[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1607-H1660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             1999 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 125 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1141.

                              {time}  1107


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1141) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered 
as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the supplemental appropriations bill that we present 
today was requested by the President of the United States several weeks 
ago to respond to the disaster in Central America, Honduras and 
Nicaragua specifically, as well as the earthquake damage in Colombia.
  Actually, the bill has been fairly well discussed during 
consideration of the rule, but I think it is appropriate that we point 
out that this bill reflects a humanitarian reaction to a terrible 
disaster in our own part of the world.
  During the late 1970s and early 1980s, this Congress and the 
administration spent billions of dollars in attempting to keep Fidel 
Castro and his friends in the Kremlin from exporting communism all over 
that area. We were very successful, and we helped our friends develop 
democratic forms of government. With the exception of Cuba, we 
currently have democratic governments throughout these regions. They 
are our friends, and they are our neighbors, and it is appropriate that 
we respond to them in their time of need.
  As soon as the disaster occurred, American troops were sent to the 
region. They pulled children out of flood waters. They pulled people 
out of mud-swept homes. They did many, many things to save lives and to 
bring sanitary conditions to the region.
  So what we are trying to do with this bill, as requested by the 
President, and he did not request all of it, I will have to admit, and 
we will talk about that later; he did not request the offsets that we 
use to pay for this bill, but the President did request that we provide 
$152 million for our own agricultural programs here at home, which we 
have done. The President requested that we provide funding for Central 
America, which we have done.
  The President also requested that we provide a payment to Jordan, one 
of our greatest allies in the Middle East and an ally that is very 
important to peace in the region. We did provide the $100 million for 
Jordan, but again we offset this $100 million.
  We also replaced $195 million for the Defense Department to pay them 
for

[[Page H1608]]

the expenses involved in actually responding initially as a 911 force 
to this terrible disaster. Now, we took considerable time to determine 
the appropriate offsets to pay for these bills.
  As I said, we did not offset the $195 million for the Department of 
Defense. That was a true emergency. They were truly responding to that 
emergency. They saved lives. They helped people bring their lives back 
together. They brought sanitary conditions. They brought water that 
could be consumed. They repaired hospital facilities. They made medical 
care available. And we are not suggesting that we think we should 
offset these funds, but we do offset everything else.
  The $100 million for Jordan I wanted to mention specifically because 
I said the bill was what the President asked for. Actually, the 
President asked for the entire Wye River commitment that he made when 
the Wye River agreements were reached. He asked for all of that to be 
done in this bill, and we did not do that. The reason is that we think 
that the part of the Wye River agreement that relates to Israel and the 
Palestinian Organization should be handled in the regular order as we 
go through the FY 2000 appropriations bills. But because of the death 
of King Hussein and the important role that he played and the 
establishment of the new kingdom and the new king, his son, King 
Abdullah, we thought it would be appropriate to move expeditiously to 
show a sign of support for Jordan.
  The President requested $300 million in that account, $100 million in 
FY 1999 funds and $200 million in advanced funding. We provide in this 
bill the $100 million for Jordan. We do not provide the advanced 
funding. Again, we believe that should be taken up and considered as we 
go through the regular order in the FY 2000 appropriation bills.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to expedite this bill. The monies that we will 
appropriate today will not go from our Government to another 
government. Because of the oversight responsibilities that the Congress 
has, and the Committee on Appropriations specifically, we do have an 
obligation to our taxpayers to make sure that any money that we 
appropriate is spent the way that we intend it to be spent.
  And so these funds will be appropriated into a special fund that will 
be administered by our own Government for the contracts awarded to 
replace the bridges or to help rebuild schools or to reconstruct roads 
or to do the many things that we will help our friends and neighbors. 
The contracts will be awarded on a competitive basis or negotiated 
basis and then the contracts will be paid for from the fund that we 
create, from the fund that we maintain control over and the fund that 
we have complete oversight over.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, this is a summary of the bill. I know we will 
have some discussions on some of the other aspects of this bill and 
especially the offsets, but that is basically what the bill does.
  At this point in the Record I would like to insert a table showing 
the details of the bill.
  (The table follows.)

[[Page H1609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MR99.000



[[Page H1610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MR99.001



[[Page H1611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MR99.002



[[Page H1612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MR99.003



[[Page H1613]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24MR99.004



[[Page H1614]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to rise in support of this bill 
but I cannot, and I owe the House an explanation why.
  At the beginning of this year we were told by the new House 
leadership that there would be a change in the way that leadership 
operated from last year, in that there would be less political 
interference from party leadership in committee decisions on 
substantive matters. But on the first major substantive bill before us 
in this session affecting the budget, we see a reversion to what 
happened last year.
  The budget rules allow for the Congress to pass emergency legislation 
when emergencies occur. Under that right, the administration sent down 
a supplemental request which tried to respond to the largest natural 
disaster in this century in Central America, and the administration 
also asked for some additional help to deal with the fact that farm 
prices have slid into oblivion for many commodities.

                              {time}  1115

  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
committee, originally was going to bring to the committee a proposal 
which would have had bipartisan support. I would certainly have 
supported it, and I think the administration would have, too. That 
approach recognized that the administration was responding to 
legitimate emergencies. But shortly before our committee put together 
the bill which it brought to the House floor, the committee leadership 
was ordered by the Republican leadership in the House to delete the 
emergency designation for domestic programs and to require offsets in 
order to finance those programs on a nonemergency basis.
  Members will be told that those offsets provide no harm and that most 
of that money was not going to be spent, anyway. That is simply not the 
case. I will therefore be offering an amendment that eliminates what I 
consider to be the four most reckless elements that the majority party 
has used to pay for this emergency supplemental. Let me walk through 
what they are.
  First, the committee rescinded $648 million in callable capital to 
the international financial institutions. Now, callable capital is not 
spent. It simply serves to assure that the full faith and credit of 
participating countries stand behind the international financial 
institutions in the loans that they make to stabilize the economies of 
countries upon whom we rely as export markets. The Congress has never 
before in the history of these financial institutions rescinded 
previously obligated callable capital. I think their doing so at this 
time could cause great harm.
  Secretary of the Treasury Rubin, in a letter to us on this issue, 
described this action as an ill-advised step which carries major risks 
and should be reversed. His letter goes on to say that the higher 
borrowing costs and reduced capital flows to the developing countries 
that could result from this proposal would only hinder growth and 
recovery in the developing world which in turn would hurt U.S. farmers, 
workers and businesses. He then goes on to say that the President's 
senior advisers would recommend a veto if this provision stays in the 
bill. I am confident the President would veto this proposition as it 
stands.
  The text of the letter from Secretary Rubin is as follows:

                                       Department of the Treasury,


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   March 23, 1999.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Dave: I am very concerned that the House is 
     considering rescinding previously appropriated and subscribed 
     funds for callable capital of three multilateral development 
     banks (MDBs) in order to provide budget authority offsets for 
     the FY 1999 emergency supplemental budget request. I strongly 
     believe that such a step is ill-advised, carries with it 
     major risks, and should be reversed as this legislation moves 
     forward.
       Fundamentally, what is at risk is the standing of these 
     institutions in the international capital markets. That 
     standing, and the Triple A credit rating these MDBs have 
     earned, are directly a function of the support provided to 
     the institutions by their major shareholders. Indeed, we 
     understand that in their annual assessments of the financial 
     condition of the MDBs, the rating agencies consider the 
     presence of appropriated or immediately available callable 
     capital subscriptions as a key factor.
       The rescission of funds appropriated to pay for U.S. 
     callable capital could be perceived as a significant 
     reduction in U.S. political support for the institutions and 
     their borrowers and could lead to a serious market 
     reassessment of the likely U.S. response to a call on MDB 
     capital should one ever occur. In these circumstances, the 
     borrowing costs of the MDBs could increase as a result of 
     this proposal. In addition, a ratings downgrade is a 
     possibility. A downgrade would lead to even greater borrowing 
     costs for the institutions, which costs would then need to be 
     passed on to the developing countries the MDBs are mandated 
     to help.
       An increase in the borrowing costs of the Banks could also 
     reduce their net income. Net income is a key source of 
     funding for concessional programs such as the Heavily 
     Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and the International 
     Development Association, and any loss of such funding from 
     net income undoubtedly would increase the demand to fund 
     these programs from scarce bilateral resources or, in the 
     absence of such action, would reduce concessional loans to 
     developing countries. Ultimately, the higher borrowing costs 
     and reduced capital flows to the developing countries that 
     could result from this proposal would only hinder growth and 
     recovery in the developing world, which in turn would hurt 
     U.S. farmers, workers and businesses. This is evidenced by 
     the fact that before the recent crisis, the developing world 
     absorbed over 40 percent of U.S. exports.
       Some have cited a 1994 rescission as a precedent for this 
     proposal. The 1994 action and the current proposal are not 
     analogous. In 1994, the U.S. had not subscribed the paid-in 
     and callable capital which were rescinded. The current 
     proposal, however, would reach back to capital to which we 
     have formally subscribed and on the basis of which we have 
     exercised voting rights for many years. This proposal has 
     rightly become a concern of the markets.
       I hope you will agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that the 
     proposal is to rescind appropriated and subscribed U.S. 
     callable capital of the MDBs would raise questions in the 
     markets about U.S. commitment to the MDBs and could have 
     negative consequences beyond the current budgetary horizon 
     for the developing world and our economy. As OMB Director 
     Jack Lew has already informed the Committee, if the 
     supplemental bill is presented to the President with this and 
     the other objectionable offsets included, the President's 
     senior advisers would recommend a veto. I would be happy to 
     discuss this matter with you further.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert E. Rubin,
                                        Secretary of the Treasury.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will also do a number of other 
things. First of all, this bill also makes some reductions in PL-480, 
agriculture funds, and it eliminates $25 million in funding for the 
Export-Import Bank war chest. Again, Members will be told by the 
committee that this money was largely not going to be spent and, 
therefore, will create no harm. I would point out that the war chest 
money in the Export-Import Bank is never supposed to be spent. It is 
there as a visible warning to our trading partners that if they 
artificially subsidize their corporations in order to steal markets 
from us overseas, that we will retaliate by doing the same things in 
support of our American businesses. We should not be reducing the 
number of arrows in that quiver. I would also point out that the tiny 
amount of money which is saved by cutting PL-480 funds will be blown 
away by the added money that we will be asked to appropriate in direct 
assistance to our farmers because of what has happened with farm 
prices. And the PL-480 actions will reduce our ability to help our 
farmers through exports. We should not do that, either.
  The last item which I will try to correct in my amendment goes to 
what I view as the most egregious and reckless of the recommendations 
in this supplemental. We have presently available $525 million to be 
used for the United States to take plutonium and uranium from Russia 
and to convert it from weapons grade material into material which is 
not weapons grade. Mr. Primakov is about to sign a $325 million uranium 
agreement with the United States Government. That is intensely in the 
interest of the United States. We need to take from the Russians every 
ounce of weapons grade uranium and plutonium that we can possibly get 
our hands on so that that does not continue to be at risk of falling 
into the hands of the wrong people around the world.
  In addition to the uranium agreement which Mr. Primakov is supposed 
to sign, last fall Senators Domenici, Stevens and Byrd and I and Mr. 
Livingston agreed to insert $200 million

[[Page H1615]]

into the budget last fall in order to help restart negotiations with 
the Russians on a parallel agreement to also purchase plutonium from 
the Russians so that they do not continue to have that plutonium in 
their country available for use in nuclear weapons. That is enough 
plutonium to create anywhere from 15 to 25,000 nuclear warheads. I do 
not think we have any business putting at risk the start-up of those 
negotiations by taking that money off the table.
  Now, Members again will be told by the majority that this money is 
not supposed to be spent this year, anyway. I know that. We all know 
that. But the money was put on the table so that the Russians would 
understand it would be immediately available once we reach agreement 
with them on that plutonium agreement. It seems to me that, well, all I 
can tell Members is that our negotiators again as well as the Secretary 
of Energy tells us, quote, that withdrawing this money would severely 
set back and might even bring to a halt our constructive discussions on 
this important nonproliferation and national security issue.
  The text of the letter from Secretary Richardson is as follows:

                                          The Secretary of Energy,


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   March 24, 1999.
     Hon. Chet Edwards,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Edwards: I am writing to express my 
     concern about the proposed rescission of $150 million from 
     the $525 million provided by the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriation to implement fissile material 
     reduction agreements with Russia. Since the Department of 
     Energy has already negotiated an agreement with Russia to 
     purchase uranium for $325 million, the entire cut would have 
     to come from the $200 million appropriated to dispose of 
     Russian plutonium. Such a reduction would have severe 
     consequences for the ongoing negotiations in pursuit of a 
     bilateral agreement with Russia on disposing of enough 
     plutonium to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. It 
     could also severely impact the wide range of cooperative 
     nonproliferation engagement underway and planned in Russia, 
     including efforts to protect, control, and account for 
     weapons-usable nuclear material and to prevent the flight of 
     weapons scientists to countries of proliferation concern.
       Department of Energy officials on the plutonium disposition 
     negotiating team have witnessed first-hand the beneficial 
     impact these funds have made; my own interactions with my 
     counterparts reinforce how crucial the availability of these 
     funds is to the Russian approach to plutonium disposition. 
     Thanks to this dramatic gesture, the Russians have become 
     significantly more cooperative in working on the specifics of 
     a bilateral agreement. Our recent discussions have resulted 
     in a commonality of vision on the content, structure, and 
     timing of this agreement.
       The availability of these funds has demonstrated that the 
     U.S. is serious about helping Russia implement the agreement 
     once it is completed, by helping design and construct key 
     infrastructure in Russia to safely and securely dispose of 
     weapons plutonium. 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.
       The U.S. has also been working closely with the 
     international community to gain commitments for additional 
     support to the Russian plutonium disposition 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.
       In the absence of a bilateral agreement with Russia 
     committing them to near-term action to dispose of weapons 
     plutonium, and without international support for Russian 
     disposition activities, Russia could be expected to place 
     this material in storage for several decades and ultimately 
     use it in breeder reactors to fabricate yet more plutonium. 
     This outcome leaves this weapons material at continued risk 
     of theft or diversion for years to come.
       In such a circumstance, continuation of the U.S. plutonium 
     disposition program would be unwise. The U.S. plutonium 
     represents our best lever to urge Russia towards near-term 
     disposition. Disposing of our material unilaterally would 
     place us at a strategic disadvantage with Russia, and the 
     Department has stated that we will not proceed with 
     construction of U.S. facilities in the absence of a U.S.-
     Russian agreement.
       We urge that the House maintain the commitment to U.S. 
     nonproliferation goals by striking this rescission.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                  Bill Richardson.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances, I do not believe 
that we should be taking these actions. If we reach agreement, the cost 
will be far more than the amount of money now available. We will have 
to appropriate more money, not less. I do not know of any responsible 
person who would not think that that is the right thing to do, because 
we make the world safer from the standpoint of nuclear weapons.
  So I will be offering an amendment to delete those four items from 
the bill, and if it is not adopted, I would urge Members to oppose this 
bill on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I want 
to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the very thoughtful remarks 
that he has made. I understand his problem. We worked together to try 
to develop a bill that would be bipartisan in nature, and we hope 
before it is over that that is the way it will be. But we have the 
problem of dealing with all of those who lead our government saying 
that we must live within the budget caps as established in 1997. That 
is not going to be easy. If anyone has heartburn over this small number 
of offsets, just wait till we start bringing the fiscal year 2000 
appropriation bills on the floor, because there is going to be major 
heartburn then if we are going to live within the 1997 budget caps.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. When I was in the State Senate, George Wallace was the 
Governor of the State of Alabama. He was a populist but he had a way 
and a manner in which to deliver a message. George Wallace called it 
``getting the hay down where the goats could get to it.''
  Let me give my colleagues a simple explanation of where we are today. 
First of all, there was a horrible disaster that occurred in Central 
America, our neighbors to the south. There was a hue and cry from the 
American people to assist those people who were begging for assistance. 
We sent our Defense Department down there. We sent private volunteer 
organizations. We sent USAID down there. They did a remarkable job and 
they did an assessment of the needs for these people who have been so 
devastated by this Hurricane Mitch.
  So the President, after an assessment of this, sent Congress a 
message, and he said, Mr. Congressman and Mrs. Congressman, would you 
please consider giving us $950 million in order that we could help 
these people.
  During this 3 or 4 weeks that we have been pondering over this, not 
one Member of Congress has come to me and said, ``Do not help the 
people of Latin America.'' Not one American has called me on the phone 
or one Alabamian has said, ``Sonny, don't help those poor people in 
Nicaragua and Honduras.'' Instead, they said help the people.
  So then the Congress started mulling over this, and they decided: 
Wait a minute. Are we just going to give the administration nearly $1 
billion and let them run and spend it anywhere they want? Are we going 
to permit them to give this to any government and let a government 
possibly squander it?
  And we imposed checks and balances by taking the money out of the 
hands of the administrators and putting it in a separate fund. The 
separate fund is there to only be used, not for government-government 
transfers but to assist the people that have been so devastated. There 
is a check and balance there. We offset any concern that any Member of 
Congress had about the possibility of some foreign government wasting 
this money. It is the responsible thing to do.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. The budget resolution says 
we do not need to offset this money. But there are some very 
responsible Members of this Congress who feel differently, and they, 
too, came to us, far in advance, and they said: Mr. Chairman Young, Mr. 
Callahan, we are not going to vote for this bill unless there are 
offsets. They said: We want to save Social Security. We want to save 
Medicare. We want to pay down the national debt. And if you indeed take 
this

[[Page H1616]]

money without offsetting it, we are going to be dipping into those 
funds. The leadership told us, ``Find a way to do this.''
  We found a way to do it. We used a callable capital account, a 
callable capital account that has billions of dollars sitting in it. 
And we took a portion of that appropriated callable capital account and 
we used it to offset these expenditures that are going to take place in 
helping the people of Central and South America.
  What is wrong with that? Secretary Rubin, who probably is one of the 
most knowledgeable people of international finance that I have ever 
met, and I have great respect for him. He knows more about 
international finance than probably anybody in this House or probably 
anybody in the entire Congress, House and Senate. But, nevertheless, I 
think Secretary Rubin would agree with me privately, if no other way, 
that this is not going to injure the callable capital account one iota. 
We are reducing the callable capital account 5 percent. We are not 
telling these multilateral development banks that we are not going to 
still be obligated in the event that they may get into some financial 
dilemma.
  The United States is not the only country that contributes to these 
accounts. We only account for 16 percent. That means if a multilateral 
development bank comes and says to the participants in that bank that 
we need to call up appropriated capital, we need to call up capital 
that is callable under the agreement, they have to go to other 
countries and get $84 of every $100. We only put up $16. So 
theoretically, even with the removal of this callable capital as we are 
suggesting today, the callable capital account still would have $150 
billion available to it if they needed to call on it.
  I urge Members to support the bill as written.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) who is the ranking member on 
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the full committee for yielding this time to me and for his leadership 
in bringing another proposal to the floor today which would eliminate 
the offsets that the Republican majority insists upon. I want to 
commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young); This is, I believe, the first bill he is bringing 
to the floor, and of course I acknowledge my distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  From the start, Mr. Chairman, I thought that this would be an easy 
vote, that we would recognize the emergency nature of what happened in 
Central America and that we would proceed without an offset. That was 
the understanding I had from our distinguished chairman, and then other 
voices weighed in, and here we are in conflict today.
  Mr. Chairman, I would contend that if a natural disaster, the likes 
of which we have never seen in this hemisphere, taking thousands of 
lives, hundreds of thousands of homes, maybe millions, and hundreds of 
thousands and millions of people out of work, wiping out the economies 
of these countries is not an emergency, I do not know what is. The 
distinguished chairman of the committee cited the 1997 budget agreement 
and said that there are caps within that agreement that we must live 
under. However, that same budget agreement does call for emergencies 
not to be scored; no need for offsets in case of an emergency. If the 
worst natural disaster in the history of the western hemisphere does 
not warrant emergency funding, we might as well scrap the whole concept 
of emergency funding.
  My distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), 
references our Secretary of the Treasury and says that the Secretary 
knows more about international finance than anyone in this body, and I 
hope that that is so. But nonetheless, the distinguished gentleman from 
Alabama does not respect the advice of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
when the Secretary says that it is reckless for us to use the callable 
capital at the Asian Development Bank as an offset what Mr. Callahan 
thinks the Secretary would tell him personally is not what the 
Secretary said on the record in our committee and in a letter to the 
President where he recommended a veto of this legislation if the 
callable capital offset was included in the final package. That is why, 
and there are many other reasons why, it is so important for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to prevail today.
  I certainly rise to support the recommendations in the bill for 
emergency disasters and reconstruction assistance in Central America, 
the Caribbean and Colombia. Hurricane Mitch, as we have said, was a 
terrible devastation causing an estimated $10 billion in damage, and, 
as I said, thousands of deaths. The event, along with the earlier 
Hurricane Georges in the Caribbean and the more recent earthquake in 
Colombia have brought this request for emergency assistance before us, 
and I am pleased that the committee has recommended funding the full 
request. I am dismayed, however, by the insistence on the offset.
  I fully support the $100 million in the bill for the Jordan. This is 
a down payment on additional military and economic assistance to help 
Jordan stabilize itself in the wake of King Hussein's death. As I have 
said, I oppose, I must unfortunately oppose the bill because of the 
offsets used in this package. The bill insists offsets for the disaster 
mitigation programs and the emergency fund farm assistance but does not 
insist on offsets for the $195 million to restore the Department of 
Defense hurricane cost. Why the inconsistencies? Our young people, part 
of the American military, bravely, courageously, unselfishly and 
tirelessly assisted the people in Central America at the time of this 
hurricane, in the immediate wake of the hurricane. Certainly we want to 
pay back the Department of Defense for services rendered; that does not 
need to be offset, it should not be, I agree with that. But why treat 
other assistance differently than the military assistance, the 
assistance of the military in this bill?
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) will strike the most objectionable offsets in the bill, and I 
enthusiastically support that. The 1 billion in offsets in the bill, 
$825 million comes from international programs, all of the proposed 
rescissions from foreign ops bill will have a detrimental program 
impact, and I intend to work hard to remove them from the bill before 
it is sent to the President. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on this bill, so we increase the leverage of the President, sustain 
a presidential veto, and have a change in this bill so that we are not 
helping the people of Central America at the risk of exacerbating the 
financial crisis in Asia by taking a large chunk of the callable 
capital for the Asian Development Bank as an offset. The rescissions in 
the bill will hurt development programs such as health, education and 
even child survival.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have any more time. I will place the rest of 
my statement in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey 
amendment and to oppose the passage of this bill unless the Obey 
amendment prevails.
  I rise to support the recommendations in the bill for emergency 
disaster and reconstruction assistance for Central America, the 
Caribbean, and Colombia. Hurricane Mitch was the worst natural disaster 
to hit the Western Hemisphere in recorded history causing an estimated 
$10 billion in damage, and thousands of deaths. This event, along with 
the earlier Hurricane Georges in the Caribbean, and the more recent 
earthquake in Colombia have brought this request for emergency 
assistance before us, and I am pleased that the Committee has 
recommended funding the full request.
  I also fully support the $100 million in the bill for Jordan. This is 
a down payment on additional military and economic assistance to help 
Jordan stabilize itself in the wake of King Hussein's death.
  Unfortunately I will have to oppose this bill because of the offsets 
used to fund this package. The bill presented offsets the Disaster 
Mitigation programs and the Emergency Farm assistance, but does not 
offset the $195 million appropriated to restore the Department of 
Defense hurricane costs. This bill started out in Committee as a 
bipartisan product with no offsets. If the worst natural disaster in 
the history of the Western Hemisphere does not warrant emergency 
funding, we might as well

[[Page H1617]]

scrap the whole concept of emergency funding.


                         international finance

  Mr. Obey intends to offer an amendment which will strike the most 
objectionable offsets in the bill, which I will enthusiastically 
support. Of the $1 billion in offsets being in the bill, $825 million 
comes from international programs. All of the proposed rescissions from 
the Foreign Operations bill will have detrimental program impacts, and 
I intend to work hard to remove them from the bill before it is sent to 
the President. The rescissions in the bill will hurt development 
programs such as health, education and even Child Survival. Cuts to our 
trade promotion programs lessen the number of U.S. firms we can help 
develop export markets. Cuts in peacekeeping accounts will severely 
hinder the training of troops from African countries in peacekeeping 
methods. Cuts to Eastern Europe will slow reconstruction in Bosnia. 
Congress agreed to fund these programs last year and we should not be 
pulling back from these commitments.


                              debt relief

  The response of the American people to this event was truly 
heartening and indicative of the widespread sympathy and support for 
the needs of our southern neighbors in this Hemisphere. There is no 
question that the vast majority of the American people support well 
directed humanitarian assistance. This aid package enjoys widespread 
support in the Congress and throughout the country.
  Congress must move expeditiously on this request so that critical 
reconstruction efforts can begin before the onset of the rainy season. 
Our action here today will only complicate efforts to get this 
assistance to where it is needed. It is my hope that the provision of 
this assistance will become the springboard for economic and social 
development which lifts the poorest countries in Central America out of 
the grinding poverty they have suffered for so long.
  Unfortunately with the offsets in the bill which have drawn a veto 
threat and action on the bill stalled in the other body for reasons 
unrelated to the Disaster, I fear we are still a long way from the day 
when assistance arrives.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I am not a member of the Committee on Appropriations, but as a lot of 
other Members, I follow the appropriations and budgetary processes very 
carefully, and just three brief points, if I may:
  First of all, I was in support of the rule, I am in support of the 
legislation, and I would like to congratulate the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
others who worked on this because sometimes in my 6 years here I have 
seen emergency bills that were, with all due respect, Christmas trees 
with a lot of decorations on them. A real effort was made here, I 
think, to look at this carefully and to make it truly an emergency 
bill.
  Secondly, I feel we need offsets. I have been in support of this for 
some time. We just simply cannot continue to balance our budget if we 
do not offset the expenditures which we make, even if they are 
emergencies, and, frankly, one could argue the viability of some of the 
offsets here; I understand that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has already made that argument.
  With respect to certain of the issues, I know a little bit about the 
callable capital situation with the international financial 
institutions, but the bottom line is I believe that this is an 
acceptable and allowable offset. Perhaps, as we negotiate with the 
Senate, we will go through some changes on that, but I really also 
congratulate the committee on that. They made the effort to do this. A 
lot of us were concerned about it, and they have come to the 
realization that while there are going to be emergencies, in many 
instances we should be able to get offsets for this, and in this case 
they have done that.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I have been pushing 
legislation for some time to have a budget for emergencies so we could 
avoid these problems, so it is built into our budget at the beginning 
of the year as a rainy day fund approximating what the average of 
emergency expenditures have been over the last 5 years, which may be in 
the range of $5 to $6 billion; so, when these issues come up, we would 
have a methodology for reviewing them, to determine if they are true 
emergencies, we would already have the money set aside for that, we 
could apply this against that money. Then we do not get into the 
arguments about the offsets, the callable capital, the import export or 
it may be.
  This is really not a matter before us today. It is not even 
necessarily an appropriation matter; perhaps it is a budget matter. But 
I think it is something we should do. But I congratulate all those who 
worked on this. I think we are taking steps in the right direction, and 
I am pleased to be in support of it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, the majority has in my view let down 
America's farmers because of the way they have responded to the 
President's request for supplemental aid. The President made this 
request nearly one month ago, and we are just getting around to it now, 
a month after the request was made and the need was demonstrated. They 
put forward a bill which in my view is full of items which will hurt 
our national security and weaken the international economy.
  I do not like to say it, but I think the Republican party has given 
in to isolationist tendencies. By turning our backs on the world, we 
only hurt the global economy further and hurt exporters like farmers 
who are getting pummeled by the downturn in Asia and elsewhere. The 
delay has hurt the financial bottom line for thousands of farmers 
across America. There is a near depression happening in many parts of 
our farm economy. Hog farmers in my district cannot even sell hogs at 
half the break-even price, Mr. Chairman.
  Let me just mention one young farmer from my district, Mike Kertz of 
Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. He comes from a farm family, and he wants to 
carry on the farm tradition. He raises hogs. At today's prices, the 
prices he was getting for months, he cannot survive, he can not have a 
future, he can not keep the farm. Missouri's farmers would get over $42 
million in new credit loans in the President's request, and over 12,000 
farmers nationwide would benefit from the supplemental funding for 
agriculture.
  But we needed action last month, and we needed a bill today that 
would get to the President's desk with no strings attached and not a 
bill that is isolationist and which harms our national security. These 
are irresponsible policies that were injected into this bill. These 
objectionable policies should be dropped so we can get the aid to the 
people who have already been waiting too long for it. We must not 
deliver this aid at the cost of giving up on our obligations which are 
in the long term to the benefit of every American citizen.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the majority to drop these objectionable 
provisions, I urge them to bring a bill that we can support, and if 
that does not happen, I urge Members to vote against this legislation 
in the hope that we can get a bill that is worthy of support.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I do not vote for the supplemental bills 
very often, and I give great credit to the new chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
to our new Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). Several 
weeks ago they began to figure out how they are going to get the votes 
to pass this bill, and they sort of looked at, I guess, the list of 
folks who have traditionally opposed these bills, and they called a 
meeting, and they said: Why? And I said: Well, my reasons are real 
easy; three of them:
  One, they are not usually emergency supplementals; ought to be 
regular order, they ought to go the regular process. Two, they are 
never paid for; and, three, there is usually so much pork in some of 
those bills that it makes us sick, and I said, ``O for three; that's 
why I vote against them,'' and, to the credit of the chairman of the 
committee they are really batting three for three. It is paid for, they

[[Page H1618]]

whittled out some of the stuff that was in there that really was not an 
emergency, could be taken care of, and there was not a single bridge or 
armory or anything in there that someone might be able to call pork.
  For those reasons I am voting for this bill this afternoon, and I 
would not only encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill, but also 
send a warning to our friends on the other side of this building. As I 
understand it, their bill is already larger; as I understand it, their 
bill is not paid for; and third, we can start hearing those words ``su 
wee'' for the pork that some of the Members on that side of the body 
have put in this bill that has got to be taken out, and I hope that our 
passage of the bill this afternoon proves our point: Batting three for 
three; not even Sammy Sosa can do as well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me and thank him for his leadership on the committee in trying 
to strengthen this supplemental bill. I also want to congratulate the 
new chairman of the committee who has tried hard to put a bill 
together, but I must say to my colleagues it is truly inadequate. 
Certainly from the standpoint of agriculture America's farmers are in 
crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill should have been up here two months ago. We 
have been witnessing price declines at record levels across this 
country with an additional income drop for our farmers this year of 
over 20 percent. This House bill falls so far short of the mark. Though 
it contains much needed credit authority to help farmers over this 
spring planting period, it is too little, too late. As we stand here, 
equipment auctions are going on across the country, bankruptcies mount, 
and people cannot move product to market.
  One of the most curious aspects of this particular measure is that 
one of the budget offsets in the bill is to reduce the P.L. 480 
Program, which is a program at the Department of Agriculture where we 
take surplus, which we have plenty of on this market, and move it into 
foreign markets to help hungry people around the world, and there are 
certainly lots of those, but also to help our farmers here at home get 
out from under the weight of all this production which is helping 
prices to continue to plummet here in the domestic market.

