Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 43 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 43 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2898-S2919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the matter
of the order governing the amendment of the Senator from Texas be set
aside so that I may offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 80

(Purpose: To defer section 8 assistance for expiring contracts until
October 1, 1999)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 80.
Inset on page 43, after line 15:

``PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

``HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

``(DEFERRAL)

``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 105-276 for use in connection with expiring or
terminating section 8 contracts, $350,000,000 shall not
become available until October 1, 1999.''.
On page 42, strike beginning with line 10 through the end
of line 21.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with the
provision in the bill that was reported from the committee that
deferred spending from the temporary assistance to needy families
account.
This will defer, instead, monies from the section 8 fund of HUD.
There is approximately $1.2 billion in that account. This will defer
for 1 year the use of $350 million in that account. It replaces the
TANF amendment in the bill. Under that amendment, we deferred until
2001 the availability of funds which are transferred to the States.
Because of the misunderstanding about that fund, I want to explain
why we use that fund in the first place. I am once again alarmed over
the misinformation that has been spread by some people in that entity,
that agency, to try and make it look like somehow or other we took
monies away from States or any specific State.
In the first place, these grant awards are made quarterly. Actual
cash outlays are made, but they are not transferred to the States until
the States make expenditures in their TANF programs, the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families. In other words, the States first make the
payments, and we pay it back. Some people, in the House in particular,
have said this a way that the States can use this money for a piggy
bank. In no way can they take this money and put it into another bank
account and draw interest on it if they comply with the law. That is
one report I have heard--that we are preventing States from taking the
money to put it into their own accounts.
We checked and we found that there was between $3 billion and $3.5
billion at the close of fiscal year 1998 in this fund. There are two
quarters that have not even been distributed yet of this fiscal year
1999. And it is clear that the States have spent some money, and there
is plenty of money to meet the States' expenditures and their requests
for reimbursement of those expenditures. But this is not a fund that
the States can come to willy-nilly and transfer the funds to their
accounts.

Secondly, Mr. President, we deferred this money from obligation in
this fiscal year--really until 2001, October 1, 2001.
The States would not--the bill that was reported from the committee--
lose any of their funds. We, pursuant to the entitlement that was
authorized, agreed that Federal funds, taxpayers' funds, in the amount
of $16.5 billion, from 1997 through 2002, would be placed in this
account, to be available to reimburse States for the expenditures they
made for Assistance to Needy Families.
Nothing in what the Appropriations Committee did harmed that program
at all. But because by October 1 another $16.5 billion would have been
added to $3 billion to $3.5 billion in that account--and there has
never been a drawdown at the rate that would make those funds needed
within that period of time.
This is not a rainy day fund. We have been told that some people have
said that States take these monies and put them in a rainy day fund to
use at a later date. But the law says they can only get them to
reimburse expenditures. If the administration is allowing this fund to
be used as a rainy day account or a piggy bank account, it is wrong.
We have had so many calls from so many States, including my own. And
I see the Senator from New York is here, and I know that they have been
besieged because of their population base. Of course, they are eligible
for more money from this account, more than anyone other than
California. But it depends on how much they spend before they can get
it back.
We made the decision to offset this bill. This is the first time we
have offset totally a supplemental emergency bill. I have said to our
committee, we ought to offset emergency funds with prior appropriated
emergency funds and nonemergency funds with nonemergency prior
appropriated funds. I think we are going to have a little discussion
about that here on the floor.
But clearly what we have done, Mr. President, is we have used this
bill to reprogram prior appropriated funds. These funds that were
appropriated to the TANF account are sitting there waiting for the
States to spend money and then come and ask for it to be repaid. The
process is so rapid that the administration has not paid the first two
quarters of this year yet. So this is not something we have interfered
with by deferring money until the second fiscal year. Because, as I
said, this account would get $16.5 billion credited to it on October 1.
What we have done is, in order to avoid this controversy--and we do
not need a controversy on this bill. We need to get it done. This bill,
in my opinion, is a very important bill. It will provide money for
assistance because of a great natural disaster in a neighboring country
in this hemisphere. The President asked us to declare that an
emergency. We have taken the declaration of emergency through as far as
the outlay categories are concerned, because it is very difficult to
score under the budget process outlays that come from emergency
accounts.
We have not taken an emergency declaration through on those things
that we believe are nonemergency in terms of the authorization process.
So by that I mean, I fail to understand how we should extend the
concept of emergency appropriations to natural disasters off our
shores. We should be able to find the money, if we want to be good
humanitarian members of this hemisphere, to assist our neighbors.

I believe we should assist them. But I do not believe we should use
the laws that were intended to demand taxpayers' funds immediately to
meet natural disasters or declared emergencies by the President of the
United States within the boundaries of our United States.
So Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the spirit of compromise,
to try and take away this battle that I saw coming over the use of TANF
funds. No one supports the concepts of this Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families. We all know it replaced the old Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, the AFDC program, that assisted so many States,
including mine for so many years.
But this now is a block grant program that works in conjunction with
the welfare-to-work concepts, and that is very vital for the States. We
know that. And I think the fear that was engendered in those States
that somehow or other we might not keep the commitment that was made,
that if they make those expenditures we would repay them according to
the formula under the law that was passed in 1996, the Welfare Reform
Act, is unfortunate and wrong.
I hope that someone in the administration is listening. One of these
days I will find some way to tweak the nose of the people who keep
doing this, because they did it in the terms of border guards last
week, and now they are doing it in terms of the States themselves in
terms of the comments that have been made that somehow or other we were
taking money that the States were entitled to; we were deferring money
that they were entitled to,

[[Page S2899]]

which they would never get under the process of the law anyway until
the time we deferred the expenditures.
As a matter of fact, some people on this side of the aisle have
argued with me to say this is not a full offset because I know that I
am offsetting the expenditures under this bill against a fund that
would never be expended this year. That is partially true. That is why
we have declared an emergency, as far as the outlays, and we have
admitted that, and we have said that is the only way we can do it. But
we need to do it. I hope, in particular, my new friend from New York
will understand that we are doing this to meet his objections and
others, and we do so in the spirit of compromise.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
First, I want to, on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself, thank
Chairman Stevens, as well as Senator Byrd, for their assistance in
removing the $350 million offset from the TANF, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, account, which would have deferred the funds until
2002.
Mr. President, I and many others in New York feared that this offset
set us off on the wrong course, that it would run counter to the
intention of the welfare reform bill which allowed States to set aside
TANF funds for use at a later date when welfare rolls would rise, such
as during a future recession.
My State, as the chairman knows, was particularly affected. The State
was the source of nearly a quarter, about $80 million, of the $350
million that was offset. So I am pleased that the alternative offset
would shift some HUD funds from one fiscal year to the next, funds that
never would have been used. We have checked with both the
administration as well as our side on Housing and on Banking and on
Appropriations, and they agree with that.
I say to the chairman that I appreciate very much the spirit of
compromise in which this was offered. I understand his view and I will
bring that message back to our State. The people of New York will now
be breathing a sigh of relief that this has been replaced.
I also thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, who worked
with me on this. He found his State in a similar position as ours. At
least for my first foray into the Senate legislative process, it has
been a bipartisan and productive effort. For that, I very much thank
the chairman for his understanding of our needs and yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to ask for adoption of the
amendment but I will not move to reconsider because there may be some
who want to discuss this, too. I will make a motion to reconsider this
later today. May I reserve the right to make that later today?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion can be made today or any of the
next 2 following days.
Mr. STEVENS. I shall make it this afternoon, and I ask for the
adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 80) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 81

(Purpose: To set forth restrictions on deployment of United States
Armed Forces in Kosovo)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 81.

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

On page 58, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

TITLE __ RESTRICTIONS ON DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN
KOSOVO

SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``______ Act of 1999''.

SEC. __02. DEFINITION.

In this title, the term ``Yugoslavia'' means the so-called
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

SEC. __03. FUNDING LIMITATION.

(a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense,
including funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and prior
fiscal years, may be obligated or expended for any deployment
of ground forces of the Armed Forces of the United States to
Kosovo unless and until--
(1) the parties to the conflict in Kosovo have signed an
agreement for the establishment of peace in Kosovo;
(2) the President has transmitted to Congress the report
provided for under section 8115 of Public Law 105-262 (112
Stat. 2327); and
(3) the President has transmitted to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the
Senate a report containing--
(A) a certification--
(i) that deployment of the Armed Forces of the United
States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the
United States;
(ii) that--

(I) the President will submit to Congress an amended budget
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 not later
than 60 days after the commencement of the deployment of the
Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo that includes an
amount sufficient for such deployment; and
(II) such amended budget will provide for an increase in
the total amount for the major functional budget category 050
(relating to National Defense) for fiscal year 2000 by at
least the total amount proposed for the deployment of the
Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo (as compared to
the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 for major functional
budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) in the
budget that the President submitted to Congress February 1,
1999); and

(iii) that--

(I) not later than 120 days after the commencement of the
deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to
Kosovo, forces of the Armed Forces of the United States will
be withdrawn from on-going military operations in locations
where maintaining the current level of the Armed Forces of
the United States (as of the date of certification) is no
longer considered vital to the national security interests of
the United States; and
(II) each such withdrawal will be undertaken only after
consultation with the Majority Leader of the Senate, the
Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives;

(B) an explanation of the reasons why the deployment of the
Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the
national security interests of the United States;
(C) the total number of the United States military
personnel that are to be deployed in Kosovo and the number of
personnel to be committed to the direct support of the
international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo, including
ground troops, air support, logistics support, and
intelligence support;
(D) the percentage that the total number of personnel of
the United States Armed Forces specified in subparagraph (C)
bears to the total number of the military personnel of all
NATO nations participating in the international peacekeeping
operation in Kosovo;
(E) a description of the responsibilities of the United
States military force participating in the international
peacekeeping operation to enforce any provision of the Kosovo
peace agreement; and
(F) a clear identification of the benchmarks for the
withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from
Kosovo, together with a description of those benchmarks and
the estimated dates by which those benchmarks can and will be
achieved.
(b) Consultation.--
(1) In general.--Prior to the conduct of any air operations
by the Armed Forces of the United States against Yugoslavia,
the President shall consult with the joint congressional
leadership and the chairmen and ranking minority members of
the appropriate congressional committees with respect to
those operations.
(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(i) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(ii) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(B) Joint congressional leadership.--The term ``joint
congressional leadership'' means--
(i) the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives; and
(ii) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the
Senate.

SEC. __04. REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING BENCHMARKS.

Thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, and
every 60 days thereafter, the President shall submit to
Congress a detailed report on the benchmarks that are
established to measure progress and determine the withdrawal
of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo. Each
report shall include--

[[Page S2900]]

(1) a detailed description of the benchmarks for the
withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Kosovo;
(2) the objective criteria for evaluating successful
achievement of the benchmarks;
(3) an analysis of the progress made in achieving the
benchmarks;
(4) a comparison of the current status on achieving the
benchmarks with the progress described in the last report
submitted under this section;
(5) the specific responsibilities assigned to the
implementation force in assisting in the achievement of the
benchmarks;
(6) the estimated timetable for achieving the benchmarks;
and
(7) the status of plans and preparations for withdrawal of
the implementing force once the objective criteria for
achieving the benchmarks have been met.

SEC. __05. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this title restricts the authority of the
President to protect the lives of United States citizens.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment now
be laid aside and no call for regular order, except one made by myself
or the mover of the amendment, the Senator from Texas, serve to bring
back the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 82 Through 88, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a package of amendments that have
been cleared and I would like to say for the record what they are. They
are:
An amendment by Senator McCain to extend the Aviation Insurance
Program through May 31, 1999.
An amendment by Senator Grassley providing $1.4 million to expedite
adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Health and Human
Services Appeal Board. It also provides for an offset for that amount
of $1.4 million.
We have Senator Shelby's amendment which makes a technical correction
to title IV.
We have an amendment by Senator Byrd making a technical correction to
the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program in the bill.
An amendment by Senator Frist and Senator Thompson providing $3.2
million for repairs to Jackson, TN, Army aviation facility damaged by a
tornado in January. It also provides for an offset in the same amount.
An amendment by myself for a technical correction to the current
year, 1999's Commerce-Justice-State bill, and provides for rules on the
taking of Beluga whales.
I send these amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that
they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Frist and Mr.
Thompson, proposes amendments numbered 82 through 88, en
bloc, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 82

(Purpose: To extend the aviation insurance program through May 31,
1999)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. 17. EXTENSION OF AVIATION INSURANCE PROGRAM.

Section 44310 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``March 31, 1999.'' and inserting ``May 31,
1999.''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 83

(Purpose: Expediting adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the
Department of Health and Human Services Appeals Board)

On page 29, insert after line 10:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

General Departmental Management

For an additional amount for `'general departmental
management'', $1,400,000, to reduce the backlog of pending
nursing home appeals before the Departmental Appeals Board.
On page 42, line 8, strike $3,116,076,000 and insert
$3,114,676,000
On page 42, line 9, strike $164,933,000 and insert
$163,533,000.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to speed up
adjudication, by the appeals board of the Department of Health and
Human Services, of appeals from nursing facilities of civil monetary
penalties levied by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for
violations of standards established pursuant to the Nursing Home Reform
Act of 1987. Currently, there is a substantial backlog of some 701 such
cases. Delay in final adjudication of such cases subverts the purpose
and effect of civil monetary penalties, delaying corrective action, and
improvements in the quality of care offered by nursing facilities.
Delays in adjudication of these cases also burdens nursing facilities
through additional legal fees and the perpetuation of uncertainty
caused by unresolved disputes.
The number of such cases filed each year by nursing facilities has
increased each year since 1995, the year when regulations for the
Nursing Home Reform Act's enforcement standards went into effect.
Currently, as I noted earlier in my statement, there are 701 such cases
pending.
Mr. President, the steady increase in appeals of civil monetary
penalties since 1995 shows the effect of increased use, by the States
and HCFA, of the enforcement regulations which went into effect in
1995. Nevertheless, in hearings I held in the Special Committee on
Aging last July, the General Accounting Office reported that nursing
facilities providing poor quality of care regularly escaped sanctions
which could cause care to be improved. The pattern seemed to be that a
facility would be sanctioned for poor quality of care, be required to
attest in writing through a plan of correction that steps had been
taken to improve care, and then be found deficient on the next visit
from State officials. This pattern often continued for long periods of
time. And when sanctions such as civil monetary penalties were levied
by HCFA, the sanctioned facilities would appeal, causing lengthy delays
in final resolution of the case.
One week before my July hearings, President Clinton launched a
variety of new initiatives designed to improve the quality of care in
nursing facilities. Among those new initiatives was one designed to
eliminate paper compliance with quality standards and to proceed more
quickly to sanctions for those homes with a history of poor care.

