMF involvement has been to 
bail out international banks and Investors whose pursuit of excessive 
profits led them to make questionable, high-risk loans.
  IMF-dictated austerity measures worsen U.S. trade deficits, leading 
to the loss of solid family-supporting manufacturing jobs in auto and 
other industries, while driving down the already abysmally low wages of 
workers living in developing nations.
  Governmens in South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Mexico and other 
developing nations are being told that an infusion of capital from the 
IMP requires them to pay down foreign loans by lowering the living 
standard of their citizens. The IMF's prescription calls for a increase 
in low-wage exports from these countries. The dollars so raised are 
then used to pay down loans owed to international banks and inventors. 
As a result, our trade deficit is expected to climb by approximately 
$100 billion this year alone, causing the loss of an estimated 1 
million U.S. jobs.
  To achieve this increase in exports, the IMF insists on austerity 
measures that include slashing public spending, Jacking up interest 
rates to exorbitant lovely, deregulating markets, devaluing currencies, 
and reducing existing labor protections. The impact on workers and 
their families is devastating. Workers face massive layoffs and wage 
cuts, while prices of basics such as food, housing, energy and 
transportation skyrocket.
  Many of the governments receiving IMF funds fail to respect 
Internationally recognized workers, rights, and the IMF has not 
required them to do otherwise, despite the high price that workers are 
forced to pay. In Indonesia, independent union leader Muchtar Pakpahan 
remains on trial for his life for his union activity. Yet the IMF has 
made no effort to use of its leverage to free him.
  The UAW believes that the International Monetary Fund is fully aware 
of the impact that its austerity measures have on working people. Yet 
the IMF has failed to move toward reforms of its own policies that 
would ensure equitable solutions to crises in financial markets. The 
UAW therefore opposes providing the additional funding of $18 billion 
that the IMF has requested from U.S. citizens. We believe that 
international organizations can and must play necessary and useful 
roles in world affairs. Our vision of their role, however, is one that 
places the interests of working people at least equal to those of 
finance and capital.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                   Washington, DC.


