[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2675-H2691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3579, SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND 
                            RESCISSIONS ACT

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 3579) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 416, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).


                             General Leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3579 and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor the 
conference report on the Fiscal Year 1998 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3579). This conference report includes $2.859 
billion in emergency defense supplemental appropriations to provide for 
the peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Iraq and provide additional 
support for intelligence activities. It also provides $2.588 billion in 
emergency supplemental appropriations for recovery from natural 
disasters that have occurred this winter and spring all over the 
country. There is also $142 million in non-emergency supplemental 
appropriations mostly to help in fixing the ``year 2000'' computer 
problem in some of our agencies. Finally, there is a $550 million 
appropriation for Veterans Compensation and Pensions in this bill as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very important that this conference report get 
passed today. The Secretary of Defense will be forced to issue furlough 
notices to some DOD employees if this bill does not reach the 
President's desk tomorrow. The extraordinary number of recent severe 
weather episodes is causing emergency accounts to be exhausted. 
Farmers, dairymen, road repairs, park repairs, flood control facility 
repairs, reforestation, utility repairs, and people who have had their 
place of residence damaged all are in dire need of these emergency 
supplemental appropriations.
  I would like to point out that the emergency supplemental 
appropriations for recovery from national disasters and the non-
emergency supplemental appropriations are, and I stress, are fully 
offset. We will hear concern expressed today about one of the 
rescissions used to pay for this emergency spending. This is the excess 
section 8 housing reserve rescission, as was mentioned on the floor 
previously during consideration of the rule.
  The excess section 8 housing reserves that will be rescinded are 
unnecessary, stress ``unnecessary,'' during the remaining portion of 
the current fiscal year. Currently, there are $3.6 billion in excess 
section 8 housing reserve funds that will not be needed this year. The 
General Accounting Office identified excess funds when it reviewed the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's various section 8 housing 
accounts at the request of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Since 1997, HUD and GAO have found more than $9.9 billion in excess 
section 8 housing funds. Of that amount, $2.2 billion is being utilized 
for contingencies, and Congress has already rescinded $4.2 billion. 
Subtracting these amounts from $9.9 billion leaves a current balance of 
$3.6 billion in excess, stress ``excess,'' section 8 housing reserves.

[[Page H2676]]

  There are sufficient funds available to pay for any section 8 housing 
contracts that expire during the rest of fiscal year 1998. Rescinding 
and redirecting these funds to pay for disaster relief will not harm 
any family that currently depends on section 8 housing assistance.
  In fiscal year 1999, section 8 housing renewal needs are $10.8 
billion. In the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget, the President proposed using 
$3.6 billion of excess reserves to offset the total cost of renewals 
for that year. Clearly, the Committee on Appropriations understands 
that the section 8 housing renewal account must be fully funded in 
order to protect the homes of those families who rely on this 
assistance. We will address that problem at a later date, but it does 
not impact anyone today. Not a single person will be adversely impacted 
by taking these rescissions today.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should be supported for what is included in it 
and not disregarded for what may have been left out. Members will hear 
concern about the lack of funding for the International Monetary Fund, 
for crop insurance, for student loans, for United Nations arrearages, 
and various other activities. I want to assure Members that these 
issues will get addressed, but it will not be today.
  There is no immediate impact on not addressing funding for these 
issues at this time. This is a ``pure'' emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill, and it needs to move today. It is paid for except 
for the defense funding, which would create an unacceptable impact on 
our national security.
  The fact is that we have, in the past, paid for supplemental 
emergency appropriations in the defense area by rescinding existing 
defense appropriations, and we have unfortunately, on too frequent 
occasions, have been taking from the nondeployed forces to keep the 
forward-deployed forces going. That is a practice we can no longer 
sustain because our troops all around the world are feeling an adverse 
impact.
  All Members should vote ``yes'' on this conference report and help 
get it to the President's desk tomorrow. I hope that, if we do, that 
the President will sign it expeditiously, and our troops in Bosnia and 
Iraq and in all other corners of the world will know that our Congress 
is in support of them, and that the victims of disasters around this 
country will know that their elected representatives have rallied in 
their defense.
  At this point in the Record I would like to insert a table reflecting 
the details of the conference report.