The upshot of oversight by the Special Committee on Aging and the
Presidential initiatives is that there has been a substantial increase
thus far in 1999 of appeals of civil monetary penalties by nursing
facilities.
Certainly, facilities have the right to appeal sanctions levied by
HCFA. But it is also important that appeals be heard and resolved in a
reasonable amount of time. Delay subverts improvement in the quality of
care in nursing facilities as real deficiencies go uncorrected. Delay
also slows the development of precedents which would clarify
outstanding issues. Slow development of such precedents encourages
facilities and their legal representatives to file appeals because
guidance as to the worthiness of an appeal is lacking. And, as the body
of precedents becomes more complete, adjudication of cases becomes
speedier.
The root problem has been that the departmental appeals board does
not have sufficient resources to keep up with the increase in new
cases, to say nothing of working off the current backlog of cases. I am
given to understand that, at the present time about 25 new cases are
filed with the appeals board each week. As will be clear from the table
I am attaching to my statement, the number of cases decided each year
has averaged around 23 for the last 3 years. Clearly, the board is
swamped and needs help.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes $2.8 million for
the board. Were the Congress to provide those funds, it will certainly
take time for the appeals board to gear up and begin to speed up
adjudication of appeals.We can't wait to begin addressing this problem,
Mr. President. The amendment I offer would provide $1.4 million to be
made available through the supplemental appropriation we are now
considering. I have not proposed to provide the full $2.8 million the
President's budget proposes for the next fiscal year because the
appeals board could not effectively spend that amount in what remains
of the fiscal year. Therefore, I have essentially prorated that amount
over the time remaining in this fiscal year.

amendment no. 84

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:

[[Page S2901]]

Sec. . Title 49 Recodification Correction.--Effective
December 31, 1998, section 4(k) of the Act of July 5, 1994
(Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 1370), as amended by section
7(a)(3)(D) of the Act of October 31, 1994 (Public Law 103-
429, 108 Stat. 4329), is repealed.

amendment no. 85

(Purpose: To make a technical correction)

On page 16, strike beginning with line 12 through page 23,
line 8, and insert the following:
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. (a) Short Title.--
This section may be cited as the ``Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Act of 1999''.
(b) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the United States steel industry has been severely
harmed by a record surge of more than 40,000,000 tons of
steel imports into the United States in 1998, caused by the
world financial crisis;
(2) this surge in imports resulted in the loss of more than
10,000 steel worker jobs in 1998, and was the imminent cause
of 3 bankruptcies by medium-sized steel companies, Acme
Steel, Laclede Steel, and Geneva Steel;
(3) the crisis also forced almost all United States steel
companies into--
(A) reduced volume, lower prices, and financial losses; and
(B) an inability to obtain credit for continued operations
and reinvestment in facilities;
(4) the crisis also has affected the willingness of private
banks and investment institutions to make loans to the U.S.
steel industry for continued operation and reinvestment in
facilities;
(5) these steel bankruptcies, job losses, and financial
losses are also having serious negative effects on the tax
base of cities, counties, and States, and on the essential
health, education, and municipal services that these
government entities provide to their citizens; and
(6) a strong steel industry is necessary to the adequate
defense preparedness of the United States in order to have
sufficient steel available to build the ships, tanks, planes,
and armaments necessary for the national defense.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``Board'' means the Loan Guarantee Board
established under subsection (e);
(2) the term ``Program'' means the Emergency Steel
Guaranteed Loan Program established under subsection (d); and
(3) the term ``qualified steel company'' means any company
that--
(A) is incorporated under the laws of any State;
(B) is engaged in the production and manufacture of a
product defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a
basic steel mill product, including ingots, slab and billets,
plates, flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products,
bars, rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod; and
(C) has experienced layoffs, production losses, or
financial losses since the beginning of the steel import
crisis, after January 1, 1998.
(d) Establishment of Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan
Program.--There is established the Emergency Steel Guaranteed
Loan Program, to be administered by the Board, the purpose of
which is to provide loan guarantees to qualified steel
companies in accordance with this section.
(e) Loan Guarantee Board Membership.--There is established
a Loan Guarantee Board, which shall be composed of--
(1) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall serve as Chairman
of the Board;
(2) the Secretary of Labor; and
(3) the Secretary of the Treasury.
(f) Loan Guarantee Program.--
(1) Authority.--The Program may guarantee loans provided to
qualified steel companies by private banking and investment
institutions in accordance with the procedures, rules, and
regulations established by the Board.
(2) Total guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans
guaranteed and outstanding at any 1 time under this section
may not exceed $1,000,000,000.
(3) Individual guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of
loans guaranteed under this section with respect to a single
qualified steel company may not exceed $250,000,000.
(4) Minimum guarantee amount.--No single loan in an amount
that is less than $25,000,000 may be guaranteed under this
section.
(5) Timelines.--The Board shall approve or deny each
application for a guarantee under this section as soon as
possible after receipt of such application.
(6) Additional costs.--For the additional cost of the loans
guaranteed under this subsection, including the costs of
modifying the loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a), there is
appropriated $140,000,000 to remain available until expended.
(g) Requirements for Loan Guarantees.--A loan guarantee may
be issued under this section upon application to the Board by
a qualified steel company pursuant to an agreement to provide
a loan to that qualified steel company by a private bank or
investment company, if the Board determines that--
(1) credit is not otherwise available to that company under
reasonable terms or conditions sufficient to meet its
financing needs, as reflected in the financial and business
plans of that company;
(2) the prospective earning power of that company, together
with the character and value of the security pledged, furnish
reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan to be
guaranteed in accordance with its terms;
(3) the loan to be guaranteed bears interest at a rate
determined by the Board to be reasonable, taking into account
the current average yield on outstanding obligations of the
United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable
to the maturity of such loan; and
(4) the company has agreed to an audit by the General
Accounting Office, prior to the issuance of the loan
guarantee and annually while any such guaranteed loan is
outstanding.
(h) Terms and Conditions of Loan Guarantees.--
(1) Loan duration.--All loans guaranteed under this section
shall be payable in full not later than December 31, 2005,
and the terms and conditions of each such loan shall provide
that the loan may not be amended, or any provision thereof
waived, without the consent of the Board.
(2) Loan security.--Any commitment to issue a loan
guarantee under this section shall contain such affirmative
and negative covenants and other protective provisions that
the Board determines are appropriate. The Board shall require
security for the loans to be guaranteed under this section at
the time at which the commitment is made.
(3) Fees.--A qualified steel company receiving a guarantee
under this section shall pay a fee in an amount equal to 0.5
percent of the outstanding principal balance of the
guaranteed loan to the Department of the Treasury.
(i) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Commerce shall
submit to Congress annually, a full report of the activities
of the Board under this section during fiscal years 1999 and
2000, and annually thereafter, during such period as any loan
guaranteed under this section is outstanding.
(j) Salaries and Administrative Expenses.--For necessary
expenses to administer the Program, $5,000,000 is
appropriated to the Department of Commerce, to remain
available until expended, which may be transferred to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of
the International Trade Administration.
(k) Termination of Guarantee Authority.--The authority of
the Board to make commitments to guarantee any loan under
this section shall terminate on December 31, 2001.
(l) Regulatory Action.--The Board shall issue such final
procedures, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to
carry out this section not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(m) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made
available to carry out this section--
(1) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
901(b)(2)(A)); and
(2) shall be available only to the extent that an official
budget request that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement (as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) is
transmitted by the President to Congress.

AMENDMENT NO. 86

(Purpose: To increase, with a rescission, the supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military construction for the
Army National Guard)

On page 30, line 1, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert
``$14,500,000''.
On page 43, line 12, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert
``$14,500,000''.

amendment no. 87

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
taking of a Cook Inlet beluga whale under the exemption
provided in section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)) between the date of the enactment of
this Act and October 1, 2000 shall be considered a violation
of such Act unless such taking occurs pursuant to a
cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries
Service and Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission.

amendment no. 88

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
Sec. . Funds provided in the Department of Commerce,
Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, Division A, Section
101(b)) for the construction of correctional facility in
Barrow, Alaska shall be made available to the North Slope
Borough.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 82 through 88) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr.
Hutchinson, is here and he will offer an amendment. After he has
presented his amendment, I state to the Senator it will be my intention
to move to table his amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote on that motion to table and the
vote on the motion to table the Harkin amendment occur at 2:30.

[[Page S2902]]

Mr. HARKIN. Torricelli.
Mr. STEVENS. Torricelli/Harkin amendment occur at 2:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 89

(Purpose: To require prior congressional approval before the United
States supports the admission of the People's Republic of China into
the World Trade Organization)

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an
amendment numbered 89.

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

SEC. __. PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR SUPPORTING
ADMISSION OF CHINA INTO THE WTO.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the United States may not support the admission of the
People's Republic of China as a member of the World Trade
Organization unless a provision of law is passed by both
Houses of Congress and enacted into law after the enactment
of this Act that specifically allows the United States to
support such admission.
(b) Procedures for Congressional Approval of United States
Support for Admission of China Into the WTO.--
(1) Notification of congress.--The President shall notify
the Congress in writing if the President determines that the
United States should support the admission of the People's
Republic of China into the World Trade Organization.
(2) Support of china's admission into the wto.--The United
States may support the admission of the People's Republic of
China into the World Trade Organization if a joint resolution
is enacted into law under subsection (c) and the Congress
adopts and transmits the joint resolution to the President
before the end of the 90-day period (excluding any day
described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974),
beginning on the date on which the Congress receives the
notification referred to in paragraph (1).
(c) Joint Resolution.--
(1) Joint resolution.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution of
the 2 Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving
clause of which is as follows: ``That the Congress approves
the support of the United States for the admission of the
People's Republic of China into the World Trade
Organization.''.
(2) Procedures.--
(A) In general.--A joint resolution may be introduced at
any time on or after the date on which the Congress receives
the notification referred to in subsection (b)(1), and before
the end of the 90-day period referred to in subsection
(b)(2). A joint resolution may be introduced in either House
of the Congress by any member of such House.
(B) Application of section 152.--Subject to the provisions
of this subsection, the provisions of subsections (b), (d),
(e), and (f) of section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2192(b), (d), (e), and (f)) apply to a joint
resolution under this section to the same extent as such
provisions apply to resolutions under section 152.
(C) Discharge of committee.--If the committee of either
House to which a joint resolution has been referred has not
reported it by the close of the 45th day after its
introduction (excluding any day described in section 154(b)
of the Trade Act of 1974), such committee shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of the
joint resolution and it shall be placed on the appropriate
calendar.
(D) Consideration by appropriate committee.--It is not in
order for--
(i) the Senate to consider any joint resolution unless it
has been reported by the Committee on Finance or the
committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C); or
(ii) the House of Representatives to consider any joint
resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on
Ways and Means or the committee has been discharged under
subparagraph (C).
(E) Consideration in the house.--A motion in the House of
Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a joint
resolution may only be made on the second legislative day
after the calendar day on which the Member making the motion
announces to the House his or her intention to do so.
(3) Consideration of second resolution not in order.--It
shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives
or the Senate to consider a joint resolution (other than a
joint resolution received from the other House), if that
House has previously adopted a joint resolution under this
section.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I am just trying to find out from the Senator, is there a
time allotment or not?
Mr. STEVENS. When the Senator finishes, I will make a motion to
table. It should be about 1 o'clock.
Mr. HARKIN. I just didn't know----
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have not asked for a time limitation
on the Senator making his presentation, but he knows that as soon as he
finishes, I will make a motion to table.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is going to table both at 2:30?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make a motion to table the
amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, and after the Senator from
Iowa, I will make a motion, but I got unanimous consent that those
votes occur at 2:30.
Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has the floor?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question--for
a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. BAUCUS. I understand the distinguished Senator from Alaska is
saying he is going to move to table. I would like to speak on the
amendment, but the Senator is moving to table as soon as the Senator is
finished.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would be pleased if the Senator would
agree to try to reach a time agreement on that, because we have other
Senators wishing to offer amendments this afternoon also.
Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, first, that the Senator yield
to me? I apologize.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished
chairman.
Mr. STEVENS. How much time would the Senator like to have?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think for my presentation I probably only need 15
minutes. If there are those who speak against the amendment, I would
like to yield proportionally then.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I still have the floor, how much time
does the Senator from Montana seek?
Mr. BAUCUS. I was thinking of 10, 15 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Could we have an agreement that there be 30 minutes on
this amendment? Is the Senator from Montana speaking against the
amendment?
Mr. BAUCUS. I am speaking against the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
Mr. STEVENS. I am seeking a limitation of 30 minutes on the
amendment, that the time following that time to be--I will make a
motion to table, only a motion to table be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection----
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that Senators Roth and
Moynihan wish to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be
expanded to 40 minutes to be followed only by a motion to table offered
by me.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. STEVENS. Forty-five minutes. The Senator wants to close.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suspect the others the Senator mentioned are going
to speak in opposition. There are some who might want to speak in
favor. If we are going to extend the time afforded Senators who want to
speak against, I think we might have trouble extending the time with
that restriction.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do desire to limit the time if
possible, so we can have a vote when the Senate comes back out of that
conference.
Could we agree to 30 minutes on a side? Is there objection to 30
minutes on a side? I renew my request----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. The agreement then is 1 hour equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S2903]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.
This is a very straightforward amendment that simply says that before
China can be admitted to the World Trade Organization, there will have
to be a joint resolution passed by the Congress supporting that
accession of China to the World Trade Organization.
It is very simple. It is simply saying we should have a voice in
this. We should not have the administration arbitrarily and
unilaterally making a very, very significant and major decision without
the input of the U.S. Congress and this body. It does not prejudge what
should happen. It does not say whether China should be in or not. There
may be very compelling arguments that could be presented in such a
debate. But it does say that before China is admitted to the World
Trade Organization, every Senator in this body ought to have an
opportunity to look at the evidence and have a say in the outcome of
that debate. That is why we need this amendment, because Congress needs
to, once again, assert its constitutional responsibility in the area of
foreign commerce.
I believe we must do it now for a couple of reasons. It is the only
opportunity we are going to have before the recess, and our only
opportunity before Zhu Rongji visits this Nation next month. He will
come during our Easter recess. So, if Congress is going to have any
kind of statement on this, if we are going to be able to take any kind
of action on this, we must take it now.
I know some of my colleagues will say this should have gone through
committee. In an ideal world I would agree. It is very straightforward.
I do not think it would require a great deal of debate, as to whether
someone is for it or against it, but ideally that is where it should
have gone. But, once again, the stream of negotiations that have taken
place in recent weeks between our country and the Chinese Government,
with our officials going to China--Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry
Summers, Secretary of State Albright, U.S. Trade Representative
Charlene Barshefsky have all been making repeated trips to China--
negotiating, obviously; attempting to broker a deal on the World Trade
Organization accession of China.

If we wait for an announcement by the administration that a deal has
been reached, an announcement by the administration that the outlines
of an agreement have been reached, we will make China's membership in
the WTO a fait accompli. Any effort to stop it after the fact, after
the negotiations are completed and after an agreement has been
announced, I think will be too late for this body to really make a
difference.
The amendment is, as I said, very straightforward. It would require a
joint resolution to be passed before the United States could support
admission of China into the WTO. Again, it does not preclude our
support for China's entry. It simply sends a clear statement that
Congress should be involved in the process of deciding U.S. support for
China's accession into the WTO. The administration should not make any
hasty deals with China. We must give careful consideration to the
timing as well as to the consequences of Chinese accession. Congress
must be thoroughly involved in that debate.
We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the most populous nation in the
world, and, as we hear so often, the largest market in the world, in a
vacuum. There are certain facts that we must face; there is a political
environment in which all of these negotiations are occurring. The
Chinese have used espionage to obtain important nuclear secrets from
the United States. That is a matter that must be fully investigated. I
believe it will be. I believe the appropriate oversight committees are
moving expeditiously to investigate. But it certainly is not going to
happen before we go out on the Easter recess. We may have hearings next
week, but we will not see the end of this, we will not have all the
facts on the table, before the Easter recess and before Zhu Rongji
visits this country.
Another fact that faces us is our trade deficit with the Chinese is
at an alarming all-time high of $56.9 billion for 1998. It is rising
exponentially every year. That reality ought to cause us to pause
before we see the administration rush into a WTO deal. The Chinese
continue to keep many of their markets closed, particularly to our
agricultural sector, our farmers, who are in such crisis.
The Chinese have signed and blatantly disregarded the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have engaged in a widespread
crackdown on prodemocracy activists in China, effectively silencing all
political dissent. We cannot give WTO membership in a vacuum, ignoring
all other realities that face us. The 1999 State Department report on
China, released in the last few weeks, demonstrably proves China's
ignoring of the very covenant on civil and political rights that they
signed last year. If we cannot trust them to live up to a human rights
covenant that they signed, how can we assume they are going to live
according to the rules and the obligations of the World Trade
Organization? There is an issue of trust. They have not justified the
trust we would show in placing them in the World Trade Organization.
Article I of the Constitution gives Congress express power over
foreign commerce. There is no question but that this is our right.
There is no question in this Senator's mind that it is our
responsibility to step forward and say: WTO membership for China will
not be granted without a debate in the House and Senate and a joint
resolution.
There are serious questions that the House and the Senate need to
address. For us to sit back and go off on our Easter vacation, to go
off on recess, to hold our town meetings or to take our trips around
the world, and to have been silent on this issue, I think, at this
time, will be indefensible. I suspect there will be some kind of
announcement on the U.S. position on China's membership in the WTO
while we are gone. Then we would never have had the opportunity to
debate very important questions.