          Reasons to reject the IMF supplemental appropriation

  Dear Colleague: As you formulate your position, I ask that you 
consider the following reasons to say No to the IMF supplemental 
appropriation.
  (1) The supplemental appropriation is not needed for the Asian 
bailout. The bailout of Asian borrowers has already taken place. The 
funds for the bailout came from existing IMF funds.
  (2) The IMF has ample funds right now at its disposal. Even after the 
loans to Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea, the IMF has $45 billion 
in liquid resources. It also has a credit line of $25 billion through 
the General Arrangements to Borrow. Furthermore, it has about $37 
billion in gold reserves. And lastly, it can borrow funds from the 
private capital market.
  (3) The IMF often makes matters worse. The IMF has a record of making 
matters worse even as it carries out a bailout. According to the New 
York Times, ``[The] I.M.F. now admits tactics in Indonesia deepened the 
crisis . . . political paralysis in Indonesia was compounded by 
misjudgment at the I.M.F.'s Washington headquarters. The Wall Street 
Journal's assessment was more damning. ``Far from stopping the damage, 
IMF rescue attempts have become part of the problem. Along with handing 
out funds, the IMF keeps peddling bad advice and sending the markets 
warped signals that set the stage for--guess what?--more bailouts.
  (4) The IMF imposes impoverishing conditions of foreign workers. In 
exchange for a bailout, the governments of developing countries must 
submit to a harsh regimen that impoverishes workers. In Haiti, for 
example, the IMF has pressured the Haitian government to abolish its 
minimum wage, which is only about $0.20 per hour.
  (5) The IMF imposes environment-destroying prescriptions. In exchange 
for a bailout, the government of Guyana was forced to defund its 
environmental law enforcement, and accelerate deforestation. Why? To 
export more logs and earn foreign exchange, with which to pay back the 
IMF.
  (6) The IMF only listens to a tough Congress. If you want to change 
the way the IMF does business, this supplemental appropriation would be 
a setback. The IMF is resistant to change. In both 1989 and 1992, the 
IMF ignored the comprehensive reforms passed by Congress because the 
appropriation was not conditioned on IMF reform. Only when Congress 
made an appropriation payable only on certain reforms did the IMF make 
changes. This supplemental appropriation projects a weak Congress and 
will not produce any meaningful reform at the trouble-ridden IMF.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dennis Kucinich,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I say to colleagues, I rise to speak 
against this Washington consensus. This IMF provision may pass with an 
overwhelming vote, but I want to just be crystal clear. We are, I think 
most of us, internationalists. I believe that what happens in these 
countries, in Asia, Indonesia, Thailand and other countries, will 
dramatically affect our country. I have no disagreement with that. But 
the IMF over and over and over again has imposed austerity measures, 
has depressed the wages and living conditions of people in these 
countries, has been in violation of statutes that are supposed to 
govern the IMF in relation to human rights, labor, in relation to 
respect for indigenous peoples, in relation to environmental 
protection.
  What is going to happen is that these IMF measures are not going to 
help these countries or help our country. Countries following these IMF 
prescriptions are going to be forced either to import even less from 
our country because they do not have consumers because the people are 
poor--and the people become poor because of IMF austerity measures 
imposed on these countries. Or these countries--and this is another 
effect of IMF programs--are going to be forced into devaluing 
currencies and trying to buy their way out of trouble through cheap 
exports, which will again end up competing against, and hurting, 
working families in our country.
  I understand my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, is on the floor. I ask 
him, is he on the floor to speak against this amendment on IMF or on a 
different subject?
  Mr. SARBANES. No, I am here to speak in support of the amendment, 
very strongly in support.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Then I wanted to use my full time.
  Mr. STEVENS. We divide the time between the majority and minority. I 
have one person who wishes to speak in opposition and one to speak for 
the amendment. If the Senator wants any time he will have to get it 
from your time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, yesterday I asked unanimous consent 
that I would have 10 minutes to speak before the final vote. I do not 
think it has anything to do with this other time. That, I think, is 
part of the Record. I had asked unanimous consent, and it was granted, 
that I would have 10 minutes to speak. I do not want

[[Page S2605]]

to take time away from my other colleagues. That was the only reason I 
asked my colleague from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian advises me there is an 
agreement to vote at 11:45. It would take unanimous consent to amend 
that agreement.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I understand what the Chair is saying, 
but I do remember the Senator did withhold his comments. We did agree 
before there was a vote on IMF he would have 10 minutes. How much time 
has the Senator used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Then I ask unanimous consent the vote take place at 
11:50 and the Senator have the remainder of his 5 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I will respect the time limit. I think we should go to 
the vote. I do not want to be constantly delaying the votes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator will have 10 minutes, the Senator from 
Kansas would have 2 minutes, the Senator from Florida would have 2 
minutes, and I would have 1 minute to close, and that would make it 
11:50.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  Madam President, yesterday we did adopt an amendment I offered which 
I think will be helpful. It essentially says that the Secretary of the 
Treasury will set up an advisory committee with members from labor, the 
human rights community, the social justice community and the 
environmental community. I think eight members will meet with him--or 
her--twice a year in the future, twice a year, to monitor whether or 
not the IMF is living up to its own statutory mandates. Let me just 
simply say that Muchtar Pakpahan is a labor leader in Indonesia. He is 
imprisoned; he is in jail.
  He is in jail because he was organizing workers for a higher minimum 
wage. I went through all the statutes yesterday that apply to the IMF, 
that are a part of the law. There is supposed to be full respect for 
human rights; there is supposed to be respect for internationally 
recognized labor rights; there is supposed to be respect for basic 
environmental protection provisions, and the IMF is not in compliance.
  Over and over and over again, the IMF turns its gaze away from these 
conditions in these countries. Over and over and over again, apparently 
our country, this administration, turns its gaze away. I simply want to 
say one more time, to quote Joe Stiglitz, World Bank chief economist--I 
think he is right that this Washington consensus is profoundly 
mistaken. I think he is right when he says the IMF goes in the opposite 
direction of raising wage levels, focusing on education, focusing on 
making sure that citizens in these countries are able to benefit from 
the infusion of capital, that it ought not to be just about the 
investors and the bankers. It ought to be about improving the living 
standards of people in these countries.
  I think he is right to suggest that what is going to happen as a 
result of austerity measures imposed on these countries, as has been 
done in the past, there will be fewer people in these countries to 
consume our products. And these countries will be exporting cheaper and 
cheaper products into our country, again, hurting working families.
  We have missed a tremendous opportunity. The United States of America 
and the U.S. Senate, on this vote, which I think will be an 
overwhelming vote in favor of this, will have missed a tremendous 
opportunity to be on the side of internationally recognized labor 
standards, to be on the side of human rights, to be on the side of 
environmental protection, to be on the side of improving the living 
standards of people in these countries. We have missed this 
opportunity. And I believe that this infusion of capital into the IMF, 
if the IMF's flawed programs are imposed on these countries, will, in 
fact, end up not only hurting these countries, but also hurt severely 
the people in our own country as well.
  I think it is a tragic mistake on our part not to have used this 
moment, not to have used our leverage to change the flawed policies of 
the International Monetary Fund.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 2135

  Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I request that amendment No. 2135 be 
called up for immediate consideration.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have no objection as to its immediate consideration. 
We are willing to accept it.
  Mr. ROBB. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2135) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                    Amendment No. 2100, As Modified

  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I yield briefly to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise this morning to support the 
addition of urgently needed funds for the IMF to this supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  Despite the clear need, despite the strong statements of concern by 
Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, and by Treasury Secretary Rubin, 
some of our colleagues continue to miss the point. As the biggest, most 
open economy in the world, as the leader of the world economy and the 
only global superpower, the United States has a special role to play 
in, and a special need for, international institutions to maintain the 
stability and openness of the world's financial system.
  The problems now brought to light in Asia--the increasing billions in 
international investments that flow around the globe with the stroke of 
a computer key, the uneven development of banking systems in newly 
industrializing nations--are very real challenges to our own well-being 
that require serious analysis and a truly international response. They 
are not an annoyance that we can blissfully ignore. And they are not to 
be dismissed with a few ideological platitudes.
  As the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee stated 
so clearly and forcefully just yesterday, the Asian financial crisis is 
an ``economic El Nino'' that directly affects American sales overseas 
and jobs here at home. Our contributions to the IMF are made to protect 
us from the shock waves of that crisis in the Pacific, Madam President, 
and by denying or delaying those contributions we would only hurt 
ourselves.
  Certainly, the IMF could well use a breath of fresh air--more 
openness to develop more public understanding and trust. And it is 
clear that we have a long way to go to establish a sound international 
financial system, with the clear reporting standards and accurate data 
that will allow markets to operate efficiently.
  Those of us who share those concerns understand the need to provide 
the IMF with the resources it needs right now to maintain its role as 
lender of last resort in the kinds of currency crises that can have 
truly global consequences. If we do not, weaknesses in the world's 
financial system will only deepen and persist. And, I must add, so will 
the burdens carried by those people in the affected countries that are 
least able to deal with them, who too often pay the price for the 
financial follies of others.
  So congratulations are due to those who worked so hard to make sure 
that the funding becomes part of this bill today. I know that Senator 
Hagel, my colleague from the Foreign Relations and Chairman of our 
International Economic Affairs Subcommittee, has played a key role. And 
a great deal of credit must go to Senator Stevens, Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, for his indispensable leadership.
  I know that there are more hurdles to clear in this process, Madam 
President, but I am pleased to see that this

