[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1797-H1824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 402 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3579.

                              {time}  1348


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3579) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.

[[Page H1798]]

  Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), each will control 30 minutes of 
debate confined to the bill; and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Skaggs) and a Member opposed, each will control 15 minutes of debate 
confined to title III.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rule here to be 
structured, there will be 60 minutes debate on the present bill and 
then the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will be debating for 30 
minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the first 30 minutes be debated on the 
underlying measure, the middle 30 minutes to be shared equally, 15 
minutes by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), 15 minutes by 
myself leading in opposition, with the remaining 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Livingston).
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have just 
had a rule passed which denied the minority an opportunity to offer any 
significant amendment whatsoever. It is a rule that I strenuously 
opposed and asked the House to turn down.
  Now I understand that the gentleman is asking unanimous consent that 
some other arrangement be agreed to other than that in the rule. I, for 
the life of me, do not understand why we ought to do that. If Members 
did not like the rule, then I wish they would have followed my request 
and voted against it as I did.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the only reason I asked for this is to make 
sure that the debate is structured. If we are going to take the 90 
minutes and have it commingled with the measure of the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), it would be lost in the debate. Not only for the 
Members, but also for the American people to understand this important 
measure with regard to tying the hands of the Presidency, we should be 
able to debate for clarity.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, but 
with all due respect, we wanted the debate structured, too. We wanted 
to have a structured debate on offsets. We wanted to have a structured 
debate on the fact that this rule does not allow 75 percent of the 
President's request. We wanted a structured rule, too. We were not 
given that. Under those circumstances, I do not see why I should 
accommodate this request when we were turned down on every single 
request that we made to structure the rule.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
this is our opportunity to structure a debate so that there will be 
clarity and understanding.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, our opportunity was by 
voting down the rule and coming back with a new rule. That is the way 
the House is supposed to operate under regular order. If the gentleman 
was not satisfied with the rule, he should have voted against it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have is an ambiguity in the 
way the rule deals with this 30 minutes allocated to this particular 
issue. I would assume the Chair has discretion, given that ambiguity, 
to deal with it as seems reasonable. I had understood the gentleman 
from Wisconsin in particular, through his staff, to be concerned that 
we not have this 30-minute debate follow the general debate on the 
bill. I think that is what informs the gentleman from Indiana.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. On the assumption that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
yields for the purpose, the gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have pending a reservation 
on my unanimous consent request. My parliamentary inquiry is, is it 
within the prerogative of the Chair to designate time if there is 60 
minutes debate on the underlying measure, and in the rule it states 30 
minutes on the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), whether the first 
60 minutes would in fact be on Mr. Livingston's bill, and the remainder 
on the Skaggs provision, would it be within the Chair's prerogative to 
designate the time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair intends at this moment to accommodate the 
preference of the chairman of the committee, as the rule is structured, 
by starting with the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
committee.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have stated, since we were 
given no consideration whatsoever in our desire to offer even a single 
amendment to this amendment, I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to bring this emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
to the floor today. This bill provides important funding to sustain our 
troops in Bosnia and in Iraq in the amount of $1.8 billion. It also 
provides $575 million in assistance to those suffering from natural 
disasters throughout the country.
  Since this last fall, there have been typhoons, ice storms, excessive 
rains causing flooding and mud slides, beach erosion, late spring hard 
freezes and tornadoes. Because of these extreme weather conditions, 
there has been significant widespread damage to crops, livestock, 
natural resources and the country's infrastructure.
  The funding in this bill provides assistance to farmers, ranchers and 
dairymen. It funds repairs to highways, railroads, harbors and flood 
control facilities, national parks, forests and wildlife refuges and 
agricultural flood prevention facilities. In addition to providing 
direct support to the troops in Bosnia and Iraq, the bill also funds 
repairs to military facilities caused by typhoons, ice storms and the 
El Nino-related extreme weather.
  The funding in this bill is fully offset with an equal amount of 
rescissions. This is consistent with the policy adopted by the 
Republican majority when we took control of the Congress in January of 
1995. The struggle to offset emergency supplemental bills gets harder 
every year. With lean regular appropriations bills and half the year 
already over, it is even more difficult.
  The leadership, and I agree that we should not go deeper into the 
defense function to pay for peacekeeping missions. And, in fact, I 
think one can make a very good case that the nondeployed forces would 
be unfairly robbed to keep the deployed forces going.
  After a very tight regular defense appropriations bill and a 
continued proliferation of unbudgeted peacekeeping missions, we are 
simply not able to find the defense programs and activities that we 
could reduce that are removed from the direct support of the 
peacekeeping missions, which would also not hurt overall national 
security. Cutting them would only result in a weakening of one element 
of national security to help another. It makes no sense to hobble 
national security in this manner. Therefore, the offsets included in 
the bill are all in the nondefense area.
  The funds proposed for rescission are generally in excess to those 
that would be needed this fiscal year. They have no impact during this 
fiscal year for the most part. You will hear a lot of worried talk 
today about the impact of those rescissions and their impact will not 
be felt if their restoration is accomplished later on.
  But they are excess funds right now, and we need offsets, and that is 
why we have chosen them. We will be able to consider restoring them at 
the appropriate time later on. We need to pass this bill today to move 
the process forward, making emergency supplemental

[[Page H1799]]

appropriations a real possibility. I urge support of this fiscally 
responsible bill.
  At this point in the Record, I would like to insert a detailed table 
reflecting the status of this bill since adoption of the rule governing 
its consideration.

[[Page H1800]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.001



[[Page H1801]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.002



[[Page H1802]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.003



[[Page H1803]]

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), minority leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
disaster relief and Bosnia-Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Act. I 
strongly support the provisions in this legislation that help Americans 
who have been involved in disasters around the country. I strongly 
support the activity of our military in Bosnia and Iraq. And I hope 
that we can get to a piece of legislation as quickly as possible that 
will support all of those efforts.
  I know full well how important those efforts are. We had a big flood 
in my district in 1993 and in 1995. I stood on this floor and pleaded 
with the House to give timely help to my constituents, and the House 
did. So I have a very deep feeling about the need for this legislation. 
But the Republican leadership, just as they did a year ago, has refused 
to act responsibly and in a straightforward manner to provide these 
funds that have been requested by the administration.

                              {time}  1400

  They have insisted wrongly, in my view, on offsets which can be done 
under our budget act but which are not required under our budget act. 
In fact, we have provisions in our budget act that say that expenses 
like this which are truly emergencies do not need to be offset. But, 
again, the Republican leadership has decided to put in offsets; and, in 
my view, these offsets are very damaging in many, many areas of life in 
our country.
  Let me just mention some. It will hurt children who need help so that 
they can learn English. It will undermine the ability of our airports 
to construct needed runway enhancements and install new security 
equipment, as we are trying to do in St. Louis, Missouri. It would 
effectively end the Americorps program and could lead to more than a 
100,000 of our elderly citizens losing their housing. I do not think 
these are the trade-offs that we should be considering when we are 
considering emergency legislation.
  These are emergency items. That is why we put that into the budget. 
These were things that were unforeseen when the budget was put 
together. If they had been foreseen, we would have found room in the 
budget. And we may find room in next year's budget. But to now come at 
the 11th hour and wipe out these domestic programs so that we can take 
care of bona fide emergencies makes no sense.
  If Members want an alternative approach, we will have a motion to 
recommit that I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for 
that would simply take out the offsets and say that this should be 
treated as we believe it should be, as an emergency.
  But let me go further on why I think this bill is ill-advised. The 
Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to consider all 
the supplemental requests the President has forwarded. They left out 
the International Monetary Fund request. We have countries in Asia 
going into bankruptcy. The only thing that is keeping many of them 
afloat so that we do not lose more exports and have more unneeded 
imports in this country is the IMF request. If it sits for another 5, 
6, 8 weeks, what will happen to the IMF and the countries that need 
help?
  Finally, there is the matter of United Nations dues. Here we are 
today, the leader of the world, the leader of the United Nations, and 
we cannot find a way to bring ourselves to pay our dues. We have the 
unseemly situation where the Secretary General has gone and made a 
peace in Iraq, which is good for the entire world, and he cannot get 
the leader of the world to pay our debts, our dues to the United 
Nations.
  The President wanted that in this bill, and it is not. It is being 
separated out. And all of this is being made subject to an untimely and 
unneeded request on the part of the Republicans again to put a family 
planning issue which has no place in any of this legislation as part of 
that legislation.
  My colleagues, this is the wrong bill. It has been constructed in the 
wrong way. It has the wrong offsets. I am for the disaster relief, and 
I am for giving the money for our troops in Iraq and Bosnia, but not in 
this form, not with these offsets.
  Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote for the motion to recommit to 
fund these programs properly. If that fails, vote against this 
legislation. It is the wrong thing to do.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
National Security, after which I will yield to him for a colloquy.
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank 
the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on National Security for this piece of legislation. I think we need to 
get to the heart of the issue here and what is at stake. Why do we need 
this supplemental and why do we need to not further degradate the 
dollars to support our military?
  Mr. Chairman, if we look at the facts, in the past 6 years we have 
seen our troops deployed 25 times at home and around the world. Now if 
we compare that to the previous 40 years, they were deployed 10 times. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that none of those 25 deployments 
were budgeted for; none of those 25 deployments were paid for.
  In the case of Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, by the end of the next fiscal 
year we will have spent $9.4 billion on Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Chairman, 
if we look at the previous 7 years, we have spent $15 billion on 
contingencies around the world. Now, the problem in the Congress is not 
that we oppose going into Bosnia. That is not the issue. The problem in 
Bosnia is why was America asked to put in 36,000 troops while the 
Germans, right next door, put in 4,000 troops? Why are we paying the 
costs for the troops, the housing and food for the Bangladesh military 
in Haiti?
  The problem is that this administration has not done enough to get 
our allies to kick in their fair share of the cost of these 
deployments.
  Look at Desert Storm. The Desert Storm operation cost us $52 billion. 
We were reimbursed $54 billion. But that has not been the case for the 
past 6 and 7 years. We have seen time and again money taken away from 
readiness, from modernization, from R&D, from those programs that we 
agreed to within a 5-year balanced budget context to be used to pay for 
deployments, none of which were budgeted for.
  Therefore, we need to restore this money because the quality of life 
for our troops is at stake, because the modernization of our systems is 
at stake, and because we have robbed the military to the core, to the 
bone.
  Talk to our troops in the field, Mr. Chairman. Listen to those young 
kids in Somalia who are on their second and third straight deployments. 
Listen to their stories of being away from home because of the cuts 
that we have made.
  We need to understand these monies are desperately necessary to 
replenish funds that have been taken away from the military to pay for 
deployments that were never considered priorities by this 
administration when our troops were committed in the first place.
  I ask my colleagues to support this appropriation measure, to oppose 
any measure to change it, to support the leadership of the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) because what they are doing is right for our troops, it is right 
for America, and it is right for our role in the world today.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the purposes of 
colloquy only.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental 
appropriations measure before the House today goes a long way to 
support the needs of our troops, supporting the added cost of Bosnia 
and Iraqi enforcement operations while ensuring that we are not further 
eroding a defense budget that is already stretched too thin.
  As we move the bill forward, we must consider the many remaining 
needs of our troops around the globe. Of particular concern to our 
military commanders stationed abroad are the increasing range of 
missile threats, particularly those that could emerge this

[[Page H1804]]

year as a result of Russian technology transfers.
  Last night, the House unanimously adopted an authorization bill, H.R. 
2786, designed to enhance our missile defense systems against that very 
threat. Unfortunately, due to the timing of that action, we were unable 
to include those funds in this supplemental. However, it is my 
understanding that the administration supports execution of the actions 
in H.R. 2786 in fiscal year 1998.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
gentleman is correct. Not only are we in complete agreement with the 
need to ensure effective missile defenses for our troops abroad, but we 
agree that these actions should remain a funding priority for fiscal 
year 1998. Although the administration limited the Bosnia supplemental 
to paying for the cost of that operation in the Persian Gulf, they are 
now supporting execution of theater missile defense enhancements this 
year.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 
the Senate approved funding for the theater missile defense 
enhancements in its supplemental bill. Given the tight constraints we 
are working under here today, I will not offer an amendment, but ask 
the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee to ensure that this 
funding remains in the supplemental conference report.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I share the interest of the gentleman in moving the 
theater missile defense initiative forward, and I assure my colleague 
that I will do my very best to preserve necessary funds in the 
supplemental conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time to 
talk about the manager's amendment. I rise to issue my strong support 
for it.
  The ice storm of 1998 devastated 4 States in the Northeast. The 
damage was unlike anything ever experienced, and it was severe.
  This amendment will provide funding through community development 
block grants. It will address needs not met through other disaster 
relief programs, either the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the 
Small Business Administration. It will give States the flexibility to 
meet the critical needs of residents still recovering from the storm. 
And, most importantly, it will ease the economic burden of citizens 
least able to bear it.
  I ask my colleagues to support the manager's amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation 
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full 
committee; the entire Committee on Appropriations members and staff; 
and particularly my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, for their very effective work on this bill.
  As we have heard here today, Mr. Chairman, this is an initiative to 
try to redress a good many problems that are in this land today. People 
are struggling with the challenges of dealing with natural disasters, 
and I think by that very reason alone it deserves all of our 
unqualified support.
  I just want to talk a moment about one particular portion, and that 
is the assistance that is provided for the dairy farmers of this 
Nation.
  I know that some of this funding, particularly as it relates to the 
compensation for diminished milk production, is unprecedented and that 
some Members are concerned about this fact. But let there be no mistake 
about it, Mr. Chairman, the losses in northern New York and, in fact, 
throughout the entire Northeast represent a very unique situation.
  The assistance we are providing in this bill represents a small but a 
vitally important step on their road to recovery. The loss of electric 
power in this region had enormous repercussions beyond just 
inconvenience, although certainly inconvenient it was.
  New York is the Nation's third largest dairy producer; and, without 
power, dairy farmers were unable to milk their herd. Those few with 
generators who could milk frequently had to dump their milk because the 
roads were impassable. And those who were rarely, on occasion, able to 
get to the milk trucks were unable to get to plants that were in 
operation. So the losses were absolutely devastating.
  The inability to milk has caused, as I said, unique problems. No 
milking on normal schedule means sick animals, animals that contract 
mastitis, an illness which if not treated properly can kill the animal.
  As I said, I thank the chairman for his assistance and urge the 
support of this initiative.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Stokes), the distinguished ranking member of the most effective 
HUD subcommittee.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding me the time.
  I reluctantly rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I say 
``reluctantly'' because I very much favor the emergency supplemental 
appropriations that the bill contains. However, the construction of 
this bill forces me to oppose it.
  The biggest problem with the bill is the domestic rescissions that 
the bill contains, none of which are required by the budget rules and 
all of which do great damage to important programs. By far the largest 
portion of these cuts, about three-quarters of the total, fall on 
section 8 housing assistance. This program helps people with very low 
incomes afford one of the basic necessities of life, a place to live.
  Of the 2.8 million households receiving section 8 housing assistance, 
32 percent are elderly, another 11 percent are disabled, 50 percent are 
families with children. Their median income is just over $7,500 per 
year. The funds being rescinded are reserves that are urgently needed 
to help meet the cost of renewing section 8 housing assistance 
contracts expiring next year.
  If this rescission is allowed to stand and the funds are not 
replaced, contracts for 410,000 units of section 8 housing would not be 
renewed and the elderly and disabled people and young families living 
in these apartments would face the choice of paying large increases in 
rent, which they cannot afford, or losing their place to live.
  We have more than 5 million low-income families with worst-case 
housing needs receiving no Federal housing assistance at all. Waiting 
lists for housing programs are years long in many areas. The number of 
families helped by Federal housing programs is going down.
  In light of all this, we must stop using section 8 and other housing 
programs as the piggy bank every time someone wants to find some money 
to pay for something else. We ought to defeat this bill and bring back 
a clean supplemental appropriations bill that takes care of the urgent 
emergency needs without further devastating housing and other vital 
domestic programs.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about those piggy banks. 
The gentleman from Missouri and his statements, I would like to speak 
directly to those.
  First of all, for 30 years, Democrats controlled this Congress; and 
the debt has soared, where we pay over a billion dollars a day on just 
the interest. That is before law enforcement. That is before education. 
That is before anything that we want to pay for. The liberal Democrat 
leadership was against a balanced budget because that limits their 
ability to spend. They were against a tax relief for working families.