                              {time}  1145

  So we should have been able to perfect a more perfect bill. 
Unfortunately, this is not the one.
  I wanted to mention that the bill contains some very important 
language that has to do with the Russian food aid package that is 
currently being delivered, over a billion dollars of Russian food aid, 
and yet very few checks by the government of the United States in order 
to assure that that product is not diverted and graft does not occur.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record questions that we should ask 
the executive branch and expand congressional oversight of that Russian 
food aid package as it proceeds over the next several weeks.
  Our American family farmers are suffering. While the general economy 
is strong, the U.S. agricultural economy continues to experience 
significant declines in agriculture commodity prices that began over a 
year ago. The price declines experienced by wheat and cattle producers 
over the last couple of years have expanded now to all of the feed 
grains, oil seed, cotton, pork and now the dairy sectors at record all-
time lows. Farm income is expected to fall from $53 billion in 1996 to 
$43 billion next year, nearly a 20-percent decline.
  The Republican Leadership has again let down the American farmer. The 
credit guarantee assistance needed by farmers to obtain credit during 
spring planting is again delayed by the inability of the Republican 
Leadership to deal with legislation on a timely basis.
  Farmers and ranchers have a cash flow squeeze this year and the 
demand for USDA's farm lending programs has increased dramatically this 
year to 4 times the normal rate.
  Many states have already exhausted their loan funds and farmers 
cannot get their crops in the ground without the credit to purchase 
their inputs.
  USDA reports that the Farm Service Agency will begin to layoff 
temporary employees at the end of this week. These employees assist 
with the backlog in delivering assistance to farmers suffering from low 
prices and crop disasters.
  The demand for Loan Deficiency Payments is exploding. For 1997 crops 
USDA paid about $160 million for farmers and ranchers for LDP's. For 
1998, LDP's are currently $2.3 billion and that total is expected to 
climb to $3.2 billion before the season ends. We expect to issue about 
$3.5 billion in LDP's in 1999, 65 percent more than 1998. Farmers in my 
district have been waiting to get paid for LDP's since October, and 
they will wait because we have been unable to present them with a final 
bill prior to leaving on our recess.


                         united states food aid

  1. Who is going to guarantee that the money from the sale of the 
commodities in the various regions of Russia gets into the Special 
Account for transfer to the Pension Fund? What will be done if the 
money is not deposited within the time specified in the Resolution of 
the Russian Government (70 days for wheat and rice, 90 days for all 
other commodities)?
  2. How many rubles are anticipated from the sale of the U.S. 
commodities for the Russian Pension Fund? The Pension Fund has an 
arrears of around 23 billion rubles.
  3. How many people on the Russian side with be actively involved in 
monitoring the U.S. food shipments?
  4. There have been articles in the Russian press criticizing U.S. 
food aid, saying it is not needed and that it will destroy the private 
agriculture sector. What is the relationship between U.S. food aid and 
the development of privatized agriculture in Russia?


                            future food aid

  5. What is the evidence that Russia will need additional food aid 
later in the year? What are projections for grain and livestock 
production in the coming year?
  6. If additional food aid from the USDA is requested by Russia, will 
it be conducted by Russia through an open tender this time around 
instead of a closed tender?
  7. If additional food aid is extended from the U.S., how should funds 
resulting from the sale of this food aid be used? How can the U.S. be 
assured it will not be diverted to a bank outside of Russia or just 
disappear?


                          russian agriculture

  8. What is Russia's strategy for developing the agriculture sector in 
Russia and for improving the quality of life in the rural areas of 
Russia?
  9. What is the future for private farming and for truly privatized 
farms in Russia?


                               investment

  10. What is being done to create a climate that attracts U.S. 
investment in Russian agriculture? How can the commercial risk 
associated with this investment be reduced given the current economic 
crisis in Russia?
  11. Sector Reform: What are Russian priorities to revitalize growth 
in the agriculture sector given the Duma's opposition on such important 
questions as private land ownership and tax reform?
  12. Farm Profitability: A key task for the Russian government is the 
creation of viable farms from existing, large-scale unprofitable farms. 
The main barriers to farm profitability include the lack of good, 
market-knowledgeable managers, over-staffing, and reluctance to abandon 
or significantly restructure operations on large farms that are 
unprofitable. In what ways will the government help large farms to 
restructure?
  13. Private Family Farms: Small private family farms and dacha 
(garden) plots account for about 9 percent of total farm land in 
Russia, yet produce significant percentages of total agricultural 
output: potatoes--89%, vegetables--76%, meat--48%, milk--42%, and 
eggs--30%. What measures are being taken to assist private plot holders 
and owners of family farms to expand their holdings and to meet their 
needs for credit?
  14. Private Investment: Many prior functions of the government under 
a command economy such as credit, supply and distribution of inputs and 
marketing of commodities and food products can no longer be provided by 
the state, nor is there an institution for extending improved 
technologies (both production and managerial) to farms. There is an 
increasing role for the private sector, both Russian and foreign, to 
help. What role will the federal and regional governments play in 
attracting private investment in Russian agriculture, and are there 
specific programs, policies or incentives which the Ministry of 
Agriculture will promote?
  15. Agriculture Finance: What work is being done to encourage the 
establishment of private lending institutions for the farm sector other 
than commercial banks? In this regard, what is the status of the draft 
legislation on rural credit cooperatives? What other measures is the 
Russian government taking to establish a sustainable source of credit 
for agriculture--both for operating capital and for long-term 
investment?
  16. Next Year's Harvest: What are the prospects for next year's 
harvest? Is there expected to be a shortfall, and how would Russia deal 
with this situation if it develops?

[[Page H1619]]

  17. Investment Policy: Many foreign agribusiness companies willing to 
invest in Russian agriculture are hesitant to do so because of several 
factors: lack of land markets and long-term land leasing procedures, 
complicated and excessive taxation, contradictory federal and regional 
laws, particularly with regard to land ownership and use, 
administrative trade barriers imposed by regions which prevent the 
movement of grain, and lack of legal procedures for the enforcement of 
business contracts and resolving disputes.
  What can the Ministry of Agriculture do to address these issues?
  The bill before us $1.2 billion includes language directing the 
Executive Branch and USDA to strengthen monitoring effort on the $1.2 
billion Russian Food Aid package.
  This Russian food aid package was put together through existing 
authorities and has not been subject to congressional oversight. The 
Congress was not a part of the negotiating team but this is an effort 
to interject ourselves into the oversight of this assistance. These 
shipments are likely to be subject to graft and major diversion and, 
sadly, strengthen the hand of the very instrumentalities in Russia that 
have approved reform in agriculture.
  The magnitude of this package is unprecedented.
  Deliveries will be staggered over the next several months--but I 
believe it may even be necessary for us to suspend shipments for a 
short time frame in order to evaluate our progress in ensuring that our 
assistance gets to the people it is intended.
  We have had discussions with the USDA over the past four months which 
have resulted in substantial changes being made to the monitoring 
effort but they simply are not enough. We have gone from two monitors 
locate din Moscow, to thirteen full time monitors and 30 individuals in 
the consulates and Embassies assisting with a country team effort.
  Thus the report language in the bill states:


                            Russian Food Aid

  Based on past experience with regard to U.S. commodity shipments to 
Russia, the Committee is seriously concerned about the likelihood of 
diversion in the distribution of the current $1,200,000 Russian food 
aid package which was negotiated by the Executive Branch. The Committee 
urges the Secretary of Agriculture to implement swiftly the provisions 
of the sales agreement that allow suspension of shipments if and when 
diversions occur. In addition, the Secretary should ensure that 
sufficient staff is available for oversight, monitoring and control 
procedures to minimize potential misuse and improper losses of food 
commodities provided under the three food aid agreements between the 
Governments of the United States and the Russian Federation. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to directly involve the Inspector 
General in auditing these shipments.
  The Secretary of Agriculture shall report to the Committee by June 
15, 1999, regarding his efforts to increase oversight and monitoring; 
the extent to which other federal agencies and Non-Governmental 
Organizations have contributed to the monitoring effort; the number of 
frequency of spot-checks and their findings; how the agency handled 
reports of diversions; and the extent to which the distribution of 
commodities was coordinated with local government officials and private 
farming organizations. The Committee also expects the Secretary to 
report on how the food aid package was coordinated with the State 
Department to meet our strategic goals in the region and the 
involvement of the Interagency Task Force assembled by the U.S. Embassy 
in Moscow to oversee these shipments. The Secretary shall also report 
on how this and subsequent food aid shipments contribute to the 
development and reform of private agriculture in the Newly Independent 
States.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to engage in this particular argument 
now because of the great respect that I have for the minority leader, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). But I want to say to my 
colleagues, there is nothing in this bill that would have an adverse 
effect on the security of our Nation.
  Those who have known me during the 4 years that I chaired the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense know that I have fought and 
struggled to do everything that I possibly could to improve the 
national security of our Nation and improve the quality of life for 
those men and women who provide the security of our Nation.
  I know what he is talking about. We will discuss that more after the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offers his amendment, but there is 
absolutely zero threat to our national security in this bill.
  In response to the complaints about how much time it has taken to get 
here, we tried to do this in a responsible way. The agricultural money 
that was just mentioned was requested on March 1. Today is only March 
24. That is 23 days ago.
  So I think we have expedited it fairly well, but one of the reasons 
we did not come out here on the floor immediately was that I wanted to 
see firsthand exactly from the congressional standpoint what had 
happened and what had occurred in the region. I asked a bipartisan 
delegation from the Committee on Appropriations to visit the region, 
which they did the weekend before we did our markup. They came back 
with a very real report on what the needs were, what the requirements 
were. General Wilhelm, commander of Southern Command, who also 
accompanied them on that trip, pointed out what our own military had 
done in response to that national disaster.
  So, yes, we did take a little time to be responsible, to find out for 
ourselves what the situation was in Central America, and to make sure 
that the offsets that we recommended were responsible offsets.
  I will talk more about the offsets when we get into the amendment 
process here, but we can justify making these offsets because they were 
not going to be spent in fiscal year 1999 anyway, and if they were left 
they would have probably eventually been wasted in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, although I oppose this bill, I rise today to discuss an 
important element in this bill, debt relief. The ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the minority have been 
fighting very hard for debt relief.
  We sincerely believe that debt relief is central to any bill that 
intends to stimulate the rebuilding of infrastructure and to provide 
other necessities such as health care and food. This bill would devote 
$41 million to debt relief, $25 million to the World Bank fund for 
making payments on multilateral debt during the moratorium that lasts 
until February 1, 2001, and $16 million for an eventual two-thirds 
write-off of Honduras' bilateral debt.
  For just an additional $25.5 million, the U.S. could cancel all 
bilateral debts owed to Nicaragua and Honduras. That $25.5 million 
would cancel debt with a face value of more than $270 million. The 
supplemental came very, very close to alleviating this burden off of 
the families that have been suffering during this crisis but fell short 
by $25.5 million.
  Bilateral debt cancellation would be a significant investment in 
Central American recovery. It would send a signal to other countries 
that these countries' bilateral debts must be forgiven to make way for 
recovery and development.
  A few countries, Denmark, Brazil, Cuba among them, have already done 
such cancellation, but if the U.S. would do it many more would be 
expected to follow. More than the amounts involved, that would be the 
true and relatively small expenditure when one considers the enormous 
burden that this would lift.
  Nicaragua and Honduras already had severe debt problems before Mitch. 
The hurricane made a horrible problem absolutely unbearable, Mr. 
Chairman. Moratoria and reduction of bilateral debt stock by the Paris 
Club are not enough. Before Hurricane Mitch, Honduras was paying over a 
million dollars a day in debt service; Nicaragua about $700,000 a day.
  Once the moratorium ends, no one thinks that the recovery will be 
complete, but if in fact we go the extra mile and make the difference, 
we can take this burden off of these families.
  Although I do not plan to offer an amendment on this subject, I want 
to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues because I feel 
that debt relief is important for any country to rebuild.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

[[Page H1620]]

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today 
in light particularly of the offsets that are being suggested and what 
they, in my opinion, will do to agriculture in this country.
  Chairman Alan Greenspan made a speech last week in which he talked 
about the problems of agriculture, and I appreciated very much hearing 
his analysis and rationalization of what is happening to American 
agriculture. The point that he made over and over is our problems are 
that the rest of the world that we depend on for markets to buy that 
which we produce is having credit problems.
  This bill cuts the commitments we have already made to back lending 
by international financial institutions such as the Asian Development 
Bank, laying groundwork for another year of dismal farm prices.
  Secretary Rubin pointed out in a letter to the Congress the bill 
would increase borrowing costs and hinder growth in developing 
countries, the part of the world that before this crisis absorbed 40 
percent of our agricultural exports.
  In many States now we have a need for the credit. The first chapter 
in this bill is something that everyone agrees is needed to be done, 
but not at any cost. If the cost of having this particular emergency 
declaration or this particular spending is the offset that is in mind, 
it is not worth the price we will pay in agriculture and farm country.
  This seems to come as an annual occurrence now, and I do not 
understand this. In 1996, the most dramatic change in our farm policy 
in a generation was held hostage by a leadership that did not trust the 
Committee on Agriculture, forced to vote on the bill or to have nothing 
for American farmers after we had already entered the planting season 
in parts of our Nation.
  Last year, again, as farmers were making fundamental decisions, House 
leadership meddling in bipartisan consensus over a bill to secure 
delivery costs for crop insurance delayed final adoption of a bill 
reported from conference. In that case, a sound bipartisan majority 
defeated the leadership's rule that would have undone a carefully 
crafted and responsible compromise. Now farmers in dire straits, in the 
need of these lending programs, will have to wait even longer.
  I am going to ask the majority to seriously consider an amendment 
that I will offer, and I will ask for unanimous consent that the 
emergency declarations in this bill be stricken and that instead of 
using the offsets in question for agriculture in the development bank 
and also the offsets dealing with nuclear, one of the most 
irresponsible decisions this body could possibly consider doing at this 
time with all of the problems in the world, Kosovo we are talking about 
today, how we could possibly do that I do not know.
  I will offer, and hopefully by unanimous consent, that we strike it 
and pay for these emergency declarations with an across-the-board cut 
on every account. I believe that would make a lot more sense at this 
time and certainly avoid what could otherwise be a catastrophic 
happening for agriculture, that no one on this side of the aisle wants 
to see done any more than I do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  (Mr. BERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the way this bill 
has been handled.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for this bill, but it is 
very reluctant support.
  First of all, I am deeply disappointed that there is no money for 
domestic disaster relief in this bill.
  Most of the money in this bill, $687 million, is for foreign disaster 
relief efforts. There have been some terrible disasters in those 
countries this year, and I am fully in support of helping these 
countries out.
  However, the Republicans didn't see it fit to include any money for 
recovery efforts in our own country.
  According to USDA, there is approximately $102 million in disaster 
recovery needs across the United States at this time. We need $102 
million--and the Republicans gave us nothing. (This money is in the 
Senate bill, but the House appropriators did not include these funds in 
this version).
  As far as getting this money out, we all know that the committee was 
prepared to bring this bill up on March 4.
  This bill was to contain desperately needed relief for our farmers 
($109 million for credit insurance, and $42 million for FSA salaries 
and expenses), as well as the disaster relief in Central America.
  These are all obvious emergency appropriations, but the House 
leadership decided that they wanted these appropriations to be offset.
  This caused a three week delay in bringing the bill up, a three week 
delay in getting these funds to the farmers who desperately need it.
  I don't know if the House Republican leadership realizes it or not, 
but they are putting family farms out of business every day that this 
bill doesn't pass.
  And now, it looks like this bill won't be sent to the President until 
after the recess, where it faces a potential veto. Who knows how many 
farmers are going to be forced to close their operations between now 
and then.
  I am certainly not happy with this bill. But I can't vote against 
this measure and delay money to farmers in my district any longer.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this is a strange bill, particularly all of 
these speeches we hear about offsets. In my judgment, this bill is a 
legitimate emergency, under the budget rules can be handled as an 
emergency without being offset and that is how it should be handled, 
but we are going through this pretense that we are making offsets when 
in reality we are not.
  Let me suggest to all the Members they look at this bill. Page 3, 
they will find this language: Provided that the entire amount is 
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
section so and so of the balanced budget and emergency deficit control 
act of 1985, as amended.
  What does that mean? It means that the outlays in this bill are 
exempt from the budgetary caps, and the law we are passing, we are 
saying it is an emergency, the outlays are exempt from the caps, but 
then we get into a discussion of a whole series of offsets, which 
really are not offsets to the outlays. We are actually spending this 
money outside of the caps but then we do a whole series of offsets that 
do damage but does not solve the budgetary problem; primarily reducing 
the callable capital for the international banks.
  What is the reality of this type of cut? It is as if I signed as a 
second signatory on a loan for $100,000, but then I decided I wanted to 
buy a new car for $30,000 and pay cash for it. What I would do is I 
would send a letter to the bank saying I am sorry, this guarantee I 
made is reduced from $100,000 to $70,000 and somehow think that gives 
me $30,000 of cash to go out and pay cash for a car. It clearly does 
not work, but that is the mentality we are using in these offsets.
  The bank would probably call the loan back on the mortgage I had 
signed for because my guarantee was only now good for 70 percent of it 
and I would not get $30,000 to go and buy a new car.
  That is what we are doing in this bill. We are still pretending or 
saying it is an emergency. That is real. The outlays are exempt from 
the caps, but then we do these series of cuts which do damage but do 
not change the nature of the fact that our outlays are still considered 
emergencies.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has brought up an 
excellent scenario, an excellent explanation of what we are doing here. 
He is doing, in a sense, what Governor Wallace used to say; he is 
bringing this down to a level that I can understand, and that most 
people watching can probably understand.
  We will use the gentleman's example of his endorsement of a loan for 
an automobile for one of his children. If the gentleman goes to the 
bank and signs that loan, he cosigns the loan with his child. The bank 
does not say to the gentleman, Congressman, put this money in a safety 
deposit box in

[[Page H1621]]

our bank. They simply use the gentleman's assets to give that loan, 
with the recognition and assurance that if the money is not paid, then 
the gentleman will have to pay it. They do not tell the gentleman which 
pocket to put in or which drawer.
  We are not taking away the obligation of the United States. The 
obligation is still there. We are simply taking 5 percent of the 
appropriated callable capital and using it to balance the budget this 
way.
  So the gentleman brings up an excellent point. That is that the 
United States has pledged this money in the event of an international 
monetary crisis. If indeed there is an international monetary crisis 
that exceeds $150 billion, then the Congress is going to have to 
reappropriate the money, but it is not unauthorized. Congress has 
authorized this. It is a debt and an obligation of the United States.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, if we change these 
guarantees, how much outlay savings does it give us this year?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The money currently is sitting in a fund, an 
appropriated fund.
  Mr. SABO. My question is, Mr. Chairman, obviously this bill declares 
these expenditures an emergency. The outlay is exempt from the 
budgetary caps. If we make this change that the gentleman is 
suggesting, how much outlays does that save us towards the 
discretionary caps?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I do not think it saves us any outlays.
  Mr. SABO. No outlay savings?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. No.
  Mr. SABO. That is the heart of my point. This bill declares 
everything here an emergency, exempt from all the budgetary caps, but 
then we pretend we do these change of guarantees as an offset, which 
saves us no actual dollars of outlays.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the debate, talking about what is 
happening with agriculture. We do have a very, very serious problem in 
agriculture. There was some concern expressed about using the P.L. 480 
dollars for an offset in this bill.
  The fact of the matter is the reason there are dollars there is 
because the administration did not use it last year. They did not use 
that tool to get rid of the surplus. That is why there are dollars left 
over.
  It is also the case, when we look at the export enhancement funds, in 
the last 3 years we have had $1.5 billion available to promote exports 
of U.S. products around the world, and the administration has done 
nothing.
  Also this year, the administration claimed that they had set new 
heights of using a little over $4 billion for export credits. The fact 
of the matter is, by law the minimum is $5.5 billion that is supposed 
to be used, and in the Democrat administration budget this year, they 
are cutting $215 million out of those credits. That is, again, going to 
cripple our exports.
  I heard the minority leader earlier talk about the hog farmers. If we 
look at the Democrat administration budget being put forth to try and 
help that hog farmer, they have $504 million in new taxes on livestock 
producers that is going to come right out of the hide of that pork 
producer in the minority leader's district.
  I believe we have to help farmers today, and not hurt them. We have 
to use the tools available to make sure that our exports are promoted, 
that we use every resource possible. What the problem is in agriculture 
today is just a failure by this administration to use the tools 
available for export to help our producers, and this bill needs to 
move, move now, so they have the credit this spring to put a crop in 
the ground.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have before us a letter from the Bretton Woods 
committee. It reads, in part, as follows. It is addressed primarily to 
the Tiahrt amendment, but also applies to the base bill.
  Among others things, it says this:
  ``This is to alert you to the enormously damaging impact of the 
Tiahrt amendment to divert appropriated World Bank callable capital to 
offset portions of the emergency supplemental.''
  It then goes on to say, at a later point, ``Disturbing reports from 
Wall Street say that some bondholders are already growing nervous over 
the threat and are dumping World Bank bonds.''
  It then goes on to say, ``This will undermine the recovery strategy 
for Asia and other vulnerable regions, and it creates new international 
financial instability at a time when we can ill afford it. Ultimately, 
this move will hurt U.S. exports.''
  At a later point in the letter, it also says, ``This is a retreat 
from international commitments made by every president since Harry 
Truman, including Republican stalwarts Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald 
Reagan.''
  Then it says, ``Disappropriating callable capital from which no 
outlays can be gained is a sham solution, but paradoxically, a 
congressional raid on appropriated callable capital could even force 
the United States to make new cash contributions with real outlays 
attached.''
  I agree with that letter. What the committee is doing, as my good 
friend from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) pointed out, is a sham. In fact, if we take a look at the 
four items I am trying to deal with in my amendment, those items 
pretend to save $853 million.
  In fact, they would save only $19 million on the P.L. 480 item and on 
the war chest. Possibly they might save $80 million more if CBO is 
correct on its assumption that $80 million of the amount which the 
majority is trying to rescind from the nuclear weaponry account will be 
spent.
  The ironic point is that the majority party says that they are 
rescinding that money because none of it would be spent in this fiscal 
year, anyway. So we are left with this situation. If the majority party 
is correct, then no money will be spent, and there are no outlay 
savings in the amounts they are claiming. If the majority party is 
wrong, then we wind up doing huge damage to a key negotiation to make 
the world safer by removing plutonium that would make at least 15,000 
nuclear weapons.
  Either way in my view is incredibly misguided, so I would again urge 
passage of my amendment, and defeat of this bill if that amendment is 
not passed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the chairman for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with 
the chairman of the committee.
  As the chairman knows, the Senate, in its consideration of this 
legislation, has included a provision which provides for the disposal 
of 17,383 dry tons of zirconium other from the National Defense 
Stockpile. The Department of Defense inadvertently failed to include 
this in its legislative proposal to Congress last year. The Senate 
provision corrects this oversight. It also ensures that disposal of the 
material will not result in undue disruption of the usual markets of 
producers, processors, and consumers of the material.
  It is my understanding that this is really a technical provision 
which is not controversial, and is supported by both the Defense 
Department and the Committee on Armed Services. I therefore rise to 
seek the chairman's support for receding to the Senate on this matter 
when this bill goes to the conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in responding to the gentleman 
from Michigan, he is correct. I have discussed this issue with not only 
the Department of Defense and the Committee on Armed Services, but also 
the chairman of our Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  We all agree that the Senate's language is not controversial, and 
would in fact be useful. On that basis, we are