[[Page S2606]]

amendment has become part of the emergency appropriations bill. Just 
last week, when our IMF contributions seemed in real trouble, I 
expressed my confidence that the Senate would work quickly and 
responsibly to make this funding available. Today, the Senate has 
rewarded that confidence.
  I pay special tribute to Senator Hagel for his hard work on this and 
Senator Stevens for promoting and providing the means to do this and my 
friend from Maryland for being such a strong voice. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I just want to say, I don't really 
have a basic quarrel with my good friend from Minnesota. I want to be 
on the side of environmental protection and on the side of workers' 
rights and on the side of human rights. The Secretary of the Treasury 
has committed himself to undertake a serious review of the 
international financial architecture. I have a lot of confidence in the 
Secretary of the Treasury. In fact, I think we have the best finance 
minister in the world in Secretary Rubin. I place great credibility in 
his proposals.
  But you cannot remodel the emergency room at the very time the 
patients are being brought in to be dealt with. That is the issue that 
is involved in this IMF replenishment. The distinguished chairman of 
the committee said on yesterday that the Asian flu is the El Nino of 
economics, and he warned that unless we understand that, we are liable 
to make a big mistake. I think the distinguished Senator from Alaska 
was absolutely right on that point.
  These countries got into trouble because of, in many respects, 
mismanagement of their economy. The IMF wasn't there to begin with. The 
IMF came in in order to try to help them out.
  Now, we can argue about its programs, and I have been critical of 
them in the past and, indeed, even critical of them in the current 
context. But nevertheless, we have to do this replenishment because, if 
the IMF is perceived as having inadequate resources to deal with any 
crisis that might now emerge, it makes it more likely that the crisis 
will happen. If the IMF is perceived as having adequate resources, it 
makes it less likely that a crisis will happen because there will be an 
increase in confidence.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment; 
otherwise, we may be headed for very big trouble, as the distinguished 
chairman of the committee said on yesterday.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Kansas 3 minutes and the 
Senator from Florida 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to applaud and thank my 
colleagues for finally taking decisive action that will provide full 
funding for the International Monetary Fund while requiring strict 
conditions on receiving IMF assistance.
  In particular, I am pleased that this agreement insists that efforts 
to remove illegal trade barriers to American products be a required 
item in any IMF program. It is entirely appropriate that we are doing 
that.
  I am especially pleased that this body has rejected efforts to 
include requirements and conditions that would have gone too far. While 
the recipient countries should be required to comply with tough, 
fundamental changes in their economies in order to receive the 
assistance, the bar must not be raised so high that any hope for 
reaching the conditions is lost. If excessive conditions had been 
included--and some Members in this body had been promoting those 
conditions--why, the United States would have no leverage to insist on 
reforms that would lower trade barriers to American goods and end 
unfair subsidies for foreign businesses. That would hurt both the 
country in trouble and the United States as well.