[[Page H2677]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.001



[[Page H2678]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.002



[[Page H2679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.003



[[Page H2680]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.004



[[Page H2681]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.005



[[Page H2682]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.006



[[Page H2683]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.007



[[Page H2684]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.008



[[Page H2685]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.009



[[Page H2686]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP98.010



[[Page H2687]]

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I think, in fairness to Members of the House, they 
should understand that the White House has apparently decided that the 
President will sign this bill. And I understand why he feels he has to 
do that given some of the funding in the bill. But I think there are 
many problems with the bill that will lead me to vote ``no.'' I will be 
explaining them at a later moment in the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
National Security.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the chairman of the 
full committee because I stood here several weeks ago and I told him 
what might happen, and he took it to heart and he got the bill done, 
and I know it was not an easy bill to pass. So my compliments to 
everybody that was involved.
  I am delighted to see in defense nothing is offset. And it is so 
important because we have such a problem with O&M and readiness and 
defense. I could not have voted for this bill if it were offset even 
domestically for defense. So the compromise was exactly the right 
compromise.
  I am disappointed that IMF is not in this bill. We have assurances it 
will be brought up sometime in the near future. I hope it will be. I 
have a concern about section 8 housing. I hope it is not a ploy where 
the Committee on Appropriations next year suffers because we have to 
find the money to pay for it. I hope they do raise the caps, as they 
said they are going to do.
  But I believe this is important that we vote for it because the money 
has been spent for defense. It takes care of a very important shortfall 
in defense. And I would urge all the Members to vote for this 
supplemental, which was worked out so carefully, and so many things 
that were kept from being put in the bill which would have made it 
impossible for us to vote for it.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, sometimes these bills are known 
for what they do and sometimes for what they do not do. I think that 
most of us today are pleased that we are beginning to attend to the 
problems created by the disasters that have befallen this country over 
the last number of months. But the sad reality is that this bill will 
be known for what it does not do, and that is, deal with the U.N. 
arrearage and with the funding of the International Monetary Fund.
  We are on the verge of a potential loss of hundreds of thousands of 
American jobs because of the sickness in the economies of a number of 
nations in Southeast Asia, potentially South Korea, exacerbated by 
problems in Japan of a very different nature, but all of which need to 
be addressed by an international agency we helped create and we lead 
called the IMF. Their funding has been held up. While we may have some 
vague assurances that it will come before us, we do not know when, in 
what form or whether or not it will be adequate or timely to meet the 
needs that we as Americans have in the economic sphere.
  Yes, we are booming in our country. Our economy is producing at a 
rate unheard of in post-World War II America. All of the indices are in 
positive territory. But leadership requires us to look to the future, 
to see on the horizon the iceberg that could well bring us down.
  Our failure to fund the IMF in this bill at this time could well be a 
monumental mistake that we cannot even fully understand and appreciate 
at this time. Certainly our efforts to bring the U.N. behind us in Iraq 
have been deterred by our unwillingness to provide money we agree we 
owe that international agency.
  As a result of our failure to include those funds in this bill 
because of another separate debate on international family planning 
which continues year in, year out in this institution, I think we are 
showing an inability, frankly, to take the leadership role that has 
been given to this Nation at this point in our history. I regret that 
despite, I think, the inclination of many Members on both sides of the 
aisle on this committee and an overwhelming majority of Members of the 
other body, despite that unanimity of thinking, because of the majority 
leadership in this institution, we have been prevented from taking up 
these two most important issues. I hope we do not rue the day. I fear 
we will.
  It is for that reason that I think this bill comes up short of the 
responsibilities that we should have taken. I think for that reason 
many Members will vote ``no''.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased when we can reach compromise or when 
there is any kind of compromise reached. It means that the body is 
working well. But it frightens me when I hear compromise reached 
talking about excess Section 8 housing.
  It is very difficult to convince the thousands of homeless people 
throughout America that there is some excess housing. It is difficult 
to convince the people who live in my congressional district in the 
City of Chicago that there is excess Section 8 housing. I would hope 
that this is not a trend. And I would hope that even if we reach a 
compromise where this legislation is passed, that we do not find 
ourselves back talking about reducing Section 8 housing because there 
might have been some resources that were not used at this time.
  For this reason, I think it comes up short, and I certainly would 
hope that there would be Members who feel the same way and would vote 
against this compromise.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the statement made by 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois. My district also will suffer 
from the lack of Section 8 housing. As the gentleman said so 
eloquently, there is no shortage in the need for Section 8 housing.
  The gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the committee, said 
that these funds that were deleted were excess. The gentleman from 
Illinois is right. There is no excess. The $2 billion that were taken 
from the program in this bill are not going to be put back in the next 
budget because there will be a $7 billion shortfall in Section 8 
housing in that budget. And so the $2 billion that are out, I fear are 
out for the balance.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand why some Members of the House who have had 
disasters in their area will want to vote for this bill, but I am 
profoundly disturbed by the way this bill has developed. I will 
certainly be casting a ``no'' vote, and I think I owe the House an 
explanation.
  Some of the items in this bill were requested by the administration 
more than a year ago. This bill originally was supposed to do basically 
five major things and a few minor things. It was supposed to provide 
disaster relief; it was supposed to provide funding for the cost of the 
troops' operating in Bosnia and in Kuwait. The administration also 
asked the Congress to provide replenishment funding for the 
International Monetary Fund to help them protect the U.S. economy from 
further currency crunches. It also asked the Congress to provide the 
arrearages that we have had for many years so that we could more 
effectively shape the direction of the United Nations. And it had some 
other items, including a $16 million request to actually make Kennedy-
Kassebaum work, providing the Federal assistance necessary to see to it 
that persons who did lose their health coverage when they changed jobs 
could actually get the help that they were promised in that 
legislation.
  This bill is very different now. It has a laundry list of items that 
should not be in the bill. And there are major items which should be in 
the bill which are sadly missing.