[[Page H1622]]

certainly prepared to agree to it when we go to conference.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I am grateful to the chairman. I thank him very 
much.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, to close the general debate part 
of the consideration of this bill, the issue has been raised about 
whether or not we should use the emergency declaration. This is a 
technical argument. The truth of the matter is we are responding to an 
emergency. The only difference is we are going to pay for it. We are 
going to offset our response to this emergency, but it truly is an 
emergency to which we are responding to.
  I do not see why anybody should be really upset about leaving that 
part of the language in the bill. It is truly an emergency. We are just 
being fiscally responsible, and we are going to offset it.
  One of the discussions that has been of some concern to all of us is 
the issue of the purchase of plutonium from the Soviet Union. I want to 
tell Members about this fund. This was a fund of $525 million for the 
two Russian programs, $325 million for highly enriched uranium, and 
$200 million for plutonium disposition.
  By the way, we spend a lot of money in programs like this, but this 
particular aspect was not high on anybody's radar screen. In the 
omnibus appropriations bill we dealt with last year, there were so many 
members and so many people in the administration having input into that 
bill, this issue was never part of the original consideration. It did 
not come down here from the White House or the Department of Defense or 
the State Department. As a matter of fact, the only time it was 
actually raised was when we went to the conference committee with the 
other body.
  At that point, one member of the Senate offered the amendment to 
create this program and appropriate this money. We thought it was a 
pretty good idea. We still think it is a pretty good idea. But I would 
remind my colleagues that this fiscal year is basically half over, so 
most of that money would not be spent, anyway.
  Second, I would remind my colleagues that the agreement that we were 
to reach with Russia on this issue to make way for spending this money 
has never been concluded. In fact, yesterday Prime Minister Primakov 
was on his way to the United States. One of the things we thought that 
he would do while he was here was to complete the negotiation on highly 
enriched uranium portion of the agreement and sign it.
  Somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean Prime Minister Primakov decided, 
after a conversation with Vice President Gore, he decided not to come 
to the United States, and he turned around and went back home. So to 
this day, to this minute, no part of agreement has been signed.
  What did we do? Of the $525 million that had been appropriated, we 
only rescind $150 million. I will remind the gentleman, the agreement 
is not concluded nor signed, and the fiscal year is halfway over. But 
we left $375 million in this fund that no one even wanted or suggested 
until we got into the conference committee.
  So I do not think this is a serious problem that anybody should be 
concerned about. As I said, we took a little extra time to prepare this 
bill, to bring it to the committee, and to bring it to the Floor 
because we wanted to be responsible. We wanted to be fiscally 
conservative. We wanted to make sure that the money, the funds that we 
used to offset these emergencies, would not do severe damage to any of 
the programs that we dealt with.
  So we went through the account, page by page by page, to find 
unobligated balances, monies that would not be spent in fiscal year 
1999 anyway. That is where the list of rescissions came from.
  I submit to all of the Members, and I understand we have differences, 
there are 435 of us, we are always going to have some differences, that 
this is a good, a responsible, conservative bill that meets the 
criteria of responding to an emergency, at the same time being 
extremely careful with the taxpayers' dollars that we have an 
obligation to be responsible for.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we should pass this bill. We 
should respond to the emergency. We should help our friends in Central 
America, and we should repay to our own military the monies that they 
have already spent in the performance of their emergency duties at the 
time of the hurricane and at the time of the natural disasters.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 1141, 
a bill to provide supplemental appropriations for hurricane relief in 
Central America and additional loan funding for our nation's struggling 
farmers.
  Although I will vote in favor of the bill, I deeply regret that the 
majority has once again chosen to load an urgently needed relief 
measure with extraneous policy provisions and objectionable offsets. I 
am reminded of the supplemental fight of two years ago when relief for 
Grand Forks, North Dakota and other disaster stricken communities was 
delayed for weeks because the majority added unrelated and highly 
controversial provisions to the emergency supplemental bill. Rather 
than repeat its past mistakes, I had hoped that the majority would 
advance a clean measure that would gain the support of the President. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case.
  The one and only reason I am supporting this legislation is because 
it includes desperately need loan funds for cash-strapped farmers in 
North Dakota and throughout the country. Without these loans, many 
farmers in my state will be literally unable to get into the fields 
this spring to plant a crop. When the House and Senate convene a 
conference committee to craft the final version of this bill, however, 
I hope the leaders have the good sense to reach accommodation with the 
administration so that the bill can be passed and signed into law as 
quickly as possible.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill for farmers and for 
the American people. I support the funding in this bill for farmers, 
even though it is inadequate. But the cuts in this bill are entirely 
irresponsible, and will do more to harm agriculture in this country 
than any benefit it will receive from the paltry amount of money that 
has been included for farmers. The biggest challenge facing farmers and 
other businesses in this country is competing in the global economy. 
Talk about kicking farmers while they are down, this bill would cut 
critical funds for the development and expansion of global markets at a 
time when pork and grain farmers are suffering from plunging world 
demand sitting on record surpluses and tobacco farmers are dealing with 
a 35 percent cut in their income over the past two years. I cannot 
support a bill that gives farmers something with one hand and takes it 
away with another. This cynical bill will be vetoed, and the Republican 
leadership know it. They loaded this bill up with veto bait in an 
attempt to score political points and in the process have ensured that 
the relief farmers desperately need will be delayed. And that's wrong. 
Unfortunately, this bill puts partisan gain over the people's 
interests, and I urge Congress to reverse course and pass a balanced 
bill that will speed relief to the farms where it is needed the most.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
bill, not because I do not believe that the programs it funds are 
necessary--because they urgently are--but rather because of the way 
that the majority in the House is handling these appropriations.
  H.R. 1141 provides a total of $1.3 billion in emergency funding for 
many programs that are more than worthwhile, they are necessary to save 
human life. A sizable portion of that fund, $687 million, is set aside 
for relief efforts in Central America and the Caribbean, who have been 
ravaged by Hurricanes Mitch and George over the course of the past 
year.
  Those funds are desperately needed. In Central America, it is 
estimated that one in three of the facilities that are used for public 
health or water treatment were damaged during the hurricane. In part 
because of the loss of those facilities, the hurricanes left in their 
wake over almost 20,000 dead or missing. In addition, reports indicate 
that together, both hurricanes created a homeless population of three 
million people. In the Caribbean, it has been stated that there remains 
over $2 billion in economic damage alone. Without this supplemental 
funding, we know that the road to recovery for these countries will be 
a long and difficult one. We have chosen to assist by helping rebuild 
their infrastructure and by providing humanitarian assistance, and this 
bill is required if we are to fill those obligations.
  Additionally, and somewhat related to the disastrous hurricane season 
in Latin America, this bill contains $80 million in funding for the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service to better help them cope with 
the influx of people seeking to escape the intolerable living 
conditions in their home countries. Hopefully, as these countries 
recover from this tragedy, we will see the exodus from Central America 
return to the levels prior to the onset of last year's hurricane 
season.
  Furthermore, this bill provides domestic relief for some of our most 
needy citizens--our

[[Page H1623]]

farmers. As a Member from Texas, I am acutely aware of the problems 
facing our agricultural industry. Our ranchers and farmers have been 
attempting to grapple with the implications of drought for half a 
decade, and they undoubtedly need our assistance if they are to 
persevere through this season. This bill contains some relief, by way 
of $1 billion in direct and guaranteed loans--that will help farmers 
keep afloat during this desperate time.
  However, while each of these appropriations are necessary, the 
majority on the Appropriations Committee decided that, unlike other 
emergency appropriations measures, that this bill should contain 
offsets roughly equal to the expenditures. As a result, we now face 
budget cuts to last year's budget that were unanticipated when we 
passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999.
  The largest and most unwelcome cut involves our international banks, 
which have been critical in the mitigation of the world financial 
crisis. This bill cuts funding to those banks by $648 million, in an 
environment where those banks are often the best option for borrowers 
seeking shelter from a hostile economic environment. If any of my 
colleagues have any qualms about how important this funding is, 
Secretary Daley has asked the President to veto this bill, should it 
pass, on the merits of this program alone. Although we are in a time of 
relative economic prosperity, we must remember that in our global 
economy, we cannot afford to gamble with the financial well being of 
our trading partners. By taking away these appropriations, we threaten 
to disturb all of the progress that our neighbors have made over the 
past few months--and we may destabilize industries that can do us great 
harm by continuing to dump their products into our markets.
  Furthermore, this bill rescinds funding for other foreign operations 
spending packages that this Congress developed last year. Those 
packages include $25 million for the Export-Import Bank, that assists 
our citizens in penetrating new marketplaces abroad, and $25 million 
for the Global Environment Facility, which funds important and 
necessary environmental projects all over the world.
  Most importantly, this bill also rescinds the funding for a program 
enacted by this Congress and the administration, which was aimed at 
stopping the proliferation of nuclear arms to rogue nations. Under the 
terms of the original appropriation, $150 million could be used to 
purchase materials, uranium and plutonium, that could be used in 
nuclear warheads by our enemies. This program was strongly supported by 
the President, and with good cause--it is well known that the current 
nuclear threat to the United States does not come from Russia, but 
rather from isolated renegade governments looking to become players in 
world politics. Just last week, we acknowledged that threat when we 
passed a resolution which stated that we should work towards developing 
a missile defense system--which, unlike this program, does not 
guarantee a reduction in nuclear arms.

  Furthermore, the budget cuts also touch those in this country who are 
suffering the most--the unemployed and the poor. This bill rescinds $31 
million worth of funds that are used by the Labor and Health Human 
Services Departments. A good portion of those funds, $21 million, go 
towards funding state unemployment funds, which are in great need in my 
district because of energy-crisis related layoffs which have reached 
unheard of limits.
  For the aforementioned reasons, I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against this bill, and vote for the Obey amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 1999 
Supplemental Appropriations bill that will, among other things, provide 
disaster relief to Central America. Just a few weeks ago, I led a 
bipartisan delegation to Central America to assess the damage inflicted 
by Hurricane Mitch. What I saw was astounding. I saw debris hanging on 
treetops that reached twenty to thirty feet high. Mud slides buried 
entire villages, sweeping away homes in one fell swoop. The devastation 
blocked roads, leaving families without the means to obtain food, water 
and other emergency materials.
  Our troops and other relief organizations have been in the region 
since the storm hit late last year, and have done an outstanding job of 
providing help and assistance to the citizens there. This bill before 
us will supplement what they have done so far. The funds we provide 
will help repair the infrastructure that literally crumbled under the 
force of Hurricane Mitch, and maintain economic stability in the 
region, which will bolster ongoing efforts by the U.S. to assist the 
democratic reforms already taking place there.
  The assistance in this bill will be provided in a fiscally 
responsible way. We have to be mindful of our obligation to American 
taxpayers. We have offset almost all of the funding in this bill with 
unobligated funds--that is, money that would not have been spent in 
this fiscal year. Our commitment to offset this money contrasts with 
the President's decision to forgo offsetting the spending in this bill. 
It's also important to note that the U.S. is one of 21 countries 
contributing to disaster relief efforts; so American taxpayers are not 
shouldering the financial burden entirely on their own.
  Again Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Having 
seen first hand the devastating force of the hurricane, I believe we 
should support the people of Central America in overcoming this 
terrible disaster.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask the House to 
do its part to fulfill the nation's promise to the remaining World War 
II internees of Japanese descent, who were wronged by our government 
and who are still awaiting redress. Today we have an opportunity to 
meet our obligation to them at no extra cost to the taxpayers.
  I am speaking about Americans and Latin Americans of Japanese descent 
who were interned in remote U.S. camps, or evacuated or relocated from 
their homes, out of the fear that they were a danger to America after 
war was declared with Japan.
  No evidence has ever materialized to show that these Japanese 
Americans or Japanese Latin Americans ever sympathized with the Axis or 
engaged in espionage. Their internment was a shocking denial of their 
constitutional and human rights. They never recovered their lost 
property. But even worse, they lost their trust in the U.S. government 
which had the duty to protect them.
  Four decades after the war, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 finally 
gave the United States a ten-year window to acknowledge the injustice 
done to more than 120,000 Americans and legal residents of Japanese 
ancestry. The Act provided the internees with a Presidential apology 
and a $20,000 payment, as restitution for the terrible losses that they 
suffered.
  To date, the Office of Redress Administration has paid out $1.64 
billion in redress payments to 82,077 former internees. Unfortunately, 
the redress fund was exhausted as of February 5. Many eligible 
internees will be denied their rightful payments authorized by Congress 
if the fund is not replenished.
  The shortfall resulted from several factors:
  In the closing years of this 10-year program, the courts expanded the 
class of persons eligible for redress, to include railroad workers and 
miners who were fired from their jobs and whose families were evicted 
from company housing.
  Added to the eligible class were a group of Japanese American 
servicemen who were denied the right to visit their families or who 
lost property during the war.
  A January federal court settlement, Mochizuki v. U.S., made eligible 
for redress those Latin Americans of Japanese descent who were 
deported--at the urging of the U.S.--from 13 Latin American countries 
and interned in U.S. camps. They were brought here out of unfounded 
fears of possible espionage, and for use in prisoner-of-war exchanges 
with the Axis. These internees settled for a much smaller redress 
payment of $5,000.
  During the final two weeks of the redress program, more than 50 cases 
were reversed on appeal, accounting for unexpected payments of 
approximately $840,000.
  Finally, nine abandoned Japanese American cases were revived, as 
claimants unexpectedly submitted documentation at the last minute, 
causing an additional $180,000 to be paid out.
  The Office of Redress Administration, which runs the redress program, 
estimates that $4.3 million is needed to pay the remaining eligible 
cases. This includes:
  $1,580,000 for up to 79 eligible Japanese American cases at $20,000 
each.
  $1,978,455 for 395 eligible Japanese Latin American cases at $5,000 
each.
  $665,000 for 133 Japanese Latin American cases expected to qualify, 
at $5,000 each.
  Adding more money to the fund does not authorize further expansion of 
the class of eligible persons. Rather, it simply pays for claims that 
are already well-established.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee included a provision in its FY99 
Supplemental Appropriations measure, S. 544 to reprogram $4.3 million 
of Department of Justice FY99 funding to replenish the redress fund to 
cover these remaining claims. This amendment was included in their 
final bill passed yesterday.
  I urge the House to accept the Senate's $4.3 million reprogramming 
proposal and seize this opportunity to pay our debt to the remaining 
internees. It will not cost the Treasury additional money, and no 
offsets are required.
  Let us close this shameful chapter of our nation's history in an 
honorable way. Let us fulfill the mandate of the Civil Liberties Act of 
1988 and agree to this reprogramming request. Let us fulfill our 
commitment to the remaining internees.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, as one of the newest Members of 
Congress who has been recently appointed to the august House

[[Page H1624]]

Appropriations Committee, and one of the fewer than ten African 
Americans who have ever been appointed to this committee in the entire 
history of the United States, I take my duties very, very seriously. As 
such, I take the responsibility of guarding the purse of the American 
people very seriously. While we currently enjoy a soaring stock market 
and unforeseen surplus in our budget, common sense economics dictate 
that good times do not last forever. It is, therefore, couched against 
this background that I oppose the Emergency Supplemental Bill, H.R. 
1411, that is before us today. Of course, I join my colleagues in 
support of assisting the people in those countries tragically hit by 
Hurricanes Mitch and George. As we enter increasingly globalized 
markets, taking measures to brace their economies is strategically 
wise. Assistance is also the humane response. This assistance must not 
come at the cost of delaying much needed aid to the farmers of our 
nation or by threatening our national security. Wise fiscal policy and 
a humanitarian response to those in need are not mutually exclusive.
  First of all, H.R. 1411 hurts the farmers of our nation. The State of 
Michigan is the third largest exporter of agricultural products in the 
United States. Instead of moving rapidly to address the real needs and 
concerns of the farmers in the State of Michigan and our country, the 
Majority Leadership chose to delay for over three weeks millions in 
farm operating loans. These loans help farmers hurt by low world-wide 
commodity prices. This delay was unnecessary and is almost 
unforgivable. It does not take an economic genius to determine the 
effect that this isolationism will have on the commodity prices that 
these farmers, and other businesses, that are engaged in the world-wide 
marketplace. These rescissions will hurt commodity prices even more, 
and could further hurt the farmers and their families of Michigan and 
our nation. Secondly, this bill erodes our commitment to the global 
economy by rescinding several key guarantees to international lending 
institutions.
  Furthermore, this bill potentially threatens the security of the 
United States by rescinding $150 million from the U.S. program that 
aids in the disarming of Russian nuclear weapons. This program buys and 
stores enriched uranium and plutonium from the production of various 
nuclear weapons. While this program is still in its nascent phases, 
this bill signals to Russia that we are not serious about solving the 
every burgeoning threat of nuclear weapons. Nor, it would seem, are we 
serious about eradicating this environmentally-dangerous material.
  The regrettable aspect about this legislation is that it does many 
good things. The committee's report contains language that was of 
particular importance to me concerning the possible disproportionate 
impact that these natural disasters could wreak on women living in 
communities hit by the storm. Fully one-third of the households in 
Central America that lost homes are headed by women, and women are 
primarily responsible for taking care of the family health, finding 
emergency services for their families, and procuring adequate food and 
clean water. When attempting to return to normalcy, unfortunately, jobs 
that women traditionally tend to depend on have been hard-hit. For 
example, many of the agricultural jobs that women are at the end of the 
processing chain, such as packing fruits for export. These end-of-chain 
jobs will not be replaced for another 3-5 years; until new crops are 
ready for harvest. Frustratingly, women are most often barred from the 
kinds of short-term employment, such as construction, clean-up, and 
road building, that the disaster has created. Women must remain a focus 
as we provide disaster relief for these countries. I commend the 
emergency supplemental package's partial focus on microcredit programs, 
which are targeted primarily at women. And I urge those coordinating 
disaster relief programs to remain aware of the continued plight of 
women as they help to rebuild society, and to institute processes to 
ensure that women are able to participate in needs assessments. 
Programs must ensure that women workers are gaining equal access to 
employment and credit. Gender differences and women's specific needs 
must be taken into account in the emergency relief and development 
programs. The committee's report addresses this concern.
  My second concern lies in the possible resulting long-term increase 
in debt that may be felt by these countries. I stand in strong support 
of the $16 million debt reduction provided for Honduras and Nicaragua. 
Neither country should be expected to use their scarce resources for 
debt payments while immediate humanitarian and reconstruction needs 
remain unmet. In addition to this $16 million in debt reduction, we are 
providing $25 million in debt relief to the Central American Emergency 
Trust Fund to help with scheduled debt payment to international 
financial institutions. I am concerned about the provision of temporary 
cash flow relief that is provided in such a way that there is an 
endgame increase in debt due to capitalization of interest. I believe 
we ought to do the most that we can to ease and reduce Honduras' and 
Nicaragua's debt burden and, to the best of our abilities, avoid 
increasing the amount of money Honduras and Nicaragua will owe in the 
end.
  I am tired of playing games. I believe that the majority of my 
colleagues want to ensure that we deliver help when it is needed, and 
that Congress begin to address the real needs and concerns of our 
country. Although H.R. 1411 contains provisions that I fought for 
during House Appropriations Committee consideration, I cannot support 
legislation that hurts our farmers, erodes our commitment to the 
stability of world markets, or potentially threatens our national 
security. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill in its current 
form.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1141, the 
Emergency Supplemental bill.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill includes the full funding 
necessary to allow National Public Radio to continue its services to 
public radio listeners.
  In the early 1990's, NPR negotiated a 10-year lease for satellite 
``transponders'' to assure nationwide coverage for public radio. In May 
of 1998, the satellite unexpectedly failed halting programming to 
public radio listeners across the country. The satellite vendor 
provided a temporary back up though the fall of 1999.
  In order to lease the necessary transponders on the replacement 
satellite, NPR must have the necessary funding to contract with the 
satellite vendor. This bill provides the full $48 million to allow NPR 
to complete the negotiations and assure the continuation of service. It 
provides $30,600,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $17,400,000 in fiscal year 
2000. Let me assure members that the fiscal year 1999 funding is fully 
offset with rescissions of unneeded funds in other accounts and the 
fiscal year 2000 funding will be absorbed within our allocation.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill also contains several technical amendments to 
the omnibus bill we passed last year that are of concern to the 
administration and which correct errors made in the hectic last days of 
our negotiations and preparation of the bill for consideration by this 
House.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee, 
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, for his assistance in including 
these provisions in the bill. I would also like to thank the ranking 
member of the Committee and of my Subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for his support and assistance in expediting the 
technical corrections and support for the funding of the NPR satellite.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment printed in House Report 106-76 may be offered only by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) or his designee, shall be 
considered read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be 
considered read.

                              {time}  1215

  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, namely:

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
that there may be a lot of good arguments that he can make in 
opposition to our position on the plutonium issue, but he should not 
make the argument that he just made, and I would ask him not to make 
that argument again, because it is based on his perception that the 
administration does not really care very much about this amendment and 
this

[[Page H1625]]

issue. That is as far away from the truth as it can could possibly be.
  Here is what the facts are with respect to that issue: The 
administration submitted its original budget in January. The omnibus 
appropriations bill did not pass until October. What happened between 
January and October is that it became clear that the Russians were not 
going to negotiate for the removal of plutonium from their country 
unless money was put on the table to help visibly finance those 
efforts.
  So in the conference on the omnibus appropriation bill, Senator 
Domenici led the effort to insert the money, and he had the full, 
strong, four-square support of the administration. He had the support 
of the Energy Department. He had the support of the State Department. 
He had the support of the White House. He had the support of OMB. It 
should not be stated otherwise on this floor.
  The fact is that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) now very 
well knows that he has in his possession various letters from the 
administration, from the Secretary of Energy, from the Department of 
the Budget, which spell out in very clear terms that the administration 
believes it is of the highest priority that these funds not be 
rescinded.
  The administration has made quite clear in letters to the gentleman 
and to me that, without that money on the table, our ability to move 
forward in negotiations with the Russians to remove the threat of 
15,000 nuclear weapons that could be built from that loose plutonium, 
it has made quite clear that, if that rescission takes place, they put 
at risk our ability to get any results from those negotiations.
  So use any argument my colleague wants, I would say to the gentleman 
from Florida, but do not suggest that this is not a serious matter. Do 
not suggest that the administration is not four-square for the 
preservation of this money, because that is at variance with the facts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE I

                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $42,753,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.


                   Amendment Offered By Mr. Stenholm

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stenholm:
       Page 2, line 9 through line 12, Strike ``Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 3, line 8 through line 12, Strike ``Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 3, line 25 through line 2 of page 4, Strike 
     ``Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to Section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.''
       Page 4, line 21 through line 25, Strike ``Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 5, line 9 through line 13, Strike ``Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 5, line 17 through line 21, Strike ``Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 5, line 24 through line 3 of page 2, Strike 
     ``Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to Section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.''
       Page 6, line 6 through line 10, Strike ``Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 6, line 13 through line 17, Strike ``Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 6, line 20 through line 24, Strike ``Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 7, line 3 through line 7, Strike ``Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 7, line 19 through line 22, Strike ``Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 8, line 4 through line 8, Strike ``Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 9, line 24 through line 10 of page 10, Strike 
     ``Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to Section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended. Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount of the 
     request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       Page 10, line 19 through line 23, Strike ``Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 11, line 14 through line 17, Strike ``Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       Page 12, line 8 through line 12, Strike ``Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.''
       And on page 13, strike lines 3 through 10.

  Mr. STENHOLM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment may be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.


                             Point Of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) wish to be 
heard on his point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment. It violates the rules of the House as it in effect calls 
for the en bloc consideration of two different paragraphs in the bill.
  The precedents of the House are clear in this matter. Amendments to a 
paragraph or section are not in order until such paragraph or section 
has been read. This is Cannons Precedents, volume 8, section 2354.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) desire to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I concede all of the points 
that the gentleman has raised. I will at the conclusion of being heard 
on the point of order ask unanimous consent that these rules be 
stricken today and that they be waived in order that we might 
expeditiously handle this bill before us today, because I believe it 
would be a lot more expeditious to deal with a one-time vote on the 
differences that some of us have regarding how we shall pay for these 
emergency declarations. I am just trying to be expedient and try to 
speed up the work of the House today.
  But if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) insists on his point of 
order, or there will be an objection, then we must do it according to 
the rules, which I certainly intend to pay strict attention to all the 
rules of the House.
  But we are just saying that already in the debate we are hearing what 
the

[[Page H1626]]

differences are, and my objection to the bill is how it is being paid 
for. That is what we want to strike.
  Basically what we are saying is we would rather have an across-the-
board sequestration cut than to have two or three of these more 
egregious cuts. If by unanimous consent we can have a one-time or have 
my amendment carried, we could have a good debate on this issue and 
settle it and not take up as much time of the House.
  So I ask unanimous consent of the gentleman might consider waiving 
the rules of the House in order that we might expeditiously consider 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not entertain unanimous consent requests 
at this point.
  Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) makes a point of 
order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) amends portions of the bill not yet read for amendment. For 
the reasons stated by the gentleman from Florida, which are recorded in 
chapter 27, section 9.1, of Procedure in the House of Representatives, 
the point of order is sustained.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I then would ask unanimous consent that 
these rules that have been objected to, that I have readily conceded, 
might be in order; that we might expeditiously proceed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to present consideration of the 
amendment just ruled out on a point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly object to the 
unanimous consent request, and we will go by the regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


                   Amendment Offered By Mr. Stenholm

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stenholm:
       On page 2, strike lines 9 through 12.

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, then, begins the process 
of talking about the difficulties that some of us are having. In this 
case, interestingly enough, it is the Department of Agriculture and it 
is the agricultural funds that are in question, the amount for salaries 
and expenses for the necessary employees to deliver the Emergency 
Disaster Program that we passed last fall and is now still awaiting 
execution.
  Obviously I reluctantly offer this amendment, but by the same token, 
the argument that I made before in general debate and I will make again 
now, I believe that the emergency should be stricken. I happen to agree 
with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) when he says we should 
pay for these emergency spending. My difference is I disagree with the 
manner in which the majority has chosen to pay for it. Two or three of 
those I think will do irreparable harm to this country's best interest.
  But specifically speaking to agriculture, I think, for any reason, 
for the United States to call into question capital available for 
countries of the world that are struggling and that different financial 
institutions might consider to be creditworthy, and that if they are 
considered creditworthy, they might then be able to borrow money in 
order to buy that which we have produced in the United States.
  As Chairman Greenspan pointed out in an eloquent speech last week, 
our problems with agriculture have been because our markets have dried 
up. He pointed out, and others are pointing out, that we are playing 
with fire when we begin to take what appears to be an innocuous, 
harmless something that we can attack as being foreign aid and that 
there is no repercussions, that there is no price to be paid.
  I happen to believe very strongly that we are playing with fire. If 
the majority succeeds in these offsets today, it will do far more 
damage to American agriculture and farmers than whether or not there is 
a delay on providing the credit, because it will be a short delay. We 
have already passed unanimously in this House a couple weeks ago the 
Combest-Stenholm amendment in which we recognized that.
  But here again, my argument would be, and what I ask unanimous 
consent for, is to just agree that the President asked that all of 
these be considered emergency. Do not blame the President for the 
impasse we have today. He has already declared it.
  The majority has said we do not believe we ought to breach the 
spending by declaring it emergency, a perfectly logical decision to be 
made. I happen to agree.
  The difference we have is how should we pay for it? I believe in an 
across-the-board cut in every account would be a much more logical and 
helpful way for us to progress. Even there, there are some offsets that 
I am sure that the committee can, in fact they have come up with some 
that makes sense, and, therefore, they can in the conference make those 
adjustments with the Senate and hold it down as much as we can as far 
as the across-the-board cuts.
  That is all that I am saying today. That is my point of my amendment 
today. I will be offering this amendment. I would rather have done it 
en bloc, but I understand the rules, and I understand the gentleman 
from Florida (Chairman Young), and I appreciate his handling of this.
  But I would seriously say to my colleagues, please consider what we 
are saying and do not look at this as something that we can take 
frivolously of which there are no prices to be paid. This Member's 
humble judgment is that there is a potential very high price to be paid 
and that there is a better way for paying for this today. That is my 
argument, and I would ask support for my amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. Chairman, as I read this, what he is striking is from line 9 to 
12, striking ``Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
Congress as an emergency requirement'', and it goes on to give the 
citations of the referenced Budget Act.
  I am not exactly sure what the gentleman is trying to accomplish 
here, except I believe what he wants to do is to eliminate the offsets 
that we have suggested from the Committee on Appropriations and replace 
them with an across-the-board cut.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
The gentleman has explained the intent of what I would like to 
accomplish today as perfectly and honestly as I could have done it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much 
for that. His credentials in attempting to be very careful and 
responsible with the taxpayers' money is certainly well known 
throughout the Congress.
  But I would have to say, and the reason that I oppose the gentleman's 
amendment is that the committee was very careful in working with all of 
the subcommittees to find these offsets of unobligated funds that would 
not be spent in fiscal year 1999; and if they were spent in 1999, they 
might find their way into some wasteful spending program in the 
following year. So the money was not going to be spent this year. The 
committee and the Congress should make these decisions.
  But across-the-board cuts are, frankly, the easy way out. Any time we 
have a problem with paying for a supplemental or reducing spending, 
putting an across-the-board amendment up is the easy way to go, but 
that takes the Congress out of the procedure.
  When we are doing an across-the-board cut, then the administration 
and the agencies, they will decide where to make those cuts. Frankly, I 
do not want to give up the responsibility that the American people have 
given the Congress in our Constitution, to be responsible for the 
appropriated funds and the appropriation of those funds.
  So, on that basis, I really have to object to the gentleman's 
amendment and suggest that we stay with the offsets that have been 
identified, that have been studied, that have been thoroughly scrubbed 
and are responsible offsets rather than relying on an across-the-board 
cut.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just have to say that I am very confused by the 
position

[[Page H1627]]

taken by the majority party on the Stenholm amendment.