I do not have all of the answers to these questions, but I know they
are serious questions and I know the Senator from Montana, the Senator
from Alabama, who was on the floor just a moment ago, and myself ought
to have a right, before we have the United States taking a position on
WTO membership, to debate that on the floor of the Senate, to
thoroughly examine the questions that have not yet been answered.
One question I would have is this: Are we lowering the WTO bar for
China, to rush them into membership?
Since 1995, four countries have completed negotiations on accession
protocol: Ecuador, Mongolia, Bulgaria, and Panama. All four of these
nations were required to eliminate, on the date of accession or with
very short transitions, trade practices that were incompatible with WTO
rules. That has been the standard. Since 1995 the four nations that
have sought to enter the WTO have been required to eliminate their
trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. But China has
firmly and continuously and repeatedly said they want a different
standard. They want a longer transition period. They do not want to
meet those WTO rules at the time of or soon after their accession to
the WTO. That is a question I believe this body deserves the
opportunity to investigate and debate thoroughly before we announce a
national position regarding China's admission.
Another question I think is a serious question for debate: Are we
allowing China into the WTO before they have made the kind of market
reforms to bring them into conformity with WTO standards? The
administration argues if we will just let China in, we will have
greater influence on China's reform efforts than we do now while they
are outside of the World Trade Organization. I suppose that is
debatable. But we ought to have the opportunity to have that debate.
In my estimation, our influence on China would be far greater before
they are admitted to the World Trade Organization than afterwards. Our
ability to influence the kind of reforms the World Trade Organization
would desire will be far greater if we say you are going to accrue the
benefits of trade under the WTO only after these market reforms have
taken place, these trade barriers have been lowered. Reforms should
first be enacted, changes should first occur, and then membership
should be granted --not vice versa.

[[Page S2904]]

I think this question deserves debate: Can China be trusted on trade
issues? When we look at our exploding trade deficit with China, can
they be trusted on trade issues if admitted to the World Trade
Organization, or will we admit them to the World Trade Organization and
then find them cavalierly ignoring the standards and the rules of the
World Trade Organization? Our administration's own Trade Representative
Barshefsky stated in her testimony, a little over 2 years ago, in
reference to China, that ``China imposes new import barriers to replace
those it removed.'' In other words, there can be the appearance of
reform taking place, but if there are new barriers that are being
erected while the old ones are being brought down, you really have not
achieved the reforms necessary for World Trade Organization membership.
China has almost one-third of its industrial production controlled by
the state. Almost two-thirds of urban workers are employed in state-
owned enterprises. These state-owned enterprises are notorious for
their ability to destroy wealth. Some economists estimate that it would
be cheaper for China to close down their state-owned enterprises and
keep paying the workers--close down the enterprises, go ahead and pay
them their salaries, they would still come out ahead, than to keep
operating. But because the state-owned enterprises would be vulnerable
to foreign competition, the Chinese Government has a strong
disincentive to the state-owned enterprises that are heavily subsidized
through China's centralized and insolvent banking system.
One of the pledges that the Chinese Government made was that they
would rapidly privatize the state-owned enterprises, shutting down
those that they had to, privatizing others, allowing them to create
capital by selling stock, but because of the recent economic downturn
in China in which their robust growth rate has dropped appreciably,
China now has backed off that pledge and has once again begun a round
of bank loans to these very unprofitable, state-owned enterprises to
subsidize them and to keep them in business.
This is backpedaling already on the kinds of reforms that would be
expected if China were in fact ready for admission to the World Trade
Organization.
Another question that this body needs to debate is, Should China be
admitted as a developing country with far less stringent expectations
and longer transition than allowed for other nations? That is what they
desire. They say we are a developing Nation; therefore, we should be
treated more leniently. They base their claim primarily upon their per
capita gross domestic product. By every other measure, China is a major
economic power in the world today and they want to be treated as such.
They want to be recognized as a major economic power.
China will argue that as a developing country, they are entitled to
use subsidies. They are entitled to put limits on exports and other
policies to promote development of certain key industries such as
automobiles and telecommunications and heavy industrial equipment.
China maintains that such programs are a part of China's industrial
policy and not related to its application to the World Trade
Organization. Many trade officials simply disagree with that assertion
by the Chinese Government. That is a question and that is an issue the
Senate should have the opportunity to debate, not after the fact but
before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization and before the
U.S. Government announces its position on Chinese accession.

A WTO paper, prepared in response to a request from Chinese
negotiators, suggested that industrial policies in China and other
countries could violate the basic principles of nondiscrimination and
national treatment and other WTO rules. They are not in compliance.
They are not ready to join the WTO. Political considerations should not
be the driving force in rushing China into the WTO before they have
made necessary reforms.
Another question I believe we should debate is this: Should China be
given membership in WTO before Taiwan, which is simultaneously seeking
membership? Will it be the position of the U.S. Government that we
support the admission of People's Republic of China to the World Trade
Organization while not yet supporting Taiwan's admission? Which one
should be admitted first? I think that is an important issue. I think
that is one my colleagues in the Senate deserve to have the opportunity
to discuss thoroughly.
Many believe that once China is admitted, they will work feverishly
to block Taiwan's entry, even though Taiwan is a much more developed
Nation, has a much more developed economy, and an economy which is much
more consistent with WTO rules. Yet without a vote of the Senate or a
vote of the House, this administration is prepared to support the
admission of China to the WTO before Taiwan's admission.
I believe this question deserves debate as well: Will a premature
entry by China into WTO hurt American business interests? I know that
large corporate interests in this country support China's immediate
accession to WTO, but many business people in this country have serious
concerns as to how China's admission to WTO will impact them. U.S.
business interests often want permanent MFN for China and would like to
use an agreement on WTO, I believe, as a means to push for this goal,
but many of these business interests are also concerned that China's
WTO accession, without meeting market access and other requirements,
would seriously limit U.S. business access to the Chinese market for a
long time to come. The very access that American business wants so
desperately, we would be locked out of that access permanently or for a
long duration should they be admitted to the World Trade Organization
before they have met market access rules. As a result, many U.S.
interests are pushing U.S. negotiators to remain firm, to stand pat,
and not concede on the conditions of China's entry into the World Trade
Organization.
I believe another question that this body needs to debate is, How
will WTO admission for China affect jobs? Indeed, we should consider
how it would affect our jobs here in the United States.
I remind my colleagues, contained in this very supplemental
appropriations bill, which we are soon prepared to vote on, is a
measure to assist the U.S. steel industry and the jobs that go with it.
Some of those jobs are in my home State of Arkansas, Mississippi
County, Blytheville, AR, the No. 2 ranked county in the Nation in steel
production. According to the Department of Commerce, last year alone
the U.S.-China trade deficit in iron and steel was a $161 million loser
for the United States. The year before that the U.S. realized a steel
trade deficit of $141 million, and in 1996 the deficit was $140
million. Each year the deficit in iron and steel increases
dramatically.
My point is, this Congress should have a say in whether we allow an
agreement to be made when our trade imbalance is what we experience,
even without granting China World Trade Organization status.
At the appropriate time, I would like to see China join the World
Trade Organization and abide by its rules. I do not believe China is
ready at this time to go beyond paying lip service to the fundamental
changes necessary for accession, though I know some of my colleagues do
believe that they are ready. However, I believe we can all agree that
we ought not make this decision hastily. The consequences are too great
and long lasting and, just as importantly, we ought not let the
executive branch make this determination unilaterally.
Article 1 of the Constitution gives to us, the Congress, the express
power over foreign commerce. This decision is too important for us to
cede that power, and this amendment is a means by which we can preserve
our legitimate role in the legislative branch.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I inquire how
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 11 minutes 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas raises obviously
a very important question, and that is, essentially, the terms under
which the

[[Page S2905]]

United States should agree to help encourage China to be a member or
accede to the WTO. It is obviously important because China,
particularly in the next century, is going to be a very important
country. It is now the largest country in the world, the most populous,
the largest standing army, a nuclear power, one of the fastest growing
``developing countries,'' thousands of years of history, a very proud
people. We in the United States clearly must be very careful and clear
headed in our relationship with such a country, particularly when the
question arises as to the terms under which China would accede to the
WTO.
It is also true that under the Constitution, the U.S. Congress
provides that the Congress essentially set trade policy. That is true.
But the use of power is a very important matter. Sometimes it is
important to use power that is entrusted to one. Sometimes it is
important to forebear the use of power that is entrusted to one.
Certainly, Congress has the authority to pass the amendment suggested
by the Senator from Arkansas. But that is not the question. The real
question is, Should Congress adopt that amendment?
In my judgment, it has the ring of simplicity which often sounds
good, but when one thinks about it a little bit more deeply and what
the consequences of that amendment would be, it, at the very least,
causes people to pause and, in my judgment, causes Senators to not
support the amendment.
I am reminded of a statement by H.L. Mencken, a famous Baltimore Sun
journalist: ``For every complicated problem, there is a simple
solution, but it is usually wrong.''
That is this case. There is a complicated problem--China and our
trade relationship--and the simple solution to some degree is,
``Congress should vote on whether to admit China to the WTO or not.''
This would set new precedent, a groundbreaking and very alarming
precedent. In each of the previous 110 cases where countries have
acceded to the GATT, or to the WTO, there has not been a congressional
vote. Congress has never voted on whether a country should accede to
the GATT, currently to the WTO. That is an executive decision.
There is a good reason why Congress has not voted in the past.
Essentially, it is for the reasons suggested already by the Senator
from Arkansas, because if we were to vote on whether China should
accede to the WTO, that vote would essentially be a vote not on WTO,
but it would be a vote on our ``overall China policy.'' It would
include countless other relationships that we have with China.
The Senator from Arkansas already mentioned them. Human rights, for
example. The Senator is very upset with China's human rights policy. He
said that should be looked into. He implied looking into it in the
context of this debate.
I, too, am upset with China's human rights policy. I daresay every
Member of the Senate is upset with China's human rights policy. But are
those issues considered in trade negotiations? Are they considered by
the World Trade Organization? The Senator from Arkansas might think
that they should be, but they are not considered in trade negotiations
and in whether or not China is or is not meeting commercially
acceptable principles under which it would properly be admitted to the
World Trade Organization.
The Senator also mentioned the words ``political environment.'' He
said this issue has to be considered in the total political environment
of our relationship with China. He mentioned espionage. That is a
charged issue right now. I daresay that if the Congress were to vote in
the next several months presumably on whether China should accede to
the WTO, there would be an amendment on espionage, there would be an
amendment on human rights, an amendment on labor relations, an
amendment on the environment. I can think of countless subjects that
would be included, by the design of certain Senators, in any decision
by the Congress whether or not China should be admitted to the WTO.
It reminds me very, very much of the debate we already had with
respect to China, and that is whether the Congress, when we come up
with the annual MFN review--actually a lot of us like to call it normal
trade relationship not most-favored-nation status. MFN is a gross
misnomer. MFN is not at all what it implies. It is not most favored. In
effect, it is least favored, because we have so many trade agreements
with so many other countries under terms that are more beneficial than
the bottom line terms of MFN.

During the MFN debate, or normal trade relations debate, we have had
in this Congress, particularly several years ago, the question was
whether we should pass in this Congress every June a conditional
extension of MFN or nonconditional extension of MFN.
Those who argued for conditional extension said, ``Well, we will
continue MFN with China for another year if China abides by certain
human right regimes, if China abides by certain nuclear technology
transfer provisions, if China signs a comprehensive missile test ban
treaty, if China''--all these other things.
In a sense, that debate became a debate about China and gave interest
groups an opportunity--I use this term loosely--to kind of take off on
or vent their spleens about a certain policy with which that Senator or
interest group had a disagreement.
I have no problem with that. In fact, I support it. I support Members
of the Senate and the House working vigorously to improve upon the
relationship with China in each of the specific areas that we engage
China, and there are many of them. Trade is one. Even within trade,
there are many, many different levels. There are tariffs. There are
distribution systems. There is access. There are all kinds of matters
with which we have to deal.
Let's take national security, not very related to trade--indirectly
but not directly. Our administration, other countries' administrations
engage China on a host of national security issues.
Let's take the Taiwan Straits, for example. That is a separate
matter. It is an extremely important issue. It is one that has become a
bit sensitive in the last several days, but the U.S. Defense
Department, the NSC, and our executive branch are working out with
Taiwan, with China, and with Japan as much as possible the various
interrelationships of that issue.
The main point is, those issues should be dealt with separately and
on separate tracks. They should not be all subsumed in the one vote on
whether China should be a member of the WTO.
I think it is also important to remember we have a lot of problems
with China, but China has done a lot of good things, too.
What are they? Recently in the economic sphere, China, at great cost
to itself, has not devalued its currency. China, in the last year, has
been under tremendous pressure to devalue its currency so that it could
sell more products overseas; it would help boost its economy. But China
has not.
Why has China not devalued its currency? In many respects because the
Americans have encouraged them, have asked them not to devalue. Why?
Because if they were to devalue their currency, then the other
southeastern countries--the baht in Thailand, the Indonesian
currencies, North Korea--there would be great pressure on them to
devalue further, which means that our exports will be that much more
expensive, their exports to the United States that much less expensive,
and the trade deficit we are all so worried about will be even worse.
China, at great cost to itself, has so far--that might change--not
devalued the currency.
China has also signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. They signed
it. That is a major step. That is good. China has helped provide more
stability between India and Pakistan, particularly when those countries
were starting to test missiles. It has been a very great help to us.
They also have begun to downsize their state-owned enterprises. That
is not something we asked them to do, but at great cost to themselves,
they are doing so, and that is a major effort.
There is banking reform.
The PLA, their army in China, which used to be a major competitor
with companies in the United States, was not just an army, it was a
manufacturing firm, an industry or a company making all kinds of
products.