[[Page H2688]]

  Here is a sampling of some of the riders in the bill: A six-lane 
highway through the Petroglyph National Monument in New Mexico, a 
sacred burial ground for the Indian tribes. That is there despite the 
opposition of the local mayor and many other officials. A second item, 
a $66 million gift to the oil companies by blocking collection of full 
royalty payments from oil companies who operate on American lands that 
are owned by the taxpayer. Third, as I said, the missing $14 million to 
make Kennedy-Kassebaum a reality.
  That bill passed with only two dissenting votes, I believe, in this 
House last year. There was not a politician in Washington who did not 
break his or her neck running to a microphone or running to a 
television interview to brag about how much they were doing to help 
people who were losing their health insurance when they changed jobs 
and had preexisting conditions, and so therefore could not get new 
coverage. The money that was needed in this bill to make that a reality 
for thousands and thousands of Americans is denied because of a strong 
lobbying job. I think that is enough to give hypocrisy a bad name.
  The offsets provided in the bill. There are no offsets for the 
defense expenditures in the bill. But as the gentleman from Illinois 
just indicated, there are $2.3 billion in additional cuts in Section 8 
housing to pay for disaster assistance expenses. In plain English, much 
of that housing goes, one-third of it goes to low-income seniors whose 
average income is $7,500 a year.
  Now, it is said, ``Oh, we don't need that money this year.'' It is 
true that for technical reasons, that money is not needed in this 
existing fiscal year. But we will be marking up the bills for the next 
fiscal year in about a month, and we are told by the General Accounting 
Office that there is already an existing $4.6 billion gap in that 
program over a period of time. In other words, we will have to put $4.6 
billion of additional resources into that program that are not 
presently available. This action by the Congress today digs that hole 
$2.3 billion deeper. So we will have to provide $7 billion in 
additional money that we do not have.
  Now, we are told by some on the majority side, ``Well, don't worry, 
these cuts will never take place.'' If that is the case, then these are 
phony cuts, and I would ask, if you do not plan to take it out of here 
long-term, if this is a one-month shell game, then who are the real 
people who are going to get socked with that $2.3 billion reduction? 
The fact is, right now, we do not know.
  There are two other major problems with this bill. The United States 
leadership on a bipartisan basis at the end of World War II created the 
United Nations so that we would have an instrument, an international 
instrument to try to deal with international issues in ways that were 
consistent with the needs of the United States. For almost a 
generation, that organization has many times driven me and many other 
Americans nuts because it has been a Tower of Babel, it has been often 
the center of demagoguery and irresponsibility and cronyism. But the 
fact is that now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, we have an 
opportunity to finally reorganize that organization and make it a more 
effective instrument that will be consistent with American foreign 
policy.
  Yet we are denying our representatives in the U.N. the money that is 
needed to make our hand more effective in dealing with that 
reorganization and in shaping their policies on issues ranging from 
Iraq to you name it in ways which will serve U.S. interests. I think it 
is a tragedy that that item is being held hostage to an extraneous 
matter that is not even in this bill.
  Then we have the case of the International Monetary Fund. In 
September, the Speaker of this House sent a letter to the 
administration indicating that the administration was correct to seek 
that funding. And then in that same letter the Speaker indicated that 
IMF funding was going to be held hostage to the same extraneous family 
planning issue that is not even in this bill.
  Last week, the Speaker took this microphone and told the House that 
there were so many things wrong with the IMF that he was dubious that 
we should provide any funding for it at all. That was switch number 
one.
  Then today I was amazed to see an article in the Washington Post 
headlined, Gingrich Threatens White House on IMF. It went on to say the 
following: ``The Speaker warned that the failure of the White House to 
cooperate with investigations jeopardized the administration's 
legislative priorities.'' It then went on to indicate that the Speaker 
indicated that unless he was happy with the cooperation he was getting 
from the administration on that front, that they were going to withhold 
funding for the International Monetary Fund, and then suggested that 
the President had no moral standing to ask for that money.

