[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1604-H1607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1141, 1999 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
                           APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 125 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 125

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1141) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of 
     the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(c) of rule XIII 
     or section 302 or 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. The amendment printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. All points of order against the amendment printed in 
     the report are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill, points 
     of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause 
     2(e) of rule XXI or section 302(c) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes of debate to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall), my friend and colleague, pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 125 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1141, a bill making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 1999.
  As we just heard from the Clerk, the rule description sounds 
technically complicated, but Members should keep in mind that this is 
an open rule which includes the waivers necessary to bring this matter 
to the attention of the House today and which allows the House to 
address the major issue of contention, offsets, in full and fair 
debate.
  As to the specifics, the rule waives clause 4(c) of rule XIII, which 
requires the 3-day availability of printed hearings on a general 
appropriations bill and sections 302 and 306 of the Congressional 
Budget Act against consideration of the bill.
  The waiver relating to section 302 of the Budget Act, which prohibits 
consideration of the committee's legislation providing new budget 
authority

[[Page H1605]]

until that committee has filed its 302(b) report and which also 
prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority 
in excess of a subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of such authority, are 
necessary because the Committee on Appropriations has not filed its 
final 302(b) suballocation report for FY 1999 and, since there are no 
final suballocations, H.R. 1141 is technically considered to be in 
breach of existing suballocations.
  The waiver of section 306 is necessary because the emergency 
designations within H.R. 1141 are within the Budget Committee's 
jurisdiction but were not reported by the Budget Committee.
  The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and it provides that the bill be open to amendment by 
paragraph.
  The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations or legislative provisions in a general appropriations 
bill and prohibiting nonemergency designated amendments to an 
appropriations bill containing an emergency designation.
  In addition, the rule provides special protection for an amendment 
printed in the Committee on Rules report if offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) or his designee. This allows the House to 
consider and vote upon the fundamental issue of offsets. That amendment 
shall be consider as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House 
or in the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to grant 
priority in recognition to members who have caused their amendments to 
be preprinted in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. 
That is an option, not a requirement.