[[Page S2906]]

The PLA are going out of business. It is not entirely done yet, but
they are going out of business. That is good. Even more fundamentally,
let's think of this. What if this were 25 years ago and we were faced
with the Asian currency turmoil, which did spread over to Brazil and
over to Russia and has affected the whole world, as a matter of fact?
If this were to have happened 25 years ago, I daresay that China would
have used it as an opportunity to further destabilize--they could have
used it as an opportunity to gain a strategic position in, say, Vietnam
or in Burma, Thailand, maybe even in Japan, as they did 25 years ago
when they exercised their power, but not in the economic sense.
Instead, today, 25 years later, when presented with this crisis, what
has China done? It has not been a bad boy; it has been a good boy.
China has, instead, downsized its state-owned enterprises as much as it
possibly can. It is reducing its bureaucracy, cutting a lot of the dead
wood. It is cutting back on the army dramatically. I was in China about
a year ago talking with a general and all his colleagues who were being
given the boot because the general officers corps, in addition to the
lower ranks, was being cut back dramatically.
They are going through a lot of painful times. I am not going to
stand here and apologize for China. We are very concerned about China.
But instead, China is trying to be a player.
Why is WTO good for America and why is it good for China? WTO is good
for America only under commercially acceptable principles. I must
underline that forcefully. It is good for America because it will help
encourage a greater rule of law in China, because there are commitments
that China would have to agree to. It would help America because we
could take China to the WTO.
The Senator from Arkansas has a concern whether we could ``trust''
China. I tell you, Mr. President, China will do more of what we wish if
they are a member of WTO, at least on trade issues, because we can take
China to the WTO.
The WTO is now much more impartial and more effective as a dispute
settlement mechanism than it was under the old GATT, to be honest about
it. The WTO as an institution is being tested now, particularly with
respect to bananas and beef hormones, and some other issues--whether
countries live up to it--but still it is a lot better than the old
GATT, under which there was virtually no dispute settlement mechanism.
WTO is good for China, too. Why? Basically because it gives China
status and more investment in China; it gives China the opportunity to
be more of a player in the world economic scene. And that is all good.
That is good for China; that is good for America.
We are so interrelated today economically, politically, socially that
when one part of the world's economy collapses or goes south, it has
effects everywhere. It affects the Senator's farmers. They have a
harder time selling soybeans. It affects farmers in my State. They have
a harder time selling wheat. That is why, when the Asian currency
crisis occurred, at least in my State, our agricultural exports fell
$50 million compared to the preceding year.
I must say, I think we have done a pretty good job as a country in
managing, as near as we could, the currency crisis, which we did not
cause. It was caused by a whole host of factors--essentially greed by a
lot of creditors who did not look at financial statements closely
anymore. But we have done a pretty good job managing. Secretary Rubin,
Chairman Greenspan, Secretary Summers have done a good job of helping
stabilize, as much as they possibly could, this turmoil.

Mr. President, the Senator also asked, ``Well, gee, who should be
admitted first, Taiwan or China?'' That is a political issue. We should
not look at this as a political issue. We should look at these
countries on their merits. And if China does meet the commercially
acceptable principles test closely, tightly, we should admit China. If
they do not, we should not.
There are lots of different areas there that I wish to just briefly
mention as to the test I think China should meet. I must say, Mr.
President, I do not think this administration is going to send us a
weak agreement. It would be foolish for them to agree to China's
accession into the WTO under noncommercially acceptable terms. It would
not make any sense. For one thing, it would be an outrage. Second, it
would have an effect on MFN, a vote later. It would have an effect on
fast-track proposals that may or may not come up. It just does not make
sense. They will not do it.
One final point is this. The Senator wants a vote. The Senator is
going to have a vote. It is on MFN extension, because, by definition,
if the United States agrees, because China has met commercially
acceptable principles, that China should accede to the GATT, then by
definition this Congress must vote on whether to give China permanent
MFN status.
There will be a vote. And obviously, if the U.S. Senate believes that
the terms under which China is admitted are not acceptable, I daresay
that this body will not agree to permanently extend MFN to China. So we
ought to have a vote. The Senator wants a vote. By definition, there
will be a vote.
But to have a second vote--and the second vote would be whether to
admit--I say, would essentially be a referendum on China. It would not
just be trade issues, it would be all the other issues, with all the
other amendments that would come up, just as they did in the old MFN
extension debate. Back then, after lots of gnashing of teeth and
working ourselves through all this, what did the Congress do? The
Congress agreed, the President agreed, that it made more sense to have
unconditional extension of MFN rather than conditional.
What the Senator from Arkansas is essentially saying is, he wants
conditional, he wants to have a vote on accession. And I would guess he
also would like to have an opportunity to offer amendments on the
pending bill. If the Senator says no amendments on the pending bill,
that is another matter. I would like to hear the Senator's views on
that--whether the Senator wants a straight up-or-down vote only on
whether China should be a member of the WTO, whether he would oppose
all amendments, whether he believes, frankly, there should be no
amendments or not. That would be an interesting question.
Anyway, Mr. President, I made my main point, which is, let's have the
vote, let's have the vote on MFN extension, not on the overall policy,
because it has never happened before. In all the trade agreements that
have been submitted to the WTO and in all the questions of accession to
the WTO in the past--there have been 110 of them--never has a Congress
voted, never.
And there are reasons. There are executive agreements. If we were to
vote on it, particularly in this body, as a nonparliamentary form of
government, it would be filled up with all different types of issues
which are virtually unrelated to trade--very important issues: Human
rights, national security, missile proliferation, nuclear
proliferation, labor laws, environmental laws, but not WTO accession.
So I say, let's not vote for the Senator's amendment. Let's look at
WTO when it comes up in the context of MFN. Then let's also work to
engage China on all of the other issues on which we are dealing with
China but on separate tracks, separate ways, because that is going to
be a lot more effective. We should not link all this together. We
should not link it together, but, rather, deal with these issues
separately.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the concern of the Senator
from Arkansas regarding the possibility of China's entry into the World
Trade Organization (WTO). However, I do not believe his amendment is
warranted, and urge the Senate to reject it.
The issue before us is the accession of China into the WTO. There is
no question that China's accession into the world trading system
carries important ramifications--not only for their economy, but for
ours (and indeed, for those of all other WTO nations). Today, China is
the world's third largest economy after the US and Japan, and the
world's eleventh largest trading nation. US-China trade alone is more
than $80 billion.
Clearly, because of these facts, we have much to gain by bringing
China

[[Page S2907]]

into the world trading system and subjecting her to the WTO rules and
regulations. At the same time, we understand that bringing China into
the system also will mean some changes for our own industries. However,
as long as China is brought in according to appropriate terms and
conditions, I believe we have far more to gain than to lose.
The China WTO accession negotiations have dragged on for 13 years
now. Much of the delay is related to the periodic changes of mind by
the Chinese government as to whether they really want to join or not.
After all, it will mean enormous changes for them as well. At the
moment, the Chinese appear very interested in concluding their
accession. I believe we should take this opportunity to see what might
be accomplished.
That said, the United States has said repeatedly that China may enter
only--and I stress, only--on ``commercially meaningful'' terms. Despite
the current Chinese enthusiasm for the negotiations, if it does not
lead to a ``commercially meaningful'' agreement, then the
administration cannot accept it.
That is a crystal clear fact. We in Congress has made clear that an
agreement that is not ``commercially meaningful'' is unacceptable.
USTR, Treasury, the State Department, and USDA know this. They fully
understand that they will have one chance, and one chance only, to
present us with an agreement. All the Chinese enthusiasm in the world
cannot change that fact. Thus, I believe that the administration will
not--and indeed cannot--bring home an accession agreement that does not
meet those terms.
The amendment before us would have Congress vote on the accession of
China. Yet that is not the process that we follow for accession of new
WTO members. Since 1995, 12 countries have joined the WTO. Congress has
not voted on any of them. This would be a bad precedent to send. It
would open a whole hornet's nest of votes on China's policies, trade or
otherwise. And, given that the administration knows that a bad deal
will not pass muster here, I would argue that it's just not necessary.
I say to my colleagues: let's let the experts do their job. They have
their guidance from Congress. The USTR team, led by our experienced and
tough Special Representative Charlene Barshefsky, have been working on
China accession for years, and know the issues inside out. I am
confident that they won't--indeed, can't--let us down.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join with the distinguished chairman
of the Finance Committee in opposing the pending amendment. I do agree
with the senator from Arkansas that the Congress ought to take a close
look at the terms of any agreement that is reached with China regarding
its accession to the WTO. But that is already provided for in the law.
Under section 122 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the
administration must consult with the appropriate committees with regard
to the accession of any country to the WTO. Those consultations are now
taking place. I am assured that Ambassador Barshefsky will meet with
each and every Senator who has an interest in this matter.
Moreover, as a participant in the WTO's Working Party on the
Accession of China, the United States already has an effective veto
over China's admission if we determine that the protocol of accession
and China's market access commitments are inadequate. Since the Working
Party operates by consensus, we could simply block the approval of the
Working Party report and that would be the end of the matter.
It is clear that bringing China within the WTO framework--and subject
to the WTO's rules--would be in the United States' interest. China is
ranked as one of the top ten exporting countries in the world (WTO
report, 1997 ranking) and ranks as the 12th largest importer. It must
certainly be to the benefit of the world trading system to have China
abide by the same rules as others.
American farmers and businesses also have an interest in securing
improved access to China's market, and the WTO accession negotiations
may provide the best opportunity that we will have in a very long time.
Certainly the United States should not accept an agreement that would
bend the rules for China. Nor should we settle for a minimal market
access package. And we will not. But neither should we cut off the
negotiations at this point, which I fear this amendment would do. In
essence, it signals, at a minimum, great skepticism on the part of the
United States Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, whatever frustrations many of us may have
right now regarding our bilateral relations with China, including
allegations of Chinese espionage against our national labs, the
deteriorating human rights situation in that country, the ballooning
trade deficit, and more, we need to be careful about micro-managing the
Executive as it conducts comprehensive negotiations over the terms of
China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Congress' voice ought to be heard on this subject, and it will be.
The Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 precludes granting
unconditional MFN (permanent normal trade relations status) without a
Congressional vote. By law, we will have the opportunity to carefully
review and pass judgment on whatever agreement the Administration
reaches with China, whenever that may occur: during Premier Zhu
Rongji's visit next month, later this year, or perhaps years from now.
Ambassador Barshefsky and the other USTR officials negotiating
directly with the Chinese deserve credit for appropriately consulting
with Congress. Just yesterday lead negotiator Bob Cassidy reviewed in
great detail with our staffs all aspects of the negotiations. Active
consultations at this stage make sense, but the Senate directly
intervening in the process by requiring a congressional vote on a WTO
agreement with China--on the front and back ends of the protocol
negotiations--is redundant, unnecessary, and tramples on Executive
branch prerogatives. On those grounds, I support the tabling motion.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote to table it.
I support China's accession to the WTO. I believe that it is in our
own best interests to draw China further into the world community
through fora such as the WTO. It will benefit the United States by
creating a more-equal trade relationship between us, and will work to
promote the rule of law in China. I also believe that it will benefit
the United States by taking bilateral trade disputes which may pop up
between us and making them multilateral, thereby minimizing the
opportunity for those disputes to spill over and infect the rest of our
relationship.
Of course, my support has an important caveat. China must accede on
what are called ``commercially acceptable principles.'' China cannot
accede as a developing country in some areas, and a developed country
in others, leaving it to China to determine which are which. If the
time comes for China's accession, Mr. President, you can be sure that
if I am not convinced that the terms of China's accession are
commercially acceptable, I will be the first Member to rush to this
floor to oppose accession.
This amendment though, Mr. President, is not about the mechanics of
accession to the WTO. Rather, it is yet another thinly-veiled attempt
by its author--one in a long series of attempts--to single China out
and punish it for offenses--real or imagined--committed in other
spheres. Let me be clear: there is no argument that there aren't
problems in our relationship with China, serious problems that we need
to address. But there are more appropriate ways to address those
problems. WTO accession is a trade issue. It is not a human rights
issue. It is not a military issue. It is not a technology or nuclear
transfer issue. It is not an issue about how China treats Taiwan or
Hong Kong or Tibet. The issue should not be linked under the guise of a
WTO debate; we should not turn a decision on WTO into a referendum on
the immediate state of our overall bilateral relationship.
In addition, the sponsor makes a great deal of only wanting to pass
this amendment in order to afford the Senate the opportunity to debate
and then

[[Page S2908]]

vote on all the merits of China's accession should that time come. But
Mr. President, we already have that opportunity. If and when China
accedes to the WTO, that is not the end of the process. Congress still
has to vote on extending permanent most-favored nation status to China.
That debate will give the Senate, and the sponsor, ample opportunity to
address all of the myriad issues surrounding China that he rightly
feels are so important. It will give us a chance to raise concerns
about human rights, military buildup, trade deficits, and all the rest.
There is no need to afford ourselves the same opportunity twice.
In addition, Mr. President, requiring this second vote has no
precedent. One hundred and ten countries have acceded to the WTO since
1948, and not once has the Senate required that we be afforded a
separate vote on one of those accessions. But the Senator from Arkansas
would like to single China out and set a different standard for that
country's accession, to treat it differently than any other country
that has come before it, or--presumably--would come after. I don't
believe he can make a compelling case for doing so. Moreover, I am not
convinced that giving ourselves veto authority in this manner over a
trade agreement reached by the Executive Branch could pass
constitutional muster.
For all these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose
the amendment and support the motion to table of the Senator from
Alaska.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my
distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson. Like him, I
am deeply concerned about the issues he is attempting to address with
this legislation--human rights violations and security concerns
involving China, particularly the theft of scientific information from
Los Alamos. I am concerned about China's military build-up, its
continuing threats of force against Taiwan, and what is taking place in
Tibet. I believe that appropriately addressing these issues is vitally
important and I look forward to working with Senator Hutchinson and
others to do so.
However, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I must oppose both the
method and timing of this approach. It not only fails to allow the
Senate to raise and address the sensitive issue of trade relations with
China in the appropriate forum of the Finance Committee--a forum where
the merits of such an amendment can be carefully studied and weighed
against the best interests of our nation--but this approach also has
tremendous foreign policy implications that need careful scrutiny.
Let me address the first concern. Trade negotiations and trade
agreements go to the core of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction over
trade matters. Together with Senator Moynihan, I as Chair, and he as
ranking member, are responsible, not only for the Committee's
substantive role in the trade policy process, but also are the
guardians of its prerogatives. The Committee was the first formed in
the United States Congress when tariffs were the central source of
revenue to a still new republic. Trade and tariff policy remain central
to the Committee's role in the legislative process.
For example, the Finance Committee reported out a trade bill the
first day of the 106th Congress. In addition, at my instigation, the
Committee has launched a comprehensive review of America's trade
policy, including the role that China's accession to the WTO would play
in our trade policy.
Unfortunately, there has been no attempt to offer this legislation
and lay it before the Finance Committee for its review. Nor has there
been any attempt by its supporters to engage with the Committee in the
process of our review of America's trade policy.
Instead, this amendment seems to be driven by the emotions of the
moment toward a form of legislative anarchy. It has gone around the
Finance Committee in a way that provides no time for the deliberations
for which the Senate is designed. It attempts to move legislation of
monumental importance to our trade and foreign policies on the back of
a supplemental appropriations measure principally designed to help
impoverished countries in Central America and to support the
constructive role Jordan has played in the Middle East peace process.
Beyond these procedural concerns, I am deeply concerned about the
underlying intent of this amendment. Is this bill being raised at this
time out of a concern that our trade negotiators will not strike a deal
that serves our commercial interests in China? Or is this bill being
offered simply to hinder those negotiations in response to recent
allegations of spying or the theft of secrets from Los Alamos?
I ask those questions because there seems to be a rush to pass this
measure in advance of the visit of Zhu Rongji to the United States. It
rests on the assumption that the United States will reach an agreement
on WTO accession and that, by virtue of that deal, China will enter the
WTO the day after Zhu leaves.
That is simply wrong. Everything we hear of the negotiations is that
it will be difficult even to reach an agreement on U.S. access to
China's market. I want to emphasize to my colleagues that a deal on
market access, even if it is reached in time for the summit, is only
one step along the road to China's accession to the WTO. The more
difficult negotiations on when and how China will agree to be bound by
the basic rules of the WTO remain. No protocol of accession will be
approved until those negotiations are complete.
In other words, there is no reason to act precipitously on this
measure. There is no reason to subvert the normal legislative processes
to secure passage of this amendment at this time. Indeed, the Finance
Committee is actively at work on trade matters as part of the trade
policy review I have initiated. That is the appropriate venue for the
initial discussion of this measure and any necessary refinements to my
colleague's approach.
China has been the subject of intense concern to the Finance
Committee. We have made it clear at every stage that constructive trade
relations with China must offer concrete assurances of U.S. market
access consistent with our national interest. We have also made it
clear that there must be no rush to judgment or attempt to offer a
politically-motivated deal to the Chinese simply because the White
House wants a foreign policy ``deliverable'' to cap the upcoming summit
meeting.
My impression from our discussion with Ambassador Barshefsky is that,
while there has been considerable progress in recent days, there is
still a considerable distance to go even before the United States could
agree to a package on market access, much less the more difficult
process of negotiating the actual protocols of accession.
Beyond these reasons, Mr. President, I oppose Senator Hutchinson's
amendment on China's accession to the World Trade Organization because
of the damaging precedent it would set for all future WTO accessions.
It would dramatically undercut the United States' consistent position--
under both Republican and Democrat presidents--that accession to the
WTO and its predecessor organization, the GATT, is not a political
decision, but is one we as Americans base simply on another country's
willingness to be bound by the same rules that govern our other trading
partners in the world trading system. It is quintessentially a
commercial agreement that should be judged on its merits as such.
I also oppose this amendment as a matter of Senate procedure. I have
always objected to attempts to legislate on appropriations measures.
Offering substantive amendments to appropriations bills subverts the
normal process of the Senate by which legislation is introduced, moved
through the committee of jurisdiction with expertise on the matter, and
moved to the floor.
Attempts to modify substantive law on the back of appropriations
bills often results in the delay of the appropriations themselves.
Whether my colleagues support the current supplemental or not, I think
we would all agree that the bill deserves to rise or fall on its own
merits, not as a result of extraneous and unrelated matters.
For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator
Hutchinson's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, might I inquire as to how much time
each side has remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 11 minutes 15