                              {time}  1715

  Let me simply say that I think that that threat takes us back to the 
good old days 2 years ago when the Speaker indicated that one of the 
reasons that he helped to shut down the government was because he got a 
bad seat on Air Force One.
  I would point out that what comments like that do is to turn what we 
do in this House into an argument about what we do to each other in 
Washington, and that is not what this House is supposed to be all 
about. What we do in this House is not supposed to be about what we do 
to each other. It is supposed to be about what we do together on behalf 
of the people who sent us here in the first place, and I would urge the 
Speaker to remember that and all other Members as well.
  I would also say that if the Speaker decides to continue to hold the 
IMF hostage, in the end that is not going to hurt Bill Clinton. This is 
not Bill Clinton's economy. This is the economy of every single 
American. If we have another currency crisis, the jobs that will be 
lost will not be Mr. Clinton's or the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. 
Gingrich) or any of ours, though perhaps they should be. Instead, it 
will be hard-working U.S. workers or hard-working U.S. farmers who lose 
export markets and lose their jobs because of it.
  I would like to read to my colleagues what another Republican said 
about this issue in a very different time when I was leading the fight 
for his request for IMF funding. Ronald Reagan said the following in 
1983: ``My administration is committed to do what is legitimately 
needed to help ensure that the IMF continues as the cornerstone of the 
international financial system.''
  ``Let me make something very plain.'' Mr. Reagan said, ``I have an 
unbreakable commitment to increase funding for the IMF, but the U.S. 
Congress so far has failed to act to pass the enabling legislation. I 
urge the Congress to be mindful of its responsibility and to meet the 
pledge of our government.''
  Leonard Silk in the New York Times wrote about Mr. Reagan in 
September of that same year, saying: ``Mr. Reagan went about as far in 
his speech yesterday as he could to end the dispute by scolding members 
of his own party as well as the Democrats for playing politics. He said 
he did not appreciate the partisan wrangling and political posturing 
over the issue and urged members of both parties to lay aside their 
differences, to abandon harsh rhetoric and unreasonable demands and to 
get on with the task in the spirit of true bipartisanship.''
  I would say those words were true then, and they are most certainly 
true now.
  So I would simply say I intend to vote no on this bill today for the 
reasons that I have listed. I believe that this House is engaging in 
irresponsible and needlessly reckless conduct which is putting at risk 
the national interests of the United States and is in the process of 
bringing the actions of this House into considerable disrepute.
  I thought last year we had gotten over the partisanship and we were 
going to be able to deal together on appropriation bills in a 
constructive way, the way I thought we did for most of last year. I 
regret that we seem to be regressing into an ``election year, anything 
goes'' mode. That may suit the needs of some people in this body, it 
does not suit the needs of the people who sent us here. And if this 
House continues to withhold these items, it should be ashamed of the 
political way in which it is acting.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the very distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), a 
member