                              {time}  1415

  They were against welfare reform. They just wanted to spend more 
money for it. Who has to pay all of those extra costs for not having a 
balanced budget, for not having tax relief? They increase taxes and 
they put increase on Social Security tax. They cut veterans and 
military COLAs. They increase the tax on working families.
  So the record is very clear. But who is going to pay for that? We had 
a D.C.

[[Page H1805]]

bill where we would waive Davis-Bacon to pay for 60-year-old schools. 
The word ``children'' was mentioned, but do we think the leadership 
would waive Davis-Bacon that saves 35 percent to build schools in 
Washington, D.C.? No, because they are tied to their union brothers. It 
is 35 percent savings. Again, who has to pay for that 35 percent? 
Working families and senior citizens.
  Alan Greenspan has told us that we cannot bust these budget caps 
because the interest rates right now are between 2 and 8 percent lower. 
Now, what does that mean to working families? That they have more money 
for education, for their children. They have more money to buy a car, 
or even a double egg, double cheese, double fry burger if they want. 
But it is more money in their pocket instead of having to pay for the 
debt or come back in Washington, D.C.
  They want to pay for IMF, $18 billion, when the economists debate on 
the value of that. It is $18 billion, but yet we are having to find 
offsets. Yet, the gentleman from Missouri wants to pay.
  The United Nations, we pay 30 percent of all peacekeeping. The 
President has put us in Somalia without Congress. They put us in Haiti 
without Congress. They have kept us in Bosnia without Congress. Yet, we 
have to pay for it. Yet, our European nations have not paid for their 
share.
  They say, why can we not pay our bills? Well, who pays for that $18 
billion? Who pays for the billions of dollars that go to the U.N.? The 
working families. That is what I am saying.
  There is a big difference between our plan and what the Democrats 
want to do, which is just spend more money without offsetting it and 
continue with the 30 years of tax-and-spend big government, liberal 
government. We are not going to allow that to happen.
  Now, it is legitimate. They feel that big government can do 
everything. We do not. There is a difference in the choice, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, as every American knows, this Congress was 
a snake pit of confrontation. There was one fight after another between 
the Congress and the White House, which led to a sustained government 
shutdown. It took a long time for the reputation of this Congress to 
recover from that obstreperousness.
  Last year, in contrast, I felt we had a pretty good year in the 
appropriations process. Most of the time the appropriations bills were 
dealt with on a bipartisan basis. I think that that made people in the 
country feel better about their government. I think it made us feel a 
whole lot better about it. I think it made us feel a whole lot better 
about each other, because we were able to work out differences after we 
had defined those differences. We were able to find a common solution 
to many of those questions.
  This year, unfortunately, we now seem to be walking right back into 
the confrontation mode. There have been numerous stories in the press 
reporting that those in the majority party caucus with the more 
militant attitude on political matters simply want the Congress to take 
the President on, on a whole range of issues.
  So as a result, this bill, which ought to be an emergency 
appropriation which goes through rather quickly, this bill is going to 
take a long time to get out of the Congress, out of conference. When it 
gets to the President, it is going to be vetoed in its present form. 
That makes no sense, because we have a great deal of work to do. We 
have a very few days left in the legislative schedule to do it.
  Let us take a look at the points of controversy in this bill. First 
of all, this bill refuses to appropriate 75 percent of the disaster 
assistance requested by the President. Now, the President does not ask 
for that money because he likes to ask for money. He asks for it 
because we have had a series of natural disasters around the country. 
Unless we are not going to help communities recover, we need to provide 
this money.
  The President has asked for more money than we have in this bill 
because he understands that with the funding of the disasters that we 
have already had, if we have any significant storm activity in the 
summer, we will not have the money in the till to help the communities 
who need help on the dime, immediately.
  Yet, despite the fact that on a bipartisan basis the Senate 
committee, under the leadership of the chairman of that committee, 
Senator Stevens, despite the fact that the Senate added the full amount 
of the President's request, the majority party in this House refuses to 
provide that same funding.
  Then in a second effort to establish confrontation with the 
President, the House majority party insists that to the President's 
request it add large cuts in housing, which will cut 20 percent of the 
funds that are needed next year to sign the contracts to sustain the 
living quarters for low-income Americans and senior citizens who are 
now living in subsidized housing around the country. One-third of the 
persons who will be forced out of those homes, if this action occurs, 
are elderly. That is a great Easter gift for this Congress to give 
those folks before we go home on 20 days recess.
  Then it says we are going to cut $75 million for bilingual education. 
I did not used to care about that issue as much as I do now. But now I 
have had a huge influx of H'Mong population into my hometown and other 
communities. The H'Mong are the folks who did our dirty work during the 
war in Laos. They did the CIA's undercover dirty work. So the Federal 
Government made a decision to allow them to come into this country.
  But now the Federal Government is bugging out on its responsibility 
to help train them and educate them. They do not even have a written 
language, so they are very hard to teach English. Yet, one of the 
programs that would help us do that is being shrunk by a very large 
amount by this action.
  Then we come to the IMF. Nobody likes to come in here and ask for 
money for the International Monetary Fund. But the fact is we live in 
the real world, and if we do not defend ourselves in that real world, 
we are going to suffer the consequences.
  Japan has been running an irresponsible fiscal policy for years. That 
and other actions finally led to a currency collapse in Asia. There is 
a huge overproductive capacity in this world in certain industries, a 
lot of it in Asia. Because of that currency collapse, a lot of very 
cheap goods which are artificially underpriced because of that currency 
collapse are going to shortly be under way to the United States to 
undercut American goods.
  We are going to see plants close. We are going to see American 
workers go out of work. We are going to see the largest trade deficit 
in the history of the world. Yet, this Congress is choosing to do 
nothing whatsoever about it by holding the IMF hostage to a nongermane 
proposal.
  Then what we find is that the Speaker of the House is reported in a 
number of press accounts to have threatened majority party Members of 
the Committee on Appropriations with the loss of their committee 
assignments if they do not follow the leadership's so-called strategy 
on this issue.
  I do not understand why anyone thinks that it is for the good of 
America that we resurrect a confrontational attitude rather than a 
cooperative attitude in this Congress. I do not understand even how 
politically people think that that is going to win votes in an election 
year. I do not think it is.
  So I regretfully and respectfully ask the House to turn this bill 
down. I know that the pragmatists on the majority side of the aisle did 
not want to see this confrontation occur, but they have been overruled. 
I regret that. Until such time as reason prevails, we have no choice 
but to ask Members to vote against this proposal. That is what I am 
asking Members to do.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for his statement and associate myself with it, especially 
the issue concerning housing cuts. We have a $23 billion commitment 
over the next two years. Last year we cut $3.6 billion out of housing. 
We promised to make it up. We have not done it. This year we are taking 
more out. This is going to put people in the street.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the supplemental emergency 
assistance measures. I very much regret and strongly oppose

[[Page H1806]]

the ``offset'' provisions of these proposals which has ensured a 
collision course with the President's emergency request for additional 
fiscal 1998 funding for disaster aid and military action in Bosnia and 
Iraq as well as standing U.S. commitments to the United Nations and the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF). This IMF Funding means that our 183 
nation member program is running on empty, the only tool that we have 
to prevent the global economic catastrophe, that could devastate our 
domestic economy. This measure, in fact, only provides 25% of the 
Presidents total request for funding of disaster assistance. After 
dragging this bill out for months on the eve of a Easter recess period, 
apparently the GOP assumes that the House can be forced to accept a 
deficient product. If we oppose them, they will lay the blame on 
others. Frankly, the blame and the shame is the GOP leadership. As the 
adage states: lead, follow--or get out of the way so that we can get 
the job done.
  Our GOP colleagues insistence on including offsetting cuts in solely 
domestic programs illustrates their reluctance to provide basic 
programs that form the foundation of trust and the tools that American 
families need to care for themselves and one another. The GOP's package 
of cuts produces a number of offsets that would slash $2.9 billion in 
peoples priorities, and programs. These offsets jeopardize low-income 
housing programs for 100,000 people (many of whom are elderly 32% and 
disabled 11%), much needed airport improvements, terminating the 
AmeriCorps national service program for 1998, and major cuts in this 
years bilingual education. These programs are vital to the real needs 
of the most vulnerable in our society. While natural disaster needs 
would be met, this action would create a new disaster for those 
impacted by the offset cuts.
  These harmful rescissions are unnecessary under the budget rules, 
which designate that true emergency funding may proceed without 
offsets. Nonetheless, the Republican Majority in this House has chosen 
to cut key domestic spending initiatives to offset defense and natural 
disaster emergencies; breaching the ``firewalls'' between the two 
categories of defense and domestic expenditures and the 1998 budget 
enacted into law last year.
  These offsets are strongly opposed by the President and many Members 
of Congress. The Senate included no such offsets in its version of the 
bill, and there are no indications that they would do so. This clearly 
is a partisan effort to inject this new and divisive issue into the 
supplemental emergency assistance measures that will complicate the 
passage of this legislation. This raises questions as to the motives 
involved. The Republican Majority shut down the government with 
unrelated policy for several months in 1996. They denied much needed 
disaster help in 1997 because of an unrelated rider. Here we go again 
in 1998. The Republicans are holding hostage the emergency funding for 
the Department of Defense and disaster assistance, in an attempt, to 
force feed their unpopular and unfair agenda on the American people. 
This agenda gives new meaning to women, children, the disabled, and the 
elderly first. It is time to call a halt to the GOP political games and 
get on with the peoples business, not a GOP partisan policy agenda.
  The next two fiscal years the committed renewal of section 8 housing 
units existing contracts serving existing low income families with 
children, the elderly and disabled will demand over $23 billion. The 
1997 emergency supplemental did the same as this in removing $3.6 
billion of the housing reserve funds and pledged to make it up, but 
they have not replaced the fund, but take more--this is not a honey pot 
and it hurts real people.
  Mr. Chairman, the much-needed assistance for natural disasters and 
peacekeeping missions are sound and urgently needed. However, we must 
not permit this offset package to become our final action. This bill is 
a step backward, not forward. We should reject it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, just to assure the Members that the sky 
is not falling, I just want to make a few points. First of all, if it 
is confrontation that we have opposing views on how to treat the 
supplemental appropriations bill, then yes, it is confrontation. But I 
think it is not angry confrontation, it is simply a matter of differing 
philosophies.
  For the last 60 years of this century, the now minority party, which 
used to be the majority party, guided the affairs of the country with 
the idea that we continue to spend and never worry about whether the 
money was there. All we are saying on the supplementals is that, sure, 
we can continue to spend, but it has to be within the budget.
  For the last 4 years, we have in effect said that we will pay for the 
supplemental spending. We are coming up with $2.29 billion in extra 
spending for defense. We are coming up with $575 million for disaster 
relief. But we are going to offset. That is all we are saying.
  The Senate has not said that, and we are going to meet them head on. 
But for our purposes in the House, we are going to offset this extra 
spending. I dare say we have succeeded.
  We have got all these cries that the cuts in other existing 
unobligated funds are going to cause a disaster and the people are 
going to go homeless. The fact is that is not going to happen. These 
are unobligated funds, and they are not needed this year, this fiscal 
year. If they are needed later on, we will address that.
  My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has said that a militant 
majority is demonstrating that we should do something so awful as pay 
as we go. We happen to think that is fiscal responsibility. It is not 
militant. It is just common sense.
  He says that we have not adequately provided for the disaster relief 
that is needed. In effect, he is right, because the President, the day 
after we reported this bill out of the full committee, the President 
finally sent over an additional request of $1.6 billion for disaster 
relief that we have not had time to address, and we will address before 
this bill gets through its normal processes.
  He says that he is concerned that we have attacked bilingual 
education. Look, the H'Mong have been here for 20 years. If they have 
no written language, we have got a good one. It is called English. 
Well, if they have not been here for 20 years, then they have been here 
for 10 or 15; I do not know how long. Anyway, we have got English. We 
have got English, and it is a perfectly good language.
  We would like to teach them how to assimilate themselves into the 
United States, just like we would like to teach people of all ethnic 
backgrounds to assimilate themselves in the United States and teach 
their kids how to be productive American citizens. Just from day one, 
that is what we have done in America. That is why we are the melting 
pot. That is why we have succeeded in bringing cultures of all sorts 
together and have succeeded in becoming the most dynamic free Nation on 
earth.

                              {time}  1430

  The fact is, look, I adopted a little girl with my wife, a little 
girl from Taiwan. She came here at almost 7 years old. She could not 
speak English. She spoke Chinese. But we put her in an ``English as a 
second language'' course, and within 3 months she was speaking fluent 
English. She is a productive American citizen. I hope that others will 
likewise become productive American citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, if I were to take a kid to Spain, I would not expect 
that child to only speak English and to be taught English in the 
schools. I would expect that child to be taught Spanish in the schools 
so that that child would live in Spain and become a productive Spanish 
citizen, if my colleagues will.
  The point is, bilingual education in and of itself has been a failed 
program. It ought to be abolished. English as a second language is a 
successful program, and should be encouraged and hopefully will be 
because of the steps that we take here today.
  These are good changes. This is a good bill. The offsets are simply 
common sense. I urge the adoption of this bill, the rejection of the 
motion to recommit, and hopefully we will get a conference soon, right 
after we come back from the break, and we will get this disaster relief 
to the people who need it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I want to associate myself with the remarks the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made earlier.
  I regret that I come to this floor to oppose this bill. Instead of 
coalescing funding to continue our peacekeeping operations in Bosnia 
and ensure a strong and forceful presence in the Gulf, we are being 
asked to undercut important domestic programs included in last year's 
budget agreement to finance our national security interests.