  In this regard, Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for his 
outstanding leadership in assuring a common-sense and bipartisan 
approach to this challenge.
  I also wish to pay special thanks to Senator Hagel and to Senator 
Grams for their efforts in helping to craft language that I believe 
will certainly enable us to achieve both funding and the needed 
reforms. In particular, I wish to thank my good friend from Nebraska, 
who has worked tirelessly on this issue and deserves much, if not most, 
of the credit for enabling us to achieve real progress on this bill. 
Our neighboring States are particularly dependent on this country's 
implementing a consistent export policy and for the United States to 
provide continued leadership in stabilizing the world economy. In this 
regard, our farmers and ranchers and the many segments of our economy 
who depend on exports owe Senator Hagel a debt of gratitude.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. MACK. Thank you, Madam President. I want to begin my comments by 
also recognizing those individuals who have worked so hard on trying to 
come up with language that can be accepted by all of us. But, frankly, 
I am one of those individuals who believes that we have not gone far 
enough.
  With all due respect to my colleague from Maryland, I think this is 
exactly the time we should be requiring change in the IMF. We were told 
back during the Mexico crisis that once we got that problem solved, we 
would do what was necessary to address the problems in international 
financial institutions. We have not done that, and I make the case 
again. As my colleague said, he has been critical of the IMF in the 
past. My conclusion is the only time we can ever get action is, in 
fact, when there is a crisis at hand, and that is why I have felt so 
strongly that we needed to put conditions on that could be carried out 
and would be carried out.
  What we are being told now, in essence, is, ``We will make our best 
effort.'' The implication also is that the United States and those of 
us who want to put conditions on the IMF, that the United States is the 
only one that is interested in doing that. I disagree with that. I 
think there are other nations and members of the G-7 that want to see 
changes made.
  I think we ought to insist on this. I think the first $3.5 billion 
was sufficient to take care of the problems; the other $14.5 billion 
could be made available later after changes have been made. But I am 
convinced now that, frankly, we didn't have the votes to go as far as I 
would like to go. I understand that.
  I appreciate the efforts that have been made on both sides of this 
issue, but I feel compelled, Madam President, to cast a vote against 
this proposal. I thank you and yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I saw the report that the Dow is about 
ready to hit 9,000. If we do not act, as has been proposed in the IMF, 
the country better get ready for a slide. This is a very serious matter 
where I come from, and I urge the Senate to approve this amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWINE). The question is on agreeing to 
the McConnell amendment No. 2100, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter

[[Page S2607]]


     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Campbell
     Coverdell
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Mack
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson
     Wellstone
  The amendment (No. 2100), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have seven to eight amendments to deal 
with, and there is a very serious matter that needs to come up. Let me 
make a series of unanimous consent requests. On the Baucus amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes equally divided, with no 
second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent for 20 minutes equally divided 
on the Murkowski amendment, with no second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent for 20 minutes on the Torricelli 
amendment, equally divided, with no second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2155

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General 
should not accept a settlement in proceedings to recover costs incurred 
 in the cleanup of the Wayne Interim Storage Site, Wayne, New Jersey, 
  unless the settlement recaptures a substantial portion of the costs 
                       incurred by the taxpayer)

  Mr. TORRICELLI. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], for himself 
     and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 2155.

  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 59, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF 
                   PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER COSTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General 
     should not accept a settlement in proceedings to recover 
     costs incurred in the cleanup of the Wayne Interim Storage 
     Site, Wayne, New Jersey, unless the settlement recaptures a 
     substantial portion of the costs incurred by the taxpayer.