                              {time}  1230

  This is the first time in at least a few days that I have seen the 
same train trying to run in both directions on the same track 
simultaneously. And yet that is what the gentleman is arguing.
  One minute they are arguing their offsets do not do anything because 
the money is not going to be spent next year; the next minute they are 
arguing that their offsets are meaningful. Now, I do not know which 
argument is correct. I can debate somebody who is taking only one 
position at a time; I do not know how to debate somebody who takes two 
positions at the same time. That gets a little difficult.
  So it just seems to me that while I do not believe the Stenholm 
amendment is necessary because I believe that these items, getting 
assistance to our farmers, given the collapse in their prices, is an 
emergency; it may not be to a comfortable Member of Congress, I think 
it is very much an emergency to those farmers; and I certainly believe 
that what happened with the hurricane was an emergency.
  So I do not believe the Stenholm amendment is necessary, but if this 
bill is going to do what it pretends to do, then the Stenholm amendment 
is consistent whereas the base bill itself is not, and I think Members 
need to understand that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from 
Wisconsin. He is known for a number of things here, his insight and his 
parliamentary sharpness, but he is not always known for his sense of 
etiquette. That is his problem here. He has been eavesdropping.
  The people on the other side have been making two arguments; one is 
for the conservative Republicans, in which they talk about how they 
have offset this bill; then there is another argument they make for 
everybody else in which they point out that the offsets will have no 
impact, either fiscally or any other way.
  The problem is the gentleman from Wisconsin has, inappropriately 
perhaps, eavesdropped on the arguments that were not meant for his 
ears. Those were meant for the CATs, and it is not surprising that the 
gentleman's hearing did not quite understand it.
  So when the other side is arguing that these offsets are really very 
important offsets, they are talking to conservative Republicans. 
Naturally, my friend from Wisconsin would not understand that. But when 
they talk then about how the offsets really do not mean anything, that 
they do not really save any money or really prevent any spending that 
would have occurred anyway, then they are talking to the other side.
  So that, I think, might help the gentleman with his dilemma.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it reminds me of an 
umpire who calls the runner both safe and out at the same time. He is 
trying to satisfy both sides, but it leaves the audience very confused.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, perhaps this is a new civility. When there is a sharp 
division, we try to please both sides equally, and the fact it does not 
make any logical sense is simply a quibble.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in support of the emergency aid and in 
opposition to these offsets.
  Mr. Speaker, an emergency is an emergency. Hurricane Mitch hit a half 
a year ago in Central America and we are here today arguing emergency 
relief because of the offsets. We still have in Central America 2.4 
million, almost 2.5 million people that are displaced or homeless. That 
is bigger than the population of a lot of States that are represented 
here on the floor. Why are we being so cruel in this process of saying, 
in order to help people that are disabled and homeless, in an area 
where we need to get the infrastructure and the economy going, that we 
have to penalize our domestic programs?
  The epicenter for the 1989 earthquake in California, the Loma Prieta 
earthquake, was in my district. Do my colleagues know that we received 
aid from Japan, aid from Mexico, aid from European countries? They came 
to California, probably the richest State in the United States, because 
we were in a disaster and they knew we needed help.
  We have 23 other nations that have responded to Central America. Some 
of these have debt with those nations, bilateral debt, far greater than 
what we have. And yet Brazil is able to give $179 million in debt 
forgiveness; France, $127 million; Sweden, small Sweden, $45 million; 
and the United States, the richest country of all, debt forgiveness is 
$41 million.
  My colleagues have constituents who wrote checks to the International 
Red Cross; millions of dollars were received by the Salvation Army for 
relief in Latin America, and these donors did not talk about offsets. 
The men and women from our districts who are now in Central America 
working with the nongovernmental organizations, who have taken time 
off, are not asking for offsets. The 23,000 American troops and 
National Guardsmen who are building roads and bridges, who are building 
medical clinics, who are building schools, who are working at a 2-and-
3-week period of time, are not asking for offsets.
  It is really a sad day that we are here debating an emergency bill 
because of offsets, and it leads us to wonder whether the only time we 
are ever going to be able to respond to an emergency without offsets is 
if we declare war. I oppose the offsets.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and 
I have sometimes misunderstood each other, and I want to make sure that 
he does not misunderstand what I am saying about the offsets.
  Yes, these offsets are real, but they are offsets from funds that 
were not going to be obligated in fiscal year 1999 anyway. So they are 
real, and the fact that they were not going to be obligated says that 
we are not really damaging those programs.
  But now when the gentleman from Wisconsin talks about how we are 
supporting two different versions of something at the same time, I have 
been sitting here wondering what he means. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) is strongly against offsetting the emergency funding in this 
bill, but at the same time he is supporting the amendment by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) that eliminates the declaration of 
emergency as he proceeds to get an across-the-board cut. That is where 
I am a little confused with his position.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Did the gentleman hear me say I was supporting the Stenholm 
amendment? I never said that.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am glad to hear that.
  Mr. OBEY. I do not think that the Stenholm amendment is necessary, 
but I believe it is preferable to the base bill. There is a 
distinction.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Kansas will 
continue to yield, I am glad to hear the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) joins us in opposition to the Stenholm amendment.
  I would also like to say to my friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr), and incidentally the gentleman from California was part of 
the delegation who went to Central America at my request a week and a 
half ago, and came back with a very glowing report. And I can 
understand why he would want to appropriate these monies without 
offsetting, and I think that that sentiment would run through this 
House.
  This is a true emergency. But the problem is the leaders of the party 
of the gentleman from California in the House and in the Senate, the 
leaders of my party in the House and in the Senate, and the leader of 
the free world at

[[Page H1628]]

the White House, the President of the United States, have all said we 
are going to live within the 1997 budget caps. And I say to my 
colleagues that unless we get serious about making offsets on some of 
these programs, we are not going to satisfy the President nor our own 
leaders in the House or the Senate, because we just cannot get to the 
1997 budget caps unless we are willing to make some tough choices in 
offsetting some of the spending.
  I appreciate my friend from Kansas yielding to me, and I appreciate 
the work that he does as a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida, and I 
want to confirm that I stand with him in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit curious now, having heard the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations saying that these in fact are real 
offsets but, as I understand it, they will not affect spending in this 
fiscal year. Now, they are offsetting, as I understand it, spending 
that will be in this fiscal year.
  So I would like members of the committee to explain to me where, at 
what point will they be offsetting spending? What spending will these 
offsets avoid? When would that spending have occurred, and what will be 
the consequences of these offsets? Because I would like to get a focus.
  So they apparently will not have an effect in this fiscal year but we 
will be offsetting next year. Would someone from the Committee on 
Appropriations, I will be glad to yield, explain to me exactly what is 
being offset? If not this year, when will it be offset and what will be 
offset?
  Well, I guess I will go unsatisfied in my quest for specifics.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
the ranking minority member of the committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the majority party will not respond to the 
gentleman's question, let me give the gentleman my understanding of 
what the situation is.
  The majority party pretends that by cutting $648 million in callable 
capital they are reducing the deficit. But as the gentleman knows, the 
deficit is measured only by what we actually outlay in any given year. 
And the fact is that the estimate of the outlay savings for that item, 
according to CBO, is zero dollars saved.
  Secondly, with respect to the Export-Import item, they pretend 
because they are cutting $25 million in budget authority that they are 
saving a corresponding amount. In fact, CBO says they will save at most 
$3 million from that item.
  With respect to PL-480, they claim that $30 million will be saved 
because of budget authority cuts, but in fact that translates only into 
a deficit reduction of $16 million.
  Then we get to the nuclear weapons item. Our friends on the majority 
side say, do not worry, this money is not going to be spent this year 
anyway, so we will not hurt these nuclear agreements. But the 
Congressional Budget Office says that there they are going to take an 
$80 million outlay cut in those proposals this year.
  So it seems to me that not only are their arguments inconsistent, 
they are inaccurate. And if they are right or wrong, the result in real 
world terms is most destructive in terms of the confusion that will be 
caused in the international markets and the setback that will be 
provided to our efforts to rid the world of plutonium which can make 
15,000 nuclear weapons.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I 
will yield to the gentleman from Kansas in a second, but I just want to 
say, and I appreciate this, it does seem to me we have seen an unusual 
logical feat here.
  The majority has presented two very inconsistent arguments, both of 
which are wrong. It is hard to do that. It is hard to be on opposite 
sides of the question and get it wrong from both directions.
  Because it sounds to me like for much of what the chairman was 
describing these are offsets which will in fact save no money this 
year, but will cause us some harm and some damage in the understanding 
in the international community about what is available to the World 
Bank and the other banks. So we will accomplish nothing concretely but 
cause some difficulty in the process of accomplishing nothing.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, I do have a copy of the bill and it does outline 
what the offsets are. If the gentleman is curious about which ones are 
there, I do not think that is a problem.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I have to respond to 
that point, and then I will yield further.
  I understood that, but I understood the chairman to say with regard 
to a couple of the offsets that they would not stop us from spending 
any money that we were going to be spending in this fiscal year, and I 
guess that is a wonderful kind of offset. Let us have offsets that we 
can claim as offsets but do not reduce any spending.
  Maybe the gentleman from Florida could suggest a diet for me, because 
I would love to find the caloric equivalent of those fiscal offsets.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
what the chairman is referring to is unobligated funds, money that will 
not be spent and that we will keep from spending by rescission.
  But I want to address callable capital. That is a fund, money sitting 
in an account, $12 billion sitting there, and this money will then go 
to a higher priority to help the people in Central America. And if it 
is not a real outlay, then why did the Secretary of the Treasury come 
to Capitol Hill and express his concerns about this outlay?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin in a minute, but I want to say two things.
  First of all, it is not a real outlay in this fiscal year. It is not 
a real dispute. No one says it is going to be a real outlay. The 
chairman said we are not planning to spend it; we are going to set it 
aside.
  I believe what the Secretary of the Treasury was citing was the 
uncertainty and confusion it will cause in the international community 
and the financial community if we rescind our obligation to make that 
available when it is going to be needed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that what the Treasury 
Secretary is saying, and I would respectfully suggest that he probably 
knows more about international finance than all of the Members of this 
House put together on both sides of the aisle; the Secretary of the 
Treasury is telling us is that this money, indeed, will not be spent.
  Callable capital is never meant to be spent. It has never been spent 
in the history of the international financial institutions.

                              {time}  1245

  It is there simply to send the message that the full faith and credit 
of the United States stands behind those financial institutions so that 
they can provide the credit necessary to keep our export markets going.
  And when we, for the first time in our country's history, withdraw 
previously appropriated callable capital, we bring into question our 
commitment to those processes. That in turn creates the likelihood that 
interest rates are going to be raised in those markets, and that means 
that we wind up shrinking our own export markets. Why that is smart is 
beyond me.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do 
want to note, and I am interested, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt) has learned a lesson from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) about

[[Page H1629]]

the cancelability of callable capital but he has apparently learned it 
too well.
  And at some point I guess the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is 
going to explain the difference between $640 million of callable 
capital which does not mean anything and $800 million which does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to say we are not rescinding the 
full faith and credit of the United States with our diminishing that 
fund that is out there somewhere. The full faith and credit of the 
United States remains intact. It is not diminished by this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman for that. In other words, we are just as obligated to 
spend the money without this so-called offset. So now the offset is 
getting to the diminishing side.
  The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has just said, as he 
understands it, whatever our obligation is under our full faith and 
credit is the same, so the offset has suddenly disappeared.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I just want to try to clarify again why I 
am offering the amendment. And precisely why I am offering this 
amendment is the possibility that the capital that is being rescinded 
might be needed in order to maintain agricultural markets.
  It is precisely that reason, that just in case we find this year that 
that capital will be needed, I want it to be available. And I think it 
makes much more sense for this body to have that capital available in 
case agriculture or any other producers of anything in the United 
States might benefit by whoever might use that capital that it might be 
available.
  And we are kind of into the never-never land here, because if this 
really was emergency spending, this debate would not even be taking 
place here today. I happen to believe it is emergency. But I happen to 
believe at this stage in the budget debate that we need to pay for all 
expenditures, even emergency spending, and that is why I am here 
striking ``emergency''.
  The President asked this be emergency and not be offset. Some folks 
on both sides of the aisle believe it ought to be offset. I believe 
that unless we strike the particular offsets and do an across-the-board 
cut, we are playing with fire that will far more damage agriculture 
this year than any of the problems associated with the amendment that I 
offer in striking the funds for salaries, etcetera, at this time. That 
is the record.
  And I could not agree more with the chairman a moment ago in his 
explanation of what he is doing and why, because he and I agree on 
this. But this does not take Congress off the hook. My amendment puts 
Congress on the hook, because my colleague and I both know that if we 
have across-the-board cuts, some things are going to be very 
meaningful. Some areas of the budget will have much more meaningful 
cuts than others because some are tighter than others.
  So I do not say I am trying to take anybody off the hook. I am saying 
I am willing to put us on the hook, and I think across-the-board cuts 
are much more doable. I do not want to use the word ``honest.'' I just 
believe that they put Congress in a more responsible way of saying, 
yes, we want to pay for, we want to live within the caps and we mean 
it.
  And I thanked the chairman a moment ago for agreeing that that is his 
interpretation of what I am trying to do. We have a difference on this. 
But to those who argue that this capital unexpended is not going to 
have any effect on Kansas wheat farmers this summer, be careful, be 
careful when they make that argument in case they win.
  Because if the economy of the world should turn around and go even 
worse, Mr. Greenspan, in what he has warned us, and let me just quote: 
``The disappointing export developments and pressures on farm prices 
over the past few quarters can be traced to an important degree to the 
recession that began in Asia more than a year and a half ago and has 
since spread to other regions of the world. Falling shipments to Asian 
countries accounted for more than 80 percent in the drop of value of 
farm exports over the past 2 years.''
  Let us be careful what we do today. There are real prices to be paid 
if we are in error. I believe an across-the-board cut would be much 
sounder for national policy and agriculture policy than what is being 
suggested by the majority bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I want to say to my friend from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) I know the 
sincerity of what he is doing, and what he and I are trying to do is 
not that different. The only real difference is the source of the 
offsets.
  Let me explain again. Because when the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) was speaking, he confused what I was trying to do. But let 
me reiterate what it is that the committee bill is trying to do here.
  The offsets that we recommend in this bill are monies that have been 
appropriated, and most of the money for those programs will be spent in 
fiscal year 1999. But portions of that appropriated money, money that 
has already been appropriated, will not be obligated in fiscal year 
1999. And because this is ``no-year money'', if you allow me to use 
that phrase that appropriators use and budgeters use, ``no-year 
money,'' those funds will eventually end up being spent somewhere. So 
we are just going to take advantage of those unobligated funds and use 
them now to meet this emergency.
  Then I would like to say to my friend from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) that 
should a real emergency arrive in agricultural areas of our country, I 
can assure him, as chairman of this committee, that we will respond 
quickly to any request from Members or from the administration that 
would deal with any emergency in agriculture or any other emergency, 
for that matter, in the United States.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me bring out one point, too. As has been said by a 
lot of speakers here, the money poposed for rescission has been 
appropriated. We are not reneging on the obligation that we still have 
for these banks.
  We are the only country of all the participating countries that are 
participating in these banks that has appropriated the money. None of 
the other countries have appropriated it. And yet the actuaries or bond 
rating agencies are saying, ``We are concerned because the United 
States is withdrawing an appropriated amount of money.''
  We are not diminishing the obligation. We only represent 16 percent 
of all of the callable capital of the Asian Development Bank, which 
means that if they have to call up $1,000 in new callable capital, then 
other nations have to put up $840 of that and we must put up $160. So 
the other countries have not put that money in a reserve account.
  So why is this a detriment to the international banking community, if 
we are the only country who has done this and it was done many, many 
years ago, and it has never been called?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), if in fact this bill does fully offset the new 
expenditures in the bill, then why does the bill need an emergency 
designation? Is it not true that it would have no emergency designation 
if in fact these items were fully offset?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think I explained this once 
before but I would be happy to do it again.

[[Page H1630]]

  The emergency designation was established by our own Budget 
Impoundment and Control Act, or whatever it is referred to as these 
days, and it does provide for an emergency designation, that if the 
Congress determines there is an emergency and if the President signs 
off and agrees that it is an emergency, then the monies appropriated do 
not have to be offset.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, but he 
claims they are fully offsetting them, so then they do not need the 
emergency designation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield to me, I was in the middle of my explanation so only half of it 
is finished.
  The other part is that I have no objection to saying that this is an 
emergency. We are responding to an emergency. So having the emergency 
designation in the bill, as requested by the President of the United 
States, does not give me any heartburn at all.
  I think we should say that we are responding to an emergency. We just 
go a step further, and we say that we should offset and pay for this 
emergency. That is the difference. If the emergency designation is 
there or is not there, I do not think it is going to have any effect on 
this bill, at least as it is before the House today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the fact 
is that the reason they need the emergency designation is that they do 
not fully offset this. In fact, this bill will add $445 million to the 
debt and to the deficit because they do not fully offset it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, we do not fully offset it, and we will discuss where we do not 
fully offset it in a further debate.
  The gentleman is absolutely correct, we do not offset the amount of 
money that we appropriate in this bill for the Army and the military 
services who immediately responded to that emergency in Central 
America, the same ones is pulled the kids out of the mud, who pulled 
the people out of the flooded rivers, who brought potable water to the 
area so that people could have water to drink that was sanitary.
  That is correct, we are not suggesting that we offset that because 
that is a true emergency, and we will debate that later. But we do not 
need to offset defense appropriations any more. We have already done 
damage to our military over the years by reduced budgets and by making 
us offset deployments of American troops that are sent all over the 
world. I am going to strenuously object to offsetting any more funds 
that the Defense Department is required to spend because they are sent 
on a mission, no matter where it might be, whether or not it deals 
directly with the security of our Nation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I would 
simply say that response is incorrect. The offsets for the military 
only are $195 million. The add-on to the deficit under their bill is 
$455 million. So they still have not fully offset this bill and they 
ought to quit pretending that they have.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Callahan was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, I hear the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
say, the way this bill is worded, this cancellation of the callable 
capital will not prevent any money from being spent that would 
otherwise have been spent this year, that is, it does not cancel any 
proposed spending for the year and it does not reduce our obligation.
  The gentleman is the chairman of the committee. He says the full 
faith and credit is still there. So if it does not stop any spending 
that was going to happen this year and it does not prevent any spending 
in the future, how did it become an offset? What is it offsetting?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is offset because 
we have already appropriated the money and it is sitting there in the 
account. So we are taking it out of the appropriation account and 
putting it back into the general fund.
  Let me make a brief comment in my final minute here on something that 
the gentleman said earlier on the floor. Did I hear the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) say that some Members of Congress have the 
audacity to be speaking out of both sides of their mouths?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, what struck me was not that they were speaking out 
of both sides of their mouth but that they were equally inaccurate. 
Usually people get it right one out of two.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I cannot help but 
marvel at the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts is accusing 
any Member of this body, Republican or Independent or Democrat, of 
speaking out of both sides of their mouth. This may be an historic 
occasion for this Congress.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman spoke very factually a moment ago. But precisely 
because America is one of the few if not the only country in the world 
that has been backing these institutions is why I offer the amendment 
today.

                              {time}  1300

  Because I worry that if we, this body, should call into question the 
reliability of whether we will be there, I worry about the effect of 
that. That is precisely why I offer the amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we will be there. We 
are also leaving a sufficient amount of money in reserve in the event 
of any emergency.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77, 
noes 345, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 67]

                                AYES--77

     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bereuter
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Clayton
     Condit
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Minge
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Roemer
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--345

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier

[[Page H1631]]


     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Frank (MA)
     Sabo
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrett (NE)
     Brown (CA)
     Fletcher
     Lowey
     Myrick
     Peterson (PA)
     Slaughter
     Stupak
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1318

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. 
McCARTHY of New York and Mr. OLVER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mrs. EMERSON and Messrs. KIND, SMITH of 
Michigan, WATT of North Carolina, JEFFERSON and POMEROY changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 67, the 
amendment from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, I inadvertently 
voted ``aye.'' I would like the Record to reflect I intended to vote 
``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment made in order by House Resolution 125 offered by 
     Mr. Obey:
       Page 13, strike lines 3 through 10 (relating to Department 
     of Agriculture, Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts.)
       Page 13, strike lines 11 through 18 (relating to Department 
     of Energy, Atomic Energy Defense Activities, Other Defense 
     Activities).
       Page 15, strike lines 16 through 25 (relating to 
     International Financial Institutions, Reduction in Callable 
     Capital Appropriations).
       Page 18, strike lines 9 through 13 (relating to Export-
     Import Bank of the United States).

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very complicated, as the 
vote on the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) indicated, so I apologize for the fact that I will have to 
ask for an extension of time to complete my remarks in explaining it.
  Mr. Chairman, sometime in the near future, as we all know, we are 
likely to be in a state of high confrontation a quarter of the world 
away, in Kosovo and in Serbia. Of all the times, this is the least 
desirable moment for the United States credibility to be questioned. 
Yet the action that this Congress is taking today on this bill will 
bring into question our commitment to the international financial 
institutions that we built at the end of World War II in order to try 
to stabilize the world's economy. It will also bring into question our 
commitment to work out in negotiations with the Russians to see to it 
that 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium is converted to a more safe use 
in nuclear power plants. So I am offering this amendment to remove the 
foremost egregious offsets that the majority party has inserted in this 
bill.
  Very simply, Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates the cut of $25 
million in the Export-Import Bank funding because I believe that we 
should not be disarming ourselves in protecting American jobs and in 
protecting our markets abroad. That is what we do when we reduce the 
amount of money in the Export-Import Bank war chest, which is there for 
the purpose of sending a signal to the world that if other countries 
artificially subsidize exports by their corporations into world 
markets, we will use that money to do the same, so that we do not lose 
jobs in the process.
  The second thing this amendment will do is to say that we will not at 
a time when our farmers have seen huge drops in their market prices, we 
will not choose this time to cut back on Public Law 480 funds. This is 
the device we use to try to facilitate the export of American farm 
products abroad. The amendment does two other things. It says that we 
will not add to the uncertainty of international financial markets, by 
for the first time in our history rescinding previously-appropriated 
callable capital funds.
  The Secretary of the Treasury has already indicated if this provision 
remains in the bill, this bill will be vetoed, and it should be vetoed. 
We cannot afford to add uncertainty to international financial markets.
  Fourth, what this amendment would do is to eliminate the $150 million 
rescission which will in the words of our own Department of Energy and 
in the words of our arms negotiators make it much less likely for us to 
be able to resume negotiations with the Russians on the conversion of 
that plutonium which is now within the borders of Russia, to convert 
that plutonium to a use other than for the purpose of building 15 to 
25,000 more nuclear weapons.

                              {time}  1330

  I think it is imperative that this Congress support this action this 
afternoon.
  What I think is really happening here is this: We know that the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) tried to bring a bill to the 
floor which would have been a bipartisan bill, but he was then given 
different orders by his House leadership.
  He is being a good soldier, but we know that if the Committee on 
Appropriations had been left to its own devices, we would have a far 
different bill before us here this afternoon.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what we really have here is this: The House 
could have produced a bill which would have epitomized cooperation 
between the executive and legislative branches on an item that the 
President felt was an emergency. Instead, because of the instructions 
given to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
Congress is instead choosing to follow the path once again of 
confrontation with the President. It is setting up a bill which is 
going to be vetoed, which will get no help to anybody.
  Secondly, let me make this observation: We have had various 
Republican

[[Page H1632]]

voices say that this administration's foreign policy is faulty. I will 
be the first to admit it is far from perfect, but I would suggest that 
this action comes after a series of other actions taken by the majority 
party which calls into legitimate question its understanding of the 
world or its willingness to recognize our responsibility to lead.
  This is the same party that has refused to pay our bills at the 
United Nations, which brings into question our leadership capacity in 
that institution. It is the same party which for over a year held up 
action on the International Monetary Fund request by the President. 
That action again added uncertainty, especially in the Asian markets, 
and made it more difficult for us to sell our products in those 
markets.
  It is the same party that has really at various times come at the 
Bosnia and Kosovo questions from both sides. Now it is the same party 
which is saying that we ought to bring into question our commitment to 
support the international financial institutions, and their role, after 
all, is to help stabilize international markets primarily for our 
benefit. We started those institutions so we would not have to carry 
the full load.
  Lastly, the majority party is also attempting to put roadblocks in 
the way of the administration's ability to negotiate that crucial 
plutonium agreement. It just seems to me that on that issue alone, this 
amendment ought to be passed. If this amendment is not passed, the bill 
before us should be voted down.
  There is no rational reason to take $150 million off the table at a 
time when we put that there in order to make certain that the Russians 
would come back to the negotiating table.
  I understand that the staff of the subcommittee is unhappy because 
they were not involved in the original decision to include this money 
in the Omnibus bill, but I think that staff pique over that issue is 
not sufficient reason to put our national interest at question when it 
comes to dealing with this plutonium question.
  I would urge, in the name of responsibility, that the House vote for 
this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we actually could have gone ahead with a vote 
because we really have debated these issues all morning long. I am 
going to speak to just one of the issues and then other Members of the 
Committee on Appropriations will address several of the others.
  The concern that the gentleman has expressed about the PL-480 
program, this bill includes a $30 million rescission this program and 
as I have repeatedly said throughout this debate this should not cause 
any problem on that side of the aisle, certainly not at the White 
House. In fact, there have been very substantial carryovers in this 
account for the last few years. In fact, in 1999, there was a $40 
million carryover in the PL-480 account.
  The administration, the White House, has proposed cutting Title I 
funding in half for the past 3 years, and Congress has restored most of 
the program each year. So even with this rescission, the program will 
be operating substantially above the requested level.
  For fiscal year 2000, the administration has again proposed to cut 
Title I in half and to reduce the other two food aid programs, Title II 
and Title III.
  In testimony before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
in recent weeks, the administration said these cuts would not cause any 
problems, in part because the administration has created a new food aid 
program for Russia of more than $700 million using funds from the 
Commodity Credit Corporation.
  So ours is a responsible rescission, and we still have more money in 
the fund than the White House would have. The White House would 
certainly not attempt to cut these funds if they thought it was going 
to hurt the program, because it is a good program, and I support the 
PL-480 program and I always have, even back years ago when the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I used to debate on callable 
capital almost every day of our lives. I support the PL-480 program, 
and we do not do any damage to it because there was a $40 million 
carryover. So I would suggest that this is not a real argument.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am confused as to whether the gentleman's 
party intends to follow the CBO accounting on these issues or not.
  Is not it, in fact, true that the CBO indicates that $16 million of 
the funds that the gentleman is rescinding would, in fact, be spent 
absent the rescission on the PL-480 issue? Is not that the case?
  Does not that, therefore, demonstrate that those funds are needed?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am not sure that I understand exactly the 
point that the gentleman is trying to make. All I am saying is that our 
rescission is less of a rescission than the administration asked for 
when they sent their budget up here.
  Mr. OBEY. The point I am trying to make is this: The gentleman is 
saying this will have no significant programmatic impact, and the 
gentleman has indicated numerous times that this money is not going to 
be spent anyway.
  The fact is the Congressional Budget Office, which scores these items 
for all of us, indicates that, in fact, $16 million of that would, in 
fact, be spent without the rescission; that $16 million which is 
unavailable to assist American farmers in exporting their products, and 
if ever they need assistance to export their products this is the time.
  The administration did not volunteer to support the agricultural 
funds that were provided in last year's supplemental either, but both 
parties ran to do that because we recognized the severe need out in 
farm country.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The key issue here is how much money is left in 
Title I of the PL-480 fund. The funds that are left there, in our 
opinion, are substantial.
  Now, when we go to the CBO scoring issue, this is something that the 
gentleman and I are going to have to work with very diligently over the 
next few weeks and few months because CBO scoring, as the gentleman 
well knows, is very much different than OMB's scoring.
  We are going to have to deal with this great difference between the 
scoring of the OMB and the CBO. We are not going to solve that problem 
here today. We will talk more about that tomorrow when we deal with the 
budget resolution, but the gentleman is correct. CBO scoring is a 
serious problem that we are all going to have to face up to, especially 
since it is so different than OMB, but we will discuss that tomorrow.
  This rescission is less of a rescission than the White House would 
make, and I am satisfied that there is more than enough money left to 
carry out the intent of the PL-480 program.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the House Republicans have loaded up this bill, which 
should be noncontroversial, with all sorts of peculiar provisions. 
Remember, this bill was supposed to be a bill to help out the victims 
of Hurricanes Mitch and George and to provide loans to United States 
farmers hurt by low commodity prices, but instead the Republicans have 
loaded it up with controversial proposals that virtually guarantee a 
presidential veto.
  For whatever reason, the Republicans have apparently decided to 
demand offsets, that is, cuts in other programs, in order to ensure the 
emergency relief that is in this bill. So they decided to use the bill, 
in other words, as a mechanism to target cuts for programs that the 
isolationist wing of the GOP simply does not like.
  Forget that we have a budget surplus. Forget that we can afford to 
help our Central American neighbors and help our farmers here at home 
without having to slash these other programs.
  No. The House Republican leadership wants to use this bill to rescind 
programs for international financial banks, slash funding for 
safeguarding of dangerous nuclear weapons material from Russia and 
slash funding for global warming studies.
  First their supplemental would cut $150 million that would have been 
used

[[Page H1633]]

to dismantle and safely store fissile material, bomb grade material, 
from thousands of Russian nuclear bombs. This is material which could 
be used for thousands of nuclear bombs. It could be sold to rogue 
nations or terrorists for use against the United States.
  It is in our national interest to help the Russians dismantle their 
weapons and to store them in a form which is no longer usable for 
nuclear explosive purposes.
  Just one week ago, the Republicans felt so strongly about the need to 
spend tens of billions of dollars on a dubious missile defense system 
to protect us against nuclear attack that they actually brought up a 
resolution to this floor saying that it was the policy of the United 
States to deploy a missile defense system.
  Now this week they are apparently no longer concerned about weapons 
of mass destruction except, of course, when it comes to blaming Bill 
Clinton for the fact that the Chinese spies had penetrated Los Alamos 
back during the Reagan and Bush administrations.
  Apparently it is Bill Clinton's fault that the Governor of Arkansas 
failed to prevent the Chinese from penetrating Los Alamos during the 
Reagan and Bush administrations.
  So based upon the record of the last few weeks, we now find that the 
GOP is willing to spend billions on missile defenses of doubtful 
utility, it is willing to blame Bill Clinton for things that happened 
when we had a Republican in the White House, but it is not even willing 
to spend even $150 million to dismantle nuclear warheads that might end 
up in the hands of Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic.
  Of course, if that ever happens I am sure that they will try to blame 
Bill Clinton that this money was cut.
  Right now we are in a very sensitive situation with the Russians. 
Russian Prime Minister Primakov actually has turned his flight around 
in mid-air on the way to the United States to protest the NATO plans to 
bomb the Serbians.
  At this point in time, do we really want to send the Russians the 
message that we are no longer interested in helping them dismantle 
their nuclear warheads? At this tense moment in our relations with 
Russia, is that really the message we want to send?
  Despite our disagreements with Russia over Serbia, we still have a 
vital national security interest in working with the Russians to 
prevent bomb grade materials from getting into the wrong hands. This 
bill undermines that effort.
  In addition to this fatal shortcoming, the Republican supplemental 
bill would rescind $648 million appropriated to guarantee the U.S. 
commitment to the World Bank, to the Asian Development Bank and to the 
Inter-American Development Bank.