[[Page H1807]]

  It is not enough that the budget agreement of 1985 provides for 
emergency spending without offsets during domestic or international 
crisis. It is not enough that the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston), it is not enough that Mr. Livingston fought hard to 
prevent making unwise and devastating cuts in domestic programs, 
notwithstanding the fact that he just said something a little 
different. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it apparently is not enough that the 
United States Senate, with the support of the President of the United 
States, passed this emergency spending without gutting domestic 
programs by voice vote.
  No, Mr. Chairman, instead today this body is being asked to gut the 
Section 8 low income housing program which could leave 800,000 
Americans without housing next year. We are being asked to effectively 
shut down the AmeriCorps program through a 60 percent cut, and perhaps 
in one of the most outrageous affronts contained in this bill, the 
leadership is advocating a cut of $75 million in bilingual and 
immigrant education.
  Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman, as to the importance of the 
emergency funding the President is seeking. Continuing the U.S. 
presence in Bosnia is critical. Progress is being made in the 
implementation of the Dayton Accords, and this progress has only been 
possible because of U.S. participation in the NATO-led stabilization 
force. There is not one of us that has visited that force, that has not 
been proud of our men and women and the effect that they have had.
  Apparently the majority party did not learn the lessons of the 1995 
disaster relief supplemental. The chairman learned them; I think most 
of the chairmen of our subcommittees learned them. But their caucus did 
not learn them. There are very serious issues to be debated in this 
Chamber. However, we should not hold emergency funding hostage when on 
its surface we all support the need for a strong presence in Iraq and a 
need to respond to the ravages of El Nino.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down the latest sham of the Republican 
leadership and release this funding from the daily game of politics in 
which we have been embroiled. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Water.
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to my distinguished friend from 
Guam (Mr. Underwood) for purposes of a colloquy only.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, Guam suffered 
extensive damages due to Typhoon Paka last December. Due to Typhoon 
Paka the commercial port, which is the principal lifeline for all the 
residents of Guam, needs to be restored to its economic vitality. I 
understand that the bill before us today provides $84.5 million for the 
Corps of Engineers for emergency repairs due to flooding and other 
natural disasters.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's statement is accurate.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand further that the $84.5 million is not 
project-specific and that there may be an opportunity to review Guam's 
request for port projects.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, may I say to the gentleman that the 
committee did not earmark disaster relief funds provided to the Corps 
of Engineers. The additional funding in the operation and maintenance 
account will be used to address high priority needs resulting from 
recent natural disasters at Corps-operated or Corps-maintained 
projects. The Corps of Engineers should consider Guam's request in 
conjunction with other projects eligible for emergency assistance 
consistent with current law and authorities.
  I want to assure the gentleman that we will examine this issue as the 
process proceeds to conference with the Senate, and we will do our 
best.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on National Security.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify the issue before us today. 
We are not here to correct the overdeployment of our military troops or 
the underfunding of our military troops. The issue before us today is 
whether this is an emergency as prescribed by the budget law or whether 
it is one that is not and calls for an offset.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish I could rise in support of this bill, the 
emergency supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998. 
Unfortunately, the bill in its current configuration falls short in 
terms of timing, process and interpretation.
  First there is a matter of timing. Once again this body has reacted 
slowly to an emergency situation, with consequences that will affect 
our fellow citizens both here at home and overseas. And yet, while the 
other body has essentially passed a bill to deal with these measures, 
we are still debating the matter in this body, and the result is that 
by the time we begin our 2-week spring recess we will not have 
completed this important work.
  Second, there is a matter of process. Though 80 percent of the bill's 
appropriations are for military programs, all of the measure's offsets 
are in domestic programs. This is a sure invitation for a presidential 
veto, and I am sure that the President will accept that invitation.
  As many know, the other body has not offset, I will repeat, has not 
offset its version of the supplemental with spending cuts. It has 
accepted the emergency designation for the supplemental, as it should 
have. I can envision a scenario where the other body would offer to 
accept offsets, but with a condition that those offsets come from the 
military appropriation accounts. What a disaster that would be.
  Third, there is a matter of interpretation. I voted for last year's 
Balanced Budget Act. I believe we made great progress in the past 8 
years to get our Nation's finances in order. The 1993 bill which I 
supported; last year, the Balanced Budget Act which I supported; and 
this year we see a surplus possibly of $8 million, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the first surplus since 1969. While 
provisions under the Budget Act will allow us to fund genuine 
emergencies, the other body has chosen to use those provisions. That is 
what we should do.
  Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen wrote earlier this month that if the 
Department of Defense were required to provide offsets from within the 
DOD budget, the effect on DOD programs would prove calamitous.
  I have seen the same thing for the domestic side. That has been well 
thought out. It is a matter of accepting what is reality. A rose by any 
other name is still a rose; an emergency by any other name is still an 
emergency. I think that in this present form it is very difficult for 
us to support, and I will not support this bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today. First I would like to 
commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for sticking to 
our core principles, that 3 years ago we made a commitment that we were 
going to stop spending our children's money, and I would like to 
commend the chairman for sticking to those principles in this bill and 
sticking to the offsets. We understand the other body, the Senate, has 
not proposed offsets yet, and I would also like to express my 
appreciation for accepting the Neumann-McIntosh amendment that puts 
this body on record when we pass this bill, saying that when it goes to 
conference it should come back with the offsets intact.
  I would also like to do, as I made it my custom to do over the last 3 
years, to report to my colleagues what the actual numbers are in this 
spending bill.
  The total new spending, the total, quote, emergency spending in this 
bill, is $2.865 billion in outlays and budget authority, and in fact 
the offsets amount to 1 million more than what the proposed new 
spending is as it relates to budget authority.
  In outlays, the outlays are $350 million short, but I would add that 
it is

[[Page H1808]]

the closest that we have come of any of the supplemental appropriation 
bills that have passed through this body since we came here in 1995. It 
is the closest we have come to offsetting it in outlays as well as 
budget authority, and again in budget authority, to my colleagues, it 
is not only offset but there is actually $1 million extra in it.
  Again, I would like to address the concerns of the other side. I 
heard the statement that 800,000 Americans will be without housing if 
this bill is passed. Well, first let me say that that is absolutely not 
true. But second, let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side 
that if in fact they genuinely believe that is true, then they have a 
moral and an ethical responsibility to bring something forward that 
allows these offsets to come from some other part of this budget.
  Look, what we are asking for is to stop spending our children's 
money. We are asking to find offsets, that is, wasteful government 
spending that amounts to $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of 
government spending. Let me say that once more, so we understand just 
exactly what this debate is all about. What we are saying is that, I 
want to make sure that this debate is very, very clear when we talk 
about finding these offsets or reductions in wasteful Washington 
spending to counter the new spending, we are looking for a grand total 
of $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending.
  Now is there anyone in the entire United States of America that 
believes there is not $2.8 billion of wasteful Washington spending that 
can be eliminated so that we do not go and tack this new spending onto 
the legacy that we are going to give our children?
  I would like to conclude by again commending our chairman for 
sticking to his guns and demanding that these offsets be included in 
this bill, because for years that was not the practice, and that is in 
fact how we got to the $5.5 trillion debt that we currently have 
staring us in the face.
  I would conclude with the memory it is $2.8 billion in offsets. We 
are open to other suggestions; $2.8 out of $1700 is what we are looking 
for in terms of offsetting the bill.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that under the rule no 
amendments are allowed, no alternatives can be proposed? Am I correct 
on that? It is a closed rule; am I correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. One amendment made in order. No other amendments other 
than an amendment allowed by the Committee on Rules can be made, no 
alternatives can be proposed for other offsets; am I correct, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment that was made in order under the 
rule.
  Mr. HOYER. But no amendments can be offered; am I correct, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment to be offered in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  Mr. HOYER. I understand that.
  Can any additional amendments be offered, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. There can be an amendment offered as a recommittal in 
the House.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about wasteful Washington 
spending. I do not consider enabling senior citizens to have housing in 
my hometown or anybody else's hometown in the countryside to be 
wasteful Washington spending. I consider those to be necessary mercy 
initiatives so good and decent low-income Americans and retired senior 
citizens can live in decent housing.
  I do not consider providing funding to persons who are willing to 
give of their time to assist with finding volunteers to deal with our 
kids after school so that they are in a safe place and are not 
committing crime is wasteful Washington spending. I call that good 
community activity.
  I would point out that the rule the gentleman just voted for 
precluded us from attacking real wasteful spending. It precluded me 
from offering the amendment which would have reduced by 5 percent the 
Pentagon account that allows the Pentagon to pay $76 for a 57-cent set 
screw, and allows the Pentagon to pay $38,000 for aircraft springs that 
they previously paid $1,500 for. That is true wasteful Washington 
spending, I would submit to the gentleman from Wisconsin, and it is the 
kind of wasteful spending the gentleman protected with his vote for the 
rule.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to determine when the 
Skaggs provision will be up for debate. I understand that 30 minutes 
are allotted for that as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair could entertain that debate at any time 
during general debate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I need to go up to the Committee on Rules. I 
would ask that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) be allowed to 
control my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland will 
control the time for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) while he 
goes to the Committee on Rules.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Guam, (Mr. Underwood).
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard).
  In the disaster relief section of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental 
appropriations bill, the committee accepted report language that makes 
mention of the ongoing discussion between the Government of Guam and 
the Navy over the repair responsibility for the repair of typhoon BRAC 
damaged properties on Guam. I have been assured by several civilian 
naval officials that the U.S. Navy, at a minimum, will be flexible if 
it is decided that the U.S. Navy is, indeed, responsible for said 
repairs.
  Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that if this action so occurs, 
the committee will entertain a request for funds in the regular fiscal 
year 1999 appropriations bill?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is true. If the matter is 
settled between the Guam Government and the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Navy 
will accept the responsibility for the repair of certain typhoon 
damaged BRAC properties on Guam, our committee will consider such a 
request for funds in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for this clarification. We will work on the issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, here is the problem that I see as we go 
forward with this process. Normally, when we pass a bill, we have a 
good idea that we will be able to continue the process in the Senate. 
It is not so late in the year, and if it is, we will pass a bill very 
similar to the Senate bill.
  Now, this bill is so different than the Senate bill, we have a bill 
here which has a lot less money in it. We have a bill here which, in my 
estimation, when it is offset from domestic policy, will either assure 
a veto or, in the end, the Senate will not recognize it.
  I just do not see any possibility of this kind of a bill being the 
end product when it goes to conference.
  Now, if we do not accept the amendment that I am going to offer, the 
recommittal motion I am going to offer, then we have a situation where 
the Defense Department will not be able to go forward because it will 
not be assured of a bill happening.
  One of the things that has happened in the past, when they are 
assured of a conference, they can work different departments, they can 
get money, they can hold back money, and they can work out something to 
get them through.
  But here, they are not going to be able to do that, because they 
cannot be assured of a bill. Now, why do I say they cannot be assured 
of a bill?

[[Page H1809]]

  Let us say that we pass this bill with offsets. Well, in the first 
place, the White House is against that. We go over to the Senate, we 
sit down, the Senate adds IMF, the Senate adds UN, and the Senate adds 
Mexico City.
  Now, in my estimation, there is no way that they can come back to the 
House with a bill the size it is, with no offsets, and pass it in the 
House, and yet, on the other hand, there is no way we can go to the 
Senate with all offsets and pass it in the Senate.
  So we have got a real problem, which leads me to believe that past 
history shows that the Defense Department cannot predict that they are 
going to have a bill. They only have 4 months left in the fiscal year, 
and the problem we are going to have when you only have 4 months, the 
Defense Department has to make a decision, how do I find the money to 
get us through the rest of the year.
  All right, we cut back on training, we layoff civilian employees, 
substantial numbers of civilian employees for 10 or 15 days. We shut 
down the Defense Department. There are all kinds of options the Defense 
Department is investigating right now, looking at what we can do in 
case a bill, which is absolutely the opposite of the bill that is 
pending in the Senate, it has not passed yet, but it is pending.
  We always in the past have been able to work these things out. This 
is an entirely different situation, which worries me. I am concerned, 
all of us have been through the committee process, if we pass a bill 
that is offset with domestic policy, the additional thing we do, we set 
domestic policy against defense policy, and when that happens we lose.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to support my motion to recommit 
when it comes up.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition 
to H.R. 3579 and would like to associate myself with the remarks made 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) earlier.
  I am in opposition basically because this bill would take away 
greatly needed funding for Section 8 low-income housing, and take away 
greatly needed funding for bilingual education. If there is a way to 
achieve the objective without desecrating our social programs, then so 
be it. I am opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3579, the 
Defense and Disaster Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 
1998.
  I join my fellow colleagues in opposition to this bill not because I 
believe we need not provide our troops with enough resources to 
succeed, whether it be in Bosnia or Iraq. I oppose this bill not 
because I believe we need not come to the aid and rescue of our fellow 
Americans who have suffered as a result of some national disaster. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  I oppose this bill because it sets up a framework that takes $2.2 
billion in funding from the section 8 low-income housing program; 
because it reduces funding for the bilingual education program by $75 
million. This is absolutely unacceptable to me, to my constituents who 
reside in public housing and benefit from the section 8 program- a 
program that is currently underfunded, I might add- and to the legal 
immigrants who reside in my district and participate in the bilingual 
education program, which helps them transition into mainstream America.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, indeed, this body appears to be revisiting, 
unfortunately, an all-too-familiar refrain and motif: when confronted 
with a tough decision, do not follow the dictates of what is fair or 
equitable; instead choose the path of least resistance. I am reminded 
of the saying that those who are whipped the easiest are whipped the 
most often. And, invariably, the target for cuts are those programs 
that serve public housing residents and benefit our immigrant 
population. Those groups that do not have an army of lobbyist to argue 
the merits of their case.
  Consequently, I am compelled to oppose and urge my fellow members of 
Congress to oppose this measure, HR 3579, in an effort to restore 
equity and fairness and a sense of what is right to the decision-making 
process in this body.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope today that we will 
not diminish one of the most successful initiatives that has come from 
this city in the last 30 years, and that is the President's Corporation 
for National and Community Service. This legislation today proposes a 
significant decrease in what has been domestically one of the most 
successful initiatives that I can recall.
  AmeriCorp has served hundreds of domestic violence victims throughout 
the State of Massachusetts. It has been enormously successful. It seems 
to me it goes hand-in-hand with what the other side has been talking 
about for the last decade about personal responsibility, a better and 
higher sense of citizenship, but, most importantly, and it has been 
inclusive, it suggested to millions of young Americans that the 
opportunity for some sort of tuition assistance down the road will be 
there if they only give back to this Nation the opportunity that the 
Nation has granted to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that in this supplemental that is being 
proposed today we would resist any effort along the way to curtail what 
I think has been an enormously successful Presidential initiative, and 
that has been the President's proposal for National Service Learning.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), our chairman, and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. Chairman, I stand to oppose the supplemental for two reasons: 
Number one, we have the kind of sacrifice that we have to make here in 
the Congress, which says that we know that we need a strong military, 
we need to strengthen our military, but we also need to take care of 
the poor. We also need to take care of the housing needs of this 
country.
  I do think that the two of them are compatible, that we can do both, 
and we should not use this particular bill to try to even things out 
between the military and the poor people who need housing and who need 
care in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill cuts education, it cuts the National 
Volunteer Service, it cuts any number of things which mean a lot to us 
here in the Congress representing all the people.
  I say to the Congress we can do both. We need to vote no on this 
supplemental and go back and do the right thing, separating those two, 
doing what we should do by the military, and certainly immediately 
sending emergency assistance to our needy counties and cities.
  The CHAIRMAN. The remaining 30 minutes for general debate on title 
III of the bill is equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), and a Member who is opposed to title III.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to title III.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will confer the time in opposition to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) given the fact that he is a 
member of the committee.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, whether to take this country into war, even a limited 
war, is a fundamental responsibility of this body, the Congress of the 
United States. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states very 
clearly that ``Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war, 
grant letters of mark and reprisal.''
  As George Mason, one of the delegates to the Constitutional 
Convention observed in debating this provision in 1787, it was meant to 
``Clog the path to war.''
  The Constitution is a terribly inconvenient thing. It imposes all 
sorts of rules that get in the way of this body when we want to run 
rough-shod over freedom of speech, or in this case, ignore our own 
responsibilities to make that fundamental decision.
  Right now we have a welcome break in the action in the Persian Gulf 
anyway. Thank goodness we are not now faced with the immediate prospect 
of offensive military action, and that respite gives us a chance, which 
I appreciate our having, an opportunity to seize this afternoon to give 
some considered debate to the responsibilities that we have.

