[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.
____________________