                              {time}  1045

  The rule also permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce the 
voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15-minute vote.
  The rule provides waivers necessary to ensure a fair debate, 
specifically clause 2(E) of rule 21 and section 302(C) of the 
Congressional Budget Act for all amendments to the bill.
  Lastly, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  As I said, it sounds complicated but it is essentially an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are a compassionate people, willing to respond 
with a helping hand when our friends and neighbors are in trouble, at 
home and abroad, or when suffering grievously the consequences of 
disasters, as we have seen in the past year. H.R. 1141 meets a series 
of needs related to the devastation caused in the fall of 1998 when 
Hurricanes Georges and Mitch tore through the Caribbean and Central 
America with an intensity and viciousness rarely seen in nature.
  The people of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, and many of 
the Caribbean Islands are still trying to rebuild their lives and their 
livelihoods in the wake of these two brutal storms. Mother Nature 
struck again with a vengeance in January of this year when an 
earthquake rocked northern Colombia. These three catastrophic events 
together were responsible for at least 10,400 deaths, injuries to more 
than 17,000 people, three-and-a-quarter million people homeless or 
displaced, and an estimated financial cost of several billion dollars.
  Here at home our farmers have been struggling with their own 
disastrous problems, stemming primarily from low crop commodity prices. 
This legislation responds to those and other needs, and to the request 
of the administration that we move expeditiously toward releasing 
necessary funding, by providing a total of $1.3 billion in fiscal year 
1999 spending.
  I would note that we expect the Congress to exercise its oversight in 
the expenditure of the funds in this bill, to ensure that the relief 
gets to those in need and does not get sidetracked or diverted by 
bureaucratic or other snafus. I am specifically thinking about the 
people of Haiti and the very real concerns I have about the stability 
of Haiti's infrastructure and the misery that exists upon the Haitian 
people in Haiti. I will certainly be watching closely, and I know 
others will as well, to see that the money gets to those who need it 
and where it was intended to go.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does something else that is very important. It 
provides the offsets for nearly all the spending it outlines. Why is 
this important? It signals that we are committed to changing the way 
business is done in Washington, to living within our means, and to 
making the choices necessary to ensure that we never again allow this 
government to spend our children into deficits and red ink.
  In the bad old days of soaring deficits it used to be common practice 
to slap the label of ``emergency'' on a grab bag of spending items in 
order to circumvent the spending constraints. Well, things have 
changed. Even though the administration is willing to call most of the 
items in this bill emergency-related to avoid the offsets, our majority 
has ensured the bill is more than 90 percent offset, and they deserve a 
lot of credit, paid for with rescissions from the lower priority 
programs and accounts with as yet unspent funds. This is a question of 
prioritizing needs.
  The one piece of this bill that is truly defined as emergency 
spending is the payment for monies already spent to cover the costs of 
deployment of our military resources in the immediate aftermath of 
these three disasters; the ready response, as it were; the lifesaving 
missions that were undertaken by our military.
  Mr. Speaker, the rules of the budgeting game are vague and imprecise. 
They provide cover for too much spending, in my view. Yet my good 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, made the extra effort in crafting this 
compassionate bill, which takes the extra step of responsibly paying 
for the bulk of its spending.
  It is my hope that down the road when we discuss reforming our budget 
process, and we will, because we have introduced legislation, we will 
make some changes to the current rules to assist in these efforts in 
the future; changes that would better define what we mean when we say 
emergency, and that would establish a rainy day reserve fund to better 
plan ahead for true emergency situations. We know they are going to 
happen.
  In the interim, as we proceed with H.R. 1141, I know that there will 
be debate about the policy of offsetting any or even all of the 
spending in this bill, and that is a legitimate debate for us to have, 
and that is why we have provided this rule before us today, which 
allows for that discussion and ensures that all Members will have a 
chance to be heard. I urge my colleagues to support this fair, open 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), for yielding the time to me.
  This is an open rule. It will allow consideration of H.R. 1141, which 
as we have heard is a bill making emergency and nonemergency 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999. As my colleague has 
described, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The bill contains urgently needed money to repair the damage in 
Central America and the Caribbean caused by Hurricanes Mitch and 
Georges. The money will be used to repair hospitals, schools, roads and 
sanitation services. The money will also provide emergency financial 
assistance to Jordan in support of the Wye River Peace Accords between 
Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
  The bill also contains nonemergency funding, including $3 million for 
the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to 
fight religious persecution around the world.
  Unfortunately, the bill cuts important international programs in an 
effort to provide offsets for most of the new funding. For example, the 
bill cuts $150 million from a program to safeguard weapons-grade 
uranium and plutonium in Russia.
  The bill also makes numerous cuts in international assistance 
programs. As a whole, the bill would constitute a net

[[Page H1606]]

