[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.
____________________