[[Page H1810]]

                              {time}  1500

  The limitation on funding that is now in the bill, as approved by the 
Committee on Appropriations, provides that none of the funds in this 
bill may be used to initiate offensive military action by the Armed 
Forces of the United States in order to enforce the inspection and 
destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is carefully 
drawn to be narrowly limiting only of the President's authority, 
essentially, to take the country into offensive war. That is what it 
does.
  It is also important to understand what it does not do. That is, it 
does not impede the continued deployment of troops in anticipation of 
the possible need for action against Iraq. It does not get in the way 
of the no-fly rules or any of the other current military operations in 
the region.
  Why do this? It is because we know full well that, while there is a 
moment now when Saddam Hussein is complying, history instructs us that 
it is very likely that we will be back soon into a situation in which 
he is again confronting the international community. And the President 
has made it very clear that, under those circumstances, he would attack 
in order to enforce the U.N. inspection regime.
  There is never a good time to do this. It is, by definition, only 
when we are faced with a ticklish international security problem, such 
as we now face in the Persian Gulf area, that the question comes up.
  But, as my colleagues will recall, we had the good sense 7 years ago 
to make sure that then President Bush sought and received authority 
from Congress before launching the war against Iraq at that time. The 
same basic constraints ought to apply to this President in 1998.
  Coupled with the sensible judgment that we made 7 years ago to insist 
on Congress' responsibility under the circumstances that existed then, 
with a similar assertion in 1998, we have an important opportunity to 
change the practice that existed throughout the Cold War years in which 
Congress deferred, I believe inappropriately, to the executive in these 
kinds of situations.
  We should be proud to assume and to assert this most important 
responsibility that the Constitution gives to the Congress, not to the 
executive.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman 
Livingston) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the fine 
work in this bill.
  I rise in strong opposition to section 3002 of the bill, which 
prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iraq unless 
the President gains congressional approval for the use of the military 
force regarding the compliance with U.N. resolutions relating to 
inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.
  I have opposed President Clinton on the use of military force on many 
occasions in this House. On this issue, though, I look at this, and as 
a matter of fact, my opposition has been really on two grounds, one on 
philosophy and the other with regard to poor consultation with this 
administration and Congress.
  When I think of the President's use of military force, he likes to 
use our military force in every corner of the world based on some form 
of moral authority, humanitarian missions, and peacekeeping missions.
  When I think of the Skaggs amendment, I believe the amendment of the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) highlights the very poor 
consultation that the administration has with this Congress. It is 
tempting to support the Skaggs amendment. I cannot, because I happen to 
believe that this is much bigger than Bill Clinton. This, in fact, is 
about the presidency and its relationship to the Congress. It is a 
constitutional question, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) 
just mentioned.
  When I think of this question, or any Commander in Chief as such, I 
believe that the Commander in Chief requires the flexibility to respond 
to the international crises as they arise.
  Congress has only actually declared war five times. There have been 
many occasions where troops have found themselves in harm's way in 
response to crises around the world. As a matter of fact, the crises 
sometimes are immediate and emergent, and the presidency needs that 
type of flexibility.
  Iraq is one area where history shows that a crisis arises 
unpredictably and on short notice. I do not want to tie a President's 
hands in a critical area of the world. I believe that could be 
irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
  When I think of about a month ago, when an offensive action was 
imminent in the Persian Gulf, I was one of the few voices here on 
Capitol Hill that was asking for a go slow-caution approach, because 
use of force is a last resort, not a first resort.
  When we are operating in the arena of diplomacy, I do not believe we 
ever want to remove one of the tools from the toolbox. When in fact we 
are going to say to the world, or in particular to Saddam Hussein, that 
this President can take no actions unless Congress first responds, just 
permit the mind to flow and create every imaginable consequence that 
could arise from a mind like Saddam Hussein's.
  As we depart from here for 2\1/2\ weeks, anything could happen while 
we are away. Saddam Hussein, by example, could use weapons of mass 
destruction against the Kurds or the Shi'ites, permit some type of 
spraying operation with regard to the spores of anthrax in that part of 
the world. As the winds swirl, they could find their way into Kuwait, 
and this President might want some form of an immediate response.
  I know the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) could possibly, and I 
am not going to argue for him, he is very capable of doing that, but I 
think he put it in some kind of Dear Colleague that the President could 
call the Congress back into session. How realistic is it that he would 
do that? How often does that happen?
  I really do like the flexibility on the part of the Commander in 
Chief to respond, especially to stand up against someone like Saddam 
Hussein. For us to somehow tie his hands to respond would be very poor. 
I do not want to do that.
  What I want to share with my colleagues is, and I know I am fighting 
with my own temptation to support the gentleman from Colorado, but this 
issue is much bigger than this President. It is about the relationship 
between this Congress and the presidency.
  Now the United States, as we find ourselves the sole remaining 
superpower in the world, many nations of the world look to us for their 
immediate consultation. Whether it is a consultation, counsel, support, 
the President needs the ability to respond. When there is a problem 
anywhere in the world and that commander goes to the President of the 
United States for any type of support, he needs that ability to 
respond.
  The Congress, all of us, and there have been many debates over the 
past years about the use of force and Congress' prerogative. We control 
the pursestrings. We have those debates.
  I think every Member of the Congress, if it came down to a sustained 
offensive military operation in Iraq, would require a vote here on the 
House floor. But when it would be responding, whether in self-defense 
or in response to Saddam Hussein's bizarre behavior, this President 
needs the flexibility to respond.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) for his initiative at putting this 
in the bill. I certainly believe it is in the best interests of this 
body to maintain the provisions in the bill, and hopefully we will keep 
it in throughout the duration of this supplemental appropriation.
  The fact is, in 1991 we had an incredibly wonderful debate, an 
intense debate, a debate that strongly divided parties on both sides, 
as to whether or not we should go to the initial battle against Saddam 
Hussein, whether or not we should commit thousands of troops, along 
with the troops of many other countries to battle what was then the 
fourth largest army in the world.

[[Page H1811]]

  By a somewhat narrow margin, the House and the Senate agreed that we 
should go forth. In fact, we did, and we had one of the most lopsided 
victories in the history of American warfare; in fact, in the history 
of world warfare. It just strikes me that here, some 7 years later, it 
is not any less important an issue that should be debated between the 
Members of Congress, members of all parties, all philosophies, and both 
Houses.
  I am very concerned today, as I was a few months ago, when it looked 
very much like we were going to commit lots of American men and women 
in uniform to the potential of losing their lives in battle against the 
new Iraqi threat, but under the leadership of the same despot, Saddam 
Hussein.
  We might well have brought about the death of tens of thousands of 
Iraqi citizens, and we might well have earned for ourselves the enmity 
of the entire Arab world. All of that would have been possible, and 
maybe it was for a good cause. Maybe it was necessary, but then again, 
maybe it was not.
  The fact is, it would have been done without so much as a ``by your 
leave'' in Congress. This is a momentous issue. We debated it well 7 
years ago. We should debate it equally well today.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the fallacy I see in the argument that both gentlemen 
are making is that we have forced Saddam Hussein to back down. Our 
inspectors are doing their work, and at a critical stage in the 
inspection process where half of it is over, we are saying to Saddam 
Hussein, okay, Congress is going to have to vote on this issue. We 
voted in 1991.
  Members know, I led the fight on the Democratic side for going to 
war, and I believe very strongly a President should come to Congress to 
get authorization. I believe he still has authorization to go to war. I 
do not think, in this particular situation, there is any need for the 
Congress to act again on something that is clearly in our national 
security interest.
  There are deployments Presidents have made I have disagreed with, 
that I do not believe were in our national security interest. I believe 
this is in our national security interest. More than half the energy 
resources in the world are in this area. It is absolutely essential we 
have stability. We need to react timely in order to prevent a war.
  What happened the last time is when the United States had to react, 
he had to react immediately. He sent in the 82nd Airborne right before 
the marines. He sent in the marines. He sent in the air wing. They 
could have run over us, but because of the force of the United States, 
because the President of the United States acted, we were able to stop 
him from going into Saudi Arabia.
  I am absolutely convinced, though, if he thought Congress was going 
to wait, and he was convinced Congress was going to vote against going 
to war. It is very easy now to say Congress passed a resolution to go 
to war, but let me tell the Members, in those days President Bush 
withstood tremendous pressure. He did a phenomenal job in getting that 
authorization passed. It was bipartisan, but it was obviously a very 
difficult debate.
  So I think the timing is terrible. I know the President will veto 
this bill. There is another reason for him to veto this particular 
bill, if this provision is in this piece of legislation. So I would 
hope that the Members would think very clearly, they would listen to 
this debate, and then when it goes to conference, that we will be able 
to get this amendment removed so we can go on with our business, if 
this gets to conference.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 and a half minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I give high commendation to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Colorado, for bringing this to the floor.
  Two arguments have been made against what the gentleman has achieved. 
I wish to respond to them. First, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha) that the authorization to go to war passed in 1991 would 
still apply today, it does not. Today we are discussing the use of 
force in response to the failure of Saddam Hussein to allow inspection 
of his mass destruction weapons facilities, which occurred after we 
drove him out of Kuwait. Logically, this could not have been 
anticipated at the time of the 1991 vote. I was here. I voted yes then, 
as well. But we had no consideration then of force to terminate 
weapons' programs.
  It would be as dangerous to say that the 1991 authorization applies 
today, as it was to say that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave 
approval for everything that followed in Vietnam. We must be careful in 
what we approve. We were careful in 1991, so that the men and women in 
our armed forces whose lives are at stake might know what their 
representatives have approved. And that was not an unbridled 
authorization for action seven years later.
  The argument of the gentleman from Indiana, that because of this 
provision, the President will not be able to respond to Saddam 
Hussein's use of anthrax, is absolutely false. The ability of the 
President to respond to such an attack would be constitutionally 
possible, and also financially possible under this provision, simply by 
using money in the general Defense Department budgets.
  The only effect of the restriction of the provision by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is that funds used in this supplemental may 
not be used for the purpose of enforcing the U.N. inspections regime, 
without getting the approval of Congress. There is no restriction on 
responding to an attack upon the United States' interests or people, 
including the hypothetical case of Saddam Hussein's use of anthrax.

                              {time}  1515

  I conclude by saying I have done my very best to attempt to bring 
back to Congress the authority the Constitution gives and requires of 
us. Let us not let it slip through our hands once more. Let us instead 
stand up for our obligation under the Constitution.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) for his amendment which puts into law our 
joint resolution, of which he is one of 108 cosponsors, to require just 
this.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to mention in just the few moments I have, not 
only does Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution apply, but also 
Article II, Section 2, where it says the President shall be Commander 
in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States and the militia 
of the several States, when called into the actual service of the 
United States. It is the Congress that does that. After they have been 
called into service, the President is then the Commander in Chief.
  This is a good amendment. It needs to stay in the bill.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Skaggs) for yielding me this time, and I appreciate very much his work 
in this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very important part of this legislation. This 
is not BESTEA, but it is ``best part.'' By far Section 3002 of this 
bill is the best part of this entire bill. The only thing I would like 
to add is that the money being spent in Bosnia and Iraq, $1.8 billion, 
should not be spent there either, because I am frightened that we will 
put our men in harm's way and then a situation will occur, and it will 
be virtually impossible for the Congress to turn down acceleration and 
amplification of the conflict over there.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that only five times we have 
declared war in our history. True. But who is going to stand here and 
say that men that died in Vietnam and in Korea were not in a war? They 
were illegal. They were unconstitutional. This is a very sound effort 
to bring back once again the constitutional responsibility of all of us 
to declare war, and only Congress can do that.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.