[[Page H2689]]

of the Committee on National Security, for purposes of a colloquy only.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the other conferees for 
inserting language into the conference report addressing a serious 
situation with respect to implementation in section 220 of Public Law 
104-333.
  As the gentleman is aware, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Fowler), Senators Mack and Gramm and the entire Florida delegation and 
I have been fighting this battle to implement this law that Congress 
passed and President Clinton signed over 2 years ago. While I am 
certain it was not the intention of the conferees, the actual report 
language may mistake the situation with regard to the problem.
  While the report language states that the maps were not received by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service in a timely manner and that these maps 
were lost in the mail, those facts are in dispute, and that portion of 
the report language is a cause for concern. In fact, the Committee on 
Resources will hold hearings on this issue in the near future.
  Therefore, is it the gentleman's understanding that the conferees did 
not intend to state as a matter of fact whether or not Fish and 
Wildlife received the maps in a timely manner or whether or not the 
maps were lost in the mail?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is fundamentally correct. 
It was not the intent of the committee to interpret the facts of the 
situation but rather to highlight the problem for future action.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his willingness 
to work with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and myself and 
the entire Florida delegation to address this lingering serious problem 
with the fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill, another 
legislative vehicle as soon as possible, and we all certainly look 
forward to working with the gentleman and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Regula).
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern 
and compliment him on trying to solve a very serious problem that 
affects the people of his State.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on National Security.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to compliment 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations for having, in a very short time, conferenced this bill 
that, as we have noticed from debate, did have some very strong 
difference of opinions. But the Members on both sides worked hard 
together to come up with a solution, and I think we have come up with a 
pretty good conference report.
  Is it exactly the way I wanted it? No, there were a few things I 
wanted in this bill that we were not able to do, and there was some 
other things put in the bill that I would prefer we had not. But that 
is the way that a conference works, and I compliment all the Members 
who played a role there.
  As we discuss the defense part of this bill, I would like to say that 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) who was the ranking member 
and the former chairman and I have worked together, extremely close and 
extremely hard, determined to keep anything relative to the security of 
our Nation free of partisan politics; and I compliment Mr. Murtha for 
that and all the members of our subcommittee. And we have done that.
  There are no partisan politics in the defense part of this bill. 
There may be some different opinions, but that is not unusual when 
there is a body of 435 independently elected men and women and a 
hundred in the other body.
  I would like to talk just a few minutes about the defense part of 
this bill and mention that most of the defense funding in this bill 
goes to pay for deployments that have already been made and that are 
already under way. We have soldiers and sailors, marines and airmen 
scattered all over the world in numerous deployments, some of which are 
essential, some of which are very questionable, which some of us 
support, which some of us did not support.
  But, nonetheless, they are there, and it is up to us to guarantee 
that they have whatever it is they need to accomplish their mission and 
to give themselves some protection at the same time they are doing 
this.
  Now while they are doing this they are performing a lot of missions 
for the United Nations, a lot of missions that we do not get credit for 
on the accounting ledger at the U.N., and I think we ought to get 
credit for that. For those who want to talk about us being in arrears, 
let us get some real accounting and get credit for the moneys that we 
spend on those United Nations type deployments.
  But let me say this, that since I have been chairman of this 
subcommittee and we have been the majority party, we have offset every 
penny for these deployments in that 3\1/2\ year period. Over $12 
billion we have offset, which means we took it from the already 
appropriated accounts for the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the 
United States Air Force. We took it out of moneys they were planning 
for training, for readiness, for quality of life, $12 billion we had 
already offset.
  Now we cannot afford to continue to do that. If my colleagues had 
been able to be at a meeting with me at the Pentagon on Monday that the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I attended, they would have 
heard some very sad stories from the Secretary of Defense and the 
chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and I think it is a shame to hear the 
stories that they are telling about what is happening to the military 
while the deployed forces were working hard to keep them ready and keep 
them well-equipped. The nondeployed forces back home are running out of 
equipment, running out of training money.
  Let us pass this bill. Let us avoid the political implications. Let 
us remember that we are talking about providing funding for our 
American troops in uniform who have been sent around the world, and 
that is what this bill does.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as a conferee, I rise today in opposition to 
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill and to express serious 
concerns about this bill before us today. The conference report on H.R. 
3579 is a flawed product, calling non-emergency spending and riders 
emergencies, while ignoring real emergencies. It is flawed both because 
of what is in it, and because of what is not in it.
  I understand the real needs of people in this country who have 
suffered from natural disasters and believe that we must provide 
funding for this disaster assistance. We all support pitching in to 
help families and communities rebuild after forces beyond their control 
have wreaked havoc on their lives. I also join many of my colleagues in 
supporting the needed funding to maintain our troops in Bosnia and the 
Persian Gulf.
  I object, however, to the unfair and capricious way in which 
decisions about what spending to off-set were made. It is no small 
mystery how the majority could decide that defense spending in this 
bill, including over $200 million in non-emergency projects, would not 
be offset, but that domestic disaster assistance would be. This means 
that important social or domestic programs are cut, but defense 
programs are not.
  I am particularly troubled by the actions of this Congress to ransack 
the Section 8 housing reserves once again, in order to provide the off-
set funding. This bill rescinds $2.347 billion in Section 8 reserves, 
placing 450,000 households in serious jeopardy of losing their homes. 
For my colleagues who may not be fully aware of the Section 8 program, 
they should know that almost one-third of Section 8-assisted households 
are elderly, another twelve percent are disabled, and most of the rest 
are families with children. The median income of Section 8-assisted 
households is just over $7,500. In order to prevent these people from 
becoming homeless, Congress will have to come up with the funding which 
we are now using for other purposes. We are essentially robbing Peter 
to pay Paul and the bill will come due soon.
  The inequity in funding issues is not the only troubling aspect of 
this supplemental appropriations bill. The bill contains several 
controversial legislative riders which are opposed by many in this 
Congress. They represent the majority's bad habit of putting anti-
environmental, special interest and anti-consumer legislation on 
appropriations bills in order to get them signed into law by the 
President.