[[Page S2909]]

seconds. The Senator from Montana has 9 minutes 52 seconds.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
If I might just briefly respond to a few of the points that my good
friend from Montana made in his excellent statement.
It seems to me to be a difficult proposition to come to the floor of
the Senate and argue that we should not have a debate and to argue we
should not have a vote on the admission of China to the World Trade
Organization. Yet that is the posture which the opponents of this
amendment must be.
The Senator from Montana has said it would be an ``alarming
precedent''--I believe those are the exact words--that has never
happened before. In many ways, China is unprecedented. They are
unprecedented in their size, their population, and their impact upon
world events. And in many ways the abuses that are currently going on
by their government to their own people are unprecedented. It is
unprecedented to have a nation in the World Trade Organization with 40
percent of the economy controlled by the state. That is unprecedented.
Perhaps that is a good reason to have a debate on this issue and have
a vote on who should be admitted to the World Trade Organization, since
it would be unprecedented for a nation of this size, with such a mixed
economic system, to be admitted to the World Trade Organization. It is
unprecedented to admit to this trade organization a nation that views
us as a hostile power and, as evidence indicates, has aggressively
spied on the United States and stolen nuclear secrets from the United
States.
To say it is an ``alarming precedent,'' I think is a great
overstatement. In fact, if there was ever a reason to change the
precedent, it would be because of China's behavior.
The Senator from Montana said amendments would certainly be messy.
That is what democracy is about. That is what happens; that is what
debates are about; that is what freedom is about. It might be messy; it
might be unpleasant to vote on amendments that might be offered. But to
respond to the question of the Senator from Montana, I am more than
delighted to have a straight up-or-down vote with no amendments. If we
were in the House of Representatives, we could have the Rules Committee
provide such an order; we would have no amendments, and we would vote
up or down on whether China ought to go into the World Trade
Organization. I am delighted to have such an opportunity, and I make a
commitment to that right now. If we have a unanimous consent, at the
appropriate time, I support having a clean vote on China's accession to
the World Trade Organization.

I was somewhat surprised to hear my colleague from Montana say China
has not been a bad boy, they have been a good boy; a number of things
they helped us with--Pakistan and India. They had signed international
agreements. They had shown restraint.
They have been adjudged one of the greatest proliferators of weapons
of mass destruction in the world today. In fact, they were a great
contributor to the problems and the arms race that has developed
between Pakistan and India.
Signed international agreements--indeed, they have signed
international agreements. Last year, they signed the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and since they signed that
international agreement our State Department has adjudged their
behavior on civil and political rights abysmal. They have a new and
vicious and brutal crackdown upon the rights of their own people. That
is the international agreement.
My colleague said they have shown restraint, not like the
adventuresome nature of their politics 25 years ago; they have shown
restraint. Well, I don't believe it is restraint for them to vigorously
modernize their weapon systems and to vigorously seek American
technology through legal and illegal means.
All of that aside, some of the questions were answered, but many of
the questions I raised were not addressed at all and have nothing to do
with anything other than trade and the economy. But they are questions
that need to be debated, questions that need to be answered. Are we
lowering the WTO bar for access to the Chinese? To say that we can deny
them permanent MFN after the fact, after they have been admitted to the
WTO, and that will be our vote, I think begs the question. There will
be such international pressure for permanent MFN if we have already
supported their admission to the WTO that it will be inexorable. It
will be a fait accompli. But the evidence clearly is that we are
setting a different standard for China.
In my discussions with the State Department over a year ago, they
made it very clear to me that they were debating within the State
Department whether we would have greater influence on China with them
in at a lower standard, or out waiting for them to change and to make
the necessary reforms. It is very clear that the administration has
pursued the idea of lowering the standards so that China could be
brought in prematurely. Admitting them as a developing country is
changing the standards for China. These are issues which have not been
addressed today in our debate but need to be addressed by the U.S.
Senate.
I will not go through all of those questions again, but they are
important questions. The Senate and the Congress should not keep
``punting'' on trade issues. We have a constitutional role. We are a
coequal power with the executive branch. This is an opportunity for us
to regain our voice on those very, very important issues that affect
the lives of every American. The issue today is not do we want China in
the WTO; the issue is do we want to have an opportunity to debate that
and to vote on that. That is the issue.

I have said, and I will say again, I want China in the World Trade
Organization at the right time and under the right circumstances. But I
do not believe that we should allow the administration to make a
unilateral decision coopting the constitutional right of the House and
Senate to express itself on this very, very important issue.
I hope that this amendment will be passed, that we will have the
opportunity at the appropriate time to vote yes or no on China's
admission to the World Trade Organization. I hope that the reforms are
made in China so that I could vote yes on that. I would like to see
that, but I believe that we have the greatest leverage we will ever
have in bringing about reforms before we concede ahead of time that
they should go into the WTO.
I believe this is an eminently reasonable amendment because we are
not prejudging what the outcome should be. We are simply saying we
should have the right to vote. We should say yes or no--not trade
negotiators in a vacuum apart from those who were elected by the people
to represent.
I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has a little under 4
minutes, and the Senator from Montana has a little under 10 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. I will take just 2 or 3 minutes before I yield back my
time. We are getting into the repetitious stage.
Let me say that it is important to think about the precedent.
Congress has never voted on this issue before. There are a lot of other
countries that are going to be seeking membership in the WTO. They are
basically former Soviet Union republics. Russia--name them. They all
are going to be looking for membership in the WTO. If we start voting
now on membership, I think we have to do the same for all the others,
and they will get caught up in the other issues, too, that have already
been discussed.
Frankly, the Senator from Arkansas made my case when he said that at
this time we have the greatest leverage. It sounds to me as if the
leverage he is talking about is on human rights. It is on lots of
issues. I just think that we do not want to get to a debate on China
policy if and when the U.S. executive branch seeks to have China become
a member of the WTO.
I also suggest to my good friend from Arkansas it is a good
opportunity for the Senator and all of us who are concerned about the
terms of China's infamous WTO, the economic terms, to make our case
very strenuously now with the administration, with Ambassador
Barshefsky, with others in the administration, so that they do come

[[Page S2910]]

up with terms that we would more likely agree with than not.
Now is the time. There are intense negotiations going on now. Premier
Zhu Rongji is about to visit this country. I think it is Premier Zhu
Rongji's visit to the United States which gives us ``leverage,''
because he will want to come with an agreement. We should make use of
that leverage by vigorously talking with the administration.
It has been a good debate and I think we should deal with all these
issues of China separately, not in the context of WTO. I hope that the
Senators would agree with the Senator from Alaska when he moves to
table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back my time.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will take a moment, and then I will
yield my remaining time.
I say that the leverage of which I speak--I think the Senator from
Montana knows and agrees that the leverage is greater now before China
goes into the World Trade Organization. The issues of which I speak
deal primarily with trade issues. I hope we will use that leverage for
human rights and nuclear nonproliferation across the board. But
certainly there are trade issues that are critically important.
We have almost a $60 billion deficit with China. They have great
barriers there, and we cannot lower the standards just so we can have a
political announcement and have a gift that we are providing the
Chinese by saying we are going to support your accession to the World
Trade Organization.
I didn't want to offer this amendment today. I would much rather that
this had gone through the committee. I would rather we had a different
vehicle. But we are going out on Easter recess and the Premier is
coming to this country. The negotiations are coming to a head. This is
the only opportunity we have to ensure that we will have a voice on
whether or not they should go into the WTO.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--not to table it but
pass the amendment and let the administration know how seriously we
take this issue, and that as a coequal branch of Government we should
be able to approve or disapprove whether China goes into the WTO.
There are serious issues that were not raised in this debate. We have
had a good debate, but there needs to be a much more thorough debate,
with many more Members involved. That will take place at the
appropriate time if this amendment is passed. I ask colleagues to
support it at the appropriate time.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is all time yielded back?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am constrained to make a motion to
table because I believe that this amendment, if not tabled, would take
a considerable amount of time. I served in China in World War II. I
would like to be involved at length in this debate, but this is not the
time or the place for that debate.
I hope all Senators will understand that I make this motion merely to
try to control this supplemental and get it ready for a conference at
the earliest possible moment.
I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that will be postponed until 2:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only
amendment that would be in order between this time and 2:30 would be
the Torricelli-Harkin amendment, that there be no second-degree
amendments, and that if the Senators finish the use of their time prior
to that time, the Senate stand in recess until 2:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 92

(Purpose: To terminate the funding and investigation of any independent
counsel in existence more than 3 years, 6 months after the termination
of the independent counsel statute)

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], for himself,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Reid,
proposes an amendment numbered 92.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 45, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

SEC. __. LIMITATION OF FUNDING.

(a) In General.--Effective December 31, 1999, funding
authorized pursuant to the third and fourth provisos under
the heading ``salaries and expenses, general legal
activities'' under the heading ``Legal activities'' under the
heading ``GENERAL ADMINISTRATION'' in title II of Public Law
100-202 (101 Stat. 1329-9; 28 U.S.C. 591 note) shall not be
available to an independent counsel, appointed before June
30, 1996, pursuant to chapter 40 of title 28, United States
Code.
(b) Pending Investigations.--Any investigation or
prosecution of a matter being conducted by an independent
counsel, appointed before June 30, 1996, pursuant to chapter
40 of title 28, United States Code, and the jurisdiction over
that matter, shall be transferred to the Attorney General by
December 31, 1999.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Iowa, Senator Harkin, and on behalf of Senator Durbin, Senator
Feinstein, and Senator Reid of Nevada, to offer an amendment to bring
some rational conclusion and fair determination to the issue of
independent counsels in the U.S. Government.
I begin with a simple admission. In 1994, as a Member of the House of
Representatives, I voted for and argued for the enactment of an
independent counsel statute. I was not mindful then, as I am now, of
the complete record and statements as to the likely outcome of the
independent counsel statute.
Howard Baker, then a Member of this institution, argued that the
independent counsel statute would ``establish a virtual fourth branch
of Government, and would substantially diminish the accountability of
law enforcement to the President, the Congress, and the American
people.''
Acting Attorney General Robert Bork, warned: ``What you are doing
[with the independent counsel statute] is building an office whose sole
function is to attack the executive branch throughout its tenure. It is
an institutionalized wolf hanging on the flank of the elk.''
Mr. President, I take no delight in admitting it, but it is
inescapable. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bork, and other Members of this institution
were right. And many of us in my party, and, indeed, President Clinton,
who ultimately signed the law, were wrong.
It is now clear--I think unmistakably clear--that the independent
counsel law, when it expires on June 30, 1999, will not be
reauthorized. There is not only not the votes in this Senate or in the
other body, but there is not a rationale based on the historic
experience to allow this law to continue.
It brings me no pleasure to bring to the floor of the Senate the
weight of the evidence that supports the conclusion that the law should
expire. But it is overwhelming, and it isn't only Kenneth Starr.
Independent counsels, from Walsh to Smaltz, have given us no choice but
to close this unfortunate chapter. The list of abuses by independent
counsels are daunting, and they are dangerous. Mr. Starr has no
monopoly in his violations of law, ethics, or common sense. But the
investigation that is now underway in the Justice Department of Judge
Starr is still instructive. It teaches us a lot about the basic
failings of this law, how it can be abused, and why the amendment that
I offer today, along with Senator Harkin, is of such value.
First, Mr. Starr apparently may have failed to inform the Attorney
General about his contacts with Paula Jones' attorneys. Indeed, he may
have misled the Attorney General on this issue.
Second, it is overwhelmingly clear that Mr. Starr, or his
subordinates, leaked confidential grand jury information in direct
violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures.

[[Page S2911]]

Third, it is possible that Mr. Starr may have used questionable
prosecutorial tactics by making an offer of immunity to Ms. Lewinsky
contingent on her not contacting her attorney.
These may not be the only violations of procedure or law, but they
tell us something about the fact that there is something
institutionally wrong with how the independent counsel statute has
functioned.
I do not raise these things out of any vendetta against Mr. Starr, or
his tactics, or his office, because this is an institutional problem.
Indeed, in the last few years, Donald Smaltz has spent $7 million
investigating former Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy. Last year,
after a 2-month trial, in which the defense never found it necessary to
call a single witness, that $7 million investigation resulted in a jury
acquitting Mr. Espy on each and every one of the 30 counts in the
indictment.