[[Page H1812]]

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is very difficult for me, because 
there is nobody on the other side that I respect more, and he knows I 
speak that from my heart, than the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha). The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who is a veteran, I 
have a lot of faith in.
  Mr. Chairman, I soul-searched this very issue myself, and the bottom 
line is it is our responsibility as Members of Congress, and I think 
that is where the line splits.
  We have a responsibility. It is difficult for me to blast the White 
House on getting us into the Somalia extension, putting us in Haiti 
against Congress, and putting us in Bosnia, arming the Muslims against 
the wishes of Congress and putting up billions of dollars, and then 
come out in support of this bill that does those very same things. This 
makes Congress uphold its responsibility, and I think it is very, very 
important that this debate is going on.
  President Bush came to Congress and asked Congress to vote on this. 
President Clinton never does that. He just goes ahead and does it. In 
the case of Somalia, as we downsized, we denied armor, the White House 
denied armor to them and we lost 22 Rangers. In the case of Haiti, and 
especially in Bosnia where we are arming the Muslims and there are 
10,000 Mujahedin and Hamas there, that is going to cause in my opinion 
World War III.
  So with bad decisions on foreign policy and military deployment, and 
when we are operating at 300 percent the OPTEMPO and killing our 
military, we need this amendment and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), also a member of the committee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Skaggs) for yielding me this time, and I want to lend my strong support 
to the Skaggs provision in the bill, though I will oppose final passage 
of the bill because it puts the costs on the backs of the elderly and 
Section 8 contract renewals across this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Skaggs provision completely, and just 
wanted to say for the record how heartily I congratulate the gentleman. 
I also want to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), my 
good friend, as well as others on the committee who may not agree with 
us, when I was first elected to Congress, having been a child of the 
Vietnam era and watching my friends shot to death and come home 
dismembered and so forth, I made a promise that I would never be a part 
of a Congress that sent our troops into battle without a vote.
  I think all of us understood what that war did to this country, 
dividing us even until today. Many high level elected officials, 
sometimes rising as high as the Presidency of the United States, not 
wanting to reflect on that experience, still being afraid of it and all 
the feelings that it dredges up. 50,000 people killed in Vietnam, over 
54,000 since that time by death through suicide. It was an experience 
that none of us alive today should ever forget.
  Mr. Chairman, I decided I could never be here and allow that type of 
back-door war to occur again. And yet I experienced the Persian Gulf 
buildup as a Member of this Congress and was a party to a suit filed by 
52 colleagues to force President Bush to come to this Congress. There 
was no prouder moment. Judge Green said in his ruling when we went to 
court that the Court had no hesitation in concluding that an offensive 
entry into Iraq by several hundred thousand servicemen could be 
described as war within the meaning of Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.
  I think that this Congress has no more serious constitutional 
responsibility and obligation than to vote on any offensive military 
action. I want to say to the gentleman from Colorado, I really 
congratulate him in his closing months here as a Member of the House 
for having the courage to bring this up and having this country and its 
people meet its constitutional obligations.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for yielding me this time, and I want to make 
sure that Members understand we are not talking about an amendment. 
There is not going to be a vote on this issue today. This question has 
been presented to me several times. This is in the bill.
  As much as I agree with the comments being made by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), and those who support him, and I did not object 
to this being put in the bill in the full committee, I have to tell my 
colleagues that this does not solve the problems that the gentleman is 
talking about. This is very narrow. It goes only to the issue of Saddam 
Hussein's unwillingness to stay with the agreement that he has made now 
as far as inspection of his weapons cache.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) said, 
rightfully so, this is a monumental decision. Others have made similar 
statements. This is extremely important. It deals with the 
constitutional relationship of the Congress vis-a-vis the President of 
the United States, that is true. This Congress needs to address these 
issues, but not in a supplemental.
  Mr. Chairman, a supplemental appropriations bill is not the place to 
solve this problem. Congress needs to address this issue full up, head 
on, to debate a revision or a reconsideration of the War Powers Act to 
properly establish the role of the Congress in the deployment of U.S. 
troops.
  This amendment or this language today does not affect Bosnia. It does 
not affect Haiti. It does not affect anything else in the Iraqi area. 
It only affects that one very narrow circumstance.
  So let us set aside some time for this Congress to establish once and 
for all what the proper relationship is of the Congress and the 
President before American troops are deployed to an area of hostility, 
before we get the bill to pay for these operations, despite the fact we 
had nothing at all to do with the decision to make those troop 
deployments.
  Let us not be sending American troops all over the world unless 
Congress is a player and unless there is a darned good reason to do it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me stress the fact of why this supplemental is so 
important in the overall context of what we are talking about. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, said 
there is no amendment before the committee. But what will be before the 
Committee very shortly is a motion to recommit this bill. And the 
reason I think it is important to look at it, I just have been trying 
to find out what is the Defense Department all about? What is it trying 
to do and what is it looking at as far as what will happen if this 
recommittal motion does not pass, and why?
  Now, I explained earlier this bill will be so different, if it is 
offset, than the bill in the other House. Here is what they are 
considering: Laying off substantial numbers of civilian workers, 
because they are not sure that there will finally be a final resolution 
of the bill; furloughs at Defense bases across the country; they are 
also talking about delays in promotion, delays in moving families, and 
training cutbacks throughout the entire Defense Department.
  The thing that worries me is that if this bill passes with offsets, 
we are talking about a stalemate between the House and Senate. We are 
talking about substantial disruption of the Pentagon's ability to 
operate because it is so late in the year. And when I offer the motion 
to recommit, I hope the Members will consider the fact that the motion 
to reconsider will only strike the domestic offsets, and immediately we 
can report the bill back without the offsets. Then the Defense 
Department can go forward without these offsets which destabilize the 
Defense Department
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) has read off a litany of terrible things that would happen if 
the Defense Department did not get the

[[Page H1813]]

funds that have been allocated in this bill by a certain time. Would 
the gentleman tell me when that time might be?
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will tell the 
gentleman here is the problem. As he knows, in the past when we have 
come to the floor with supplementals, the Defense Department knew that 
the Senate and the House were very close in the versions they were 
going to pass. Here we are talking about two versions which are so 
different, and the addition of IMF and the U.N. and the Mexico City 
language, and the fact that the President will veto it if the Skaggs 
provision is in the bill. They are not sure they are going to get a 
bill.
  So by March 31, which is today, they are in serious planning right 
now. And if this bill passes with the offsets, they say that they will 
have to take some of these steps in order to protect themselves.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, I would have to tell the gentleman that the Defense Department 
has not made the first suggestion to me that they need any money 
immediately. I would expect if they did not get the money by May, that 
that certainly would be the case. But I would think if things were that 
dire, that they would have contacted the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and let him know.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to mislead the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations. I am not saying if they do not have 
the money. I am saying that they had no way of knowing what the 
supplemental was going to agree with. Until last week, all of us 
thought it would come out of committee with no offsets and then we 
would decide the issue on the floor.
  So the Defense Department was in the unenviable position of not 
thinking that we were going to have the offsets and they also thought 
that bills might be put together. They did not face this thing until 
over the weekend, and I started to nose around and this is when I found 
out that this is a problem.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, finally I 
would tell the gentleman that it is my expectation that by the third or 
fourth week in May that this bill is going to be on the President's 
desk, and I would certainly hope that he would sign it if he is as 
concerned about the problems as the gentleman has described, as I am.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Chairman Livingston), my friend, I tell him honestly that I have heard 
him say that before. He said it on the emergency bill that we had for 
the flood victims in the Midwest. The gentleman has said it before in 
terms of the budget and the shutdown of government.
  The fact of the matter is this President believes he is part of this 
process and he believes that there are certain things he will not 
accept. We understand that. And I agree wholeheartedly with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) who said some of these items, yes, 
they ought to be debated in a larger context, but not on an emergency 
supplemental.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Livingston) himself was for 
not having offsets, and I agreed with him on that. This is important 
and ought to pass as quickly as possible. And to facilitate that, we 
ought to take these extraneous issues, bring them on the floor, put in 
a day or two of debate. We certainly have not used much time in the 
last 90 days. We would have time to debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, I 
intend to enthusiastically support his motion to recommit because I 
think it is the right way to go to get this critical bill through in a 
timely fashion.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this gentleman 
shares the concern of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) about 
extraneous issues. That is why we divided the U.N. arrearages, the IMF, 
and the abortion lobbying restrictions and put them on a different 
bill.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have been criticized with regard to the reach of the language that 
is in the bill, section 3002, by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) 
as being too broad so as to tie the President's hands. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) seemed to suggest that it was too narrow, that 
we did not tie them quite enough. I figure I must have it about right 
if I am getting criticized from both sides on this.
  If the President would merely pledge that he would come to Congress 
for a vote before initiating offensive action against Iraq, should that 
again become necessary, we would not have to do this.
  The problem is the President of the United States has asserted, 
wrongly, I believe, that he has all the authority he needs now to 
launch an offensive war against Iraq if circumstances dictate.
  I think that is wrong on the facts. It is certainly profoundly wrong 
on the Constitution.
  We can get no better instruction in what our role in this ought to be 
than to listen to the voice of the one person who had more to do with 
drafting the Constitution than anyone else: Mr. Madison.
  This is what James Madison said, ``In no part of the Constitution is 
more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question 
of war or peace to the legislature and not to the executive department. 
The trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.'' 
Including President Bush; including President Clinton.
  The issue here is not whether we should be consulted in a 
Presidential decision. The question is the extent to which we will 
consult with the President in what is our decision. We should not 
defer, the Constitution does not give us the power to pass this 
responsibility to anyone else, including the President of the United 
States.
  I appreciate my colleagues' participation in this debate on this very 
important matter. I just wish that we could have a vote so that the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) would take the views of this 
House to conference with him to reinforce what I hope is his intention 
to keep this provision in the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. I wanted to thank him for reading from James Madison. 
That is what I was trying to say, but I would have to admit and concede 
that James Madison said it far more eloquently than I did.
  But we are saying the same thing. Congress and the President have 
proper relationships that must be better defined for all of us.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule.
  If there was any question about the fairness of determining important 
items for floor consideration after yesterday's treatment of campaign 
finance reform, the House is now assured that even matters concerning 
disasters and spending for crucial military operations will be dealt 
with in a partisan manner.
  First, despite a number of worthy amendments offered by Democrats, 
the Rules Committee chose only to adopt and consider Republican 
amendments. There is one exception--the Skaggs amendment--but the Rules 
Committee takes the tack that a Democratic amendment adopted 
unanimously by the Appropriations Committee should be debated again so 
that newly-found opponents can be given a chance to strike it.
  Otherwise, the Rules report consists only of Republican amendments. 
Yet it still doesn't given the House a full debate and vote on those 
amendments. In fact, three amendments are just considered adopted.
  One is a parochial amendment by Mr. Hastings--who just happens to be 
a member of the Rules Committee.
  A second amendment is the McIntosh/Neumann ``sense of the Congress'' 
amendment about spending offsets for emergency supplemental 
appropriations bills. However, nowhere in this rule may Members 
actually offer additional offsets, or can the House make adjustments to 
the offsets that have been served up, or can the House consider the 
question of whether offsets should be required at all.

[[Page H1814]]

  That leads us to the third amendment--the Tiahrt amendment--which 
changes the offsets approved by the Appropriations Committee just last 
week.
  I disagreed with the offsets that were offered by Chairman Livingston 
last week, and I voted against the bill as a result. But I believe that 
once the Appropriations Committee has made such a decision, it 
shouldn't be changed by a self-executing rule served up by the Rules 
Committee.
  Why can't Mr. Tiahrt bring his amendment to the floor for debate? Or 
why didn't he bring it to the Appropriations Committee, of which he is 
a Member? During our debate last week, Mr. Tiahrt didn't breathe a word 
about his objections to the Airport Grants In Aid rescission. In fact, 
Mr. Tiahrt didn't even propose the amendment approved by this rule. The 
amendment offered to the Rules Committee by Mr. Tiahrt would have 
replaced the Airports rescission with a rescission from the GSA 
building repair account.
  But the Rules Committee, in their wisdom, straightened Mr. Tiahrt 
out, and made him realize that what he requested wasn't really what he 
wanted at all. The Rules Committee decided that Mr. Tiahrt really 
wanted to take additional rescissions out of Section 8 housing--he just 
didn't know it.
  Finally, I have to protest the ill treatment given to Mr. Walsh and 
Mr. Solomon and New England Members in the manager's amendment. Why 
weren't these Members included in the self-executing rule? What does 
the leadership have against these champions of assistance to New 
England? Why are they singled out for 10 minutes of actual debate and a 
vote on their meritorious amendment? Only the Republican leadership 
knows for sure.

  Unfortunately, the House will never know what it is missing today. 
Democrats proposed some good amendments to this bill--amendments and 
policy questions worthy of consideration by this House.
  I proposed an amendment to the Rules Committee myself concerning the 
way USDA's Non-insured Crop Assistance Program--a disaster program of 
last resort--was working against farmers in California and other parts 
of the country who had suffered 80- to 100-percent agricultural losses, 
but happened to live in counties that had not experienced 35-percent 
losses county-wide.
  I'm particularly disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make 
it in order because the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee had 
indicated a willingness to have my amendment considered today. I 
proposed it at the Appropriations Committee but withdrew it at the 
chairman's request, pending its scoring by the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  As expected, CBO determined my amendment had a spending impact. 
However, the Rules Committee never set conditions for proposed 
amendments to this bill. I believe the House should have had the 
opportunity to decide whether my amendment was worthwhile and to be 
given the opportunity to determine offsets if offsets were believed to 
be warranted.
  But I'm not the only Democrat left in the lurch.
  Mr. Murtha proposed an amendment to strike the offsets.
  Mr. Obey proposed an amendment to link the Administration's entire 
supplemental request in one bill, just as the Senate has done. Mr. Obey 
also proposed an amendment to include the Administration's $1.8 billion 
request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Instead, in 
a somewhat contradictory fashion, the House will act on an emergency 
bill that contains no funds for the emergency agency.
  Ms. Clayton proposed an amendment matching a Senate provision 
clarifying ``debt forgiveness'' for USDA loans. This is an important 
issue that has never been debated by this House. And the effect of 
ruling Ms. Clayton's amendment out of order is that it won't be decided 
by the House, but will be decided instead by a handful of conferees.
  In short, this rule is a sham. It turns upside down the notion that 
Members with legitimate amendments will get a fair hearing from the 
Rules Committee or that major policy issues on perhaps the most crucial 
function performed by the House--appropriations--will be debated and 
decided on the House floor.
  I'd ask my Republican colleagues to join us in opposing this exercise 
in unfairness, but then I remember that members of the Appropriations 
Committee have been threatened with removal from the Committee if they 
don't go along with the leadership's strategy on this important bill. I 
can only imagine what will be done to those Republican Members not on 
the Appropriations Committee. They are likely to be drawn and 
quartered, or perhaps even worse--left out of the next self-executing 
rule.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
manager's amendment to supplement the community development block grant 
(CDBG) Program by $20 million. While I regret that the offset comes 
from section 8 housing, the Northeast needs CDBG funding to recover 
from the aftermath of ice storm 1998.
  In January, Maine was hit by the worst natural disaster in its 
history. Heavy ice accumulation--up to five inches of ice--snapped 
utility poles in two. Two million feet of cable line, 2,600 utility 
poles, and 1,500 transformers were replaced. Roughly 649,000 
customers--half of the population of Maine--were out of electricity in 
the dead of winter. For some rural areas, it took three weeks for 
electricity to be restored.
  When Vice-President Gore visited Maine after the first of two ice 
storms in January, he said that it looked as if a neutron bomb had hit 
Maine--the people were fine, but the utility infrastructure had been 
destroyed. The cost of repairing the electrical infrastructure in Maine 
was $81 million.
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified utility 
costs as a major unmet need. In the President's action plan for 
recovery, the CDBG Program is cited as one that can supplement other 
Federal assistance in repairing and reconstructing infrastructure. 24 
CFR Sec. 570.201(1) provides that CDBG funds may be used to acquire, 
construct, reconstruct, rehabilitate, or install the distribution lines 
and facilities of privately-owned utilities.
  Supplemental CDBG funding is critical to address needs stemming from 
the ice storm that devastated Maine and the other Northeastern States. 
Without the additional CDBG funding, our residents would bear much of 
the high cost of this natural disaster. That would be unfair. Mainers 
have paid their fair share over the years to defray the costs 
associated with other natural disasters.
  I commend Chairman Livingston's recognition of the need for 
additional funding for the CDBG Program. FEMA recognizes that there are 
unmet needs related to the ice storm and that the CDBG Program can 
address these needs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3579, the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, a bill to further fund, at 
the expense of airports and Section 8 Housing Assistance, the 
unconstitutional effort to ``police the world.'' Having submitted 
amendments to the Rules Committee to defund the ``police the world'' 
aspects of this bill only to be denied in the Rules process, I must 
oppose final passage of this supplemental Appropriations bill.
  One of the truly positive aspects of H.R. 3579 is Sec. 3002 stating 
that ``none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations 
by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining 
compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 
relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction 
in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law 
enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.'' This language is 
virtually identical to H.R. 3208, a bill I introduced in February of 
this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive 
attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq.
  Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently 
that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to 
provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign 
entities against attacks by all other foreign entities. It was for this 
reason that I submitted amendments to defund the military 
appropriations in H.R. 3579. The proper amount of appropriations for 
unjustifiable United States peacekeeping missions around the world is 
zero. Instead, this bill rescinds funding from domestic programs such 
as airport funding to be spent on our ``police-the-world'' program.
  It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war 
is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and 
certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, no place in the 
Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To 
the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when 
it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No 
war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress.
  I, in fact, introduced H.R. 3208, in an effort to protect US troops 
from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from 
initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force 
flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the 
only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way 
except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they 
want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a 
contradiction, at best.
  There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war 
with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to 
enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of 
`policemen of the world,'