[[Page H2690]]

  My colleagues should be aware that the supplemental appropriations 
bill before us provides an on-going windfall for major oil companies by 
prohibiting the Department of the Interior from publishing a final rule 
to ensure that the American taxpayer receives market value for oil 
resources on national lands. Each year, these major oil companies 
underpay royalties to the Federal Treasury by $100 million for oil they 
produce on federal public lands. Much of this money goes directly for 
funding public schools, so, because of a non-emergency legislative 
provision included in this bill, we are feeding oil companies vast 
profits at the expense of our children. In addition, delaying the 
implementation of this rule could jeopardize a legal case brought by 
the Department of Justice against the very same oil companies which are 
pushing for the delay. The companies have been charged with 
shortchanging the government on oil revenues--in other words, cheating 
the taxpayer out of billions of dollars in royalties. This legislative 
rider is not right--and it certainly does not belong in an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill--unless you buy the argument that the 
emergency is one experienced by the oil companies and that Congress 
should be helping them out.
  I am also opposed to the legislative provision in this spending bill 
which would allow for the construction of a six-lane highway through 
Petroglyph National Monument in New Mexico. The purpose of National 
Monuments is to preserve for future generations sites of national 
significance and interest. In this particular case, Petroglyph National 
Monument is not only important for its historical significance, 
preserving important examples of Native American rock art, but also for 
its religious and cultural significance for Indian communities in the 
Southwest. The controversy over Petroglyph Park has been on-going in 
the Albuquerque area, where the Mayor does not want the road, and 
Congress should not intrude. It certainly does not rise to the level of 
an emergency which Congress must include in this bill.
  I join my colleagues, too, in expressing my concern that this bill 
does not address several real emergencies--the need for funding for the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and for our unpaid debt to the United 
Nations. Both of these matters have reached the urgent stage and 
Congressional inaction on them in hindering the Administration's 
ability to conduct the nation's foreign policy.
  We are undermining our own economic stability by not providing needed 
funding for the IMF. I would be one of the first to argue that the IMF 
needs reforms. The House Banking Committee passed, by a vote of 40 to 
9, a framework for those reforms. Unfortunately, the bill before us 
today does not include that framework or the funding, taking real risks 
with our economic future and undermining the Administration's ability 
to negotiate much-needed reforms.
  Our national security interests are also undermined by the continuing 
dead-beat status of the U.S. at the United Nations. Congressional 
inaction on funding U.N. arrears--what we owe to the U.N.--is 
undermining the very reforms which some in this body advocate so 
vociferously. It is ironic that while we are considering emergency 
spending legislation today, we are not considering funding for two very 
real emergencies with consequences for all Americans--IMF funding and 
U.N. arrears.