C. David Barrett spent $7 million investigating former HUD Secretary
Cisneros on allegations that he lied about payments to a former
mistress. Mr. Barrett went so far as to indict the former mistress over
misstatements on a mortgage application form. Nor is it limited to this
administration.
In the previous administration, after a 6-year investigation,
Lawrence Walsh indicted Casper Weinberger only 5 months before the 1992
Presidential election in either a moment of political convenience, or
worse. Mr. Walsh had spent $40 million over 7 years in his
investigation.
I believe it is now clear that, despite the best of intentions and
our frustration with the Watergate experience, we now know the
independent counsel statute is deeply flawed. It has created a
prosecutor that is accountable to no one. It is a contradiction with
the most basic lessons of our Founding Fathers in the Constitutional
Convention. Indeed, in Federalist 51, Madison sums up the need for
checks and balances of every office, every center of power in the
Federal Government, with a simple phrase ``Ambition must be made to
counteract ambition.''
Mr. Walsh, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Starr, and Mr. Smaltz are ambitious men,
but their ambition is met with no countervailing power.
There is, in theory, in the Office of the Attorney General the
opportunity to dismiss for cause, to hold accountable, but in the
political realities of our time no Attorney General could exercise that
authority against an independent counsel investigating an
administration in which he or she is a component part.
The Congress does not even control the ability of oversight of
expenditures. As a Member of the Senate, and as a member of the
Judiciary Committee with oversight responsibilities for the Judiciary,
for the operation of the Attorney General, I wrote to Mr. Starr and to
the Justice Department asking about how this $50 million had been spent
and received nothing but a vague reply with broad categories. Mr.
Starr's office remains the only functioning office in the entire U.S.
Government where the people's representatives cannot inform on behalf
of the people how millions upon millions of dollars are spent. But
mostly, I suppose, if the money were wasted and power were exercised
responsibly but the net result was still a rising level of public
confidence in public integrity, it might be worth the abuse or the
expenditure. But this isn't the case either.
The independent counsel statute has not succeeded in removing
politics from prosecution. It has brought a new element to politics,
the hijacking of these offices, the use of them for their own political
purposes, only now without oversight. Public confidence in the
administration of justice has not only not improved but it has
completely failed.
Now it is being argued that the law will expire and there will never
be independent counsels again. I believe that is an accurate portrayal
of the situation, but the current five independent counsels should
simply be allowed to continue in their work. The question remains, how
long and for how much?
Mr. Starr has suggested his investigation may go to the year 2001. He
has the power for it to continue until the year 2010, 2020. When will
Mr. Barrett complete his case, in this decade or the next? And, if $50
million was an outrage by the public for the expenditures of Mr. Starr,
there is nothing between here and his expenditure of $100 million, $200
million. Is he the only person in the Federal Government who will
retain the power to unilaterally spend unlimited sums of funds with no
oversight for any purpose?

That is what brings me to the floor today with Senator Harkin, to
offer an amendment that allows Mr. Starr, Mr. Barrett, and the other
three remaining independent counsels to continue with their
investigation for 6 months after the expiration of the independent
counsel statute on June 30. For the remainder of this year, they retain
their authority, their budget appropriations, and they should complete
their files and prepare their cases. During that 6 months, they should
work with professional prosecutors in the Justice Department, the
Public Integrity Section, as applicable, and prepare the transfer of
their cases. The cases will continue. They will be in able hands with
professional prosecutors, with ample resources.
This law is not intended to end any investigation. It will not end
any investigation, but it will allow for the orderly transfer of these
investigations and prosecutions within the Justice Department. Those
two investigations which have not had independent counsels appointed
for 3 years, involving Secretary Herman and Secretary Babbitt, are not
affected by this amendment. It is our belief those independent counsels
have not had at least 3 years to prepare their cases. We will give them
every benefit: Take the time as independent counsels after the law has
expired, prepare your cases, continue the prosecution if you have a
case, or dismiss it if you do not. This amendment is reserved only for
those cases where more than 3 years has expired and where, after the
expiration of the independent counsel statute, there is a need to then
proceed.
I believe this amendment is fair. It will help restore public
confidence and allow the Congress to know the taxpayers' money is being
spent properly. It will transition the Federal Government into the
post-independent counsel statute method of dealing with these important
questions.
I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin for joining with Senator
Harkin and with me in offering this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with respect to my colleague from New
Jersey and the other cosponsors of this amendment, I rise to oppose the
amendment. I understand some of what has moved them to have the strong
feelings they do that lead to this amendment, but I think it is
certainly ill timed and ultimately ill advised.
I say it is ill timed because the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
on which I am honored to serve as the ranking Democratic member, is in
the middle of an inquiry, holding hearings on the fundamental question
of whether to reauthorize the independent counsel statute, hearings
which will continue for at least a month more. I think it is worth
letting that process work what we hope will be its thoughtful and
constructive way.
I know many of my colleagues oppose reauthorizing the statute, and
that is true of Members on both sides of the political aisle, just as I
am heartened by the fact that Members on both sides of the political
aisle support the retention of the independent counsel statute or some
version of it. I hope we can work together to develop a law that
establishes the principles of independence of investigation when the
highest officials of our Government are suspected of criminal behavior.
It may take some time and some convincing. Most people believe this
will not happen by the June 30 expiration date of the current statute.
The statute, therefore, may lapse for a time while we work on this. But
that would not be a catastrophe, because under existing law the
independent counsel who are in effect now would continue to do their
work.
Regardless of how the underlying question of whether we have an
independent counsel--inside the Justice Department, outside the Justice
Department--or not, is resolved, I believe it would be a serious
mistake to single out, as this amendment does, what I

[[Page S2912]]

gather to be four of the independent counsels for termination while
their investigations are ongoing. In that sense, this amendment is not
just a preemptive attack on the statute while we are still considering
as a committee and as a body whether to reauthorize it, it is what
might be called a personal attack on the most controversial independent
counsels. In that sense, it actually cuts against the purpose of the
statute in the first place, which was to provide for independence of
investigation and prosecution. The fear was, when the statute was
drafted and adopted in 1978 after Watergate, that prosecution--
investigation of high-ranking officials of our Government would be
interfered with by people in the executive branch who would be affected
by those investigations.
There is a way in which this amendment puts Congress in a position of
compromising the independence of these investigations. Under the
amendment, all the independent counsel investigations besides the ones
covered still operating after the law expires on June 30, would
continue. It is not until they reach the 3-year deadline in the
amendment, but until their work had been completed and their offices
were terminated pursuant to the statutory provisions which are
currently in effect.
There are two other ongoing independent counsel investigations begun
in 1998 which, as my friend and colleague from New Jersey, I believe,
just indicated, would never be affected--in fact, would never be
affected by this amendment. Similarly, there may be other independent
counsel currently operating under court seal, which we would therefore
not know about, who would not be affected. And the Attorney General may
appoint additional independent counsel before the statute expires on
June 30. All of these would not be affected. This amendment as I
understand it and read it, affects only four independent counsel:
Kenneth Starr, David Barrett, Donald Smaltz, and Larry Thompson.

I am not rising to oppose this amendment because I want to defend the
investigations that these four men have carried out. I do not want to.
I don't need to. Some of the criticisms of their work may be valid;
some may not be. But that is not the point, as I see it. The point is,
and the question is: Do we in Congress want to set the precedent of
terminating an ongoing separate branch investigation and prosecution
for whatever the reason that it has aroused our opposition? I think
this would be a bad precedent which smacks of violation of the
separation of powers doctrine and values.
I know we maintain the power of the purse, and it is an important
power, but it has to be exercised with great discretion and
sensitivity, particularly when we are affecting one of the other
branches of Government and particularly when we are affecting a branch
of Government whose particular participants here are involved in
controversial independent investigations. It was no accident that the
framers of the Constitution went out of their way in a whole series of
cases, including in the impeachment provisions in the Constitution
which we have just come through, to make it very clear that Congress
does not have the power to prosecute. That was one of the lessons the
framers learned from their own history. So, as we remember in the
impeachment provisions, and it was central to the decision that many of
us made, that impeachment existed not to prosecute the President in
that case.
That was something that the Constitution tells us could be done after
an individual left office by the appropriate branch of government. I
worry very much about the effect of the precedent that will be set
here, understanding some of the concerns that motivate the amendment,
but thinking beyond the current situation. A precedent would be set for
Congress to intervene and terminate independent criminal investigations
and/or prosecutions. We do not have to do it. The law makes clear that
there are others who can take these steps. The independent counsel
statute itself contains a mechanism by which the Attorney General can
remove any independent counsel, including these four, for cause. So far
she has declined to use that authority. I think to some extent what is
involved here is our respect for her right, as the Nation's chief law
enforcement officer, to make the decision as to whether to use the
power we have given her in statute to decide whether or not to remove
these four independent counsel.
Why should we presume to replace our judgment for hers? The statute
also contains a provision by which either the Attorney General, the
independent counsel, or the special panel of three appellate judges can
move to terminate an investigation, if its work has been substantially
completed, whether or not the independent counsel himself thinks that
is the case. This amendment makes an exception to those ongoing
statutory provisions for four independent counsel. It is not the proper
role of Congress, in my belief, to decide that certain prosecutors
should be fired in the midst of their work. We should apply the same
provisions of the law to those independent counsel whose investigations
have displeased us, either because of the content or the length of the
investigations, as we do for those that have not displeased us.
Even if this amendment's 3-year cutoff applied equally to all of the
independent counsel, it may well constitute an unjustifiable
interference in ongoing criminal investigations.
The independent counsel statute, as it exists today and as I
mentioned earlier, grandfathers existing investigations, if the statute
is not renewed, for a number of very good reasons. Among them are that
after a prosecutor has spent time on a lengthy and complex
investigation, he has built up a store of information, institutional
memory, ongoing leads and relationships. Much of that would be lost if
these cases were turned over to the Department of Justice midstream.
Again and again, I have heard critics of the independent counsel
statute complain of the inefficiencies involved in requiring newly
appointed independent counsel to find office space and assemble staff
before they begin their work, but we need to weigh carefully whether
there are greater inefficiencies and greater harms involved in tearing
apart these offices before they have finished their work. The
inefficiencies, I think, would be compounded if we in Congress
ultimately pass a statute to replace the current law.
The legislative process has barely begun on the question of whether
or not to renew in its current form or some revised form the
Independent Counsel statute. None of us, certainly not I, can say where
this will lead. Perhaps a new independent counsel would have to be
appointed and attempt to reconstruct the work that had been done.
Before a new law is passed, it is not clear to me how the Attorney
General would be expected to handle the investigations that would be
returned to the Department at the end of the year.
Yesterday, in testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee,
the Attorney General promised to continue appointing independent
counsel where necessary, pursuant to regulations, if the current
statute expires.
The amendment before us may have the ironic effect of requiring the
Attorney General to immediately appoint a new independent counsel to
resume investigations and prosecutions that were already well underway
towards completion, which I fear might mean not only a bad precedent
and principle, but additional expenses as well.
Finally, Mr. President, the Attorney General declared yesterday that
she is opposed to reauthorizing the independent counsel statute, but I
think it is fair to say that she nonetheless saw dangers, problems
implicit in the pursuit and purpose of the amendment before us now. I
thought she urged us to reject it. At least she said it didn't make
sense to her. I admire her forthrightness on both counts, though I
disagree with her on one. Whether or not you support the independent
counsel statute, I hope my colleagues will think twice before going on
record and supporting the precedent of premature termination by
Congress of prosecutors who are appointed to be independent guardians
of justice, independent from the executive branch and independent from
the legislative branch as well.
I thank my colleagues.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
I want to make certain that the record is complete and accurate. The

[[Page S2913]]

Senator has suggested that it would be interfering with an ongoing
criminal investigation. The Senator understands that in these 6 months,
the independent counsel would have time to take their cases, as they
are now prepared, and their relatively small offices and give them to
professional prosecutors in the Justice Department who have been
pursuing similar or more important cases for years. There is no
diminution in resources, quality of personnel, or ability to pursue the
case. Ironically, this is probably bad news for the potential
defendants, because they are going to be facing much more experienced
prosecutors.
I just wanted to make certain that was clear on the record and the
Senator understood that.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Jersey. I do
understand it. My reaction to it is that we are still taking from these
offices that have been working on these cases and establishing a
precedent for various reasons. It is a precedent that can be misused,
as time goes on, of terminating an ongoing independent counsel
prosecution by the individual, firing the individual who is doing it,
turning it over to the Justice Department, which, of course, has many,
many capable and experienced lawyers, but who have not been working on
this case. Therefore, I think that it would suffer not only from
redundancy and inefficiency, but most of all, I worry, no matter what
we think about these four or the independent counsel statute, it would
set a bad precedent of legislative intervention into independent
investigation and prosecution.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, will the Senator continue to yield for
one more inquiry?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.
Mr. TORRICELLI. The point was made, as well, as to whether or not
this is an unconstitutional interference. The right of the Congress to
reassign responsibilities, to reassign appropriations, of course, is an
innate part of the function of Congress. The Senator from Connecticut,
as did the Senator from New Jersey, I am sure, voted, for example, for
the State Department reauthorization, the Department of Energy
reauthorization, where we simply reassigned executive responsibilities
as part of our constitutional power.

Finally, I, too, was there for the Attorney General yesterday. The
Senator from Connecticut may remember, I asked her, in my concluding
questions, whether or not the Justice Department had the resources to
deal with these cases. She was confident they would and could deal with
these cases so that justice was done and there was no diminution of
effort in the pursuit of justice in these cases.
I simply want the Record to reflect that her answer was affirmative.
I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding and apologize to the
Senator from Iowa for taking the time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from New Jersey. I will speak for a
moment more and then yield to the Senator from Iowa.
I think the Attorney General yesterday was asked two different
questions, quite different, and didn't give inconsistent answers, but I
think my interpretation was, she said that an amendment of this kind
would be unwise. She did say that if it was agreed to, the Department,
as the Senator from New Jersey has indicated, would be capable of
picking up these cases.
Secondly, I want to indicate that I am not reaching a constitutional
judgment that this is a violation of separation of powers. I have tried
to be careful in my comments to state that. I do think it evokes
separation of powers concerns and values. Taking the example that the
Senator from New Jersey gives of reauthorization of State Department or
Energy Department Offices, to me this would be a little bit like
abolishing an assistant secretaryship in one of those Departments
because we didn't like the work that the particular Assistant Secretary
was doing and saying, turn it over to the Secretary of State or
Secretary of Energy and let them do it the way they want to do it.
While we have the power to do that and we have the power of the purse,
it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

I thank my colleagues, I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I yield
to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the
arguments made by the author of the amendment, Senator Torricelli--of
course, I am a cosponsor of the amendment--and the very lucid and well
thought out arguments of my friend from Connecticut.
First I will respond to my friend from Connecticut by saying that he
used the word ``ill-timed'' on a number of occasions in his argument. I
quite disagree with my friend on that. I believe this is perfect
timing.
What are we talking about here? We are on a supplemental
appropriations bill. We are making some cuts someplace. We are spending
money. We are trying to reach some emergency spending moneys that we
need, and we are all looking for places to save money. Here is one
place we can save some money. That is what this is about, too.
If there is one thing I continually hear from my constituents in Iowa
and from people around the country, it is, ``How much more money are
you going to pour down that rat hole?'' How much more money are we
going to spend on these special prosecutors that go on and on and on? I
think the timing is very appropriate right now, when we are on an
appropriations bill talking about how much money we are spending and
how much money we can save to meet critical needs in this country. I
think it is very appropriately timed on this legislation.
Mr. President, the Starr investigation has been traumatic for this
country, it has been divisive for our national fabric, and these gaping
wounds need to be healed. The focus so far has been on allowing the
independent counsel statute to lapse on the assumption that it will put
an end to the episode. In reality, that is far from the case.
The independent counsel statute will lapse on June 30, but it does
not put an end to the ongoing investigations. Keep in mind that the
amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey and others, of which I
am a cosponsor, basically goes just to those investigations that have
been ongoing for over 3 years. There are a couple that are less than 3
years. Our amendment does not touch them.
We are only answering the three--actually there are four. The Senator
from Connecticut mentioned the fourth one. It caught me by surprise and
I had to look it up. It turns out the fourth one is an ongoing
investigation into Secretary of HUD Samuel R. Pierce. If I am not
mistaken, he was Secretary of HUD under Ronald Reagan. They still have
an investigation going on him. It just goes to show you, these things
just go on year after year after year.
What we are saying is, if we have an independent counsel who has been
operating for more than 3 years, in 6 months--by the end of this year--
they have to close up shop and turn it over to the Justice Department.
We are not saying that no one will be let off. No appeal is going to
be dropped. No valid investigative lead will be abandoned. The cases
will be pursued in keeping with Justice Department rules by some of the
most experienced prosecutors in the country.