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I asked that this amendment be read in 
its entirety so that its simplicity is clear to the Senate. The 
totality of what is being asked is that the Justice Department, in 
negotiating with the W.R. Grace Corporation about a contaminated 
Superfund site in Wayne, NJ, seek fair reimbursement. We make no 
demands. We change no law. We cite no number. We ask that there be a 
fair reimbursement.
  I have done this because the story of W.R. Grace and its 
contamination in Wayne, NJ, is a story of everything that has been 
wrong about environmental cleanups in our country. Since 1995 the 
Federal Government, has been in negotiations with W.R. Grace for 
reimbursements. This is a site that a private company operated for 23 
years. They operated it at a profit. The Government owned no share of 
the land or the company. When the land was no longer useful because it 
was contaminated, they abandoned it and left. In the ensuing years, 
they have given the U.S. Government $800,000, although the U.S. 
taxpayers have already spent $50 million cleaning the site. It is 
estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers it could cost another $55 
million.
  Members of the Senate need to know the American taxpayers are being 
held accountable for $100 million in cleaning this contaminated site by 
the W.R. Grace Corporation and that corporation has paid only $800,000. 
The American taxpayers are paying this freight although they have 
absolutely no liability whatever as a matter of law.
  For 24 months, there have been negotiations. There had been reports 
that there would be $50 million in reimbursements from W.R. Grace. Then 
it was $40 million. Last week it was $20 million. There was going to be 
an agreement by December. And then it was January. And then it was 
March.
  There is no agreement. There is no reimbursement. But the people of 
this country are going to subsidize the environmental abuses of the 
W.R. Grace Corporation to the tune of $100 million. It is a disgrace.
  For 18 months, the Attorney General of the United States does not 
have time to reach an agreement. A Member of Congress from the 
district, Mr. Pascrell, Senator Lautenberg, and I have urged the 
Attorney General to proceed to litigation. She has not done so. She did 
not have time to litigate or to protect the taxpayers. But within 5 
minutes of the filing of this amendment, she can send a letter to 
Senator Gregg that this is an interference with her prerogatives.
  Mr. President, if the Attorney General were protecting her 
prerogatives and protecting the liability of the U.S. Government and 
the taxpayers of this country, this amendment would not be necessary. I 
have a great admiration for Attorney General Reno. I like to believe 
and assume she has no knowledge of this affair, that members of her 
staff have done an enormous disservice to her, to the Justice 
Department, and to the taxpayers of this country. As it stands, if suit 
is not filed, if negotiators are not emboldened, the taxpayers of this 
country will subsidize a private corporation for $100 million of 
unnecessary expenditures.
  I understand that, ironically, members of the majority party will 
rise to the defense of the Attorney General and her prerogatives, which 
in this Congress is indeed a historic turn of events, to defend the 
Attorney General in this instance, that she should be allowed to pursue 
this without our interference or oversight.
  Mr. President, the Attorney General has her responsibility and we 
have ours. It is her judgment whether to file a suit and to conduct the 
negotiations. But when those negotiations are concluded, it is this 
Congress that must appropriate the money to meet the settlement.
  All that I have done is offer a sense of the Senate--not a law, a 
sense of the Senate--that we would like the Attorney General to 
vigorously pursue these negotiations and protect the interests of the 
taxpayers. That is all I have asked. I do not know how the request 
could have been more modest. I intend to reserve the balance of my 
time, because it is my interest to hear the distinguished chairman 
respond to this request, but I want simply to say before we hear his 
comments that I am personally offended at the Attorney General's 
correspondence and deeply disappointed at its tone, its lack of 
cooperation, and the failure to meet the responsibilities to defend the 
interests of this Government in this litigation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to join in offering this 
amendment to address a serious problem in my state.
  This amendment is very timely. This week, I have been working with my 
colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee on Superfund 
reauthorization.
  I strongly believe that the Superfund reauthorization bill before the 
Committee will severely undermine the concept that the polluter should 
pay for the waste it created, which is what this amendment before us 
now is all about.
  The Federal government is long overdue in reaching an adequate 
resolution of claims against W.R. Grace & Co., for the cleanup of the 
Wayne Superfund Site in New Jersey. There seems to be no end to the 
headaches experienced by the residents of Wayne Township over this site 
and over the lack of any settlement.
  Between 1955 and 1971, the W.R. Grace & Company owned and operated a 
thorium extraction operation in Wayne Township.
  In 1984, because of the threat to the public's health from potential 
groundwater contamination, the site was placed on the Superfund 
National Priorities List and is now being managed by the Corps of 
Engineers under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 
(FUSRAP).
  That same year, 1984, W.R. Grace provided a payment of $800,000 and 
signed an agreement with the Federal government. This agreement stated 
that the

[[Page S2608]]

government can still pursue legal action against the company under 
applicable laws, which would include Superfund. In the meantime, 
cleanup costs for this site continued to escalate, costing the 
taxpayers millions of dollars.
  As the costs continued to mount, I became convinced that the 
government had not done all it could to help alleviate this burden on 
the taxpayers. Since 1995, I have worked to get the government to bring 
this company to the negotiating table. In September of that year I 
wrote to then-Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary requesting that DOE 
consider pursuing additional funds for cleanup from private parties. At 
my urging, in November 1995, the Departments of Energy and Justice 
finally brought W.R. Grace, the former owner and operator of this site, 
to the table to discuss a settlement. I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a copy of a letter I received from DOE in 
November 1995 which showed its commitment to get W.R. Grace to come to 
the table.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Department of Energy,