reduction in U.S. foreign affairs spending, a reduction which, 
according to the administration, would seriously undermine America's 
capacity to pursue its foreign policy objectives and promote our 
economic security.
  The rule permits amendments under the 5-minute rule, which is the 
normal amending process in the House. Though this is an open rule, many 
potential amendments would not be in order because the House has not 
completed the budget process.
  The Committee on Rules did make in order an amendment by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Appropriations, which would eliminate some of the cuts in 
international programs. The amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Obey) is a needed improvement and I hope House Members will 
support it, and I want to thank the Republican majority for making this 
amendment in order.
  I regret, though, that the Committee on Rules failed to make in order 
an amendment that I proposed to free $575 million in previously 
appropriated funds as a downpayment on the dues the United States owes 
the United Nations. I am embarrassed that the world's greatest 
superpower is also the world's biggest deadbeat.
  The United Nations plays a critical role in diffusing international 
tensions and providing a forum where nations can fight with words and 
not with bombs. The U.N.'s peacekeeping efforts have saved uncounted 
lives by averting war. Its food and health programs have saved many 
more lives.
  Paying our dues is a simple matter of keeping our word. We owe this 
money, and if we do not pay it, there is a very good potential, a very 
good chance that we will lose our vote in the U.N. General Assembly. 
That is an emergency, and that is why House Members should have an 
opportunity to vote on paying our U.N. dues, back dues, through this 
emergency foreign aid package.
  In the last few years our U.N. dues payment has been blocked by 
abortion opponents who are holding up the money in order to force 
restrictions on U.S. international family planning assistance. The 
resulting stalemate has stopped both family planning assistance money 
and U.N. back dues payments. I am pro-life, and I count the leaders of 
the pro-life movement in the House among my close friends, but I do not 
believe the U.N. dues should be held hostage to votes on abortion and 
family planning.
  It is time to put an end to this game and pay our debt. This 
amendment that I offered in the Committee on Rules was defeated on a 
straight party line vote of 6 to 4. I did receive assurances, though, 
from the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, that payment of U.N. dues was important and that he 
would examine other options in the future. I am encouraged by this 
promise. I intend to work with my Committee on Rules colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle until a solution can be found to break the U.N. dues 
logjam.
  I am disappointed that we cannot deal with the question of our U.N. 
dues back payment now. It is an emergency and it requires our immediate 
attention.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last week I heard a lot of speeches in this 
House about the crucial need to protect American families with the 
National Missile Defense System. Frankly, it is a concept I support. I 
heard a lot of speeches about the threat of nuclear missiles launched 
against the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I am so amazed and disappointed that 
this bill, less than 1 week after those very speeches, eliminates 
crucial funds designed to stop the nonproliferation of nuclear bomb 
grade materials in Russia. Specifically, this measure would cut $150 
million that, as we speak, is being used to develop an agreement 
between Russia and the United States that would take 50 tons of 
plutonium, 50 tons of plutonium, and make it unusable for nuclear 
weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, 50 tons of plutonium is enough nuclear material to build 
as many as 20,000 nuclear bombs. That is 20,000 nuclear bombs that 
could be put on missiles and aimed toward the United States, or 20,000 
nuclear bombs that could be hidden in a truck and detonated in any 
American city, 20,000 nuclear bombs that terrorists and thugs across 
the world would pay any price to get their hands on.
  According to the chief American negotiator in these ongoing 
negotiations with Russia, according to that negotiator, this bill could 
cause Russia to walk away from these crucial anti-proliferation 
negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know there is serious economic instability in 
Russia. We all know that there is a serious presence of organized crime 
in Russia. We all know that there are terrorists throughout the world 
that would do anything to get their hands on even 1 percent of this 50 
tons of plutonium and use that to build weapons that could be used 
against American servicemen and women abroad or against American 
families in their own homes, in their own hometowns.
  There is no logic, absolutely no logic, to spending billions of 
dollars for a National Missile Defense System and then at the very same 
time stopping a process that could prevent the potential development of 
tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. This action would give new 
meaning to the term ``penny-wise and pound-foolish.''
  Now, proponents of this proposed $150 million cut allege it will not 
undermine our nonproliferation negotiations with Russia. That is what 
they allege. Well, that is not what the American negotiator says. That 
is not what the Russian negotiator said, and said as late as yesterday 
to a number of Members of the House. That is not what the Republican 
author of this crucial funding says, and that is not what the Secretary 
of Energy said, the former U.N. Ambassador, who has ultimate 
responsibility for these ongoing nonproliferation debates.
  Let me quote Secretary Richardson, the Secretary of Energy, when he 
said in a letter dated today, ``Such a reduction would have severe 
consequences,'' severe consequences, ``for the ongoing negotiations of 
pursuit of a bilateral agreement with Russia on disposing of enough 
plutonium to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. To now withdraw 
this earnest money would be to call into question U.S. reliability. 
Russia may well perceive such a withdrawal as a breach of good faith. 
Withdrawing this money would severely set back and might even bring a 
halt to our constructive discussions on this important nonproliferation 
and national security issue.''
  He goes on to say that, ``The U.S. has also been working closely with 
the international community to gain commitments for additional support 
for the Russian plutonium dispossession effort. These potential donors 
would perceive a reduction in available U.S. funds as a dilution of our 
leadership and resolve and our leverage would be drastically 
undercut.''