Again, I point out there is little doubt that these cases will be
under scrutiny internally at the Justice Department, certainly by the
media and by the Congress.
We have a President, an Executive, of one party, Congress run by
another party. I daresay there are going to be some checks and balances
here. Anyone who thinks this can be smothered by the Justice Department
does not recognize how this town works. What it will do is save us a
lot of money, and that is what I keep hearing about from my
constituents.
Until I started looking at this independent counsel law during the
impeachment trial we had in the Senate, I had not paid all that much
attention to it. In fact, I admit freely, when the extension passed in
1993, I was one of those who voted to extend it. I wish now I had not,
because I think it has run amok. That is why I will be in favor of
letting it expire on June 30.
In looking at this, I was trying to find out how Ken Starr could rack
up a bill between $40 million and $50 million in less than 3 years. How
could that be possible?
I began trying to find the line items where he was spending the
money. Guess what I found out. We cannot get

[[Page S2914]]

that information. I can go to the Department of Agriculture and I can
find out where every last nickel they spend goes. I can go to the
Defense Department and find out exactly where every nickel they spend
goes. They have to line item everything. That is true of any branch of
Government but not of the independent counsel. Believe it or not, you
cannot find out where he is spending the money. All they have to put it
under is general broad categories, summaries.
For example, here is a bill, and this came from the Los Angeles
Times. They said they paid $30,517 for psychological analysis of
evidence in the suicide of former White House lawyer Vincent Foster by
the same Washington group that looked into the untimely death of rock
musician Kurt Cobain. What is that all about?
Then there is $370 a month in parking. We do not know who for or what
for, but it is there, $370 a month. Here is $729,000 on five private
investigators who were hired to supplement dozens of FBI agents. What
did it go for? Where did that money go? We do not know. Here is a
report that Mr. Starr paid $19,000 a month in rent at a luxury
apartment building for staff members--19,000 bucks a month? I would
like to know what he was renting. Again, we do not know because we
cannot get into the line items.
That is just another glaring deficiency in this huge loophole that we
opened with the independent counsel law. It is, in fact, a fourth
branch of Government with no checks and balances and no accountability
to Congress.
Despite the fact that Mr. Starr made his referral to Congress, it was
considered and dispensed with through a long, tortuous episode in the
House and long, tortuous episode in the Senate with the impeachment
trial. According to newspaper accounts, Mr. Starr has no plans to wind
things down. In fact, there are indications he may keep the
investigation going not for 1 year, not for 2 years, but for 3 more
years. That is why we are offering our amendment; cut funding in 6
months for any independent counsel investigation that has been ongoing
for 3 years or more. That is enough time.
The Starr investigation has been going now for almost 5 years, and I
think we are pretty darn close to $50 million, maybe more by now. We
are just saying, during these 6 months, to Mr. Starr and these other
independent counsel, even the one who is investigating Samuel Pierce
from the Reagan administration, it is time to put their books together
and make any referrals for any additional action or investigations to
the Attorney General.
This deadline gives plenty of time to the independent counsel to
finish their work. And, again, if there is any problem, the American
people can rest assured that these cases will be handled by a
specialized office of the Justice Department that has been doing this
for over 20 years.
I think we have all concluded that the independent counsel law is
fatally flawed. Under these circumstances, it would be a mistake to let
the Starr investigation continue on indefinitely without any end date,
without any oversight, without any rein on prosecutorial excess,
without any rein on money.
I think we ought to listen to people and let the country move on. Mr.
Starr has had long enough to investigate Whitewater and Monica
Lewinsky. The Senate considered the charges against the President. We
dispensed with them. I think 6 months is long enough to wrap things up.
Make the referrals he deems necessary so we can put this behind us.
Again, I just point out, Mr. President, that Mr. Starr is sort of
like a gold-plated energizer bunny--his investigation keeps going on
and on, and the money just keeps going up and up and up.
Twenty independent counsel investigations have been initiated since
1978, at a cost estimated at nearly $150 million. Here is one. Donald
Smaltz began his $17 million investigation of former Ag Secretary Espy
in November 1994. He filed 30 counts. The jury threw them all out. The
jury threw them all out. He spent $17 million. What happened? Well, it
sure ruined Agriculture Secretary Espy, I can tell you that; but the
jury found him innocent--$17 million.
David Barrett began his investigation, which I understand is now
around $7 million, of former Housing Secretary Cisneros in May of 1995.

So the bills just keep getting racked up. The independent counsel
keep going, and the people of this country are wondering, What in the
heck are we doing? Here we are on an appropriations bill, we are trying
to scrounge every nickel, every penny we need to meet the critical
needs of people in this country. We have it in the farm sector. We have
a lot of critical needs in rural America, I can tell you that right
now, with the devastating crop prices and livestock prices. And we are
looking for money for some assistance for farmers. We can't find it.
Yet we have millions for Ken Starr and for all these other
investigators to just keep living in luxury apartments and running up
the bills to the taxpayers with no accountability.
So that is why I think we have to do this. Six months is long enough.
I do not know what the Governmental Affairs Committee will report out,
when they report it out. It is my own observation that when this law
expires on June 30 there are not the votes here to extend it. Some
people may want to extend it, but I do not think there will be the 60-
plus votes necessary to extend that law. But that does not make any
difference; the ones that are going on now can just keep right on
going. I just think it is time to heed the common wisdom of the people
of this country and shut the spigot off and turn it over to the Justice
Department by the end of the year.
I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we at the Governmental Affairs Committee
are, indeed, conducting hearings with regard to the independent
counsel. The criticisms of the Independent Counsel Act have been many
and well known for many, many years. The Act was passed in 1978. I was
one of the ones who was critical of the idea that you could set
somebody up totally separate and outside the process and not
accountable in the very beginning.
A lot of my friends now who criticize the Act, of course, thought it
was a very good idea back when the independent counsel were
investigating the other party. All of the criticisms about Mr. Starr,
of course, were applicable to Mr. Walsh's investigation, which went on
longer, cost more than Mr. Starr's investigation back during previous
administrations.
We should not look at this in terms of who is investigating whom. As
I say, I have been critical of it all along. I still am. But the
question is, Where is the power going to reside if you have a real
conflict of interest? If you have a President of the United States who
has been accused of serious misconduct, can his appointee, the Attorney
General, investigate that with any credibility? I think for most of the
Attorneys General we have had throughout our history, the answer is,
yes, they have been people of great integrity. But what about the
perception? Is that a good idea?
So if we do not have an independent counsel, we give it back to the
employee of the President to investigate the President? That is an
inherent conflict of interest. Attorney General Reno herself, the
Department, the administration back in 1993, all agreed that was a bad
idea, and they were for the independent counsel. Now, recent events,
and Mr. Starr's criticism, has caused them to reverse on a dime and say
that they have discovered structural defects in the statute.
The statute has been basically the same since 1978. They are just now
discovering those structural defects in the statute. It looks an awful
lot like the question of, Whose ox is being gored? But we are trying to
stay away from too much of that.
I have been critical, of course, of this Justice Department in not
appointing an independent counsel in the case that I feel calls out for
it the most. We have a classic case with regard to the campaign
financing scandal--one of the largest scandals we have ever had in this
country--a classic case for why the independent counsel law was passed.
Yet all these others have been appointed, but when it comes to the big
guy, we do not have an appointment in that particular case.

[[Page S2915]]

But, that aside, we are trying to examine all sides of this: Should
we continue the law? Should we not continue the law? And if we continue
the law, should we modify it? All those are possibilities. All those
are on the table. And we do not know what the result is going to be
yet.
So along comes this amendment that is on the floor now--a terribly
bad idea. Regardless of whether you are for the independent counsel
statute or against the independent counsel statute, the idea that
Congress should step in, either now, 3 months from now, or 6 months
from now, and call to a halt investigations that have been going on for
a year--not just Mr. Starr's investigations but other independent
counsel--and say, ``Congress knows best; we're going to get into the
middle of these criminal investigations, and although we set up the
independent counsel law that was passed in this U.S. Congress--they
were duly appointed--we're going to call a halt to them because we
don't like the people who are being investigated; we don't like the
amount of money that you're spending,'' or all those newfound
criticisms that we have been silent on up until now since 1978, is an
extraordinarily bad idea.
The Congress has already determined that even if the independent
counsel law lapses, these investigations that are ongoing should
continue.
The Attorney General can ask the three-judge panel to call a halt to
an investigation if she believes that it is justified. She has not done
that. In fact, the Attorney General does not support this amendment.
This amendment would say: Let's call a halt to all of it and give it
back to the Attorney General.
I asked the Attorney General yesterday, in Governmental Affairs, just
one question: ``As a matter of policy, do you think it would be wise
for Congress to terminate current ongoing investigations, regardless of
what happens after that?'' Attorney General Reno's response: ``I think
since these investigations are underway, they should probably be
concluded under the current framework.'' So she doesn't support this
amendment, an extraordinarily bad idea.
So it goes back to the Attorney General under this amendment, as I
say, not just Mr. Starr's investigation, but the investigation with
regard to Mr. Cisneros, for example, others, the Webb Hubbell
investigation. All of that would be brought to an end and sent back to
the Attorney General.
And she has two choices: She can either keep it and dispose of it
herself, at a time when that Department probably has less credibility
than it has had in many, many years; or she can launch a new
investigation and call for a new special counsel to come in--
extraordinarily expensive, wasteful, nonsensical, Mr. President; a
very, very bad idea, whether or not you are for or against the
extension of the Independent Counsel Act.
Congress should not be interjecting itself to terminate
investigations at midstream when there is also a mechanism, if it is
justified, for that to be done. So I sincerely hope that my colleagues
will join me in opposing this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I intend to move to table this amendment.
It is a very serious subject and we have had extensive hearings before
the Governmental Affairs Committee, which Senator Thompson chairs. I do
believe we will have to address this subject at a later time in the
Senate, but this is not the time to do it.
Therefore, I move to table that amendment and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes equally
divided for explanation of the second amendment prior to the vote on
the second amendment, that is, this amendment I have just moved to
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes
between the two votes to explain the process that will occur after that
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Is all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Vote on Amendment No. 89

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. On this question, the
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I annouce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

YEAS--69

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--30

Ashcroft
Bunning
Burns
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dorgan
Enzi
Feingold
Grassley
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

McCain

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 89) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from
Alaska.

Amendment No. 92

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the agreement we have, there will
be 1 minute on each side to explain the next amendment. Senator
Torricelli will be first with that minute. Following that, I have 2
minutes to explain to the Senate what we have to do after this vote.
The yeas and nays have been ordered, Mr. President. I did order the
yeas and nays.
But before that vote, Senator Torricelli is to be recognized for 1
minute. It is only 1 minute. I hope we could have order so the Senate
can hear these Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, before the Senate is the question of
when the independent counsel statute expires. There is still the issue
of the appropriations, and whether the poor continuing independent
counsel will be able to spend, not just this year, but on into the
future, $10 million, $20 million, $100 million.
We begin the orderly process, on 6-month notice, of moving those
cases into the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department where
the Attorney General has assured us she is prepared to receive the
cases. They will be pursued professionally and prosecuted to the full
extent of the law. All we have provided for is the orderly transfer of
those cases. Justice will be done. Every case will be pursued. It will
be done within the Justice Department, and at long last there will be
accountability of how much we spend.
If you have been asked by constituents: Isn't $50 million too much?
Will it be $100 million? Will it be $200 million? This is the answer to
your constituents' inquiry. It is control, but it also assures justice
within the Department.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The time of the Senator has
expired. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, the Senate has previously determined if,
in fact, the Independent Counsel Act is allowed to expire,
investigations that are currently underway will be ongoing. Why did the
Senate decide that? The obvious reason is it is a bad idea for the
Congress to be terminating investigations in midstream and sending them
back to Justice.

[[Page S2916]]

This amendment would reverse that previous determination that this
body has made. They would send it back to Justice with choices: They
would either have to shut down the investigation, make the
determination themselves, which would be terrible in terms of
appearance, or they would have to continue the investigation and bring
somebody else in to do it, which would be terrible in terms of
efficiency.
I asked Attorney General Reno in the Governmental Affairs Committee
what she thought about it. She said, ``I think, since these
investigations are underway, they should probably be concluded under
the current framework.''
I suggest this is a very bad idea and should be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes here to inform the
Senate what procedure I hope we will follow at this time. We have a
list of amendments here, some 70 amendments, but I do not expect them
all to be offered. Particularly, I do not expect them all to be offered
when you see what is going to happen to this amendment. I say that
advisedly, after being advised by the proponents.

But, Mr. President, it is going to be my policy as the majority
manager of this bill to move to table every amendment that is not
cleared on both sides. This is an emergency measure. We are going home
a week from Friday. Next week is all taken up with the budget. We
either get this done now so we can go to conference with the House on
Monday or Tuesday and bring it back before Friday, or we might as well
forget about it.
So I respectfully inform the Senate I shall move, as the manager, to
table every amendment that does not have bipartisan support. So, if you
have an amendment on that list and you do not want to lose on it, now
is the time to take it off.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the yeas and nays
that have been ordered be vitiated, and we take a voice vote on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, may I pose a question to
the Senator?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. GRAMM. This is a motion to table the amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes. The Senator will see we are going to voice vote it
and it will carry.
Mr. GRAMM. With that assurance from the manager of the bill, I do not
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the motion.
The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 92) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are prepared to go through any
amendment that is going to be offered and give our advice as quickly as
possible as to whether or not we will support that amendment. I urge
Senators to bring the amendments to us. Senator Byrd and I will go over
them immediately, and we can determine how many of these amendments we
might have to vote on. As soon as the leader has made his request for a
time agreement, we will go further into the operation here of the
Senate before we finish this bill.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am curious to know what amendments might
be coming up. Is there a list available we can look at? Obviously, they
are not all going to be approved. It is my understanding, from what the
manager said, if any amendment is objected to, then he will include
that amendment in those to be tabled by voice vote?
Mr. STEVENS. I don't know about the voice votes, Mr. President, if
the Senator will yield. I do know we will have a list here very soon.
The leader will present it. That is what we are waiting for now. I do
say we have a tentative list. We are trying to winnow that down, but if
we can get agreement on that list, I think then we can proceed. I don't
know whether we can get agreement on the list and that is what we are
waiting for. But we will show you the list as soon as possible.
Mr. CHAFEE. Should we wait around here?
Mr. STEVENS. We should have that list within about 20 or 30 minutes.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be
granted to Ernie Coggins, a legislative fellow, during the pendency of
the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk a package
of amendments.
The first is an amendment by Senators Helms and McConnell directing
the Office of Inspector General, Agency for International Development,
to audit expenditures for emergency relief activities.
The second is an amendment by Senator Reid to provide an additional
$500,000 for technical assistance related to shoreline erosion at Lake
Tahoe, NV.
The next is an amendment by Senator Kyl to provide an additional $5
million for emergency repairs to Headgate Rock hydroelectric project in
Arizona.
Next is an amendment by Senators Domenici and Reid making a
rescission of $5.5 million to funds available to the Corps of Engineers
to offset additional funds provided in the previous two amendments.
Next is an amendment by Senators Jeffords and Bingaman directing the
Agency for International Development to undertake efforts to promote
reforestation and other environmental activities.
Last is an amendment by Senator Levin allowing the President to
dispose of certain material in the National Defense Stockpile.
These have all been cleared on both sides, and they are all fully
offset.
I send the package to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be
considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), for Mr. Helms, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Bingaman, and Mr. Levin), proposes amendments Nos. 93 through
98, en bloc.