                              {time}  1345

  Now we are living in a global economy. We can no longer insulate 
ourselves from what happened around the world. If the economy of Russia 
or Brazil collapses, our stock market, our investors, feel the effects. 
If the financial markets conclude that this Congress is walking away 
from its commitments to sustained financial stability, then it would be 
a mistake.
  I hope that the Obey amendment is adopted.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the rules of the House require 
that when we are speaking on this Floor, that we ought to address our 
comments to the Speaker or Chairman, and certainly during this debate 
the Chairman has paid close attention and probably better understands 
where we are than most any Member of the body.
  But just to reemphasize our position, let me just say that 30 to 40 
odd years ago many nations got together and decided that they would 
create these regional multidevelopment banks. As they did in 1945 with 
the World Bank, each nation would put in some usable capital, which 
they did. This paid-in capital funded each bank's initial operations.
  The Founding members told them to be responsible in their efforts; 
that when a bank loans this money to a foreign country, they should be 
able to pay it back.
  They told the banks: ``We want you to remain solvent. Just in case, 
we are going to put up a designated amount of callable capital. In the 
event you get into a crisis and you need additional monies, you will be 
able to call on these various countries to receive additional capital, 
called callable capital.''
  The United States was the only nation that chose at that time to put 
up these billions of dollars into a callable capital account, which has 
never been used. It has been sitting there unobligated for all of these 
years. Congress stopped appropriating callable capital in 1980.
  The problem, I would suggest to the Secretary of the Treasury, is not 
really the rescission of the callable capital. This is not going to 
impact the solvency of the bank. This is not going to do anything to 
the creditworthiness of the banks.
  The full faith and credit of the United States stands behind all 
capital subscriptions entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
after authorization by Congress. All of this $52.5 billion in callable 
capital for the World Bank and the Inter-American and Asian banks has 
been authorized by Congress. Only $11.5 billion has been appropriated. 
We are not rescinding the authorization. Whether or not 22 percent or 
21 percent of the callable capital is appropriated or not, the full 
faith and credit of the United States still stands, so we are not 
changing anything substantive.
  Naturally, the bond-raters would like to have the money sitting in 
the left-hand drawer rather than the right-hand drawer.
  I should suggest to the people who are making the determination 
whether or not a multilateral bank is creditworthy to look into their 
loan portfolio. Are the banks lending monies to countries--such as 
Russia--that cannot or will not pay it back? They ought to be concerned 
about that. I'd suggest that they consider the tremendous pressure to 
forgive all debt owed to MDBs by poor countries. I'd suggest they be 
concerned that there is no appropriated callable capital for the 
African, European, or North American development banks.
   Are the multi-lateral development banks, in such sorry financial 
condition that they cannot be sure of their own solvency because of the 
bad loans they hold? We are not removing the full faith and credit of 
the United States, we are just taking the money back that we never 
needed to appropriate in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, I would want to urge Members to vote against the Obey 
amendment.
  There has been some threat about a presidential veto. Let us keep in 
mind the whole scenario. The President went to Central America. The 
First Lady went to Central America. They are the ones who went and 
said, ``help will be coming.'' They are the ones that came up with the 
designated request for money that we are going to spend.
  I think that the President of the United States is not going to be in 
a position to veto a bill, just because we are rescinding some callable 
capital that has no substantive impact at all on the solvency of the 
bank. I know that the Secretary of the Treasury has indicated that he 
is going to recommend a veto. However, I do not think the President 
could stand on the world stage and say, ``the Congress is giving me the 
Hurricane Mitch reconstruction money, but I do not like where they are 
offsetting the money, so we are not going to accept the money and send 
it to help these people in Central America.'' The President has not 
told me that. I do not think he has told anybody in the Congress that 
he is going to veto it. This is coming from the Secretary of the 
Treasury.
  If the President wants to veto the bill, tell him to veto it. Let him 
cut off the aid to these needy and desperate people in Central America. 
In my opinion, he will not do it because he cannot do it, because this 
is not going to impact the solvency of the banks.
  Secretary Rubin is aware of this. Secretary Rubin is more concerned 
about the precedent; the fact that if we do this a second time, we are 
going to be coming back in a few years trying to rescind more callable 
capital. He is concerned about the precedent, rather than the reality 
of the problem.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H1634]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment, thank the 
gentleman once again for his leadership in bringing this to the Floor, 
and recognize our distinguished chairman for his first bill on the 
Floor, as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  I regretfully disagree with my distinguished chair of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs, of which I am the ranking member.
  Just reviewing Mr. Callahan's own words at the end of his comments is 
an argument for the Obey amendment when he said, in his view, that Mr. 
Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, was not concerned about this amount 
of money but about the precedent it would set. That is known as 
uncertainty. Uncertainty is not a plus in the financial world.
  The crisis in Asia speaks to our not taking this money from callable 
capital for the multilateral development banks, in particular the Asian 
Development Bank, because we need money for an emergency.
  As appropriators we all know the hard fights that go into determining 
what an appropriation will be for a particular year. We should respect 
that process. We thought these were important priorities. We voted for 
this funding. Now, with this bill, we are saying, we did not need to 
spend that money anyway.
  We should respect the regular order, and the regular order says that 
under the budget agreement we have caps, yes, but we also provide for 
emergencies not to be offset.
  As I have said earlier in my comments against the bill as presented, 
if thousands of people die, millions of people homeless, entire 
economies wiped out in the countries hit by this storm, the hurricane, 
if that does not constitute an emergency, it is hard to see what would. 
There probably never would be an emergency, if the worst natural 
disaster to hit the Western Hemisphere is not considered an emergency.
  What we are saying to the people of Central America is, we feel sorry 
for you but we do not consider you an emergency.
  Our process calls for our appropriating funds in a very deliberative 
process. It also calls for us to have this emergency fund, just as any 
family in America would have some savings for a rainy day. Well, the 
rainy day came to Central America, and it came again and again and 
again, and those people were wiped out, both their economies, their 
personal lives, their homes, et cetera.
  What we want to do is to help rebuild their economies. With our 
assistance, we want them to develop the private sector. We want them to 
be self-reliant. We want certainly to provide the emergency assistance 
to begin with, but we want them to develop their own economies.
  Why should we have to do that at the expense of the callable capital 
for the multilateral development banks, some of which lend into that 
area? Why should we do that by thrusting uncertainty into the markets 
about the credit rating of these multilateral development banks?
  The Secretary of the Treasury said he was recommending a veto to the 
President of the United States for this bill if the callable capital 
provision was in the bill, for reasons of dipping into that fund in the 
first place, and as a precedent, certainly, to make matters worse.
  So let us not try to gloss over the importance of a credit rating. 
Let us not gloss over the importance of certainty versus uncertainty. 
That is why we appropriated the money in the first place, because it 
needed to be there for us to do our share. If we pull the callable 
capital, what if the other countries do, too? Why is it not okay for 
them, if it is okay for us?
  We are getting on some dangerous territory here. I think we should 
not confuse the message by having two fights, here. What we are talking 
about is the very reasonable amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that addresses the four areas we have talked 
about, one of them being the callable capital; another, the Exim-Bank 
and the war chest of the Exim-Bank, again putting our assistance for 
trade or export financing in doubt; the $40 million cut from 
development assistance; and the $45 million in cuts from Eastern Europe 
and the new independent states, just at a time when those countries are 
faced with such uncertainty.
  Why, facing one problem, are we making matters worse in other parts 
of the world, when what we should be doing is using the money that the 
American people think we have saved for a rainy day to help meet the 
needs of the people who are devastated by the consequences of Hurricane 
Mitch, the worst natural disaster in the history of the Western 
Hemisphere? Certainly it is an emergency.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, what I am understanding in this amendment is basically 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin is opposed to any offsets, Mr. 
Chairman. He has sort of designated some of the bigger ones, and 
particularly the Department of Energy defense activities, where there 
is $150 million.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has misstated my position. I am not 
opposed to all offsets. There are a number of offsets in this bill that 
I have no objection to. My amendment is aimed at the four that I 
consider to be the most egregious, but I am not opposed to all offsets.
  Mr. TIAHRT. If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, most of these four 
amendments that the gentleman put forth, or the four items in the 
account that he has attacked, are about 90 or 95 percent of the 
offsets.
  The bottom line is, if we do not offset the bill, the money has to go 
from somewhere. It has to come from somewhere and go down to Central 
America. The only other amount of money that is available is the social 
security surplus. So if we do not offset this money, it is going to 
come from social security.
  I think if we stopped the average person on the street in either 
Wisconsin or in Kansas and asked them, what would you rather spend your 
money on, social security or a foreign aid emergency, I think nine 
times out of ten they are going to say, we want to save social 
security.
  So what we are trying to do is save social security and still provide 
money for the people who need it very much down in Central America.
  Mr. Chairman, one of these accounts that we have heard so much about 
is the $150 million that was supposed to go to properly secure and 
store the uranium or plutonium. There is still $375 million in the 
account that the Department of Energy has to properly store and 
properly secure uranium that is in Russia.
  There is some talk about putting the Nation at great risk because we 
were pulling back this $150 million. This $150 million was not 
obligated. There was no plan to spend it during this year, and there 
has been no agreement on how plutonium is going to be properly secured 
and properly stored in the country of Russia, so we had no immediate 
designation for this money. It was money that was put there, but now we 
are going to move it to a higher priority someplace where there is a 
greater need.
  In the callable capital account, we heard the subcommittee chairman 
from the Subcommittee on Foreign Operation, Export Financing and 
Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), tell us that we are only 16 percent of the 
obligation of the international commitment in callable capital. The 
international commitment is some $150 billion. We are only about $35 
billion out of that.
  None of the other countries have set aside money in an account like 
we have. We have $12 billion sitting in that account. It is a checking 
account. What we are going to do, once again, is take money and move it 
to a higher priority. We are going to move it to the great need that 
currently exists in Central America.
  If the money does not come from somewhere, we will have to turn to 
the social security surplus. That is the only money that is available. 
So the choice is very clear. If we vote for the

[[Page H1635]]

amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Members are choosing 
to take money from the social security surplus and send it down to 
Central America.
  If Members choose to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, they will be accepting offsets, money that is 
unobligated, money that we have no current plans to use, and instead, 
establish a much higher priority by moving it down to the great need 
that exists in Central America.

                              {time}  1400

  So with this very clear choice, I think that most Americans would 
agree with this, that it is time that we secure the future for 
ourselves, for our seniors, for our children by choosing to preserve 
Social Security and by taking unobligated funds, funds that we did not 
have a plan to spend, and moving it to the priority down in Central 
America, in Honduras and Guatemala and Belize and those places that 
were so severely hit by Hurricane Mitch.
  So I would urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote against the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The comment that we just heard, that without offsets this money will 
come from the Social Security Trust Fund, is absolutely ludicrous, 
absurd, and false. The fact is the committee pretends it is going to 
cut $648 million out of callable capital. There is not one dime saved 
in outlays.
  The way we measure what is available for Social Security or anything 
else is on the basis of outlays, not budget authorities, as the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) well knows or should know.
  The gentleman from Kansas misstated my position, so let me correct 
it. The fact is that out of the $648 million that my colleagues claim 
to save, there is not one dime of savings, so that does not cost Social 
Security one dime. If we take a look at the entire package, unless my 
colleagues assume that their committee chairman is correct, if they 
assume their chairman is correct and that the Act will not harm our 
agreements with the Soviets on uranium, then out of the entire amount 
of this amendment, only $16 million will ever accrue as outlay savings. 
That is less than one-half of 1 percent of all the funds that we are 
talking about. So do not misconstrue this as being an attack on Social 
Security. That is blatant nonsense.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of 
the Obey amendment, and I do so on the basis of two particular aspects 
of the supplemental bill that I believe are particularly egregious. The 
first one is the provision which would strike the ability to purchase 
from the Russians 50 tons of weapons grade plutonium.
  Just a week ago we had a bill on the floor of this House which called 
upon our government to deploy a ``Star Wars'' system, a ballistic 
nuclear defense system, the physics of which are not even at this 
moment understood. There are serious questions as to whether or not 
this apparatus would ever work effectively.
  Nevertheless, we are prepared to spend tens of billions of dollars on 
that program to deploy it, and at the same time we are rescinding from 
this supplemental bill a small amount of money which would enable us to 
purchase 50 tons of weapons grade plutonium from the Russians.
  If we do not purchase that 50 tons of weapons grade plutonium, the 
likelihood is that some portion of it is going to end up in the hands 
of some terrorist organizations and the hands of some person like 
Saddam Hussein or someone else in some other part of the world that has 
the ability to threaten this country and threaten others.
  The logic of this is absolutely astonishing. There is no logic to it 
whatsoever. How can my colleagues come here and be for a ballistic 
missile defense system one week, and then the next week come back and 
say we ought not to be purchasing weapons grade plutonium from the 
Russians when we know if we do not, it is going to get in the hands of 
people who mean us and others harm? This is totally ridiculous.
  The other provision would, and this is more than half of the offsets 
which were offered by the majority, come from the multilateral 
development banks. We live in a global economy. We are still involved 
in a situation where there is a serious economic crisis in Southeast 
Asia, a serious economic problem in Central and South America, a 
terribly serious economic problem in Russia, all of which impact upon 
our economy.
  We are seeing it particularly in our commodities, particularly in our 
agricultural commodities. Part of this bill is to help our farmers 
around the country. At the same time we pretend to be helping our 
farmers in the supplemental bill, we are going to make it more 
difficult for them to sell their commodities on the open market. Why? 
Because the crisis in East Asia has closed up markets there for 
commodities. The Canadians and the Australians which normally sell into 
those markets are finding it difficult if not impossible to do so. 
Therefore, they are impacting on our markets.
  Our farmers are finding it difficult to sell in the markets that we 
normally have access to, let alone those that we hope to have access 
to. That is the principal reason why we are seeing such difficulty in 
the agricultural community all across our country.
  In this supplemental bill, by these offsets, my colleagues are 
threatening every farmer that sells outside of the United States, 
whether it is wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton. Regardless of what it is, 
my colleagues are threatening that part of our economy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hinchey was 
allowed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, these are two critically important 
deficiencies in this supplemental bill. We have before us some genuine 
emergencies as a result of the hurricanes and the devastation that 
those hurricanes caused, genuine emergencies. We have an emergency also 
in our agricultural community across the country. We should respond to 
those emergencies in the spirit of emergency. They are serious 
problems. They need to be dealt with, and they need to be dealt with 
now.
  But instead of doing that, we have a bill before us which has within 
it an extraordinarily high political quotient. It is not designed to 
deal with the emergencies. It is designed to play a little bit of 
politics and to play some politics with the administration 
particularly.
  I beg my colleagues, please, on behalf of the farmers of our country, 
on behalf of our national security, change this bill, support with us 
the Obey amendment. Do not take the rescissions from the multilateral 
development banks. Do not take the rescissions from the money that is 
required to buy 50 tons of weapons grade plutonium from the Russians. 
Let us help agriculture truly, and let us improve our national security 
by taking those provisions out of this supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on some of the 
earlier debate that I was having with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey). On one hand, if I understood him correctly, he is opposed to the 
offsets because there is no actual outlays. But then it would seem, if 
he is opposed to offsets since there is no actual outlays, he would 
support using callable capital since it does not really cost anything.
  On the other hand, if we do offset, if we do take the money from 
callable capital, then we are going to create a worldwide depression 
because of this. So I am a little puzzled on that.
  The last part I would like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to 
address is that he says this money cannot come from Social Security. 
All the money that we have in the Federal Government is obligated 
except for what we have outlaid right here.
  The money has to come from somewhere if it is not specifically 
designated in this piece of legislation. The only other money available 
is in the surplus that we have. The only money in the surplus is from 
Social Security.

[[Page H1636]]

 So I would submit logically that if we do not offset the money in the 
bill, it does have to come from Social Security.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman is a new member of 
the committee, fairly new anyway, but I assume he understands the 
following: When we determine what our deficit is, we determine that not 
on the basis of what budget authority is, but what is outlaid in any 
given fiscal year.
  Would the gentleman grant that?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I would agree with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let 
me give my colleagues the numbers. This bill pretends that it saves 
$853 million for Social Security. In fact, the most that it saves is 
$19 million, unless the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is wrong on 
his assumptions about what will happen with the plutonium agreement. 
The fact is that the $648 million so-called saving from callable 
capital results in no savings on the outlay side, so that does not put 
one dime in Social Security.
  The $25 million which my colleagues cut out of Ex-Im results, 
according to CBO, in only $3 million of actual outlaid savings. The $30 
million which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) said would have no 
impact, in fact CBO says does have $16 million in impact.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hinchey was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that means in effect that there may be $19 
million in play as far as Social Security is concerned. The rest of it 
is not, unless the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is wrong on his 
assumptions on plutonium.
  I would simply say this. If he is, I would ask every citizen of this 
country one question: What is more important, to save that $80 million 
today that CBO estimates will be outlaid for that, or to use it to make 
sure that we do not have enough plutonium floating around the world for 
the Russians or terrorist organizations to build 15,000 additional 
nuclear weapons?
  I think every Social Security recipient in the world would like to 
see us, first of all, make certain that we make this world more safe 
from the possible threat from nuclear weapons. So do not bring that red 
herring across the table about Social Security. This debate has nothing 
whatsoever to do with Social Security except in the gentleman's own 
mind.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Tiahrt, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hinchey was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of the $150 million, the 
reason we left $375 million in that account is so that we do not 
completely abandon the efforts that we have in Russia. In fact, we are 
very dedicated to the efforts in Russia.
  But I do want to make a point about where this money is going to come 
from. We are going to write a check and send it to Central America. It 
is going to be used for the infrastructure. That money has to come from 
somewhere. It is not going to come out of thin air.
  That money, $648 million of it, is going to come out of a checking 
account that is at the World Bank. It is called callable capital. If we 
write a check, it gets a debit. It is going to go down to Central 
America. If my colleagues say there is no outlay, no savings, well, the 
money has to come from somewhere. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the only place it is available is the surplus. The only surplus 
that is available is Social Security.
  So I would just in a very clear way say that we are going to write a 
check. That check is going to Central America, and the money has to 
come from somewhere.
  In our personal lives, we do not write checks unless we have money to 
cover it. This is the money to cover it. If we do not take it from 
here, we take it from Social Security.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
will continue to yield, let me simply point out again on one item that 
the gentleman from Kansas just cited, he is just flat-out wrong on the 
facts.
  He indicated that if we rescind this $150 million in the plutonium 
and uranium account, that there will still be $375 million left. There 
will not be. Mr. Primakov is about to sign an agreement with the United 
States Government which will use $325 million for the uranium agreement 
that we are working on with the Russians.
  If my colleagues rescind the $150 million of the $200 million that is 
remaining in the account, and that is all there is, there will be only 
$50 million left for us to proceed on our negotiations with the 
Russians on the plutonium account. That $200 million was put on the 
table in order to bring the Russians into the negotiations. If we get 
an agreement from them, that agreement will cost far more than $200 
million. It will cost at least $1 billion.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Obey amendment, 
and I want to really thank the gentleman for crafting a careful 
amendment that looked at every single detail of this bill.
  Truly, others have dealt with the plutonium issues and with other 
aspects of the offsets, but in the amendment of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), he specifically targets the PL-480 program, and I 
really want to focus my remarks there in the time that I have.
  I cannot believe that in the bill that the majority has given us, 
that they would attempt to take $30 million or any amount, actually, 
from the PL-480 program. Now what is that? That is a program that lifts 
commodities off our market and sends them around the world. To not fund 
this program at the level requested really, and that is inadequate from 
the administration standpoint simply because they know Congress will 
add funds to that account in view of the situation, if we choose to cut 
these dollars, we are basically saying there are no more hungry people 
in the world.

                              {time}  1415

  That is an absolutely ridiculous position. Not only that, but here at 
home the need, the need, to move commodities is simply profound.
  What is happening in rural America is something that we have not seen 
in our adult lifetimes, with the levels of price drops, whether we are 
talking about the milk market, whether we are talking about hogs, 
whether we are talking about grain, or whether we are talking about 
cotton. I mean, go down the list. Rice, historic price drops. We know 
what has happened in the Asian markets, we know what has happened to 
our former market in Eastern Europe because of the collapse of the 
ruble, the situations all around the world which have hurt our export 
markets. But here at home, because of good weather, we have an enormous 
surplus which has driven prices to all-time lows.
  People in my part of the country are burying animals. This seems so 
illogical in a time when our feeding kitchens are absolutely begging 
for food. This is one tool that we have, PL-480, to help lift some of 
America's surplus, our bounty, to share it with those in the world that 
many of our esteemed Members, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tony 
Hall), of my own State, and former Congressman Bill Emerson of 
Missouri, worked so hard to sensitize this Congress and the American 
people on the needs of the hungry around the world.

[[Page H1637]]

  So I just find it incredible that this particular measure was 
inserted into this offset provision. And I want to thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for bringing it to the attention of not just 
this Congress but the American people and people of good heart 
everywhere. There is absolutely no reason that America cannot lift this 
bounty and share it worldwide, and why the PL-480 program was selected 
leaves me in a state of disbelief.
  So I rise, Mr. Chairman, in strong support of the Obey amendment, 
particularly because of the ill-advised provision that deals with 
clipping the wings of PL-480, which does not need to be cut but in fact 
increased to benefit our farmers, our communities here at home, as well 
as those around the world who beg us for food.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman 
yielding to me, and I am looking at testimony here by Keith Kelly, who 
is the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, and he talks about 
``The 1999 budget provides a total program level of $979 million for 
PL-480, foreign food assistance.'' The Congress raised that to $1.1 
billion. According to his testimony, he says, ``This will ensure the 
availability of adequate resources to meet the most serious food 
assistance needs.''
  So even with this rescission, we leave more money in the PL-480 
program than the administration asked for in their hearing.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
very much for pointing that out. If we look at what has happened with 
prices, the figure that the gentleman stated, the over $1 billion 
figure, will help us to buy more with the American tax dollar to send 
abroad. That is true. But the amount of surplus that we have on 
domestic markets is drowning our rural communities.
  As we sit here and argue today, and we will not produce a bill that 
will aid our farmers this spring, this Congress is going to fail in 
that responsibility. This should have been the first bill this Congress 
considered when we convened this year, and we have failed that 
responsibility to our own people. The surplus is gigantic, but the need 
abroad is even greater, if we look at what is happening in Russia, what 
is happening in Asia, and what is happening in Central America and 
Honduras.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, our very 
esteemed ranking member.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I would 
simply make this observation, Mr. Chairman.
  We have people in both parties in this House who, on a daily basis, 
are putting out press releases talking about what they are going to be 
doing to try to help farmers get out from under the collapse of prices 
for many commodities. I would suggest in those circumstances that what 
we ought to be doing on both sides of the aisle is pushing the 
administration to provide more assistance to farmers, more assistance 
to increase our ability to export farm products to other markets, 
rather than cutting back on the funds in the budget available to do 
that.
  If people are serious about the press releases they are putting out, 
that is what they will be doing rather than voting for this bill this 
afternoon.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I might also say that 
the administration's request to us through the Department of 
Agriculture was cleared through the Office of Management and Budget in 
the executive branch. My own guess is that the Department of 
Agriculture would like to increase the PL-480 program a whole lot more 
than the budget submission that reached this Congress. It has to go 
through the filter of OMB, and that is an unrealistic way in which to 
make decisions about policy.
  We reflect the will of the American people here, and rural America is 
crying out to us. We ought to use every single tool that we have, and 
we should not cut a dime out of the PL-480 program, with all due 
respect to the gentleman, who represents a great citrus-producing 
State, a great beef-producing State, a great milk-producing State. 
There is a lot that happens there in the State of Florida, and I know 
the gentleman has to defend his party on the floor today, but truly 
this should not be in this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me once again, because I wanted to respond to the comments 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just made when the gentlewoman 
yielded to him, about the agricultural request and what we should be 
doing and should not be doing.
  Here is a copy of the communication from the President of the United 
States. He signed the letter on the first page. This bill does what the 
President asked for in the agricultural program. He asked for a 
specific amount of money, and that amount of money is in this bill.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would mention to the gentleman, with all 
due respect, the President never asked for these offsets. And, also, I 
know that inside the Department of Agriculture they are drowning in 
commodities. When the administration sends a request up here, it is not 
always perfect because of what happens over at OMB.
  I know, and the gentleman obviously knows, that silos across this 
country are bursting at the seams. We have food to send around the 
world, and our farmers need help on the price in order that they can 
make it through this planting year. The tragedy is that the credit 
program that is buried in this bill, that will help our farmers get 
their spring crops in the ground, will not happen fast enough for them.
  They do not even have the assistance that was passed last year in the 
emergency bill that was passed at the end of the year. They will not 
get that until June. So shame on this Congress and shame on the 
administration, too.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in some respects I am delighted this debate is going to 
be on C-SPAN today and the American people can see it. In other 
respects, though, this is almost an embarrassment.
  Earlier, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) offered an amendment 
to make the rescissions across-the-board to pay for this special bill. 
I voted for it, but there were only about 75 of us that joined with 
that amendment, and I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) that I am glad he joined.
  But in listening to this debate I became more and more frustrated 
just watching in my office, because what we hear from everybody is, 
well, I would like to have offsets too, but do not touch this program. 
We cannot touch PL-480. I like PL-480. There are lots of programs I 
like.
  What this debate really is all about, if we stop and step back for a 
minute, is we are being asked to fund a little over a billion dollar 
bill which essentially is about 90 percent foreign aid, and yet we are 
not willing to make the tough decisions.
  Now, a lot of talk has been made here on the floor about what is 
happening to farmers out there. And let me tell my colleagues it is 
tough out in farm country. Every farmer, every farmer, whether they are 
in Florida or they are in Iowa or whether in Kansas, they are trying to 
figure out how they are going to tighten their belts to get through the 
next year. To put that in context right now, we are looking at a 
Federal budget of about $1,700 billion.
  I hear the debate here on the floor today that we cannot find a 
billion dollars worth of offsets. Now, I am not good in math, but that 
is something like one-tenth of 1 percent. Now, maybe there are Members 
in this room who believe that we cannot find one-tenth of 1 percent 
worth of offsets. Maybe there are Members in the room who really 
believe that, but I got news for them, there are a lot of people 
outside of this room, a lot of people outside of this beltway who 
believe that is ridiculous. We can find the offsets and we should find 
the offsets.