[[Page H1815]]

offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I 
refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly 
expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate 
threat to the territory of the United States.
  For these reasons I must oppose this bill which provides additional 
funding for exactly these purposes.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill. The Nation has two compelling needs 
that warrant immediate attention by this Congress. First, the Clinton 
Administration's foreign policy has launched our military to the four 
corners of the world without the appropriate funding to conduct these 
missions. Whether or not you support the Administration's policy in 
Bosnia or Southwest Asia, we must give the men and women in uniform our 
full support. The defense budget has been in great decline for 13 
consecutive years, and cannot sustain the continual drain of these 
types of forward deployed operations without sufficient funding. In the 
past, the costs associated with these operations were taken ``out of 
hide'' by raiding the readiness accounts. Unless we provide DOD with an 
additional $2 billion for these operations, our military leaders have 
testified that all training will be halted during the fourth quarter to 
pay for the Administration's foreign policy forays. That is 
unacceptable, so we must move expeditiously with this appropriations 
bill.
  Secondly, and most important to many of my constituents in southeast 
Alabama, is the $175 million in disaster assistance funding included in 
this legislation. Just three weeks ago, a large portion of my district, 
encompassing 12 of the 15 counties, have been declared a disaster area 
due to extreme flooding from the El Nino rains. One city in particular, 
Elba, was especially hard hit when a levee breached, resulting in two 
tragic deaths. The entire town was submerged in six feet of water, and 
displaced 2,000 residents.
  The State is still in the preliminary stages of making final damage 
assessments, but it's clear that, in addition to the loss of personal 
property, serious road, bridge and railroad damage has resulted from 
this flooding. I'm pleased that the committee has made additional 
funding available for the emergency relief program to repair damaged 
highways and rail lines. The Administration has sent up an additional 
request for 1.66 billion for future and unmet FEMA requirements, which 
I understand will be dealt with during the House-Senate conference. 
This FEMA funding will go along way in helping with their much-needed 
individual and family grant programs, relocation assistance and 
disaster mitigation plans.
  Prior to the flood, area farmers were also experiencing problems with 
the heavy rains that prevented necessary field preparations for this 
crop year. To add insult to injury, these heavy rains follow on last 
summer's drought that greatly reduced our farmer's crop yields. The 
bill provides additional funding for USDA's Emergency Conservation 
Program, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program, Livestock Disaster 
Assistance, and Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations. Our farmers 
do a great job in providing the United States with the cheapest and 
most plentiful food supply in the world. The least we should do as a 
National is make these assistance programs more readily available to 
our farmers to help mitigate damages from natural disasters.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Committee's work on this bill and urge 
its immediate adoption.
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about a 
subject that is very much on people's minds these days. That is, the 
upcoming sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for budgetary 
purposes. This past week there have been articles and editorials in 
newspapers across the country from places as different as Chicago, New 
Orleans, Syracuse, and Dallas noting the foolishness of the sale this 
Congress authorized last fall.
  For the past three years, Chairman Bliley and I have stood on this 
House floor and opposed sales of oil from the Reserve as a means of 
raising revenues. I opposed these sales first and foremost because of 
their impact on our energy security. Diminishing the Reserve which we 
paid such a dear price to create, over $21 million, will increase our 
vulnerability to those who would hold this nation hostage by 
withholding critical oil supplies.
  Second, it has never made any fiscal sense to buy high and sell low. 
We have spent over $35 in purchasing and maintaining every barrel of 
oil in the Reserve. When the upcoming oil sale was approved last year I 
criticized it because it looked like the government was going to lose 
$10 per barrel sold. Now that oil prices have dropped that oil will be 
sold at a loss of nearly $20 a barrel and people are starting to wake 
up to the folly of their actions. As Charles Osgood is his Osgood File 
noted last week ``This is what you call being penny-wise and pound 
foolish. Its what you call being short-sighted. It's what you call 
being dumb.''
  Finally, I would like to point out that an oil sale of nearly 20 
million barrels will be devastating to a domestic oil industry that is 
already almost decimated by low oil prices. Instead of hurting our 
industry by adding to an already glutted market, we should be taking 
advantage of today's low prices to help ourselves by purchasing oil.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't have an amendment to offer today, but I know 
that language striking the sale is in the companion bill considered by 
the other body. I would urge the House to accept such language when we 
go to conference on these bills.
  I also hope that we learn from the consequences of our actions and 
hope that this year we finally end the practice of selling our energy 
security at bargain basement prices so that we never find ourselves in 
this situation again. As was stated in the Chicago Tribune editorial 
this past Sunday, ``Selling the oil into a flooded market at what 
amounts to a half-off price is just plain nutty.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am rising today to speak in 
opposition to this poorly crafted emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill being presented before us today. The fact of the matter is that 
this bill as it stands, would callously harm the most vulnerable 
members of our society, and do so, for what? Why must this Congress 
make a mutually exclusive choice between on one side, our troops 
overseas who need our support and those who are suffering as a result 
of natural disasters, and on the other side, several essential programs 
that were funded in last year's balanced budget agreement.
  This bill, as proposed, would cut nearly 2 billion dollars from 
section 8 funding for elderly and low-income housing, 75 million 
dollars from bilingual education programs and effectively terminate the 
AmeriCorps program. Frankly, this is an unacceptable assault on several 
currently funded Federal programs both without any demonstrated cause 
or fair warning.
  Although I think everyone knows how I feel about this, I will state 
on the record anyway that I fully support and appreciate the difficult 
duty that our Armed Forces have been asked to perform overseas. I do 
not take that duty for granted, and cherish their bravery in the face 
of danger above all else.
  Nevertheless, we can not harm a delicate balance of important 
domestic interests just because we are either in a rush to fund our 
troops' activities abroad or because we have ancillary political and 
partisan interests at stake in the cuts made by this bill. Honestly, 
either reason is an unacceptable motive for robbing hundreds of 
thousands of Americans of the opportunity to have adequate shelter over 
their heads.
  I have made a good faith effort to relieve the unnecessary pressures 
of this difficult ``either-or'' choice by offering two wide-sweeping 
amendments to this supplemental appropriations bill. These two 
amendments would do the following, one would restore the 1.9 billion 
dollars for elderly and low-income section 8 housing stricken by the 
bill, and the second amendment would reauthorize the AmeriCorps 
program. Both of these amendments would at least minimize the 
unjustifiable harshness of this hurried piece of legislation.
  If we are going to make drastic changes in the current appropriations 
for a host of Federal programs, let's do it aboveboard. Let's address 
each of these programs specifically, and not destroy these programs 
under the guise of essential military and disaster relief spending. For 
these reasons, I oppose this emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
unless significant changes are made.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3579. 
This House has a responsibility to help those affected by the terrible 
El Nino-driven rains and midslides in the West, ice storms in the 
Northeast, tornadoes, floods and other natural disasters. We have a 
very real responsibility to our troops in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf. 
However, we cannot abandon our responsibility to protect the most 
vulnerable members of our society. I am appalled that Republican 
leaders plan to offset disaster and emergency assistance with cuts in 
programs that will hurt the elderly, children and low-income Americans.
  I am disappointed I am being forced to vote against funding for 
disaster assistance. However, we cannot kowtow to another Republican 
maneuver to rob from the poor to protect the interests of the rich. The 
spending cuts that Republicans have demanded are targeted on the most 
vulnerable in our society. These cuts will force more than 800,00 low-
income Americans from their homes, including more than 100,000 older 
Americans. I cannot support such drastic cuts to our Section 8 low-
income housing program. I will not be a party to evicting almost a 
million Americans from their homes.
  These offsets--which drastically cut or eliminate important safety-
net programs--are being offered up by the same Republican leaders who 
want more tax cuts for the rich. We should be closing corporate 
loopholes rather than closing off opportunities and programs

[[Page H1816]]

that provide a lifeline for the poor and vulnerable in our society. If 
we would end just some corporate subsidies we could ensure that our 
military troops overseas and those impacted by natural disasters here 
at home will receive the assistance they need. They deserve no less.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We should send this bill 
back to the Committee to find offsets that do not compromise the 
health, safety and well-being of the most vulnerable in our society.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3579, the 
FY 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.
  First, this bill meets our obligations to our young men and women who 
are serving our country in our Armed Forces halfway around the world--
in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf.
  It should be noted that this Administration, knowing full well that 
our troops would remain in Bosnia long after their promised departure 
date, failed to request funding for that mission for the full fiscal 
year. That, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable and with this bill we in 
Congress will provide the necessary leadership to meet those 
commitments.
  Second, with this bill we are responding to the needs of families and 
communities here in the United States that have been devastated by 
flooding, tornadoes and other natural disasters.
  With this bill, we are also keeping our commitment to pay for this 
added spending and we are meeting our obligations under the Balanced 
Budget Agreement.
  I urge passage of the bill.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Once again, 
emergency funds are being held hostage by an extreme Washington 
political agenda.
  The President and Congressional Democrats proposed passing one single 
bill with funds for families hit hard by natural disasters, for our 
troops stationed in Bosnia, and for the businesses weathering the Asian 
financial crisis.
  Instead, my Republican colleagues have chosen to play political 
games. They have coupled money for rebuilding communities hit by El 
Nino, keeping Saddam Hussein in check, and preventing the former 
Yugoslavia from flaring out of control with almost $3 billion in 
unnecessary cuts in housing, education, and community services. Why? To 
force the President to veto this bill with its urgently needed funds.
  By playing politics, my colleagues in the majority are holding 
America's national security--at home and abroad--hostage. This is no 
time to play politics. People are suffering. American families' futures 
are in jeopardy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against politics as usual. Vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the federal 
response to natural disasters, particularly as it relates to the recent 
devastating storm which hit Guam. Last December, Supertyphoon Paka, 
with winds gusts of about 200 miles per hour, damaged about 70 percent 
of the homes, toppled concrete telephone poles, damaged much of the 
island's infrastructure, and caused thousands of people to be homeless.
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business 
Administration, and other federal agencies responded to the immediate 
needs of the people of Guam, with emergency food and shelter, 
individual and family assistance, the clean-up of debris, and temporary 
unemployment assistance. While we appreciate the immediate federal 
response, the devastation is such that the ability to address the long-
term recovery needs is beyond the capability of the Government of Guam.
  On behalf of my constituents, I want to express my deep 
disappointment that Guam's needs as a civilian community were not 
addressed in the President's submission in this disaster bill. To be 
sure, there is proposed funding for the repair of military facilities 
in this submission and I certainly support this. However, the needs of 
the people of Guam for housing and repair of economically vital 
facilities like the Port have not been included.
  Guam estimates that 5,774 houses were damaged by Typhoon Paka, of 
which 1,716 received major damages and 1,284 were totally destroyed. 
The individuals whose homes were damaged or destroyed applied for SBA 
loans. Many of those loans were approved; however, many families fell 
through the cracks. Families who were denied SBA loans returned to 
substandard houses or to rebuilt wooded or tin structures. The 
Government of Guam estimates that 759 families, fifteen percent of the 
total households that were damaged, are now living in substandard 
housing. Many of those who continue to be homeless are now residing 
with relatives until they are able to rebuild their homes through 
whatever means possible.
  I am hopeful that Guam's request for disaster housing assistance can 
be addressed by the conferees or dealt with by the Department of 
Housing and Uban Development in its regular appropriations process.
  I have also written to the members of the Appropriations Committee 
requesting supplemental funds for improvements to Guam's port facility. 
Our commercial port, which is the lifeline for all of the residents of 
Guam, was damaged by the storm and needs to be restored to its economic 
vitality. The emergency supplemental bill includes funds for the Corps 
of Engineers to help with disaster-assistance projects across the 
country. I am pleased that the Chairman of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee agrees with me that the Corps of Engineers 
should consider Guam's request in conjunction with other projects 
eligible for emergency disaster assistance. I will urge the House and 
Senate conferees to acknowledge this need and to urge the Corps of 
Engineers to prioritize the port reconstruction projects for Guam. 
These port projects will have a positive effect on Guam's long-term 
recovery and its ability to withstand future devastating storms such as 
Typhoon Paka.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of Guam have a history of weathering 
countless tropical storms because we are geographically in a typhoon 
alley. We learn from each experience and we have taken positive steps 
after each storm to harden our homes and structures and to prepare for 
hard times. Currently, FEMA and the Government of Guam are working on a 
task force to recommend a number of hazard mitigation activities which 
will help us in future devastating storms. To have survived 
Supertyphoon Paka with no loss of life is a testament to the resilience 
and vitality of the people of Guam.
  As Congress and the Administration addresses the needs of the various 
communities which have suffered from natural disasters, I hope that 
Guam's request for disaster assistance will be taken into account. 
Disasters are disasters wherever they occur, and the American citizens 
in the States and the territories--from the Caribbean to the Pacific 
areas--look to the federal government for leadership and cooperation 
during difficult times. I trust that the Congress will augment this 
emergency supplemental bill with some much-needed funds for Guam's 
recovery from Supertyphoon Paka.
  The CHAIRMAN. The 30 minutes for debate under the rule has expired. 
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) has 7 minutes remaining 
in general debate, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The amendments printed in part I of House Report 105-473 are adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3579, as amended by the amendments printed in Part I 
of House Report 105-473, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3579

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency


                     emergency conservation program

       For an additional amount for ``Emergency Conservation 
     Program'' for expenses resulting from ice storms, flooding, 
     and other natural disasters, $20,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, which shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request that includes designation of 
     the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement 
     as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the 
     President to Congress: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.