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

Amendment No. 93

(Purpose: Relating to activities funded by the appropriations to the
Central America and the Caribbean Emergency Disaster Recovery Fund)

On page 8, line 22, insert before the proviso the
following: ``Provided further, That up to $1,500,000 of the
funds appropriated by this heading may be transferred to
`Operating Expenses of the Agency for International
Development, Office of Inspector General', to remain
available until expended, to be used for costs of audits,
inspections, and other activities associated with the
expenditure of funds appropriated by this heading: Provided
further, That $500,000 of the funds appropriated by this
heading shall be made available to the Comptroller General
for purposes

[[Page S2917]]

of monitoring the provision of assistance using funds
appropriated by this heading: Provided further, That any
funds appropriated by this heading that are made available
for nonproject assistance shall be obligated and expended
subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations and to the notification
procedures relating to the reprogramming of funds under
section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2394-1):''.

amendment no. 94

Insert in the appropriate place:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers--Civil

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

For an additional amount for ``Construction, General,''
$500,000 shall be available for technical assistance related
to shoreline erosion at Lake Tahoe, NV caused by high lake
levels pursuant to Section 219 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992.

amendment no. 95

Insert in the appropriate place:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Water and Related Resources

For an additional amount for ``Water and Related
Resources'' for emergency repairs to the Headgate Rock
Hydroelectric Project, $5,000,000 is appropriated pursuant to
the Snyder Act (25 U.S.C.), to be expended by the Bureau of
Reclamation, to remain available until expended.

amendment no. 96

Insert in the appropriate place:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers--Civil

CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

Of the amounts made available under this heading in P.L.
105-245 for the Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania,
$5,500,000 are rescinded.

amendment no. 97

On page 9, line 10 after the word ``amended'' insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That the Agency for
International Development should undertake efforts to promote
reforestation, with careful attention to the choice,
placement, and management of species of trees consistent with
watershed management objectives designed to minimize future
storm damage, and to promote energy conservation through the
use of renewable energy and energy-efficient services and
technologies: Provided further, That reforestation and energy
initiatives under this heading should be integrated with
other sustainable development efforts''.

AMENDMENT NO. 98

(Purpose: To authorize the disposal of the zirconium ore in the
National Defense Stockpile)

On page 58, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 5001. (a) Disposal Authorized.--Subject to subsection
(c), the President may dispose of the material in the
National Defense Stockpile specified in the table in
subsection (b).
(b) Table.--The total quantity of the material authorized
for disposal by the President under subsection (a) is as
follows:

Authorized Stockpile Disposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material for disposal Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zirconium ore.......................... 17,383 short dry tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Minimization of Disruption and Loss.--The President may
not dispose of material under subsection (a) to the extent
that the disposal will result in--
(1) undue disruption of the usual markets of producers,
processors, and consumers of the material proposed for
disposal; or
(2) avoidable loss to the United States.
(d) Relationship to Other Disposal Authority.--The disposal
authority provided in subsection (a) is new disposal
authority and is in addition to, and shall not affect, any
other disposal authority provided by law regarding the
material specified in such subsection.
(e) National Defense Stockpile Defined.--In this section,
the term ``National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund''
means the fund in the Treasury of the United States
established under section 9(a) of the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h(a)).

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 98) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments
were agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order to S.
544, with the exception of the pending amendments; that they be subject
to relevant second-degrees and that no other motions, other than
motions to table, be in order.
I submit the list and, Mr. President, I believe the Democratic
leadership has a copy of this list also.
The list of amendments is as follows:

Amendment List for Supplemental

Domenici:
1. New Mexico southwest border HIDTA.
2. Oil/gas loan guarantee.
Specter/Durbin: Unfair foreign competition/trade fairness.
Hutchison: Kosovo.
Robb: Cavalese, Italy claims.
Stevens:
1. Non-Indian health service.
2. Glacier Bay compensation.
3. Relevant.
4. Relevant.
Hatch: Ethical standards for Federal prosecutors.
Gregg: Fishing permits.
Gorton:
1. Hardrock mining.
2. Power generation equipment.
Brownback/Roberts: Natural gas producers.
DeWine:
1. Counterdrug research.
2. Counterdrug funding.
Smith (NH): Kosovo.
Enzi:
1. States' rights.
2. Livestock assistance.
3. Livestock assistance.
4. Relevant.
Murkowski: Glacier Bay.
Ashcroft: Emergency assistance to USDA.
Bond:
1. Hog producers.
2. 1998 disaster.
Jeffords: Relevant.
Gramm:
1. Strike emergency designation.
2. Steel loan program (4 amendments).
3. Offsets (4 amendments).
4. Relevant.
Kohl: Bankruptcy technical correction.
Lincoln:
1. Debris removal.
2. CRCT.
Gorton: Loan deficiency payments.
Dorgan: Shared appreciation amendment.
Kohl: NRCS conservation operation funding.
Lott: 3 relevant amendments.
Lott: Rules.
DeWine: Steel.
Leahy/Jeffords: Funding for apple growers.
Cochran:
1. Relevant.
2. Relevant.
Grams: $3.4 million transfer within HUD.
Burns: Sheep improvement center.
Nickles: Emergency.
Craig: Agriculture sales to Iran.
Biden: Relevant.
Bingaman:
1. SoS Home care.
2. Energy related.
3. Ag related.
Byrd:
1. Relevant.
2. Relevant.
3. Relevant.
Daschle:
1. Ellsworth AFB.
2. Missouri River.
3. Firefighters.
4. Relevant.
5. Relevant.
6. Relevant.
7. Tobacco recoupment.
Dorgan: Grain sale to Iran.
Durbin:
1. Medicaid recoupment.
2. Kosovo (2nd degree).
3. Relevant.
Edwards: TANF.
Feinstein: WIC increase.
Feingold: Relevant.
Harkin;
1. Tobacco.
2. Relevant.
3. Relevant.
4. Relevant.
Johnson:
1. Relevant.
2. Relevant.
3. Relevant.
Kerry: Hard rock mining.
Kerrey: Flood control--Corps of Engineers.
Landrieu:
1. Central America--disaster fund.
2. Immigration.
3. Immigration.
Leahy: Apple growers.
Levin: Relevant.
Murray: Rural schools--class size fix.
Reed: OSHA Small farm rider.
Robb: Ski gondola victims.
Torricelli: Relevant.
Graham:
1. Micro Herbicide.
2. Sec. 3002--Counterdrug.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S2918]]

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
not, I will just describe the list for our colleagues to indicate that
there are approximately 45 Republican amendments and approximately 35
Democratic amendments on the list just submitted, but I do not object.
I support the request made by the majority leader.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure I
understand what the majority leader has put forward. The amendments
would be amendable with relevant second-degrees; is that correct? Would
substitutes also be allowed on amendments?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in answering the question of the Senator
from Texas, all first-degree amendments that are listed would be
subject to relevant second-degree amendments, but if they are not on
that list, then they would not be subject to relevant second-degree
amendments. I guess that a second-degree amendment in the nature of a
substitute would be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is relevant, it would be in order.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Did we get agreement to that request? I will go ahead and
complete the entire request. Let me say on the list of amendments,
Senator Daschle is correct. There are apparently 80-something
amendments on that list. I assume that a lot of them are defensive in
nature and some of them can very likely be accepted. We have the two
best managers, probably, in the Senate handling this bill--the Senator
from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.
I am sure they will go through that list like a knife through hot
butter. But there are some on that list that certainly will have to be
dealt with in the regular order. We will work on our side to get that
list worked down, just as I am sure Senator Daschle will.
Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the
disposition of the above-listed amendments, the bill be advanced to
third reading and passage occur, all without any intervening action or
debate. I further ask that the bill remain at the desk, and when the
Senate receives the House companion bill, the Chair automatically
strike all after the enacting clause, insert the text of S. 544, as
amended, the House bill be advanced to third reading and the bill be
passed, all without intervening action or debate.
I further ask that the Senate insist on its amendments, request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees on the part of the Senate.
For the information of those who might be wondering about that, the
House has not yet acted on this supplemental. It is anticipated they
will not act until Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Therefore, we do
not want to run this to final completion. This will allow us to stop at
a critical point and wait for the House action and then go straight to
conference.
Finally, I ask that the Senate bill be placed back on the Calendar
and final passage occur no later than 11 a.m. on Friday, March 19, and
that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have just noted that there are
approximately 90 amendments. I agree with the characterization of the
majority leader that we have the two finest managers the Senate could
put forth as we work through this bill, and I am sure that they will
cut through those amendments like a knife through hot butter. As
eternal an optimist as I am, I am still not optimistic at this point
that we can complete work on all 90 amendments prior to 11 o'clock, so
I will object.

I do ask for the cooperation of our colleagues in the hopes that we
can finish this bill. Obviously, there is a great deal of work that yet
needs to be done. If we work this afternoon and work hard, perhaps as
early as this evening we might be able to finish, but let's give it our
best effort and revisit the question of when we can go to final
passage. So I object.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent request. It is
the same as earlier stated, but I will delete the last phrase with
regard to these words: ``And final passage occur no later than 11 a.m.
on Friday, March 19, and that paragraph 4, rule XII, be waived.''
Therefore, it will conclude with these words: ``Finally, I ask that the
Senate bill be placed back on the Calendar.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is likely there will be an
amendment offered relating to Kosovo. I would like to speak briefly on
that subject, if I may, in the absence of any other Senator on the
floor.
I note the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has
just come to the floor. Does the chairman wish to take the floor?
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Kosovo amendment has been set aside
temporarily. The meeting is going on in the leader's office. I wonder
if the Senator knows that is going on and should participate in that.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the chairman. I will participate. I want to make
just a couple of comments.
Mr. President, the Kosovo matter again raises the issue about the
respective power of Congress under the Constitution, the sole authority
to declare war, and the authority of the President as Commander in
Chief. This is a recurrent theme of consideration.
Within the course of the past year, we faced the issue of airstrikes,
which were anticipated against Iraq in February of 1998. At that time,
I wrote the President, and spoke on the floor of the Senate calling on
the President to seek congressional authority, if action was
contemplated there, because an airstrike was an act of war and only the
Congress of the United States has the authority to involve the Nation
in war.
There are circumstances where the President has to act in emergency
situations, where as Commander in Chief he must act in the absence of
an opportunity for congressional consideration. At that time, there was
adequate opportunity for congressional consideration. However, it was
not undertaken, and that incident passed without any military action.
We then had the events of this past mid-December where airstrikes were
launched on Iraq. Again, on that occasion, I had written to the
President of the United States urging that he make a presentation to
the Congress as to what he wanted to do. Again, airstrikes constitute
an act of war, and we have learned from the bitter experience of
Vietnam that we cannot successfully undertake a war without the support
of the American people. And the first action to obtain that support is
from the Congress of the United States.
We have now been in Bosnia for a protracted period of time.
Originally, this was supposed to be a limited engagement. That has been
extended. Congress enacted legislation to cut off funds under certain
contingencies. That has all lapsed, and we remain in Bosnia with very
substantial expenditures. Fortunately, there has not been military
action. So although there have been some casualties, it has not been as
a result of a conflict.
We are looking at a situation in Kosovo which is enormously serious.
I, again, urge the President of the United States to make a
presentation to the Congress as to what he would like to undertake. The
House of Representatives, by a fairly narrow vote, authorized some
limited use of force in Kosovo. The headline featured was ``President
Gets Support That He Had Not Asked For''. Presidents are very reluctant
to come to the Congress with a request for authorization, because that
may be interpreted to dilute their authority to act as Commander in
Chief unilaterally without congressional authority.

[[Page S2919]]

I had filed a resolution on the use of force with missile and
airstrikes, which would involve minimal risk and strike where there are
no U.S. personnel placed in harm's way. I did that really to stimulate
debate by Congress on what authorization there should be. But it is
more than a matter of notification. The administration talks of
notification, and very frequently even notification is a virtual
nullity coming at a time when Congress has no opportunity to really be
involved in the decision making process.
I can recall back in mid-April of 1986 when President Reagan ordered
the airstrike on Libya. The consultation was had--really notification,
not consultation, the difference being that if you notify, you are
simply telling Congress what has happened. If you consult, that has the
implication that there may be some response from the administration
depending on the congressional reaction. Both are vastly short of
authorization, which is what the Constitution requires on a declaration
of war.
But, in any event, in mid-April of 1986, congressional leaders were
summoned to be told that the planes were in flight. There was a meeting
with many Senators shortly after the attack occurred, there was quite
an interesting debate between the Senator from West Virginia, Senator
Byrd, and Secretary of State Schultz as to whether Congress could have
had any effect, or whether congressional leaders could have had any
effect, if they wanted to have an impact on that situation.
But when we take a look at what is happening now in Kosovo with a
massing of forces, and we take a look at the terrain, we take a look at
the air defense, we may be involved in more than missile strikes. And
it is one thing to support missile strikes. It is quite another thing
to support airstrikes. It all depends upon the facts and the
circumstances in situations where the Congress needs to know more, and
the American people need to know a great deal more.
So it is my hope that the President will address this issue, will
tell the Congress of the United States what he would like to do in
Kosovo, seek authorization from the Congress, and tell the American
people what he has in mind.
I know from my contacts in my State of 12 million people that
Pennsylvanians do not have much of an idea about what is involved in
Kosovo. And there are very, very serious ramifications and questions as
to what our posture would be with NATO, if we do not join NATO forces
on something which is agreed to there. But, when nations of NATO act,
they do not have our Constitution. They are aware of our Constitution.
They are aware of the provisions of our Constitution, that only the
Congress can declare war.
So if there is not congressional support, if there is not
congressional action, they are on notice that they do not have a
commitment in the Congress of the United States, a Constitutional
commitment in the United States, to act. What the President may do
unilaterally, of course, is a matter which has always been a little
ahead of the process. It is a fact that frequently Congress sits by and
awaits Presidential action.
If it is a success, fine. If it is a failure, then there may be
someone to blame--the President, not the Congress.
But it is my hope the President will come to the Congress, tell the
Congress what it is he wants, tell the American people what it is the
President thinks ought to be done so we can have an understanding as to
what is involved here. So we can have an understanding as to what the
risks are, what the objectives are, what the end game is, and what the
exit strategy is. Then we can make a rational decision.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a progress report for the Senate.
Our chief of staff, Mr. Cortese, has just informed me that we have
approximately 20 of the 70 amendments that were listed on the agreement
almost ready for presentation for approval on a bipartisan basis.
I am making this statement to appeal to Senators who have amendments
on the list to bring them to our staff so we can review them now, and I
hope that when we explain to them why we cannot take them, they will
withdraw their amendments.
I am hopeful we can pursue a process and find a way to complete
action on this bill by noon tomorrow. I do hope that will happen.
I will be able to present those other amendments to the Senate for
approval on a bipartisan basis probably within an hour or so.
Meanwhile, we cannot proceed all the way through the amendments unless
the Senators give us their amendments to review. I know there are two
committee meetings at this time, Mr. President. They are slowing down
this process, and they are both trying to get bills out in order that
they may be considered next week. We will just have to bear with the
situation for a few more hours.
We intend to keep going on this bill, and that may mean late tonight,
if necessary. If we had the cooperation of the Senate in presenting
these amendments, I think we could tell the Senate by 6 or 6:30 the
number of votes we will have to have and when they will occur.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________