[[Page H1638]]

  Let me explain why. Because we are going to have a budget on the 
floor later this week, and we are going to say for the first time to 
the American people and for the first time to the senior citizens in 
the United States that we are going to save every single penny of 
Social Security taxes for Social Security. Now, I think that is a very 
important statement. That is a giant step forward, in my opinion.
  And while it is only a small step, it seems to me if we do not find 
the offsets today, whether it is PL-480 or other foreign aid programs, 
whether it be offsets from the reduction in the callable capital, 
whatever it happens to be, if we cannot find those offsets today, it 
seems like we are taking a very small step in the wrong direction.
  As I say, I think a lot of my colleagues in this room believe we 
cannot find those offsets, but I have news for them, a lot of people 
outside this room believe we can and believe we should.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply observe that there were 71 
Democrats who voted for that amendment; there were only 6 Republicans 
who did.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for the arithmetic.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Let me applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
committee for their leadership and their wisdom for trying to explain 
to us that this emergency supplemental appropriation is, in fact, 
creating an emergency and a crisis.
  I am particularly interested in having our colleagues, Republicans 
and joining Democrats, recognize that we have a vital problem in the 
cuts that have been made in our international monetary efforts. In 
particular, the largest and most unwelcome of these cuts are in the 
international banks. This bill cuts funding to those banks by $648 
million, in an environment where those banks are often the best option 
for borrowers seeking shelter from a hostile economic environment.
  This is so important to the Secretary of Commerce that he is 
threatening a veto if this legislation, the appropriations legislation, 
passes in this condition. And let me cite the comment of the minority 
commenting on these offsets that really tells us where we are 
internationally:
  ``It is also true that other member nations and many investors around 
the world are increasingly uneasy about the willingness of the U.S., 
and particularly the U.S. Congress, to make good on its legal and moral 
commitments. These same investors watch the Congress repeatedly refuse 
to provide the International Monetary Fund with the needed infusion of 
capital through the debts of the Asian financial crisis, and are also 
aware that the Congress continues to refuse to provide the funds 
necessary to pay off the billion-plus in back debts of the United 
States.''
  These international monetary banks help our products. It helps our 
farmers' products get from production to market, it gives access to 
credit, it also helps to infuse dollars into the international economy 
and, therefore, keeps the American economy, of which so many people 
have come to not only accept but to think this is the norm, it helps to 
keep it stabilized. Why would we think that $648 million, doing great 
jeopardy to this very fragile system, is where we need to go? I am very 
surprised we would even go in that direction and gamble with the 
financial future of this Nation.
  I would also say the $25 million from the Export-Import Bank, albeit 
seemingly small, this bank has been most useful in helping some of our 
smaller nations with small projects that generate jobs and opportunity, 
in fact keeping individuals home in their nations because they have the 
opportunity and access to credit, and as well, creating jobs.
  I would also say that even though I have heard a number of 
explanations on why we are cutting $150 million that deals in 
particular with funds used to purchase materials, uranium and 
plutonium, that could be used in nuclear warheads by our enemies, a 
program that has been unanimously supported by the President, and I 
think if we would inquire, by individuals in the street who say that we 
should bring down the possibility of more and more of our enemies 
having nuclear warheads, that, too, raises a question of balance and 
why we would do that.
  Let me say also, having worked with the Department of Labor on the 
issue of a rapid response team program dealing with our hardest hit 
communities when there are enormous layoffs, particularly in my 
district and my community where there have been enormous layoffs 
because of the energy crisis, I am somewhat disappointed in the cuts 
that we have seen relating to job training, and would hope that we 
would be able to balance that.
  Let me say finally, also, Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims for the Committee on the 
Judiciary, I am certainly gratified that we have in this supplemental 
appropriations, and viewed as an emergency, some $80 million for the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service for increased border 
enforcement. I, however, raise the concern, as many experts have, that 
border enforcement without trained, experienced Border Patrol agents is 
of no value. So I hope that we recognize that we need trained Border 
Patrol agents. We need to have dollars as well to prohibit and inhibit 
border violence.
  And the question of adding additional beds is not going to be the 
panacea that we would like it to be.

                              {time}  1430

  In fact, the real issue is the 1996 immigration reform legislation 
that in fact caused the INS to have to deal with locking up, if you 
will, immigrants who have been here, who 20, 30, 40 years ago may have 
had an infraction such as a traffic ticket. They are then arrested, 
separated from their families, filling up these private prisons; and 
the real criminals that we do not want to have on the street are not 
able to be incarcerated.
  We have got to reform the INS legislation to go back to reality and 
sanity. We also have got to get these people out of private prisons and 
put them into the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
  I hope some of these more reasonable aspects, Mr. Chairman, can be 
addressed later on. And I hope the Obey amendment will pass. I add my 
support to it.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I hesitate somewhat to wade off into the number of 
issues that are being discussed, but there has been a lot of discussion 
today about the offset dealing with some of the nonproliferation funds. 
I think this is a very important issue. It is a very important part of 
our security. I want to take just a moment to discuss this in the 
larger context of our nonproliferation efforts.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I share some of the concerns that have been 
expressed over the course of the day. I think at the end of this bill, 
when it comes back from conference, it would probably be better if this 
offset were not taken, if this money were left alone. But I also think 
that we should not over-play the dangers that may result from this 
particular program.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I speak as one who on this side of the 
aisle has strongly supported much of what the administration has tried 
to do in our nonproliferation efforts and in our cooperative efforts 
with the former Soviet Union, but in those efforts there are 
priorities. Some things are more important than others.
  For example, if we can spend money this year to put better security 
around plutonium or uranium which could be used for a bomb, that ought 
to come first. That prevents someone from walking out with it. That 
prevents someone from stealing it and selling it to someone who we 
would prefer not get their hands on it.
  The program we are dealing with here is a different kind of priority. 
It is a long-term, a long-range sort of approach, and I think it 
becomes much more difficult to argue that the results would be 
catastrophic this year if this money were taken aside.
  What is going on is that there are negotiations which have just 
recently begun with Russia on taking some of the weapons-usable 
plutonium that Russia now has, turning it into a fuel

[[Page H1639]]

which could be burned in a nuclear reactor, and thus preventing it from 
being used for weapons.
  This involves international consortiums. This involves nuclear power 
companies from a variety of countries and some very delicate 
negotiations from Russia and from the United States. The goal is to 
take 50 tons of weapons-usable plutonium and ultimately turn it into a 
fuel for nuclear power.
  We should not forget that we are sure that Russia has at least 200 
tons of weapons-usable plutonium now. So what we are talking about, in 
the best circumstance, is taking about a fourth of this plutonium that 
we know they have and turning it into a fuel for nuclear reactors. That 
is going to take 20 to 25 years under the very best circumstances.
  The Department of Energy indicates that under the very best 
circumstances, if everything goes perfectly in their negotiations, they 
might be able to obligate about half of this money in the year 2000 and 
maybe spend about a third of it. So taking this money off the table, as 
it were, would not have a catastrophic effect on this program designed 
to last 20 to 25 years.
  The concern is that taking it off the table would make the Russians 
question the seriousness of our negotiations, and I think we ought to 
think about that. There are a lot of negotiations underway now with 
Russia, and they need to know that we are serious about working with 
them to control the proliferation of this kind of material, and that is 
not easy to quantify. It is hard to put our finger on exactly what the 
result would be. It is a concern that we certainly ought to take into 
account. But to say that this would have catastrophic consequences I 
think is not accurate.
  As a matter of fact, the committee's action would leave $375 million 
left in the fund for nonproliferation activities. It is possible that 
that could all be used for the uranium purchase this year. If the 
plutonium issue becomes a higher priority, of course it may well be 
possible to rearrange those priorities.
  I think at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, for me it would be 
better if another offset is eventually found for these funds, but it is 
not true that this would completely obliterate our nonproliferation 
efforts, which are very important to our security.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my good friend and colleague 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a leader in the area of dealing with 
issues of nonproliferation. He and I have worked together on a number 
of these issues and that is why I respect his opinion on this, but I 
wanted to respond specifically to some of his comments.
  The first one was, at the end of the day in this process, after the 
conference committee has finished its work, he would probably hope that 
this cut of $150 million to take 50 tons of bomb-grade plutonium off 
the Russian marketplace, he hopes that rescission, that cut, would be 
thrown out.
  And what I would suggest is that if this is such a terribly dangerous 
area we are dealing with, if we know it is the right thing to cut it 
out at the end of the day, why do we not cut it out on the first day 
right here in the House, let the House speak its voice today, saying we 
do want to do anything that might possibly risk the proliferation of 
such potentially catastrophic levels of nuclear bomb materials.
  Secondly, he made a good point that I do agree with. He said that we 
should fund other programs to protect nuclear materials, whether they 
be in Russia or the United States, or elsewhere for that matter, and I 
agree with the gentleman. I want to work with the gentleman. But that 
does not in any way take away from the argument that when we have a 
real opportunity, as we speak today, to take 50 tons of nuclear 
materials off the marketplace that could be exposed to purchase and 
purchased by international terrorists or the very powerful Mafia in the 
former Soviet Union, we ought to take advantage of that today.
  He talked about very delicate negotiations, and I would agree with 
that. And I would say to my respected friend that that is one of the 
very reasons I would use to argue during the middle of very delicate 
negotiations that not only include Russia and the United States but 
bring in other nations of the world, we ought not to be tinkering with 
this.
  I do not know if there is a 5 percent chance, a 10 percent chance, a 
95 percent chance this $150 million cut could destroy those 
negotiations. I do not want to take a 1 percent chance that we might 
potentially unload bomb-grade nuclear materials on the world 
marketplace for terrorists. And I do not think there is any Member of 
this House, Republican or Democrat, who has spoken with the negotiators 
on the American and Russian side who would come to this floor and 
honestly say, after having talked with the negotiators involved in this 
process, there is a 99 percent chance that the negotiations would go 
on.
  When we talked about national missile defense the other day, no one 
said there is a 90 percent chance someone is going to send an ICBM into 
New York City. But through the Republican leadership and bipartisan 
support of people like myself, we said we want a national missile 
defense system even if there is a 1 percent chance that a foreign 
nation would send their missiles into our Nation.
  I have got to say to my friend that I recognize and I am fearful of 
the fact of the 200 tons of plutonium in the Russian area in terms of 
what we need to get our arms around. But where I disagree with my 
colleague, I do not think that fact makes it any less important to try 
to take 50 tons of that 200 tons off the international terrorist 
marketplace while we have that opportunity.
  Ultimately, I think we have to have some respect for the people 
directly involved in this. And I would like to read briefly the 
statement made by the Secretary of Energy, who has direct 
responsibility for overseeing these negotiations, part of which have 
already proven to be extremely successful.
  He says, ``Such a reduction,'' as proposed in this bill today, 
``would have severe consequences,'' severe consequences, ``for the 
ongoing negotiations in 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,'' he says, ``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.''
  Now, if any of the proponents of this $150 million cut have talked to 
the chief American negotiator and the chief Russian negotiator, I would 
be willing to donate my time at this time to listen to that Member tell 
me what they were told by those negotiators and to assure me that it is 
no risk to my family or their family to risk the breakdown of these 
negotiations.
  The truth is there is not a House Member who has spoken directly to 
either one of those sides of negotiations and can come to this floor 
and say this is not risking potential catastrophe for the American 
civilian population or our servicemen and women abroad.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Obey amendment and to address 
primarily the issue that comes under the jurisdiction of the 
subcommittee which I chair, and that is addressing the two issues of 
the Russian programs.
  I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation 
that has been put out. Number one, the 50 metric tons of plutonium is 
not to be purchased by the United States. The money was not to be used 
to purchase it. It simply is to provide facilities in Russia that would 
degrade it and bring it down to fuel grade rather than weapons grade.
  And secondly, that will continue. That effort will continue. It is 
not a one-year or a 1999 issue. Actually, it is a decade-long issue, 
but we will be funding it for the next few years. The negotiations are 
not even completed or hardly begun on how to do it and how to spend the 
money and what to do. So the money that we are rescinding this year 
would not be used for this year to any great extent.
  Secondly, let me refer to the highly enriched uranium issue. That 
uranium

[[Page H1640]]

will not be converted into weapons of mass destruction. That uranium is 
already here in the United States. It is not in Russia. And so to use 
the argument that it would be used if we do not fund the $150 million 
that we are calling to be rescinded, that it would be used to make 
weapons out of the highly enriched uranium, that is simply not true. 
The Russians do not have it, it is not there. It would have really no 
impact whatsoever upon proliferation because it is already here in the 
United States.
  Thirdly, as has been mentioned several times, we are rescinding or 
asking to rescind $150 million of the $525 million, not $200 million. 
The $200 million for plutonium could be reduced to $50 million during 
the 1999 budget year. It does not have to be.
  The administration still has the options and the flexibility to 
subtract $150 million any way they wish. It can be from the enriched 
uranium program or the plutonium program. They can choose and decide 
where it would best serve the needs of our international relations with 
Russia.
  Another point that needs to be made. The $200 million was not 
originally planned to come from the taxpayers of the United States. 
That was planned to come from the international community. That was 
where the $200 million was to come from. The United States was only to 
fund a prototype plant to determine how to deal with the Russian 
plutonium, and that is what the $25 million per year that we funded 
last year, this year, and is in the President's budget for the coming 
budget year.

                              {time}  1445

  That money was to be used to build a prototype and the international 
community would fund the rest of it, in building the actual facilities 
that would degrade the plutonium from weapons grade to fuel grade. We 
have missed that point entirely. We have now funded the $200 million in 
the omnibus emergency bill, and no one called for it. The President did 
not call for that. The Senate bill did not call for it. Our committee 
and the House did not call for it. But the fact is it was put into the 
emergency supplemental bill last year, and of course the President 
would support it after it was put in. Here was a half a billion, over a 
half a billion dollars that all of a sudden we gave to him that he 
could use for his public relations overseas. Of course he would support 
it after it was put in. But he did not feel it was of high enough 
priority to put in or request it when it was being processed through 
the normal process.
  Now, let me speak to the plutonium issue itself. The negotiations are 
just beginning. Even if the $150 million was taken out or $50 million 
of it would be taken from the $200 million of plutonium disposition, 
there would still be $50 million remaining plus the $25 million. There 
is still a significant amount of money in that program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Packard was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the fact is it is a long-range program. 
There is money to start it this year if the negotiations are finished, 
and we have time to then address it in the normal process of budgeting 
through our committee process.
  Let me remind Members that the Prime Minister of Russia, Mr. 
Primakov, as a result of the President's decision to bomb Kosovo, has 
gone back to Russia. So we have no assurance that there will be a 
signing of the agreement. We have no assurance that they will come back 
to the table. It could be delayed, and certainly it is for now. It 
could be delayed for the balance of the year. It will be very difficult 
to complete those negotiations and to draft the agreement and to get it 
implemented before the end of this fiscal year. Thus, the money will 
not and cannot be spent during this fiscal year in my judgment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We can either look at 
this issue like we are green eyeshade accountants or we can look at 
this issue in terms of what will create the most security for the 
United States. The fact is that what the Energy Department tells us, 
what the Secretary of Energy tells us is as follows, in the letter he 
sent today.
  He said the entire cut, in this bill, ``would have to come from the 
$200 million appropriated to dispose of Russian plutonium. Such a 
reduction would have severe consequences for the ongoing negotiations 
in pursuit of a bilateral agreement with Russia on disposing of enough 
plutonium to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. It could also 
severely impact the wide range of cooperative nonproliferation 
engagement under way and planned in Russia, including efforts to 
protect, control and account for weapons-usable nuclear material and to 
prevent the flight of weapons scientists to countries of proliferation 
concern.''
  Now, the facts are very simple.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Packard was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to continue to yield to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. The administration did not put this in their original 
budget because at the time they submitted the FY 1999 budget, nobody 
thought there was a prayer of getting negotiations going on plutonium. 
Senator Domenici saw an opportunity in October to take advantage of the 
fact that the facts had changed and it looked like we would now be able 
to move toward sitting down with the Russians on plutonium. And so he 
put the $200 million in the Omnibus bill. It now remains available 
precisely because it is used as a magnet to draw the Russians to the 
table. It sends a signal to them that we are serious about this issue 
and we all know that if we do in fact get an agreement, the cost of 
that agreement is going to be at least five times the amount of the 
money which is presently available.
  All I am saying is that it is absurd for us in my view to be arguing 
about fiscal years and expenditures in this year or that year when the 
fact is that the overriding concern ought to be to get that fissile 
material converted before it falls into the hands of terrorists or 
anybody else.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Packard was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, first of all, if the administration is 
saying that the full $200 million would be lost by rescinding $150 
million, I just do not understand their math.
  Mr. OBEY. That is not what it says.
  Mr. PACKARD. Number two, it is their choice. They do not have to take 
it from the $200 million. It can come from the other area, the enriched 
uranium. Let me conclude my statement and then the gentleman may wish 
to speak further on someone else's time.
  It is not as if we have neglected Russia. Since 1994, we have spent 
over $1 billion in Russian programs to deal with their nuclear 
problems. There are Members of this Congress who feel that we could 
spend that money here in the United States because we have not 
adequately addressed our own nuclear waste disposition problem. We have 
not solved our own nuclear waste problems. They are saying, ``Why don't 
we take care of problems here at home before we deal with overseas 
Russian waste?''
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe what I just heard. The 
gentleman said that if the administration wants, it does not have to 
take this money out of the plutonium agreement, it can take it out of 
the other agreement, the highly enriched uranium agreement.
  Is he seriously suggesting that it would be in the national interest 
of the United States for the United States to blow up an agreement--
which Mr. Primakov was ready to sign this week until Kosovo got in the 
way--is he seriously suggesting that that should be a serious option 
that the administration looks at?
  Mr. PACKARD. Yes, I am suggesting, if the gentleman would yield.

[[Page H1641]]

  Mr. OBEY. Let me finish and then I will be happy to yield.
  I cannot believe that any thoughtful person in this House would say 
it is in the United States' interest to throw away the agreement on 
enriched uranium that we are about to get, that the Russians have 
already agreed to, except for signature.
  The second point I would like to make, the gentleman says we have got 
a lot of Members who would rather see this money used in this country. 
I would say I am not at all worried about uranium and plutonium in 
American hands. I am very worried about uranium and plutonium in 
Russian hands, because their scientists and their military people have 
not been paid for months, and we are worried that for a small 
expenditure of money, they might very well be willing to supply some of 
that material to terrorist organizations around the world. I would 
suggest that anyone who believes that it is more important to worry 
about fissile material in the United States versus fissile material in 
the hands of the Russians simply does not understand the history of the 
last 50 years.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that he feels that this Member 
is not a thoughtful Member of this body because I disagree with him on 
this issue, but the fact is the President does have the option to 
determine where the priorities are in terms of the $325 million project 
versus the $200 million plutonium project. He has that option. If it is 
more important to fund the highly enriched uranium program, he can do 
that. But obviously he does not feel it is.
  Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, I would simply say it is crucial that 
we get both agreements. If you are blown up in a nuclear explosion 
which is delivered to this country by a terrorist organization, it does 
not much matter whether the bomb was made out of uranium or plutonium. 
You are just as dead. That is why we need both agreements.
  Mr. PACKARD. If the gentleman would yield further, in reference to 
the matter of the highly enriched uranium, again there is not a threat 
there because the uranium is here in the United States. So the money 
can be devoted to the plutonium program if that is what the 
administration chooses. The threat is not there for the highly enriched 
uranium. We may disagree on the issue.
  The fact is, also, in reference to people wanting to have the money 
spent here, we are not neglecting Russian programs. The fact is we have 
a crisis on disposal of nuclear waste in this country and we have not 
solved that problem. We ought not to solve that problem in another 
country before we solve it in our own country.
  Mr. OBEY. Again taking back my time, I would simply say, Mr. 
Chairman, that the threat to the security of the United States, to the 
survival of the United States, comes from nuclear weapons. The 
gentleman's party seems to be very concerned about building a Star Wars 
program at huge expense to defend us from nuclear weapons but they 
apparently are not willing to proceed as fast as possible to get tons 
of plutonium out of the hands of the people who might be firing those 
weapons. With all due respect, that dichotomy makes no sense.
  Mr. PACKARD. If the gentleman would yield further, if our committee 
were neglecting the programs that we are talking about in Russia, it 
would be a different story. But we are not. We are funding significant 
amounts every year with the American taxpayers' dollars to build 
facilities to dispose of enriched uranium and plutonium in Russia, not 
here.
  Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, I think the gentleman is dead wrong 
on the issue.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Obey amendment to H.R. 1141, the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
  This supplemental bill was supposed to have been a bipartisan effort 
to provide desperately needed funds to assist American farmers, respond 
to hurricane damage in Central America and the Caribbean, support the 
new government of Jordan and correct the amount of money appropriated 
to the Office of Minority Health. Unfortunately, this bill now contains 
provisions masquerading as offsets that are both unnecessary and 
harmful. So much for bipartisanism.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and 
International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, I am particularly concerned about a provision that would 
rescind $648 million in funds that were previously appropriated to 
guarantee the solvency of multilateral development banks. Neither the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services nor my subcommittee were 
ever given an opportunity to consider this controversial rescission.
  There are three multilateral development banks--the World Bank, the 
Asian Development Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank--that 
provide loans to developing countries to promote economic growth and 
development. These banks have collected guarantees from the United 
States to sell bonds to commercial banks. The development banks use the 
proceeds from these bond sales to make their loans to developing 
countries. These guarantees, known as callable capital, ensure that the 
bank's lenders will be repaid even if a substantial portion of the 
loans made by the banks are not repaid.
  Prior to 1981, the United States appropriated funds to provide for 
our share of the callable capital of the multilateral development 
banks. The development banks have always been able to repay their bonds 
on time without calling upon the United States. The United States 
Government's guarantees to these banks have never cost the American 
taxpayers one dime.
  The supplemental appropriations bill includes a provision to rescind 
a portion of the banks' callable capital. The Republican supporters of 
this provision claim that it is an offset for the emergency spending in 
the bill. However, this is smoke and mirrors. This provision does not 
actually save any money and cannot be considered an offset.
  Since the United States has never had to provide any money to the 
multilateral development banks to cover their bonds, there were never 
any outlays. Furthermore, it is unlikely that there ever will be any 
outlays. In other words, the supplemental appropriations act is 
rescinding money that would never have been spent, anyway. The proposed 
rescission of callable capital contained in the supplemental bill will 
have no effect whatsoever on the size of the budget surplus. Shame on 
them for making people think that this is a legitimate offset that is 
going to save some money.
  Although the rescission of callable capital will not increase the 
budget surplus, it will, however, jeopardize the effective operation of 
the multilateral development banks. If the United States rescinds any 
of its callable capital, it will be a signal to worldwide financial 
markets that the United States may no longer be willing to meet its 
international financial obligations.
  Over the past 50 years, loans to developing countries from the 
multilateral development banks have promoted economic growth and 
created new businesses and job opportunities as well as markets for 
American exports. These banks are especially important to the world 
economy today. Many nations in Asia and Latin America are facing a 
serious economic and financial crisis. They are dependent on loans from 
the banks to stabilize their currencies and allow their economies to 
recover. Asia and Latin American markets are desperately in need of 
this capital.

                              {time}  1500

  Let me just close my remarks by saying this was supposed to be a 
bipartisan effort, and the American farmers, the agricultural community 
that both sides of the aisle claim they care so much about, stand to 
benefit. That is Republicans and Democrats alike. If they mess up this 
supplemental appropriation by insisting on these offsets, they are 
going to hurt the very people that they are always mouthing off about 
that they care so much about.
  Let us stop playing games. Let us stop with the smoke and mirrors 
about offsets that do not realize one single dime, one single cent. Let 
us get on with the business of a supplemental appropriation bill. We 
will do what we started out to do.

[[Page H1642]]

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate already, and it is about a 
topic that I guess every one of us on both sides of the aisle basically 
agrees that the human disasters that brought this bill to the floor in 
the first place were true emergencies. The devastating flood in Central 
America where Hurricane Mitch left 9,000 dead, 9,000 more missing, 
13,000 injured and over 3 million homeless, the region's economy and 
its infrastructure and its environment has been totally devastated; and 
the second human disaster, namely the collapse of farm prices here at 
home, across the heartland of America where rural Americans are losing 
their farms and their livelihoods and their homes.
  Under those circumstances, with true emergencies, we could well have 
funded these emergencies without the shenanigans that are going on 
here, but this bill finances our response to these crises with offsets 
which themselves have disaster written all over them, and I would just 
want to talk about one of these. I support the Obey amendment, which 
covers four of them, but I particularly wanted to talk about one of 
them that I consider to be the most dangerous, and that is the cut of 
$150 million for nuclear disarmament nonproliferation programs with 
Russia.
  Last year the Congress provided the Energy Department with $525 
million, we have talked about it, to dismantle nuclear warheads, 
dispose of excess weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium, mostly 
in Russia. Some was actually here in the U.S. Well, this $525 million 
supports two of the most important ``swords into plowshares'' 
agreements reached by the United States and Russia since the end of the 
Cold War. And the critical $200 million of it, although we have had at 
least one suggestion that we ought to virtually throw out the agreement 
that is already ready to be signed, which relates to the uranium, but I 
think that is not a very sensible thing to do, the critical $200 
million is to be used to implement a bilateral plutonium agreement to 
dispose of 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium that is currently on hand 
in Russia, 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium which could make 15,000 
to 20,000 nuclear weapons.
  This $200 million does another job along the way. It leverages the 
nonproliferation contributions from others of the G-7 countries which 
are necessary in order if we are ever going to manage to get hold of 
all the plutonium that is around that might get loose among terrorists 
and rogue nations. The $150 million cut in these two nuclear 
nonproliferation programs is an extremely dangerous move, in my view, 
and it is certainly one that I cannot support.
  Last week 317 of the Members of this House were concerned enough 
about the dangers of nuclear proliferation to vote in favor of 
deploying a national missile defense system that would cost us billions 
of dollars and do nothing about the possibility of terrorists getting 
hold of this kind of material. Today we are being asked to endorse a 
$150 million offset which will make more likely the transfer of 
weapons-usable plutonium from Russia to rogue nations like North Korea, 
Iraq, Iran and Libya, and surely make it more likely that it could fall 
into the hands of terrorists.
  If we are serious about eliminating nuclear threats to our national 
security, and this is one way of eliminating a major nuclear threat, we 
should do all we can to keep nuclear weapons material from ever 
reaching terrorists or the rogue states. We should not cut the nuclear 
disarmament and nonproliferation programs. Please support the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment, and if the 
Obey amendment fails, in opposition to the supplemental.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this emergency supplemental bill in its 
current form. I emphatically disagree with the offsets proposed by the 
committee. Before I address the troubling offsets included in this 
bill, let me comment on the nature of emergency supplemental 
appropriations, quote, unquote.
  Emergency supplemental appropriations are by definition, and again, 
Mr. Chairman, I quote: discretionary appropriations that the President 
designates as emergency requirements and which are similarly designated 
by Congress in legislation subsequently enacted into law.
  We anticipated the situation in which we now find ourselves and made 
provisions for it. Any spending designated as an emergency bill will 
result in discretionary spending caps being increased to accommodate 
the additional spending. That is in our rules.
  We now are facing a serious situation which requires immediate action 
for American farmers who are encountering dire financial straits, and 
victims of natural disasters in Central America. These circumstances 
clearly fall in the category of needs that are urgent and immediate, 
unanticipated and essential; in other words, emergency requirements 
that deserve prompt action, without offsets.
  American farmers, Mr. Chairman, are dealing with serious challenges 
that threaten their very existence. Not since the Dust Bowl days of the 
1930's have farmers faced such severe economic difficulties. Forecasts 
for continuing low commodity prices in 1999 have significantly 
increased the demand for Department of Agriculture farm loans, as many 
farmers are being turned away from their normal sources of financing. 
The funding requested by the President is essential to finance the 
roughly $1.1 billion needed for spring planting.
  Of equal importance, Mr. Chairman, is providing the necessary 
assistance to the victims of hurricanes Mitch and Georges. Mitch has 
already been described as the worst natural disaster in the history of 
the Western Hemisphere, causing over 9,000 deaths. Even before Mitch 
hit Central America, nearly one half of all Nicaraguans and Hondurans 
existed on a dollar a day or less. In the wake of Mitch's devastation 
it will be years before they can regain that level of poverty. This 
Congress needs to act expediently, quickly, decisively to provide 
relief for these victims.
  Now I want to say my very good friend, the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, 
stood up here just a little while ago when I was on the floor and he 
said the President cannot veto this bill. The President went to South 
America, the First Lady went to South America, some of us have gone to 
South America and said we are going to help, it is an emergency. We 
told our farmers the same thing.
  My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they make this 
mistake almost every year, that they have the President in a box from 
which he cannot extricate himself, that they are going to intimidate 
him, they are going to buffalo him, they are going to push him around. 
They wanted to push him around when the Mississippi overran its banks 
and thousands and thousands of Americans were displaced, and they said, 
``Well, we know you want the emergency aid. Yes, we know it's 
necessary. We know it's needed now. But we're going to put some things 
in the bill that we know you don't like and try to shove it down your 
throat.''
  It did not work.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida who I know did not 
want to do this.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to my friend 
that there is nothing in this bill that was done for that purpose. I 
want him to know that.
  Mr. HOYER. Now I understand what the gentleman from Florida is 
saying, Mr. Chairman, but I respectfully disagree with him, not in the 
sense that he wants to shove something down his throat perhaps this 
time, but there are things in this bill that the President said, ``I 
view them so seriously that I will veto this bill.'' Now, he has not 
said that personally, but the Secretary of Treasury said it, and we 
know he is one of the President's closest advisers.
  I want to say, as the ranking member said, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), Both of us, of course, have absolutely 
unrestrained affection and respect for the chairman of our committee. 
We are pleased to have him as our chairman, and like his predecessor, 
Mr. Livingston, he did not want to do this. He stands here because the 
leadership has told him to stand here and defend this policy, which is 
bad policy,