                        tree assistance program

       An amount of $4,700,000 is provided for assistance to 
     replace or rehabilitate trees and vineyards damaged by 
     natural disasters: Provided, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     of $4,700,000, 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 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

       For additional gross obligations for the principal amount 
     of emergency insured loans

[[Page H1817]]

     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to be available from funds 
     in the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, for losses in 
     fiscal year 1998 resulting from ice storms, flooding and 
     other natural disasters, $87,000,000.
       For the additional cost of emergency insured loans, 
     including the cost of modifying loans as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $21,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request for $21,000,000 that includes designation of 
     the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement 
     as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire 
     amount is designated by 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.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                   livestock disaster assistance fund

       Effective only for losses incurred beginning on November 
     27, 1997, through the date of enactment of this Act, 
     $4,000,000, to implement a livestock indemnity program to 
     compensate producers for losses of livestock (including 
     ratites) due to natural disasters designated pursuant to a 
     Presidential or Secretarial declaration requested during such 
     period in a manner similar to catastrophic loss coverage 
     available for other commodities under 7 U.S.C. 1508(b): 
     Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request of $4,000,000, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by 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.

             Dairy Production Indemnity Assistance Program

       Effective only for losses incurred beginning on November 
     27, 1997, through the date of enactment of this Act, 
     $6,800,000 to implement a dairy production indemnity program 
     to compensate producers for losses of milk that had been 
     produced but not marketed or for diminished production 
     (including diminished future production due to mastitis) due 
     to natural disasters designated pursuant to a Presidential or 
     Secretarial declaration requested during such period: 
     Provided, That payments for diminished production shall be 
     determined on a per head basis derived from a comparison to a 
     like production period from the previous year, the disaster 
     period is 180 days starting with the date of the disaster and 
     the payment rate shall be $4.00 per hundredweight of milk: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request of 
     $6,800,000, 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 
     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.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


               watershed and flood prevention operations

       For an additional amount for ``Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Operations'' to repair damages to the waterways 
     and watersheds resulting from ice storms, flooding, tornadoes 
     and other natural disasters, $65,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for $65,000,000, that includes designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

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

                        Military Personnel, Navy

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

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

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

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

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

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

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

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $2,586,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That of 
     this amount, $700,000 shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $53,800,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That of 
     this amount, $5,700,000 shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $26,810,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $49,200,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, 
     That of this amount, $21,800,000 shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $1,390,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

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

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

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

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $5,925,000: Provided, That such amount 
     is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of this amount, $5,750,000 shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget

[[Page H1818]]

     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air National Guard'', $975,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Contingency 
     Operations Transfer Fund'', $1,829,900,000: Provided, That 
     such amount is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer 
     these funds to fiscal year 1998 appropriations for operation 
     and maintenance, working capital funds, the Defense Health 
     Program, procurement, and research, development, test and 
     evaluation: Provided further, That the funds transferred 
     shall be merged with and shall be available for the same 
     purposes and for the same time period as the appropriation to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided in this paragraph is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority contained in Public Law 105-56.

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                       Navy Working Capital Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Navy Working Capital Fund'', 
     $30,467,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That of 
     this amount, $7,450,000 shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.

                   Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund

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

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Health Program'', 
     $1,900,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     chapter shall remain available for obligation beyond the 
     current fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 202. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made available 
     by the transfer of funds in this Act, for intelligence 
     activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414).
       Sec. 203. In addition to the amounts appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense under Public Law 105-56, there is 
     hereby appropriated $37,000,000 for the ``Reserve 
     Mobilization Income Insurance Fund'', to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 204. (a) Quality Assurance Report on Military Health 
     Care.--The Secretary of Defense shall appoint an independent 
     panel of experts to evaluate recent measures taken by the 
     Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and 
     the Surgeons General of the Army, Navy and Air Force to 
     improve the quality of care provided by the Military Health 
     Services System.
       (b) Membership.--(1) The panel shall be composed of nine 
     members appointed by the Secretary of Defense. At least five 
     of those members shall be persons who are highly qualified in 
     the medical arts, have experience in setting health care 
     standards, and possess a demonstrated understanding of the 
     military health care system and its unique mission 
     requirements. The remaining members shall be persons who are 
     current beneficiaries of the Military Health Services System.
       (2) The Secretary shall designate one member to serve as 
     chairperson of the panel.
       (3) The Secretary shall appoint the members of this panel 
     not later than 45 days after enactment of this Act.
       (c) Functions of the Panel.--The panel shall review the 
     Department of Defense Access and Quality Improvement 
     Initiative announced in early 1998 (together with other 
     related quality improvement actions) to assess whether all 
     reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that the 
     Military Health Services System delivers health care services 
     in accordance with consistently high professional standards. 
     The panel shall specifically assess actions of the Department 
     to accomplish the following objectives of that initiative and 
     related management actions:
       (1) Upgrade professional education and training 
     requirements for military physicians and other health care 
     providers;
       (2) Establish ``Centers of Excellence'' for complicated 
     surgical procedures;
       (3) Make timely and complete reports to the National 
     Practitioner Data Bank and eliminate associated reporting 
     backlogs;
       (4) Assure that Military Health Services System providers 
     are properly licensed and have appropriate credentials;
       (5) Reestablish the Quality Management Report to aid in 
     early identification of compliance problems;
       (6) Improve communications with beneficiaries to provide 
     comprehensive and objective information on the quality of 
     care being provided;
       (7) Strengthen the National Quality Management Program;
       (8) Ensure that all laboratory work meets professional 
     standards; and
       (9) Ensure the accuracy of patient data and information.
       (d) Report.--Not later than six months after the date on 
     which the panel is established, the panel shall submit to the 
     Secretary a report setting forth its findings and 
     conclusions, and the reasons therefor, and such 
     recommendations it deems appropriate. The Secretary shall 
     forward the report of the panel to Congress not later than 15 
     days after the date on which the Secretary receives it, 
     together with the Secretary's comments on the report.
       (e) Panel Administration.--(1) The members of the panel 
     shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu 
     of subsistence, at rates authorized by law for employees of 
     agencies while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the panel.
       (2) Upon request of the chairperson of the panel, the 
     Secretary of Defense may detail to the panel, on a 
     nonreimbursable basis, personnel of the Department of Defense 
     to assist the panel in carrying out its duties. The Secretary 
     of Defense shall furnish to the panel such administrative and 
     support services as may be requested by the chairman of the 
     panel.
       (f) Panel Financing.--Of the funds appropriated in Public 
     Law 105-56 for ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', $5,000,000 shall be transferred to ``Defense Health 
     Program'', to be available through fiscal year 1999, only for 
     administrative costs of this panel and for the express 
     purpose of initiating or accelerating any activity identified 
     by the panel that will improve the quality of health care 
     provided by the Military Health Services System.

                               CHAPTER 3

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                   Operation and Maintenance, General

       For emergency repairs due to flooding and other natural 
     disasters, $84,457,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which such amounts for eligible navigation projects which 
     may be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
     pursuant to Public Law 99-662, shall be derived from that 
     Fund: Provided, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

                      Water and Related Resources

       For an additional amount for ``Water and Related 
     Resources'' to repair damage caused by floods and other 
     natural disasters, $4,520,000, to remain available until 
     expended, which shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

[[Page H1819]]

                           general provisions

       Sec. 301. The Secretary of the Army shall not authorize, 
     permit, or undertake any activity to stabilize, cover, or 
     permanently alter the site where the Kennewick Man remains 
     were discovered prior to the final disposition of the lawsuit 
     entitled Bonnichsen, et al. v. United States, et al. and 
     designated as United States District Court, District of 
     Oregon CV No. 96-1481, unless such district court makes a 
     determination that such activity is reasonable and necessary 
     in light of potential adverse impacts on scientific 
     investigation of the site or other relevant considerations. 
     For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ``site'' means 
     any land, beach, or river bank within 100 yards of the 
     location where any portion of the Kennewick Man remains were 
     discovered.

                               CHAPTER 4

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $28,938,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to repair damage caused 
     by floods and other acts of nature: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of such amount, $25,000,000 shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in such Act is transmitted by the President to 
     Congress.

                         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', to repair 
     damage caused by floods and other acts of nature, $8,500,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That such amount shall be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for a specific dollar 
     amount that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in such Act is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.

                    UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

                 Surveys, Investigations, and Research

       For an additional amount for ``Surveys, Investigations, and 
     Research'' for emergency expenses resulting from floods and 
     other acts of nature, $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That such 
     amount shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request for a specific dollar amount that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in such Act is transmitted 
     by the President to Congress.

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             FOREST SERVICE

                       State and Private Forestry

       For an additional amount for ``State and Private Forestry'' 
     for emergency expenses resulting from damages from ice 
     storms, tornadoes and other natural disasters, $48,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of such amount, $28,000,000 shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in such Act is transmitted by the President to 
     Congress.

                         National Forest System

       For an additional amount for ``National Forest System'' for 
     emergency expenses resulting from damages from ice storms, 
     tornadoes and other natural disasters, $10,461,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, 
     That of such amount, $5,461,000 shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in such 
     Act is transmitted by the President to Congress.

                               CHAPTER 5

              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III

       For an additional amount for ``Base Realignment and Closure 
     Account, Part III'' to cover costs arising from El Nino 
     related damage, $1,020,000, to be available only to the 
     extent that an official budget request for a specific dollar 
     amount that includes designation of the entire amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                 Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, Navy and 
     Marine Corps'' to cover costs arising from Typhoon Paka 
     related damage, $15,600,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, Navy and 
     Marine Corps'' to cover costs arising from El Nino related 
     damage, $1,000,000, to be available only to the extent that 
     an official budget request for a specific dollar amount that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       Family Housing, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, Air Force'' 
     to cover costs arising from Typhoon Paka related damage, 
     $1,500,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       For an additional amount for ``Family Housing, Air Force'' 
     to cover costs arising from El Nino related damage, $900,000, 
     to be available only to the extent that an official budget 
     request for a specific dollar amount that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 6

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                     Federal Highway Administration


                          Federal-aid Highways

                          (highway trust fund)

       For an additional amount for the Emergency Relief Program 
     for emergency expenses resulting from floods and other 
     natural disasters, as authorized by 23 U.S.C. 125, 
     $259,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of such amount, $35,000,000 shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in such Act is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress: Provided further, That any obligations for the 
     Emergency Relief Program shall not be subject to the 
     prohibition against obligations in section 2(e)(3)(A) and (D) 
     of the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997: Provided 
     further, That 23 U.S.C. 125(b)(1) shall not apply to projects 
     resulting from flooding during the fall of 1997 through the 
     winter of 1998 in California.

                    Federal Railroad Administration


              emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair

       For necessary expenses to repair and rebuild freight rail 
     lines of regional and short line railroads or a State entity 
     damaged by floods, $9,000,000, to be awarded to the States 
     subject to the discretion of the Secretary on a case-by-case 
     basis: Provided, That not more than $2,650,000 shall be 
     solely for damage incurred in the Northern Plains States in 
     March and April 1997: Provided further, That not more than 
     $6,350,000 shall be solely for damage incurred as a result of 
     El Nino in the fall of 1997 through the winter of 1998: 
     Provided further, That funds provided under this head shall 
     be available for rehabilitation of railroad rights-of-way, 
     bridges, and other facilities which are part of the general 
     railroad system of transportation, and primarily used by 
     railroads to move freight traffic: Provided further, That 
     railroad rights-of-way, bridges, and other facilities owned 
     by class I railroads are not eligible for funding under this 
     head, unless the rights-of-way, bridges, or other facilities 
     are under contract lease to a class II or class III railroad 
     under which the lessee is responsible for all maintenance 
     costs of the line: Provided further, That railroad rights-of-
     way, bridges, and other facilities owned by passenger 
     railroads or by tourist, scenic, or historic railroads are 
     not eligible for funding under this head: Provided further, 
     That these funds shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount as an emergency 
     requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control

[[Page H1820]]

     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, 
     That all funds made available under this head are to remain 
     available until September 30, 1998.

                                TITLE II

                              RESCISSIONS

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                   Bilingual and Immigrant Education


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 105-78, $75,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That, to the 
     extent necessary to carry out such rescission, the Secretary 
     of Education shall deobligate funds that have been obligated 
     but have not been expended.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Federal Aviation Administration

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract Authorization)

       Of the available contract authority balances under this 
     heading, $610,000,000 are rescinded.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                      (limitation on obligations)

       Notwithstanding the provisions of Public Law 105-66, none 
     of the funds in this or any other Act shall be available for 
     the planning or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $1,425,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 for 
     grants-in-aid for airport planning and development, and noise 
     compatibility planning and programs, notwithstanding section 
     47117(h) of title 49, United States Code.

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Public and Indian Housing

                 Section 8 Reserve Preservation Account


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts recaptured under this heading during fiscal 
     year 1998 and prior years, $2,173,600,000 are rescinded: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall recapture $2,173,600,000 in amounts heretofore 
     maintained as section 8 reserves made available to housing 
     agencies for tenant-based assistance under the section 8 
     existing housing certificate and housing voucher programs.

                           INDEPENDENT AGENCY

             Corporation for National and Community Service

       National and Community Service Programs Operating Expenses


                              (rescission)

       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 105-65, $250,000,000 are rescinded.

                               TITLE III

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

       Sec. 3001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.


    prohibition on use of funds for military operations against iraq

       Sec. 3002. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available for the conduct 
     of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against 
     Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with 
     United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to 
     inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in 
     Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a 
     law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.


   sense of the house on spending offsets for emergency supplemental 
                             appropriations

       Sec.   . (a) Findings.--The House of Representatives finds 
     that----
       (1) the House has worked diligently to balance the Federal 
     budget for the first time in 30 years;
       (2) the House is committed to fiscal responsibility and 
     continued balanced budgets and will not allow Washington to 
     return to the days of deficit spending;
       (3) the House is committed to ensuring that the current 
     level of Federal discretionary spending does not increase as 
     a result of any emergency supplemental appropriations; and
       (4) reducing spending to offset emergency supplemental 
     appropriations will send a clear message to the American 
     people that the Congress is serious about preventing 
     uncontrolled Federal spending.
       (b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that any emergency supplemental 
     appropriations considered in the 105th Congress shall not 
     result in an increased level of total Federal discretionary 
     spending.
       In title II (relating to rescissions), in the item relating 
     to ``Department of Transportation--Federal Aviation 
     Administration--Grants-In-Aid for Airports (Airport and 
     Highway Trust Fund)(Rescission of Contract Authority)'', 
     after the dollar amount insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $243,600,000)''.
       In title II (relating to rescissions), in the item relating 
     to ``Department of Transportation--Federal Aviation 
     Administration--Grants-In-Aid for Airports (Limitation on 
     Obligations)'', after the dollar amount insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $243,600,000)''.
       This Act may be cited as the ``1998 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No other amendment to the bill is in order except the 
further amendment printed in part II of the report. That amendment may 
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent 
of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Livingston

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part II amendment printed in House Report 105-473 offered 
     by Mr. Livingston:

                               CHAPTER 7

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                   Community Planning and Development


                community development block grants fund

       For an additional amount for ``Community development block 
     grants fund'', as authorized under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974, $20,000,000, which shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2001, for use in states 
     affected by the January, 1998 Northeast ice storm for which a 
     Presidential disaster declaration under title IV of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act has been issued, to assist in the long-term recovery and 
     mitigation from the effects of that ice storm; Provided, That 
     such funds may be used for eligible activities, except those 
     activities reimbursable or for which funds are made available 
     by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Small 
     Business Administration: Provided further, That in 
     administering these amounts, the secretary may waive, or 
     specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any 
     statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in 
     connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use by 
     the recipient of these funds, except for statutory 
     requirements related to civil rights, fair housing and 
     nondiscrimination, the environment, and labor standards, upon 
     a finding that such waiver is required to facilitate the use 
     of such fund: Provided further, That the entire amount shall 
     be available only to the extent that an official budget 
     request of $20,000,000, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the budget 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 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 29, line 9 increase the pending figure by 
     $20,000,000 and on line 11 increase the pending figure by 
     $20,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 402, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The amendment before the committee would provide $20 million for 
HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program to assist in the 
recovery from the recent Northeastern U.S. ice storm. This storm caused 
damage to property and utilities in this area of the country in an 
unprecedented manner.
  Providing funding in this account is similar to what has been done in 
recent past disasters. The funding in this amendment would be offset by 
an increase to the Section 8 housing excess reserve rescission. This 
amendment will bring important additional relief to this area caused by 
the huge ice storm that devastated the Northeastern U.S. and Canada. I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) claim the 
time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Baldacci).