                                Washington, DC, November 24, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: In my September 29, 1995, letter, 
     I advised you that the Department of Energy would look into 
     the matter of seeking cost recovery against potentially 
     responsible parties for cleanup of the Wayne, New Jersey, 
     site.
       After consulting with the Office of the General Counsel, my 
     office has initiated discussion with W. R. Grace and Company 
     to assess their willingness to contribute to the cleanup of 
     the Wayne site. If these discussions are successful, W. R. 
     Grace's cooperation could enable the Department to expedite 
     the overall cleanup schedule for the site.
       If possible, we would prefer to avoid time-consuming and 
     costly litigation so that available resources are focused on 
     cleaning up the site. If discussions with W. R. Grace are 
     unsuccessful, we will consider other options including 
     requesting the Department of Justice to initiate formal cost-
     recovery actions.
       We share your goal of pursuing opportunities to expedite 
     the cleanup activities at Wayne. As one example, the 
     Department began removal of the contaminated material in the 
     Wayne pile through an innovative total service contract with 
     Envirocare of Utah. We want to thank you for the enormous 
     support that you have provided over the years to bring this 
     project to fruition.
       If you have further questions, please contact me, or have a 
     member of your staff contact Anita Gonzales, Office of 
     Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 586-
     7946.
           Sincerely,

                                            Thomas P. Grumbly,

                                           Assistant Secretary for
                                         Environmental Management.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We continually hear from the Administration that they 
are making progress and that a final resolution of the Wayne settlement 
is imminent.
  Today, I rise to reiterate my strong opposition to a final settlement 
that would permit W. R. Grace to escape appropriate responsibility for 
its share of the pollution. This amendment reminds the Attorney General 
that we not only want to see progress, but that we demand a settlement 
that adequately reimburses the taxpayers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this would be, in our judgment, a very 
bad precedent. It would allow litigants involved in a case against the 
United States to come to the Senate, through their Senator, and try to 
obtain passage of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that would assist 
them in their negotiations with the U.S. Government. Although the 
amendment would not be binding, it could be used in a court of law to 
argue the merits of the case.
  I do not know much about this case other than I have discussed it 
with the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, but as I informed him, 
we have a letter from the Attorney General--and it is signed by the 
Attorney General personally--written to the chairman and ranking member 
of the State, Justice Commerce Subcommittee. I understand that the 
distinguished chairman is here. I yield to him for the balance of the 
time to explain further why we are opposed to the amendment.

  Mr. GREGG. Well, I don't rise in opposition to the substance of what 
the Senator from New Jersey has said. I think he has made the argument 
for his case very effectively. Certainly, this is a major issue for him 
and his State--cleaning up of this superfund site.
  What we are dealing with here, however, is the fact that we have been 
contacted by the Attorney General. Obviously, I am not the spokesman 
for the administration, and I would not put myself in the position of 
the other party, but I believe we have an obligation when we are 
contacted by the Attorney General. She has expressed her strong 
opposition to having this sense of the Senate passed during the 
pendency of the negotiation and litigation of this case. I think she 
has a very legitimate procedural position.
  Now, again, I am not arguing the equities of this or the substance of 
the question. I am arguing that it would be inappropriate, as she 
represents, for the Congress to express the sense of the Senate, which 
would then put the administration--specifically, the Attorney General--
in the difficult position of having the Congress interject itself in 
the middle of what are ongoing negotiations relative to the settlement 
in this case.
  Let me read briefly from her letter:

       The Department of Justice opposes this amendment, which is 
     intended to influence the department in its conduct of the 
     pending litigation.