[[Page H1643]]

which is policy inconsistent with our rules, which is policy hoisted on 
the petard of their CATs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we 
have a number of other amendments that we have to consider this 
afternoon, and I am not going to object, but I think I will notify the 
Members that I have been very generous in allowing time extensions and 
in allowing Members to speak more than once on the same subject. I 
think in any future request on this amendment I will have to object, 
but I will not object to this one.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can I amend my request to an additional 5 
minutes?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from 
Maryland would not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. My point is this, and I will ask that the balance of my 
prepared comments be included in the Record. My point is this:
  My colleagues, our neighbors sent us here to represent them and to 
represent America. They know we are going to play politics from time to 
time; that is the nature of this collegial body. But I was struck, as I 
said, when my friend from Alabama, who I also have great affection for 
and unlimited respect for, said that the President cannot veto this 
bill.
  Why do they take this risk with peoples' lives and peoples' welfare? 
Why do they delay when they know that the President will veto this 
bill? He has shown us he will do it. He has done it before when the 
Mississippi floods came, and they said unless we take it their way, we 
are not going to give the folks in Mississippi and all up the 
Mississippi Delta the relief they need. We saw on television people 
floating around in their cities and towns.
  Why do they do this? Why do they force the Committee on 
Appropriations to do it when their leadership on the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and others, and 
Mr. Livingston before him, said this is emergency spending, we ought to 
pass it, pass it now and give the relief where it is needed.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida for not objecting to that extra 
time, and I want to say to my friend that this is an important piece of 
legislation, but it is also an important principle, and I would say to 
my chairman it is an important principle for the Committee on 
Appropriations itself and frankly we ought to stand as a committee and 
say to our friends who are not on this committee, when we have an 
emergency, when we need to act quickly, when we need to act without 
political controversy, this is the way to do it, the way the gentleman 
originally proposed, Mr. Chairman.
  That is my point, and that is my hope for the future.
  These provisions would jeopardize both this country's strong economic 
security and our Nation's efforts to keep weapons of mass destruction 
out of the hands of terrorists.
  The provision to offset $648 million from money that was appropriated 
for the capitalization of multilateral development banks, alone will 
invite a veto from the White House. Treasury Secretary Rubin warned 
this committee of the negative impacts of this provision--significant 
pressure on MDB interest rates and destabilized currencies and markets 
in developing countries around the world.
  Just last Congress, we appropriated $525 million for the safe 
disposition of fissionable material from Russia. Now, less than a year 
later, the Republican leadership has proposed to rescind a critical 
portion of those funds.
  This will severely impede efforts to continue the dismantlement of 
Russian nuclear warheads and the safe disposition of plutonium 
extracted from their nuclear weapons. This, to say the least, is a 
devastating possibility. What perception do we leave the Russian 
negotiators with if this money is refused?
  Just last week, this House passed H.R. 4 which calls for U.S. policy 
to deploy a national missile defense system. How can we turn around and 
take away funding that will assist in the deactivation of Russian 
warheads and keep fissionable materials out of the hands of rogue 
states and terrorists.
  Mr. Chairman, to conclude, I cannot support the offsets included in 
this bill. I, therefore, must oppose it.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate has gone on for a while. Most of us, 
virtually all of us, agree that the supplemental, the motives of the 
supplemental, are appropriate. We ought to have a supplemental to 
relieve the needs that are met in that bill. But the offsets, the 
offsets are the issue. We do not need, we should not need offsets at 
all on this supplemental appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
oppose the offsets that are given to us today, specifically the cuts in 
the Russian plutonium disposal program, the World Bank and other 
development aid.
  I sit on the Committee on Armed Services which is charged with 
providing for our Nation's security, and from where I sit these offsets 
are bad for our national security.

                              {time}  1515

  Last week, the House passed the bill to commit us to deploy a 
national missile defense system. Such a system is designed to defend 
against a limited ballistic missile attack, meaning a handful of 
missiles, from, at most, a North Korea or Iran.
  That national missile defense system would cost somewhere between $18 
billion and $28 billion. Last week, we committed $18 billion to $28 
billion, or said we would commit that amount, to a narrow response to a 
limited threat.
  This week, this bill cuts $150 million from a program designed to 
prevent excess Russian plutonium from ending up in the hands of 
terrorists.
  Mr. Chairman, what are we doing here? What kind of defense are we 
providing our country when we gut a key nonproliferation program to 
keep nuclear materials away from terrorists, yet commit billions to an 
untested system to intercept missiles? It does not make sense to me.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, it has been mentioned earlier in the 
debate today that the Russians have over 200 metric tons. If they are 
inclined to sell to rogue or to terrorist groups, they would still have 
150 tons after subtracting the 50 metric tons. So if they are inclined 
to do it, they can do it with or without this rescission.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is that this 
$150 million can allow us to acquire and dispose of, safely enough, 
fissile material to make 20,000 nuclear weapons. To take that material 
potentially out of the hands of terrorists is a major advance. There is 
no point to cutting this $150 million.
  This bill also cuts funds to promote economic stability overseas and 
raise the standard of living in poorer countries. Our national security 
depends on our economic security. We do our prosperity a disservice by 
cutting vital funding from multilateral development banks, food aid, 
Russia and Eastern Europe.
  Congress must not reject a cheap, wise and effective first line of 
defense against terrorism and nuclear weapons when just last week we 
chose to move ahead to a more expensive and technologically dubious 
line of defense.
  I would just go back, I know it has been mentioned before but the 
Secretary of Energy Mr. Richardson has said since the Department of 
Energy has already negotiated an agreement to purchase uranium from 
Russia for $325 million, the entire cut, this entire $150 million, 
would have to come from the $250 million appropriated to dispose of 
Russian plutonium.
  This is a very serious matter. I do not understand the other side. It 
seems clear to me dismantling Russian nuclear warheads and disposing of 
plutonium is solidly in the national interest. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Obey amendment and make the right vote for our national 
security.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wish to add my thoughts to the remarks that have 
already been made. I will not take the full 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H1644]]

  Strictly, I am troubled and I say this to the chairman of the 
committee that my understanding is that, in fact, this committee has 
had every ability of working and bringing to us a basically contest-
free nonprovocative motion here and that the leadership on that side 
has in fact imposed on us this debate and this particular decision that 
we must now make.
  I think that the American public ought to know that and ought to know 
that the committee is perfectly capable of functioning and bringing 
things forward in a nonpartisan manner but that it is the party over 
there that chooses to make this into a partisan issue several days 
after some left Hershey under the misguided belief apparently that some 
chocolate was going to resolve everything and get people working on the 
same plane. If we are talking about doing what is in the best interest 
of this country's national security, then simply the vote that we took 
last week on national missile defense is a step away from that. It is 
technologically not feasible at present. The costs have not been 
considered and the impact it would have on treaty negotiations, I 
think, was not served well and not considered appropriately.
  I would compound that today by saying that we are not going to put 
nonproliferation in the forefront of our national security interests. 
We are instead going to move and cut monies for a reduction in the 
plutonium and uranium. I think it sends the wrong message 
internationally. I think it sends the wrong message to the American 
people. In our first line of defense, we should be setting our 
priorities where the greatest danger lies, and we clearly are not doing 
that through this action.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing I would note that by destabilizing the 
economies in Asia and elsewhere we do not do anything for our national 
security. This particular attempt is not in the interest of our people 
and I think that the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
ought to pass and I think we ought to move forward with that amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Obey amendment to eliminate the funding offsets in this bill. We should 
not appropriate this money by putting the burden directly on the backs 
of our Social Security recipients.
  The FY99 omnibus bill passed last October included $525 million for 
two Russian programs, $325 for highly enriched uranium and $200 million 
for plutonium disposition.
  The highly enriched uranium agreement was to be signed this week with 
the arrival of the Russian Prime Minister. However, with his visit 
being canceled, the use of this $325 million remains in doubt.
  Furthermore, the plutonium disposition initiative was funded at the 
$200 million level, but with no request from the Administration, nor 
any information on how the funding will be used.
  Today, we have immediate needs in Central America to be funded 
through this bill. There is no evidence either from the Administration 
or the Members from the other side of the aisle, that the $200 million 
will be spent in fiscal year 1999. Although negotiations have begun, it 
appears doubtful, at best, that such funds would be spent during this 
fiscal year. And, although it is unlikely that any of the funds would 
be used in fiscal year 1999, we leave in tact $50 million which will 
remain available. That is $50 million in addition to the $25 million 
appropriated in the regular budget process--for a total of $75 million.
  Once the negotiations are completed, the Administration plans to 
expend the $200 million over the next 2 to 3 years. I am certain we can 
work with the Administration once they have a plan in place to provide 
the necessary funds to make sure this program is adequately funded.
  The record is clear. The House and Senate have consistently supported 
U.S. programs to protect Russian nuclear weapons materials that could 
fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. We have supported 
efforts to make sure Russian scientists will not be lured away by 
terrorists or rogue nations. And we have supported efforts to upgrade 
the Soviet-designed reactors to prevent another Chernobyl type 
accident.
  Mr. Chairman, people are suffering in Central America. Let's do the 
right thing and vote to provide funding for those in immediate need. 
But let's offset this bill, so we don't have to put the burden on those 
who rely on Social Security.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 228, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 68]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease

[[Page H1645]]


     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Fossella
     Myrick
     Slaughter
     Stupak

                              {time}  1541

  Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. FLETCHER, and Mr. HALL of Texas changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MEEKS of New York changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for 
the purposes of holding a colloquy.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations and also the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the full committee chairman, for 
the opportunity to work on disaster assistance funds.
  I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) that today I was 
prepared to offer a second amendment which would have transferred the 
Disaster Assistance For Unmet Needs Program from the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development to FEMA because of the various problems 
associated with HUD management and the ineffectiveness of this critical 
program.
  However, after discussions with the gentleman from New York and his 
staff, I will not offer this amendment. Instead, I will look forward to 
working with the gentleman during the Conference of this bill and make 
this a reality.
  During the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill, Senators Bond and Mikulski 
successfully offered this same amendment which would have transferred 
funds from this important program to FEMA, the one agency which has 
primary responsibility for assisting and responding to all natural 
disasters and for administering the most primary programs of disaster 
assistance.
  As the gentleman knows, my congressional district recently suffered a 
500-year flood which resulted in tens of millions of dollars in damage 
to homes, property, and infrastructure. During this one-day flood, 
nearly 600 homes and 100 businesses were destroyed, and many more lives 
were devastated.
  Many of the families impacted by the flood were on fixed incomes and 
were simply unable to rebuild and move on with their lives. While 
current FEMA programs have been able to provide some temporary 
assistance, most of the families impacted are relying on this program 
to receive additionally needed buy-out assistance.
  Unfortunately, HUD's track record has been disappointing. In 
particular, HUD has been too slow in releasing funds, and they have 
demonstrated their unwillingness to shed more light on how grant awards 
are made. In short, HUD is simply the wrong agency to administer this 
program.
  I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), will he be willing to 
work with me during the conference to see that the funding is 
transferred to FEMA and to direct FEMA to work to ensure that 
communities with legitimate unmet needs, like those in South-Central 
Kansas, receive such assistance as is necessary and appropriate to 
compensate homeowners who are eligible to receive the buy-out 
assistance?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me first thank the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for his hard work in the area of 
disaster assistance. I know personally that he has been active and a 
vocal advocate in making sure that both FEMA, and in particular this 
committee are fully aware of the legitimate and urgent need for 
additional flood disaster assistance in Kansas.
  I, too, share the same concerns that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt) has expressed regarding the current management of this vital 
program, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Kansas 
during conference to see that this program is managed more effectively.
  Furthermore, I plan to work with both FEMA and the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) to ensure that the State of Kansas and, in 
particular, Butler, Cowley, and Sedgwick counties, receive such 
assistance as is necessary and appropriate to compensate homeowners who 
are eligible for the much-needed buy-out assistance.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
bill through page 15, line 15 be considered as read, printed in the 
Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 2, line 13 through page 15, line 15 is 
as follows:


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

       For additional gross obligations for the principal amount 
     of direct and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1928-1929, to be available from funds in the Agricultural 
     Credit Insurance Fund, $1,095,000,000, as follows: 
     $350,000,000 for guaranteed farm ownership loans; 
     $200,000,000 for direct farm ownership loans; $185,000,000 
     for direct farm operating loans; $185,000,000 for subsidized 
     guaranteed farm operating loans; and $175,000,000 for 
     emergency farm loans.
       For the additional cost of direct and guaranteed farm 
     loans, including the cost of modifying such loans as defined 
     in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000: farm operating 
     loans, $28,804,000, of which $12,635,000 shall be for direct 
     loans and $16,169,000 shall be for guaranteed subsidized 
     loans; farm ownership loans, $35,505,000, of which 
     $29,940,000 shall be for direct loans and $5,565,000 shall be 
     for guaranteed loans; emergency loans, $41,300,000; and 
     administrative expenses to carry out the loan programs, 
     $4,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     enforcement and border affairs

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     Enforcement and Border Affairs'' to support increased 
     detention requirements for Central American criminal aliens 
     and to address the expected influx of illegal immigrants from 
     Central America as a result of Hurricane Mitch, $80,000,000, 
     which shall remain available until expended and which shall 
     be administered by the Attorney General: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emegency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 3

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $8,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided, further, That of 
     such amount, $5,100,000 shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $7,300,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of such amount, $1,300,000 shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of

[[Page H1646]]

     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force'', $1,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $69,500,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $16,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $300,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $8,800,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $46,500,000: Provided, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid'', $37,500,000: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 4

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  agency for international development

                   international disaster assistance

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``International Disaster Assistance'' 
     for necessary expenses for international disaster relief, 
     rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance, pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     amended, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'', in addition 
     to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, to provide 
     assistance to Jordan, $50,000,000 to become available upon 
     enactment of this Act and to remain available until September 
     30, 2001: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.


              central america and the caribbean emergency

                         disaster recovery fund

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for 
     necessary expenses to address the effects of hurricanes in 
     Central America and the Caribbean and the earthquake in 
     Colombia, $621,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2000: Provided, That the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     and, except for section 558, the provisions of title V of the 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in division A, section 
     101(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)): Provided 
     further, That up to $5,000,000 of the funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph may be transferred to ``Operating Expenses of 
     the Agency for International Development'', to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000, to be used for 
     administrative costs of USAID in addressing the effects of 
     those hurricanes, of which up to $1,000,000 may be used to 
     contract directly for the personal services of individuals in 
     the United States: Provided further, That up to $2,000,000 of 
     the funds appropriated by this paragraph 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 the funds appropriated by this paragraph: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be obligated and expended subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be subject to the funding ceiling contained in section 
     580 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in Division 
     A, section 101(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)), 
     notwithstanding section 545 of that Act: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     made available for nonproject assistance: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                           Debt Restructuring

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``Debt Restructuring'', $41,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That up to 
     $25,000,000 may be used for a contribution to the Central 
     America Emergency Trust Fund, administered by the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                   foreign military financing program

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', 
     for grants to enable the President to carry out section 23 of 
     the Arms Export Control Act, in addition to amounts otherwise 
     available for such purposes, for grants only for Jordan, 
     $50,000,000 to become available upon enactment of this Act 
     and to remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     nonrepayable, notwithstanding section 23(b) and section 23(c) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 301. The value of articles, services, and military 
     education and training authorized as of November 15, 1998, to 
     be drawn down by the President under the authority of section 
     506(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     shall not be counted against the ceiling limitation of that 
     section.

                               CHAPTER 5

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             FOREST SERVICE


                    reconstruction and construction

       For an additional amount for ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'', $5,611,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to address damages from Hurricane Georges and other 
     natural disasters in Puerto Rico: Provided,That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the amount provided shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request that 
     includes designation of the entire amount as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, 
     is transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That funds in this account may be transferred to and 
     merged with the ``Forest and Rangeland Research'' account and 
     the ``National Forest System'' account as needed to address 
     emergency requirements in Puerto Rico.

                               CHAPTER 6

                                OFFSETS

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS


               public law 480 program and grant accounts

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under Public Law 105-277 for the 
     cost of direct credit agreements for Public Law 480 title I 
     credit, $30,000,000 are hereby rescinded.

[[Page H1647]]

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                    Atomic Energy Defense Activities


                        other defense activities

                              (rescission)

       Of the amount provided under this heading in P.L. 105-277, 
     the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, $150,000,000 are rescinded.

                    EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                      trade and development agency

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277, $5,000,000 are rescinded.

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  agency for international development

                         development assistance

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-118 and in prior acts making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     $40,000,000 are rescinded.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277 and in prior acts making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     $17,000,000 are rescinded.


          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances of funds available under this 
     heading, $20,000,000 are rescinded.


  assistance for the new independent states of the former soviet union

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances of funds available under this 
     heading, $25,000,000 are rescinded.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                        peacekeeping operations

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277, $10,000,000 are rescinded.

                    MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                  International Financial Institutions

     Contribution to the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
                              Development

                      Global Environment Facility


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277, $25,000,000 are rescinded.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


              reduction in callable capital appropriations

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under the headings ``Contribution 
     to the Asian Development Bank'', ``Contribution to the Inter-
     American Development Bank'', and ``Contribution to the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development'' for 
     callable capital stock in Public Law 96-123 and in prior acts 
     making appropriations for foreign assistance and related 
     programs, a total of $648,000,000 are rescinded.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered By Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       Page 15, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $195,000,000)''.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan Tiahrt-Goode-Toomey 
amendment will guarantee that this House will stand for integrity by 
keeping its promise to protect Social Security.
  I want to first thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for his commitment to this 
country and for his dedication to the House of Representatives. His 
commitment to our national defense and to our national interest is 
second to none.
  I also want to thank the chairman for selecting me to join others in 
the congressional delegation he sent to Central America to survey the 
mass destruction brought about by Hurricane Mitch. I will never forget 
the stories I heard firsthand or the human trauma and unspeakable 
devastation that hit our neighbors to the south.
  Mr. Chairman, each of us who have worked hard to balance the budget 
can take great pride in what we have achieved. For the first time in a 
generation, we have balanced the budget. The CBO estimates confirm that 
we will have a surplus in fiscal year 1999. However, current 
projections for the surplus are made up of revenues that are completely 
derived from the FICA tax which employees and employers pay in to cover 
Social Security obligations.
  Why does this matter? It matters because, if we do not reduce 
spending by $1 for each $1 in new spending in the emergency bill, the 
money will be taken from Social Security, just plain and simple.
  That is why I am offering this amendment today, to fully protect 
Social Security and to prevent this Congress from sending to the 
President a bill that will use money intended for Social Security but 
to pay for this foreign aid package.
  To offset the remainder of this bill, I have chosen the same account 
the Committee on Appropriations selected to offset 50 percent of the 
bill. It is the callable capital account. This is an account that the 
World Bank may draw on in case of defaults on international loans. The 
callable capital account has over $12 billion in unobligated, 
underspent funds.
  During the nearly 40 years of history, this account has never been 
used for its intended purpose. However, this account has been used 
previously as an offset.
  In 1994, former Representative Vic Fazio successfully used $900 
million in this fund to offset funding for disaster relief in 
California. I am simply following the lead of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the precedent set by a former Member from the other 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress from the aerospace industry, and I 
served 2 years on the Committee on National Security, and I understand 
very well the problems with our underfunded military. Even the 
President recognizes the need for additional funds. That is why this is 
appropriate. It is appropriate to use a foreign aid account to pay for 
the foreign aid disaster bill and not a Department of Defense account.
  To my friends on the Committee on National Security, I will say, if 
we are unable to offset emergency bills, there will be no money 
available to cover the supplement for our Nation's defense.
  So why do I come to the floor today with this amendment? My goal is 
to improve upon this bill. The Committee on Appropriations agreed to 
find offsets for 85 percent of the bill because they wanted to act 
responsibly and not grab over $1 billion from Social Security. My 
amendment simply goes the distance on the path towards financial 
integrity.
  Other outside groups also see the significance of providing offsets 
for this foreign aid emergency bill in order to protect Social 
Security.
  The policy director of the Concord Coalition, Robert Bixby in his 
letter to me stated ``tapping into the Social Security surplus for 
emergencies only leads to a breakdown in fiscal discipline. . .We 
therefore heartily commend your efforts to ensure that the FY 99 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill is fully offset.''
  In the 60 Plus Association letter to me, they said, they 
``enthusiastically endorse'' this amendment. The United Seniors said 
they ``strongly support'' this amendment.
  Each of these groups realize the importance of fully offsetting this 
foreign aid bill. They have heard the promises made by the President 
and by Congress that we would protect Social Security. That is what the 
Tiahrt-Goode-Toomey amendment does, fully protects Social Security.
  If my colleagues agree that we should avoid using Social Security to 
pay for foreign aid spending, then support this amendment. If my 
colleagues agree that keeping Social Security safe from 85 percent of 
this bill is good, then they must conclude that protecting 100 percent 
of Social Security from this bill is even better. Mr. Chairman, it is 
not just the most prudent path politically, it is the right thing to do 
for our seniors, ourselves, and our children.
  I encourage my colleagues to join with the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goode) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and myself 
and support our bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk just a few minutes in support of this 
amendment. I fully concur and commend the

[[Page H1648]]

gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for standing up in a courageous way 
to fully offset this supplemental.
  I can tell my colleagues, if I went back to the Fifth District of 
Virginia and said they have a choice between a callable capital account 
and Social Security, overwhelming support in the district would be in 
favor of Social Security.
  I have heard those words repeated roundly in these halls a lot this 
year and a lot last year. We have heard it on the hustings all across 
this country. This is an opportunity to say, yes, we are going to go 
with Social Security first, even in supplemental situations where there 
is an emergency.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tiahrt amendment. I have to 
say, and I mentioned this earlier today on the House floor, when a 
number of us met with the Speaker and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the new chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, earlier 
this year, we talked about this bill and how we would like to support 
it but, for a number of reasons we were not able to.
  Much to the credit of Speaker Hastert, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, and now the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), we are really offsetting all of the costs of this 
supplemental appropriation bill. Because of that, we are not adding to 
the debt. We are not adding to the deficit. We are looking to make this 
bill work in the right way. I think all of our colleagues should 
support this bill and this amendment to make it even stronger than the 
committee reported out. I rise in strong support.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we have got to support the 
Tiahrt amendment. It is important that we fully, fully put aside the 
Social Security funds. But the Tiahrt amendment is simple, fair, and 
fiscally responsible.
  Some of my colleagues are concerned that this amendment would affect 
our defense programs. With our forces committed and fighting in Kosovo, 
our military must be strengthened, and everybody knows that this 
administration has slashed military spending. We know troop levels are 
dangerously low, retention is short, recruiting is down, and morale is 
at the bottom of the barrel.
  I agree Congress must step forward and reverse these trends by 
putting more money in our defense budget. Our fighting men and women 
deserve the best.
  This amendment does nothing to harm this goal. The Tiahrt amendment 
takes $195 million of foreign aid money from a $12 billion bank account 
that has never been used. It takes no money away from defense. No 
Member should oppose taking $195 million from a $12 billion nondefense 
account that is not being used for anything.
  I would also like to make clear that this is not a military 
emergency. The defense portion of this bill is a reimbursement for 
disaster assistance by our National Guard which it provided to our 
neighbors in Central America.