[[Page H1821]]

  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I wanted to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his 
work in addressing the issue and regret that we could not work on this 
given the time constraints.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) for remembering the Northeast 
in the manager's amendment.
  This amendment addresses the particular dilemma created in the ice 
storm of January and the destruction of the infrastructure in the 
Northeast. The ice storm of 1998 was perhaps the most far-reaching 
disaster that has ever hit Maine. Every county in my State was declared 
a Federal disaster area.
  Across the region, families lived without heat or electricity, many 
for upwards of 2 weeks. Roads became impassible due to ice and to 
fallen trees. Our forest suffered devastating damage. Farmers suffered 
significant loss of livestock, milk, buildings and equipment. Federal 
agencies responded promptly to the crisis created by the unprecedented 
storm. They tried to get there as quickly as possible in marshaling 
forces to assist farms, food pantries and more. However, the resources 
they had on hand were insufficient. This manager's amendment goes a 
long way toward providing those resources, and it will help to rebuild 
the infrastructure through the community development block grant.
  I rise today in support of the disaster relief funding provided in 
this legislation. I know that in this beautiful 80-plus degree weather 
we are enjoyed now in Washington, it may be easy to forget the recent 
natural disasters that have ravaged Maine and other parts of the 
country.
  The Ice Storm of '98 was perhaps the most far-reaching disaster that 
has ever hit Maine. Every county in my state was declared a federal 
disaster area. Across the region, families lived without heat or 
electricity, many for upwards of two weeks. Roads became impassable, 
both due to ice and to fallen trees. Our forest suffered devastating 
damage. Farmers suffered significant losses of livestock, milk, 
buildings and equipment.
  Federal agencies responded promptly to the crisis created by the 
unprecedented storm. Staff from FEMA, the Farm Service Agency and the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service quickly helped, marshaling 
forces to assist farms, food pantries and more.
  However, the resources they had on hand were insufficient. This bill 
goes a long way toward providing those resources. It will help the 
farmers who in many cases were least able to afford the cost of 
recovery. It will help us to recover our forests. We are still in a 
recovery stage, and the funding provided in this bill will greatly 
assist us in that long and arduous process.
  I want to especially thank the Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Livingston, for remembering the Northeast in his 
manager's amendment. This amendment addresses the particular dilemma 
created in the Ice Storm of January, the destruction of the 
infrastructure of the Northeast.
  I am concerned with the rescissions called for in the bill, 
particularly for the deep cuts in the Section 8 housing program and the 
AmeriCorps program. The funding provided for in this bill, as defined 
by the Budget Act, falls under the definition of a true emergency, and 
I therefore believe that offsets are not necessary. I appreciate the 
efforts of the Ranking Member, Mr. Obey, in addressing this issue, and 
regret that he has not been allowed to offer an amendment to rectify 
this situation.
  Again, I want to extend my appreciation to the Appropriations 
Committee for their efforts to provide needed disaster assistance in 
this Emergency Supplemental bill. The people of Maine suffered greatly 
at the hand of Mother Nature this winter. They look to us to help them 
in their recovery, much as we have helped in the recovery for other 
areas of the country in other natural disasters. I urge my colleagues 
to support both the manager's amendment and the bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon), very distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I spoke at length earlier in the 
introductory remarks on this bill. Like the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Baldacci), I want to thank the chairman and certainly the ranking 
member. The devastating damage in the Northeast is almost 
indescribable. It is still there.
  Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 
has pledged his support. He would be in support of this amendment. We 
again thank both sides for their consideration. We really need it and 
we just appreciate it so much.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) for recognizing the need for additional funding for the 
CDBG program. I rise today in support of the manager's amendment to 
supplement that block grant program by $20 million.
  I do regret that the offset comes from Section 8 housing, and I hope 
that at some point that can be changed, but the Northeast has a real 
need for CDBG funding in the aftermath of the ice storm. This was for 
Maine the worst natural disaster in our history. Heavy ice accumulation 
accumulated on trees, on utility poles. We lost 2,600 utility poles, 2 
million feet of cable and 1,500 transformers, all of those had to be 
replaced. Roughly 650,000 customers, half the State of Maine, were out 
of power for at least some point, many people for up to 2 weeks.
  Supplemental CDBG funding is critical to address their need. I 
support this manager's amendment.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me simply say that I know that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) was also interested in this amendment and contacted me 
numerous times on it. I personally have no problem with the action 
taken by the gentleman in his amendment to provide additional community 
development block grant assistance in the Northeast. My only problem 
with this amendment, again, is that I do not like the fact that we are 
cutting an additional $20 million out of housing for the most needy 
human beings in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized 
for 3\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen, the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member, for the hard work 
that has been put in on behalf of all the people in the country who 
have had such a difficult time this year. We were just meeting with the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration talking about some of the 
effects of the El Nino weather pattern and their ability to track it, 
and try to predict it for the future because it will return. And that 
is planning for the future, Mr. Chairman.
  But what we are doing now is trying to respond to the damage that has 
already been done. The amendment that the chairman has will help us to 
help those communities through community development block grants to 
put back together the damage that was done earlier. This ice storm in 
our part of the country, northern New York, and as Members know, these 
funds cover all the areas that were harmed by the weather, in 
California, New Mexico and the South, Georgia, Florida, New York, 
Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, the ice storm was a 
catastrophe of a magnitude such that Canada, the Nation of Canada, this 
was the greatest natural disaster in the history of Canada.
  All the areas of the Northeast that border Canada were damaged 
equally. There were estimates of over 30,000 power poles taken down in 
this storm. As the ice came and accumulated, we had telephone 
electrical wire that was just a hair's breadth thick covered with that 
much ice. So the weight of the ice pulled down one after another of 
these power poles, and the electric wires and telephone wires were 
lying all over the roads, and then it snowed on top of the ice in the 
roads, covered over the wires so the plows could not go out and clean 
up the roads so that there was no passable commerce, and the dairy 
farmers in particular had to throw milk away.
  You had barns collapsing from the weight of the ice and the snow and 
animals dying in the collapsed barns. You had animals that were out in 
the

[[Page H1822]]

weather that couldn't get back in who died because of the inclement 
weather. You had fires that began because of electrical breakdowns and 
the fire departments could not get to those homes because of the 
impassible roads. It was clearly a catastrophe.
  So these funds, while they will not be enough to make everybody whole 
again, will go to communities and in many cases people do not realize 
the State of New York is primarily still an agricultural State. New 
York State is not a parking lot around New York City. It is a huge 
expanse of forest land and agricultural land and impoverished rural 
communities. So all these communities will qualify as they will in 
Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, for community development block grant 
funds, which are there to help our poorest communities and our poorest 
neighbors to help to ameliorate some of the losses that they have 
incurred.
  Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying I am very grateful to my 
colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, both sides of the fence, 
who brought this bill to this point. I look very much forward to 
working with them to pass this bill and to get it through the 
conference.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  All I would say, I would simply make an observation that what we are 
doing in this legislation today is reimbursing farmers for the loss of 
animals. That is fine. I do not disagree with that.
  However, unfortunately, we are not going to be reimbursing families 
for the loss of housing for their grandparents. I do not think that is 
fine. But nonetheless, the Congress will work its wondrous ways as it 
usually does, often with the national interests being damaged in the 
process. I am sorry about that, but I guess that is the way it goes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1545

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shaw) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3579) making 
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 402, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Murtha

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MURTHA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Murtha moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3579, to the Committee on 
Appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the House 
forthwith with an amendment to strike title II of the bill.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate my concern about this piece 
of legislation. Normally, when we would come to the floor from the 
Committee on Appropriations, we would have pretty well fashioned 
legislation which we knew was very close to something that the Senate 
was going to consider; and, in the end, we would be convinced that it 
would pass both bodies.
  As late as Thursday or Friday of last week, we believed that we would 
be able to report out of Committee a bill that was not offset. Even 
today, the Defense Department is not sure whether this particular piece 
of legislation will be offset. They know now that we will not have IMF. 
We know that we will not have the U.N. attached to this bill.
  On the other hand, the other body has an entirely different bill with 
no offsets. It is over $5 billion, almost twice as large as this 
particular bill.
  Under normal circumstances, the Defense Department would not be 
caught in the middle. It would be able to say, okay, we are going to 
try to get a bill and work things out. All day long, as I understand 
it, they have been trying to come up with provisions of what would 
happen if we passed a bill that is offset with the Skaggs amendment, 
which the President will veto, and with provisions which offset the 
domestic policy, which concerns the White House and they claim they 
will veto. It puts us in a position where we have a bill which will not 
be signed into law, and they only have 4 months left in the fiscal 
year. So the Defense Department is in a position where it has to begin 
to find ways to find the money for the last 4 months of operation.
  We have cut the Defense Department substantially. There is no 
question about it. They have been overdeployed. There is no question 
about that. But we are talking about money that is absolutely essential 
to replace the money for the deployment in Iraq and the deployment in 
Bosnia.
  We have already voted on the floor of the House to continue the 
operation in Bosnia. We have already spoken to the fact that we believe 
it is absolutely essential to our national security to be in Iraq. So 
what are they talking about?
  Here is what they are talking about as far as what they would do in 
order to recoup the money because they are not sure it is going to be 
passed into law and signed by the President. Civilian worker furloughs 
at defense bases. And it may be, I have heard a rumor, as high as all 
the Defense Department civilian employees could be laid off across the 
country for 10 days. My colleagues can imagine how disruptive that 
would be.
  They are also talking about delays in promotions, which has happened 
before with minor delays in funding from the Congress, delays in moving 
families.
  I remember last year going to the Presidio in California, and they 
were talking about they could not move students from one place to 
another. They had to delay the moving of students because they had run 
out of money at the end of the fiscal year.
  We talk about training cutbacks down to platoon level. That is what 
could happen if the Defense Department did not get this money.
  Now I paint dire circumstances, but I paint that because the Defense 
Department is in the middle. And I do not doubt the integrity of the 
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations if he is going to tell us 
there is going to be a bill passed and if it passed he can assure that. 
But he also thought before we brought this bill to the floor that it 
was not going to be offset. And I do not know if he advised that, and I 
understand. I think all of us appreciate the need to offset some of 
these expenses that the Senate has in, and I think in the end we could 
probably work something out like that.
  So I would hope that the Members of Congress would not take a chance 
on destabilizing the Defense Department and they would vote to recommit 
this bill and then report it right back out without the offsets and 
allow the Defense Department to find a way to get by the next month 
until a final bill is passed into law and signed by the President.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion to recommit.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, and I will try not to use all 5 minutes, 
I am sympathetic to the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha).
  The last thing in the world we want to do is adversely impact the 
Defense Department. But the gentleman might remember that the President 
did not request enough money to complete fiscal year 1998, let alone 
fiscal year 1999, for the troops in Bosnia.
  Mr. Clinton wrote in his budget a shortfall, for whatever reason. I 
do not want to question his motivation. He may have had good reason. We 
were not sure whether we were pulling the troops out a year and a half 
ago. We

[[Page H1823]]

were not sure whether we were going to pull the troops out this year. 
But the fact is the President did not request enough money to support 
our troops.
  So we cannot accept that stipulation of fact and then argue, well, if 
we do not act fast enough, the troops are not going to have enough 
money. I mean, whose fault is that? It is not Congress' fault. It is 
the President's fault.
  We are coming up with the list here of extra money for the Defense 
Department, $2.2 billion in defense, and that provides for Iraq and 
Southwest Asia and Bosnia and disasters affecting military 
installations and reserve mobilization insurance programs. We are 
providing the money for the Defense Department. In addition, we are 
providing for well over half a billion dollars in disaster relief for 
people that have been affected by all sorts of disasters all over the 
country.
  The fact also is that the prime rate in the American economy is 
something like about 8.5 percent. You can get a mortgage at around 7 
percent interest rate. Fifteen years ago that was a 14-percent prime 
and 21 percent for a mortgage in some areas. The American economy is 
spinning.
  Why is it doing very well? The fact is, one of the principal reasons 
it is doing very well is that the Congress has acted responsibly with 
respect to its financial affairs over the last 4 years. The Congress 
has not spent more money than was budgeted. We are spending a billion 
dollars less on nondefense discretionary spending than we spent 4 years 
ago.
  If we looked at the President's own projections for spending 4 years 
ago, 1994, that was $120 billion over what we have spent in those 4 
years for nondefense discretionary. The point is, this is a fiscally 
responsible approach. Will it pass through all of the hurdles and get 
through the Senate and get to the President's desk? I do not know. I do 
not want to prejudge that one way or the another.
  All I am saying is this House of Representatives has been fiscally 
responsible by saying, yes, we will spend more money for defense, we 
will spend more money for disasters, but we will take it out of 
existing spending in the rest of the budget. That is not too much to 
ask.
  Let us keep the interest rates low, let us keep the American economy 
spinning, and let us make sure that we continue to be fiscally 
responsible.
  I urge the defeat of the motion to recommit, which would eliminate 
the offsets of this bill. I urge passage of the bill itself. And I hope 
that when we return from the recess that we will have a quick 
conference and that we will be able to get this down to the Pentagon so 
they will have the money that they need and so that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) will not be distressed any further.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 15-minute vote, which, if the 
motion to recommit is rejected, under the rules, will be followed by 
another 15-minute vote on final passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 224, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               YEAS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--224

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Berry
     Cannon
     Fawell
     Gonzalez
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Payne
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Royce
     Waters

                              {time}  1616

  Mr. PAXON and Mr. SOLOMON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mrs. CAPPS and Mr. MARKEY changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The question is on the passage of 
the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and the nays are ordered.

[[Page H1824]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 208, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               YEAS--212

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berry
     Cannon
     Gonzalez
     Jefferson
     Payne
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Royce
     Schumer
     Waters

                              {time}  1634

  Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed his vote from ``nay" to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________