  That is essentially a summary of the letter. It goes on to explain 
why the Department thinks that this will affect the litigation as it 
goes forward. So I rise with significant reservation about this because 
I recognize that the Senator from New Jersey has a very strong feeling 
and is trying to put forward his constituents' feelings. I believe we 
would be setting a very difficult, very inappropriate precedent as a 
Congress if we start interjecting ourselves into issues of negotiation 
in active litigation, where we have been advised by the Attorney 
General of the United States that that would negatively or 
inappropriately impact that litigation.
  From that standpoint, I have to rise in opposition to this sense of 
the Senate, with all due respect to the Senator from New Jersey, who I 
think clearly has made his case well. In light of the letter from the 
Attorney General, I believe it would be inappropriate to proceed at 
this time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, recognizing the views of my friend, 
the Senator from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
and the Senator from New Hampshire, I will not insist upon the 
amendment.
  Let me conclude the debate by simply suggesting this: I think it 
would be regrettable if this Senate ever allows itself to be silenced 
in simply expressing its intentions or desires because the executive 
branch may have conflicting views or believe an issue is its 
prerogative. Ultimately, the expenditures of this Government are our 
responsibility.
  So I want the Attorney General to be clear on this. I will shortly 
ask that this amendment not proceed. But this should be clear as 
negotiations proceed with the W.R. Grace Corporation. If it is the 
intention of the Justice Department to reach a settlement, whereby the 
taxpayers of the United States are left with this $100 million 
expenditure and a private corporation, which has profited by these 
operations, and the resulting environmental abuse, is left without 
making a significant contribution, I most assuredly will return to the 
floor of the Senate with an amendment on an appropriations bill that 
would cover the payment of those expenditures, and I will insist on a 
vote, and I will fight. I do not believe the taxpayers of this country 
should be subsidizing polluters. I will not stand for it. Nevertheless, 
in deference to my friends and colleagues from Alaska and New 
Hampshire, in recognition of their views, at this time I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for 
his courtesy in withdrawing the amendment. I have to notify other 
Senators to come. We thought there might be a vote.


                           Amendment No. 2156

  (Purpose: To make an amendment to housing opportunities for persons 
                               with AIDS)

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

[[Page S2609]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2156.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with 
     respect to the amount allocated for fiscal year 1998, and the 
     amounts that would otherwise be allocated for fiscal year 
     1999 or any succeeding fiscal year, to the City of 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of the Philadelphia, PA-
     NJ Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (in this section 
     referred to as the ``metropolitan area''), under section 
     854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 
     12903(c)), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall adjust such amounts by allocating to the State of New 
     Jersey the proportion of the metropolitan area's amount that 
     is based on the number of cases of AIDS reported in the 
     portion of the metropolitan area that is located in New 
     Jersey.
       (b) The State of New Jersey shall use amounts allocated to 
     the State under this section to carry out eligible activities 
     under section 855 of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12904) in the portion of the metropolitan area that is 
     located in New Jersey.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to thank the managers of this 
bill, Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Byrd, as well as Senators 
Bond and Mikulski, for agreeing to a provision of critical importance 
to southern New Jersey's AIDS afflicted community. This provision 
allows for the administration of Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 
funding for four southern New Jersey counties by the State of New 
Jersey.
  New Jersey's AIDS community has raised concerns about the current 
administration of HOPWA funding to four southern New Jersey counties: 
Camden, Gloucester, Salem, and Burlington. In order to better serve the 
needs of southern New Jersey's AIDS community, this provision gives the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the statutory 
authority to delegate the administration of southern New Jersey's HOPWA 
funding to the State of New Jersey.
  This provision will help improve the implementation of housing 
services for southern New Jersey's AIDS afflicted, and I am pleased 
that the managers of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations 
bill have agreed to include this change. Again, I thank them for their 
work on this matter.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment will require the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development to adjust, in a manner 
consistent with the need, the allocation of the funding under the 
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program, the problems that 
occur in certain areas of New Jersey and Pennsylvania under that act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2156) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. 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. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask that I be able to address the 
Senate for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________