  This Congress can and must do better. We should be able to work 
together to develop legislation to meet true emergencies--including 
alleviating the suffering of Americans who have been the victims of 
natural disasters--without harming the most vulnerable in our society. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this misnamed 
emergency supplemental bill. Many Members will debate provisions in 
this bill that are very troublesome and that have been well publicized. 
I want to take a few moments to alert Members to a few provisions that 
certainly do not qualify as ``emergency'', and that have no reason to 
be in this legislation except to shower additional taxpayer dollars on 
special interests.
  Just yesterday, during the Conference meeting on this bill, the 
conferees added language at the behest of the Senator from Texas, Mrs. 
Hutchison, that will allow oil companies to avoid paying taxpayers a 
fair royalty for oil and gas produced from public lands. Now, this 
provision was not in the House bill. It was not in the Senate bill. But 
we all know what happened: the oil industry saw an opportunity to make 
millions of dollars off the taxpayers, who own the oil and gas, by 
getting a rider in an emergency spending bill.
  So the oil industry went to a friendly Senator and suddenly, a multi-
million dollar gift falls into the industry's lap, and the taxpayers 
once again are left shortchanged. I am told that the lead lobbyist from 
the American Petroleum Institute, which was advocating this maneuver, 
was actually seen sitting at the Conference table, presumably helping 
the proponents craft the rider in just the right way to maximize 
profits for the oil industry at the expense of the taxpayer. How 
convenient.
  Members should understand that we are now aware that the taxpayers 
have been shortchanged hundreds of millions of dollars by energy 
companies operating on the public lands. That is well documented. And 
the Administration rightly has taken legal action to recover those 
millions of dollars for the taxpayers. But this amendment--drafted by 
the oil industry--would stop the Interior Department from doing what it 
is legally charged with doing: assuring a fair return to the public 
from the production of its own oil and gas!
  But the conferees didn't stop there. No, they have lots more 
expensive gifts for the oil industry--paid for by the unwitting 
taxpayer.

  A few years ago, Congress very unwisely created a ``royalty holiday'' 
for the oil industry in the supposed deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. 
Companies willing to drill in these supposedly perilous depths were 
given leases that included millions of barrels of oil on which they 
would not have to pay the standard 12.5% royalty; in fact, they 
wouldn't have to pay any royalty on tens of millions of barrels of oil.
  Of course, we knew oil companies would pay more for these royalty-
free leases; why not, since they knew they wouldn't have to pay out 
royalties. But Congress still insisted that the Secretary of the 
Interior should have the flexibility to modify royalty rates (when they 
finally do kick in) to assure that taxpayers receive fair market value. 
That was the deal the oil companies signed off on when they endorsed 
the royalty ``holiday'' bill.
  Now, everyone knows oil exploration and production in the Gulf is at 
fever pitch. In fact, deep water development was proceeding at an 
unprecedented rate even before we unwisely enacted the ``royalty 
holiday.'' But apparently the incentives weren't high enough, because 
stuck in the Statement of Managers for this so-called ``emergency'' 
bill is a provision that prevents the Interior Department from using 
authority granted in the ``holiday'' law to increase future royalty 
rates if, as we predicted, it might be needed to compensate for the 
excessive ``holiday'' giveaway.
  The oil industry, which so happily embraced the royalty ``holiday'' 
in 1995 now wants even more; having benefitted from the ``holiday'' law 
for the past two years, now it wants more profits at taxpayer expense. 
And the conferees are going along with the deception.
  Mr. Speaker, the oil industry does not need these provisions in this 
so-called ``emergency'' bill. Well completions were up in 1997; 
production in the lower 48 was up for the first time in 6 years in 
1997. If restricting the authority of federal officials to ensure that 
the taxpayers are properly compensated is so important, then let the 
Resources Committee bring legislation to the floor of the House, not 
sneak it into legislation intended to provide urgent assistance to our 
citizens.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
if the gentleman is prepared to yield back the balance of his time, so 
am I.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 163, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 121]

                               YEAS--242

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson

[[Page H2691]]


     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--163

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tierney
     Torres
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Bono
     Capps
       

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Baker
     Bateman
     Berman
     Bliley
     Bunning
     DeFazio
     Dixon
     Dunn
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Kennelly
     Maloney (NY)
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Parker
     Paxon
     Sandlin
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Smith (MI)
     Thompson

                              {time}  1750

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bunning for, with Mr. Green against.
       Mr. Bliley for, with Mr. DeFazio against.

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina and Mr. EHLERS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TOWNS, Mr. EDWARDS and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________