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, we should do the prudent thing today. We should send 
this bill back to committee and have it withdrawn, have the provisions 
withdrawn that would basically put a greater risk on American 
servicemen and women abroad and American families right at home.
  No Member would have the intent to harm any serviceman or woman or 
not a single person in this country. But I would suggest that, despite 
the best of intentions, if we listen to the negotiators, we listen to 
the experts involved in these nonproliferation debates, this measure 
today and this unwise, difficult, terrible cut could put at risk our 
negotiations and, most importantly, millions of Americans all across 
this land of ours.
  Let us do the right thing. Let us send this bill back to committee. 
And if that fails, let us vote for the Obey amendment that takes out 
this unwise and dangerous and I hope and pray not catastrophic 
proposal.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page H1607]]

  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority on the Committee on Rules 
chose not to make in order an amendment that I intend to offer today 
which would prohibit the commissioner of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service from releasing any criminal aliens who are 
currently detained by the INS and are subject to deportation per the 
1996 Immigration Reform Act.
  The reason that this amendment is necessary is, in January of this 
year the INS, in an internal communication with its regional directors, 
put out a memorandum which stated that because of lack of detention 
space they were going to start releasing criminal aliens who would 
otherwise be subject to deportation. Now, among these individuals are 
people who were convicted in U.S. courts of felonies such as assault, 
drug violations and the like.
  This is also a situation where previous Congresses have provided 
funding increases for the INS, $3.5 billion, including $750 million for 
detention. The INS has subsequently reversed this policy. But the fact 
remains that has been the policy of the INS, and this Congress should 
take steps to try and address it.
  Now, it is disappointing that the Committee on Rules chose not to 
make this in order. We all know that the supplemental appropriations 
bill ultimately, once it is negotiated out with the administration, 
will pass. And I think it is important that Congress send a message to 
the INS that they are not to conduct this activity.
  I think many of us are familiar in our own districts, when the States 
have gone into releasing otherwise violent criminals for space needs, 
the public outcry that has occurred. I think the same would occur if 
the Federal Government, of which we are the stewards, is allowed to 
release criminal aliens who are subject to deportation.
  So I have an amendment that was filed that would prohibit the INS 
from doing this. I realize it is subject to a point of order. I do 
intend to offer the amendment this afternoon. I would hope that Members 
will take a look at it, because I do not think Members want to be on 
record in endorsing this misguided INS policy.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule 
and of the underlying supplemental appropriations bill.
  It is an open rule. And while I am sorry that we were unable to 
provide waivers to all the Members who wanted them for their individual 
amendments, I do believe that we will have a chance for a free and open 
debate here, which is exactly what this calls for.
  The major thrust of this supplemental appropriations bill is to deal 
with a very serious crisis, and it is a crisis. I just upstairs met 
with one of the top executives with Dole Food who was telling me about 
the situation in Honduras, how they as a company stepped in and tried 
to provide much-needed relief.
  We know that literally thousands of people lost their lives and over 
30,000 people have been left homeless, and the numbers go on and on and 
on, from Hurricane Mitch. And we have been waiting to try and put 
together this package of assistance. I am very proud, as an American 
citizen, that we can step up and help our very good friends at this 
important time of need.
  We, as a Nation, have had a constant interest in Central America. My 
friend from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Goss) and I have on several occasions 
visited Central America and we know that the tremendous strides that 
they have made toward political pluralism are important to recognize. 
Unfortunately, they faced this horrible catastrophe. And while this is 
a great deal of money, it is I believe very, very important for us as a 
society to step up to the plate and provide this much-needed assistance 
to our neighbors.
  As we know, these dollars are offset within the guidelines that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has put forward, and I commend him 
for that, and I think that it is in fact the responsible and right 
thing for us to do. And so I hope my colleagues will join in strong 
support of not only this rule but this very important legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________