                              {time}  1600

  It is money that has already been spent. It is not an emergency and, 
therefore, should not be funded as one. I understand the concerns that 
some of my colleagues have, but in this case offsetting $195 million 
from nondefense accounts is practicable, is reasonable and is fiscally 
responsible, not dangerous.
  We are in Washington to be responsible. The Tiahrt amendment simply 
allows us to keep our promise to the American people that we will stop 
big government spending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment 
today. It is good for America.
  Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
point out that this is a small step but it is a small step in the right 
direction. Full accountability, full offsets, keeping our promise to 
the American taxpayer is something that I think we all believe in here, 
and if we are going to be a fiscal conservative and think about the 
dollars going out, we have to support this amendment to make sure it is 
100 percent pure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to say this only once. Do my colleagues know 
how many dollars are saved for Social Security by the Tiahrt amendment? 
Not one dime. Do my colleagues know how many dollars are saved that 
would otherwise be spent under the Tiahrt amendment? Not one dime. Do 
my colleagues know how many dollars are saved that would otherwise be 
added to the deficit if the Tiahrt amendment passes? Not one dime.
  The fact is that callable capital to our international financial 
institutions, is appropriated but it is never spent. There is never an 
outlay expenditure. When we measure the deficit, what we measure is not 
what the government thinks about spending. What we measure is what the 
government actually spends, and that is called an outlay.
  If we take a look at this committee report, if we take a look at the 
Congressional Budget Office scoring of this bill, we will see that the 
Tiahrt amendment saves not one dime for Social Security or the deficit 
or anything else because this money was not scheduled to be outlaid. 
The only way that we can measure savings is on the outlay side. And 
since there were never going to be any outlays, there are no savings.
  The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), by his amendment, is 
suggesting to the House that $195 million will not be spent that 
otherwise would be spent. That is false. Callable capital, by its 
nature, is never meant to be spent. So if anyone says that they are 
saving one dime for Social Security or saving one dime for the surplus 
or the deficit by the Tiahrt amendment, they are telling this House 
something that simply is not true.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment. And 
with all due respect, I went on the same trip with the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) to Honduras, but his amendment does not help the 
situation in Honduras nor does it help the situation at home.
  We have letters from the Department of Treasury, we have letters from 
the Bretton Woods committee suggesting that his amendment would indeed 
create financial risk. The logic of saying that we are going to protect 
Social Security when we are going to put the whole market at financial 
risk is just not practical.
  The bill, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just indicated, 
does not fully offset the outlays in terms of new spending, because the 
bill will be measured by outlays, not by the Tiahrt amendment. This 
amendment does damage, not good; it does not protect and it does not 
get the funds to Central America which need it badly right now.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the Tiahrt amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and in closing, let me 
simply say this bill, if it passes, will actually add $445 million to 
the deficit, and the Tiahrt amendment, if it is adopted, will not save 
one dime of that number.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words and, hopefully, in the process of doing so, have a 
dialogue with my friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Todd Tiahrt).
  I would hope in the process of this discussion I might urge my 
colleague to consider, at least consider, withdrawing his amendment. 
Let me explain why I would even begin to suggest that this might be 
appropriate when I know very well how serious the gentleman is about 
this amendment and how hard he has worked to develop it.
  The circumstances in Central America are critical circumstances 
involving humanitarian efforts that very much relate to our efforts to 
build relations south of our border. At the peak following that 
disaster we had some 5,000 troops in the region. We have flown nearly 
1,000 humanitarian air sorties there. We have rescued over a thousand 
people from floods. The military was involved in building temporary 
bridges that allowed lifelines, food and medicine, to be delivered. 
Indeed, there are hundreds of temporary

[[Page H1649]]

structures built by those military personnal in an effort to respond to 
this emergency.
  These are not classic military activities, but, nonetheless, we 
raised the American flag there in defense of the well-being of a 
sizable population of our neighbors for reasons well beyond just the 
humanitarian reasons alone. The American military is ofttimes the only 
one who can respond quickly enough and effectively enough to get the 
life saving job done.
  In this case we are talking about the prospects of an offset that 
arguably is not really an offset. It is very clear when we are dealing 
with callable capital that we do not impact funds that might be 
available for Social Security, and I would urge us to be very careful 
about further discussion about that possible implication.
  The reason for my touching on the edges of suggesting that the 
gentleman might consider responsibly to withdraw the amendment involves 
the fact that at this very moment American troops and materiel are 
involved in an incursion in Kosovo, a very, very serious circumstance 
where, in combination with our allies in NATO, we are involved in an 
effort that could cost not hundreds of millions of dollars, but a 
billion dollars or more.
  Let me make this point to my colleague. Indeed, the amendment that 
the gentleman has before us could be a very serious precedent that 
could impact future requirements as it relates to Kosovo.
  One of the most impressive experiences I have had in the time I have 
been in Congress has taken place over the last 10 days, an experience 
in which the President of the United States has invited Members from 
both bodies to the White House and, together, we have spent almost 10 
hours discussing questions which swirl around how we meet the 
challenges in Kosovo and the Balkans. Democrats and Republicans from 
both bodies argued on both sides of our being involved. It was a very, 
very healthy discussion, bringing us to the point where there was a 
very healthy debate last evening in the other body, after which, 
finally, a vote took place in which support was given for America's 
effort, along with our NATO allies, in that region.
  Today, we find ourselves in a circumstance where, indeed, action is 
moving forward. It is very important that the debate we have from this 
point forward be as nonpartisan, as positive as possible, and as 
nonsensational as possible. And, indeed, we must recognize as we go 
forward that there will be very real military costs. There will be a 
bill one day soon that will request a supplemental that may involve the 
kinds of dollars that I was describing earlier, maybe as much as $2 
billion.
  Indeed, if one were to begin to talk about offsetting that 
expenditure, either from social programs, from callable capital or 
otherwise, we could find ourselves in a debate that could undermine our 
ability to respond to that very critical circumstance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, this is the very time that we 
need to bring the House together with a unified voice in support of our 
troops in Kosovo and in the Balkans and, indeed, exercise our 
responsibility to lead in the world at this very important moment.
  So I would urge my colleague to consider the question, a precedent, 
that says a $195 million expenditure for an emergency in Latin America, 
asking for offsets in a very special category, could lead to a 
circumstance where $2 billion becomes the question and should there be 
an offset. I would ask my colleague to recognize that this may very 
well be before us in a very short period of time, and I would urge the 
gentleman to respond, if he would, briefly.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of 
the Committee on Appropriations, who is very knowledgeable about the 
extreme needs we have in our defense at this point in time. The 
gentleman brought a very sobering point; that there is currently 
activity going on in Kosovo where our young men and women are at risk, 
and I hope that we will all keep them in our thoughts and prayers.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud of the job our soldiers have done in 
Central America in meeting the immediate disaster needs. My concern is 
that if we do not find offsets now, we will never be able to achieve 
the future requirements that we need for our defense, and that is why I 
wanted to offer this amendment. But I thank the gentleman from 
California for the opportunity.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess 
the point that needs to be repeated is that callable capital does not 
provide real offsets that provide real funding for the military.
  Indeed, if we go forward with this approach, we will be further 
taking these kinds of monies out of the hide of our basic military 
requirements. If we find ourselves later attempting to pay for the 
Kosovo requirements in a similar fashion, it could undermine many a 
critical program entirely across our military base. I urge the 
gentleman to reconsider his amendment, otherwise I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I stood up, Mr. Chairman, to talk again about the multilateral banks 
and to talk about callable capital and to try and urge my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle not to identify this as meaningful and real 
offsets. However, before I do that, I would like to join with my 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), in asking that we 
do nothing at this point that would prevent us from coming back with a 
supplemental that we may need in case we have to expand our operations 
or support our operations in Kosovo.
  I think that is real. He is absolutely correct. We have spent a 
number of hours with the President, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
listening to and understanding what is going on there. And I think that 
he has done a favor to all of us by pointing out that we do not want to 
take this kind of action without understanding the seriousness of it.
  Beyond that, I think that at this moment every member of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, every member of the Hispanic Caucus, every 
member of the Asian Caucus should be on this floor. They should be on 
this floor right now because what they are seeing is a precedent that 
will destroy the ability of developing countries to be able to have any 
kind of reasonable economic development and to develop.
  I think every member of those caucuses, who have fought for so many 
years to try and be of assistance to these developing countries and 
develop markets there for our own economy, should come to this floor 
and help to make the argument why this should not go forward.

                              {time}  1615

  What is the reason for this when everybody understands now that this 
is not real capital, that this simply is money that would not be spent, 
that it is not money that is going to be added to the budget? Then why 
are they doing it? If they cannot answer that question, then they 
should not proceed with this.
  This is not money that can be used to reduce the budget in any way. 
This is like a guarantee that in the event they are not able to pay 
back their loans it could be used. So if in fact the money is not going 
to reduce the budget, if in fact they are literally putting their foot 
on the necks of the most vulnerable countries in the world who 
desperately need the assistance of the multilateral banks, if they 
understand what we are trying to do in Africa and in Asia and in 
Central America, why then would they proceed with literally diminishing 
their ability to try and develop and to be independent and to feed 
their people and to provide markets for us? Why would they do it? It 
just does not make good sense.
  And so, I am going to ask them, in addition to the argument that has 
been made about Kosovo and the possibility that we will have a 
supplemental bill on the floor to help out, to also think

[[Page H1650]]

about what I am saying. Why would anybody in their right mind want to 
do it if they are not going to yield any dollars for them?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
yielding. And I would like to remind her that this is a precedent that 
was established in 1994 when a previous bill came to the floor and 
$902.4 million was taken out of callable capital.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, that is not 
correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say the statement that this is 
similar to what happened in 1994 is again totally, absolutely wrong. 
What happened in 1994 was very, very different. It did not involve 
rescinding one dime of obligated callable capital.
  I would simply recite from the Secretary of the Treasury the 
following from his letter. He says, ``Some have cited the 1994 
rescission as a precedent for this goal. The 1994 action and the 
current proposal are not analogous. In 1994, the U.S. had not 
subscribed to paid-in capital and callable capital which were 
rescinded. The current proposal, however, would reach back to capital 
to which we have formerly subscribed and on the basis of which we have 
exercised voting rights for many years. This proposal has rightly 
become a concern of the markets.''
  If any Member says that this is identical to what had happened in 
1994, they are either ill-informed or they are misleading the House.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tiahrt-Goode-Toomey amendment. 
Last week the House Committee on the Budget, on which I have the 
privilege to serve, approved the budget resolution that saves the 
entire Social Security surplus, 100 percent of payroll taxes, and 100 
percent of interest for future budgets. It is a budget resolution we 
will debate on this very floor tomorrow, and it stops the reckless 
practice of spending Social Security payroll taxes on non-Social 
Security programs.
  My fellow committee members and I proudly held a press conference 
last week declaring that this Congress for the first time would no 
longer spend the Social Security surplus. And we are right. Over the 
next 10 years, the budget resolution locks away $1.8 trillion for our 
seniors' retirement both for Social Security and Medicare; and that is 
$200 billion more than the President called for in his budget.
  This budget is an important first step towards our ultimate goal of 
real, long-term structural reform of our Nation's retirement system; 
and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this budget later 
this week.
  But would it not be ironic if the House passes an emergency 
appropriations bill that spends today's Social Security money in the 
same week that it passes a budget resolution that tries to save future 
Social Security funds? And that is exactly what will happen if the 
House does not adopt the Tiahrt-Goode-Toomey amendment that fully 
offsets the supplemental emergency appropriations bill. We have got an 
obligation to ensure that that does not happen.
  The $1.3 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill as 
written offsets all but $195 million used to reimburse the Defense 
Department for its response to Hurricane Mitch. Any spending not offset 
in this bill will come from the Social Security surplus because the 
Federal Government still has an on-budget deficit in fiscal year 1999. 
The only surplus is the Social Security surplus.
  My objection is not the Defense Department. It should be reimbursed 
for its work. My objection is certainly not the Committee on 
Appropriations. They have worked hard to offset the vast majority of 
the emergency spending in this bill. But we have come so close. Just 15 
percent of the bill is not offset. And we should finish the job.
  Our amendment finishes the job. It offsets the remaining $195 million 
in emergency spending by rescinding budget authority for an account 
already used to offset in this bill. The Callable Capital Account has 
over $12 billion in unused budget authority. It has not been used this 
decade. That is why democratic Congress used this same account as an 
offset in 1994.
  Mr. Chairman, I consistently told senior citizens in Pennsylvania's 
15th Congressional District that Congress should not spend Social 
Security dollars on anything other than retirement. And that is exactly 
what we should do.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Tiahrt-Goode-Toomey amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is some impression out here 
that there is no money that is going to change hands here, that we are 
going to write a check to Central America but there is no money that is 
going to leave the Callable Capital Account and how this money will 
miraculously reappear down in Central America.
  We are going to write a check to Central America and it is not going 
to bounce. The money is going to come from somewhere. It is either 
going to come from the surplus or callable capital. If it comes from 
the surplus, it has to come out of Social Security. It is really that 
simple.
  I want to step back in time to 1994. In 1994, this Congress committed 
capital stock to the Callable Capital Account of $902.4395 million. It 
was committed to the Callable Capital Account. But in the piece of 
legislation that was called the Fiscal Year 1994 Disaster Supplemental 
Appropriations, we rescinded that. We took the money back.
  Now, they want to say it is completely different. We were going to 
send capital stock, $902.4 million, and then we took it back, we 
rescinded it back; and now they want to say they did not have anything 
to do with it and it is not like it is this time. But if we look at the 
votes, it passed with a significant margin, 415-2.
  Now, the gentlewoman said that I would like to have my foot on the 
neck of developing countries? Well, just a couple years ago the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) joined with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) and with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
and they voted for it. They voted for the very same thing they are 
arguing against today. And they are trying to demonize it somehow I 
guess by saying I want to put my foot on the neck of developing 
countries. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  What I want to do is make sure that when we send money down to 
Central America that it does not come from Social Security. I want to 
find unobligated money, money that we can use to save Social Security. 
And that is what I have done with this amendment, and I urge its 
passage.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment. Let me try 
to address some of the points that have been made.
  First of all, with respect to the so-called 1994 rescission. I think 
the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out 
the definite distinction that exists between the present case and 1994. 
He also cited the letter from Secretary Rubin that says, ``it is like 
apples and oranges, you cannot compare the two''.
  But most importantly, the vote that he referred to was the vote in 
favor of the final supplemental bill. There never was a discreet vote 
on the particular rescission in question, and so I hardly think that 
that is analogous. It certainly is not precedential on today's vote.
  Secondly, I do want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) because he understands the significance of what we are doing 
today. We might be unable in the future if we act on behalf of the 
Tiahrt amendment and we act on the basis of the Tiahrt amendment's 
underlying rationale to

[[Page H1651]]

ever pass necessary emergency supplemental appropriations without 
wreaking havoc with prior past commitments. This is a dangerous 
precedent to get into.
  Perhaps more important than anything else, it is imperative that we 
understand that we live in a very fragile global economy. The House 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services attempted in early 1997 to 
develop a legislative framework to deal with this fragile global 
economy by passing IMF legislation. It was from early 1997 until 
October of 1998 that we were able to pass that authorizing and 
appropriating legislation so that our multilateral development 
institutions could more appropriately deal with the deteriorating 
global economy.
  In other words, this Congress played Russian roulette with the global 
economy. And we had a lot of problems in Russia, in Brazil, in addition 
to Asia. And now they want to do the same thing. They want to say the 
United States has made commitments, we have paid in those commitments, 
we have voted on the basis of those commitments because our voting 
rights are coextensive with the commitments that we have entered into, 
subscribed to, and paid.
  And now they want to renege on them. They want to pull the carpet 
from underneath the IMF, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, 
the Inter-American Development Bank, etc. They want to play more 
Russian roulette with the global economy. This is a dangerous game to 
enter into.
  That is why I am so pleased that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) spoke against it. I understand he can speak for himself. The 
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services (Mr. Leach) 
strongly opposed this I have been advised. He can speak for himself. 
The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations (Mr. Young of Florida) 
might want to oppose this, too.
  Clearly, Secretary Rubin said that he would strongly recommend a veto 
of the bill with a rescission of $640 million of callable capital. This 
adds $195 million more. It goes from terrible to far, far worse. This 
is not just veto bait. This is an absolute veto. Do not play this 
dangerous game.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are coming to the end of this debate. I hope 
so because we do have other amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would have to 
say that I am somewhat reluctant because the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt) is a very important member of our conference, a very important 
member of the Committee on Appropriations, and a very thoughtful and 
studious Member. And I do not disagree with what he is trying to do 
here by way of offset. But I have to tell my colleagues that I do 
disagree with what he is offsetting.
  For some years now, starting in fiscal year 1995 up through 1999, we 
have had deployments of American forces overseas in my opinion some 
very questionable deployments that have been very costly to the 
American taxpayer.
  In that time period, we spent $5.2 billion in Iraq, and that is after 
Desert Storm was over. $9 billion in Bosnia. That was a deployment that 
was supposedly going to last for a year but is still going on today. It 
was supposedly going to cost a billion dollars. It has already cost us 
$9 billion. In Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Cuba, Korea and others we have 
spent another billion dollars for deployments of U.S. forces.
  In the fiscal year 2000 budget sent here by the White House, there is 
another $1.8 billion for Bosnia, another $1.1 billion for Iraq. That 
does not include the $300 million that we used in Desert Fox in that 3-
day campaign against Saddam. And this total does not include what is 
going on in Kosovo today. And this whole thing in Kosovo could cost as 
much in one deployment as all these other numbers that I have mentioned 
because the situation in Kosovo could become far, far more dangerous 
and serious than what we have dealt with so far.
  The point I am making here by reciting these numbers, we were asked 
to offset most of these monies and most of them were offset from the 
budget of the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine Corps.

                              {time}  1630

  We already have a declining investment in our national security. We 
already have many airplanes that cannot fly because of a lack of spare 
parts. We have housing needs for our troops that are terrible, places 
that Members would not let one of their kids live and they would not 
live but some of our kids in the military are living. We have 11,000 of 
our kids on food stamps. That is not right. We need to do more for our 
military and the men and women who serve in the military.
  I have stated as chairman of this committee, I am going to object to 
offsetting money for the Defense Department when it is used in a 
national security deployment or an emergency other than for our own 
national defense requirements. And so I would say to the gentleman from 
Kansas that I do not really like to oppose his amendment, but we have 
got to make a stand somewhere on the issue of national defense. Our 
party in this Congress has made a strong statement on national defense.
  Tomorrow during the debate on the budget, Members will find that 
there is a very serious problem with national defense, not so much from 
the standpoint of budget authority but the outlay figure is going to be 
unworkable. We have got to put a stop to offsetting anything from the 
defense budget. We need to be increasing our investment in our national 
defense. I do not want to set the precedent that we are going to offset 
these type of deployments. This was a true emergency. American soldiers 
went to Central America, and they saved lives and they made it possible 
for people to have sanitary conditions. They made it possible to get 
medical care. This money is to replace the funds that they spent.
  At this point in the Record I want to insert a letter from General 
Wilhelm describing the trip that our delegation took to Honduras. It 
provides insight into the terrible conditions there and the great job 
our troops did. I have eliminated some portions of his letter as a 
matter of confidentiality.
  Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose the Tiahrt amendment on the 
principle of we are not doing enough today for our national security 
effort, we need to do more, and we have got to stop raiding the budget 
as it relates to national defense deployments.
                                            Department of Defense,


                                        U.S. Southern Command,

                                         Miami, FL, March 8, 1999.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, Majority Members, Committee on Appropriations, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful for 
     the personal interest that you have taken in our humanitarian 
     and disaster relief operations in Central America. I regret 
     that other obligations prevented you from traveling to the 
     region this past weekend, but the committee and its interests 
     were well represented by Congressmen Hobson, Tiahrt and Farr. 
     I wanted to take just a moment to share with you my 
     impressions of the visit and the status of Department of 
     Defense humanitarian assistance/disaster relief operations.
       While enroute to Honduras on Friday, I gave the delegation 
     a detailed overview of DOD activities in the region to date. 
     I started with our life saving and life sustaining activities 
     during the first 30 days of the crisis when members of our 
     Armed Forces plucked 1,052 men, women and children literally 
     from death's door, delivered three and a quarter million 
     pounds of food to communities cut off from the rest of their 
     countries and the world by flood waters, and provided 65 tons 
     of medical supplies and the clean water needed to 
     successfully stave off feared epidemics of cholera, typhus 
     and vector borne diseases which would have claimed many more 
     lives. To place the disaster in an historic perspective, I 
     mentioned that the 17,000 plus dead and missing in Central 
     America equate to all of our losses in the Korean War. I 
     stressed, however, that these grim statistics are parts of a 
     closed chapter in our humanitarian assistance and disaster 
     relief operations. I emphasized that four months have passed 
     since Hurricane Mitch unleashed as much as seven feet of rain 
     in less than five days on portions of Northern Honduras and 
     turned it into an inland sea; that the waters have subsided, 
     the dead have been recovered and buried, and that Hondurans, 
     Americans and the international community have been working 
     around the clock to replace despair with hope and restore 
     some degree of normalcy to the region. The bottom line as I 
     expressed it to the delegation was that rather than the 
     absolute desolation and devastation that they would have seen 
     during late October and early November, they would see an 
     unfolding success story as key infrastructure is restored or 
     recreated. Over the next two days, as we drove through 
     Tegucigalpa and overflew or visited hundreds of miles of the

[[Page H1652]]

     North Coast, I hope these observations were reinforced.
       Upon our arrival in Tegucigalpa on Friday we immediately 
     boarded helicopters and conducted an aerial and ground tour 
     of key bridge and other rehabilitation sites in and around 
     the Capital City. The members were given a bird's eye view of 
     a representative sample of the projects that were undertaken 
     to reconnect Tegucigalpa with the rest of the country. This 
     was an early priority for forces from the U.S., Mexico and 
     other international participants in the relief effort. The 
     effort in and around the Capital was sustained by the U.S. 
     after withdrawal of other international contingents in 
     mid-November. Among other projects, the members viewed the 
     Juan Molina Bridge which will be a key point of interest 
     during the Presidential visit. Upon landing, the USAID 
     representative gave the CODEL a guided tour of temporary 
     resettlement housing, after which we proceeded to the 
     Presidential Palace for an extended and very significant 
     meeting with President Flores that I will discuss later in 
     some detail.
       On the second day of the visit we again boarded U.S. Army 
     and National Guard Blackhawk helicopters, one of which was 
     piloted by a Chief Warrant Officer who had flown some of the 
     critical early life saving missions. His inflight commentary 
     was invaluable. During our lengthy overflight of the north 
     coast the delegation was able to view at least a cross 
     section of the infrastructure repairs that have been made 
     throughout Central America during the second or 
     ``rehabilitation'' phase of our operations. We landed and 
     walked across bridges built by our engineers. We watched 
     commerce laden 18-wheel tractor-trailers rumble over culvert 
     bypasses that U.S. troops have built over rivers pending the 
     reconstruction of permanent bridges. The members took the 
     time to flag down passing pickup trucks and talk about 
     conditions in Honduras with the simple people from the 
     countryside who have been most affected by the disaster. I'm 
     sure they will pass along to you the comments made by 
     ``mainstream'' Central Americans about our presence and what 
     it has achieved.
       Later in the day, we landed in northeastern Honduras and 
     the members had the opportunity to visit a base camp 
     established by members of the Guard and Reserve who are 
     supporting the third and final phase of our engagement, the 
     expanded New Horizons Exercise program. During this phase 
     approximately 23,000 engineers, medics and support personnel 
     from the Guard and Reserve will deploy to the region in two-
     three week increments during which they will build 33 schools 
     and 12 clinics, drill 27 high capacity wells, repair and 
     rehabilitate more bridges, bypasses and secondary roads and 
     conduct medical, dental and veterinary outreach programs that 
     will touch from 70,000 to 100,000 Central American men, women 
     and children in remote parts of the countryside. I expect the 
     members will describe to you the outstanding organization of 
     the base camps, the uniformly high morale and positive 
     attitudes of the troops involved in this undertaking, and the 
     relevance of the work they will do.
       I would like to mention two specific events that took place 
     during the visit that I considered to be particularly 
     meaningful. The first was the CODEL's visit with President 
     Flores on Friday evening.
       I was pleased and surprised when the 45-minute planned 
     visit by the CODEL stretched out for an hour and a half, 
     going well into the evening. I have never seen the President 
     as relaxed, cordial or communicative as I saw him Friday 
     night. Congressman Hobson speculated that perhaps this was 
     because he found himself in the company of fellow elected 
     officials as compared and contrasted with career diplomats 
     and senior military officers. In sum, I think the members of 
     the Delegation built a remarkable instant rapport with 
     President Flores, put him at ease, and received from him a 
     very personal, open and unabridged assessment of conditions 
     past, present and future in Honduras.
       The second event was a ``casual conversation'' that 
     Congressman Hobson and I had with * * *. This exchange was 
     significant because it involved a member of the private 
     sector, well placed in the business community, with no real 
     personal or professional ties to the Flores administration. 
     Congressman Hobson asked * * * very directly what he, as a 
     businessman, thought the United States should and should not 
     do for Honduras. I found * * * 15 minute answer very 
     instructive and more than a little bit reassuring from a DOD 
     standpoint. * * * stated emphatically, that our emphasis 
     should be on infrastructure repair and development. He 
     mentioned specifically reinstallation of bridges and repair 
     of secondary and tertiary farm-to-market roads. He stated 
     emphatically that we should not give Honduras ``checks''. In 
     his words ``we are lousy managers,'' and he went on to assert 
     that between local politics and bureaucracy there was reason 
     for concern that this type of aid would not accomplish the 
     purposes for which it is intended. I should add that * * * 
     had absolutely nothing disparaging to say about the Flores 
     administration. In fact, he later volunteered to me that he 
     thought this was a fundamentally honest government doing its 
     best to cope with a difficult situation. Congressman Hobson 
     and I took these comments on board with considerable interest 
     because this gentleman had no ax to grind. This was another 
     example of the value of congressional visits. The 
     conversation between Mr. Hobson and * * * was essentially one 
     that took place between two businessmen. They spoke the same 
     language and it provided some unique perspectives on the 
     issues and decisions that confront us.
       I believe that my testimony before Chairman Lewis and the 
     members of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee last week was 
     timely and their questions were very relevant. This visit was 
     a useful adjunct. I'm sure that the points that I emphasized 
     at the hearing and to this CODEL will come as no surprise. 
     First, I think DOD resources are being applied in precisely 
     the right way in Central America. We arrived in force on the 
     front end of the crisis and provided the emergency support 
     and assistance that only DOD can provide. We are now 
     concluding the second phase of our involvement during which 
     we have exploited our unique expeditionary capabilities, 
     assisting the host nations to regain their equilibrium and 
     restoring their ability to provide for the essential health 
     and welfare needs of their people. Finally, as the third 
     phase unwinds we will revert to our normal engagement 
     activities but at a higher tempo and intensity. At the end of 
     this phase we will resume normal activities in the region and 
     complete the DOD disengagement that has occasionally eluded 
     us at other times in other places. I am firmly convinced that 
     if we skillfully play this hand out, at the end of the day we 
     will emerge with a significantly strengthened posture in 
     the region and with a ``good will account'' on which we 
     may be able to write checks from some time to come.
       Mr. Chairman, as you know better than most, none of this 
     has been free. During the three phases of the operation, DOD 
     will write checks totaling about $215.3M. I hope that you 
     will be able to provide supplemental funding for these 
     unanticipated and unfunded requirements. If required to 
     provide offsets, I'm afraid there will be little recourse 
     other than to extort funds from our readiness accounts and 
     other programs that support and sustain our regional 
     strategies. As you know, time is of the essence because at 
     this moment important accounts that support other crucial 
     worldwide engagement programs have been frozen to underwrite 
     our expenses in Central America. As examples, because the 
     $50M Overseas Humanitarian Disaster and Civic Aid (OHDACA) 
     account is encumbered, we lack resources to pursue important, 
     high visibility humanitarian demining programs throughout our 
     region and around the world. Because the $20M CINCs 
     Initiative Fund (CIF) is similarly committed, I have been 
     unable to proceed with the publication of a crucial human 
     rights handbook and training program that is designed to help 
     the Colombian military overcome its deficiencies in that very 
     contentious area. These are merely illustrative of stalled 
     initiatives in Southern Command. The list could go on and on 
     with other examples for EUCOM, PACOM, CENTCOM and ACOM.
       I learned this morning that you are considering a visit to 
     the region, perhaps during the third week of this month. I 
     hope this can be arranged and I am clearing my calendar to 
     accompany you, assuming I can wrangle an invitation. I 
     believe you would gain valuable insights by observing what 
     has been done and what is being done by DOD and others to 
     help Central America get back on its feet. As I mentioned to 
     Congressmen Hobson, Tiahrt and Farr on several occasions, it 
     is important that we not lose sight of the fact that during 
     the decades of the 70's and 80's Central America was engulfed 
     by civil wars and was anything but a bastion of democracy. 
     Today, all the nations are led by heads of state who serve at 
     the pleasure of the people and all have market economics. 
     However, these institutions are fragile and immature. We need 
     to help them over the rough spots, and there is more than a 
     little self-interest at stake. As I asserted in my annual 
     posture statement, ``In a larger strategic context, this 
     unparalleled theater engagement opportunity may stem waves of 
     migrants who might otherwise seek to rebuild their lives in 
     the United States or neighboring countries.'' Again, many 
     thanks for your interest in our region and for your support 
     of DOD.
           Very respectfully,

                                                 C.E. Wilhelm,

                                       General, U.S. Marine Corps,
                        Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command.

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal privilege.
  The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) took the floor----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend. A question of personal 
privilege may not be raised in the Committee of the Whole.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute to correct the record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California to speak out of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
wonder if I could inquire whether this relates to the debate. It is 
getting late. There are other amendments to be considered. I am not 
going to object if it relates to the debate that we are having, but if 
it is on a personal matter, the gentlewoman might want to take it up 
with the Member in question.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would not be here unless it related to 
the debate that we are involved in.

[[Page H1653]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kansas indicated that I 
had voted for such an action as he is prescribing for the offsets. 
There is a letter that has been disseminated by Secretary Rubin that 
says, ``The 1994 action and the current proposal are not analogous. In 
1994, the U.S. had not subscribed the paid-in and callable capital 
which were rescinded. The current proposal, however, would reach back 
to capital to which we have formally subscribed and on the basis of 
which we have exercised voting rights for many years. This proposal has 
rightly become a concern of the markets.''
  For the record, it should be clear that it is not analogous and that 
I and others did not vote for money that had already been appropriated.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me once again address the chair, as I 
think the rules tell us we should do, and to sort of give a brief 
history of where we are with respect to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Kansas.
  The Republican Conference and others came to us and asked us to 
offset this emergency supplemental spending bill. Originally I was 
opposed to it, but when we finally agreed to it, we found areas within 
our scope of jurisdiction in foreign operations to offset every single 
penny of foreign assistance. We found ways to offset the necessary 
money for Jordan. We found ways to offset all of the money for the 
problems with respect to aid to Central America, and we found them 
within our own jurisdiction, our own little pot of money that we have 
that we call foreign operations. I think that that was a responsible 
thing to do and it is exactly what we did.
  Now comes the gentleman from Kansas, and I know his mission is noble 
and I do not question that, but I think if he wants to find offsets, he 
should recognize that those of us on this small subcommittee of the 
Congress and the Committee on Appropriations have found our offset 
within our jurisdiction, within our little area of responsibility. Now 
he is saying, take some more money out of foreign assistance and give 
it to the military. Maybe that is right, maybe it is wrong. I think it 
is wrong. If he wants to find offsets from some other area, that is 
fine with me. But I think that history will show us that for the last 4 
years that we have acted very responsibly with respect to foreign 
assistance. We have cut the President's request every year by more than 
$1 billion every year since I have been chairman of this subcommittee. 
We are probably going to cut his budget even more so this year, maybe 
as much as 3 or $4 billion. We are doing the responsible thing. We did 
exactly what the people of our own conference requested; we found 
offsets. We found them within our area of jurisdiction.
  I think if the gentleman from Kansas wants to find additional moneys 
to offset the military portion of it, he should do it elsewhere. I 
happen to agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) with 
respect to the fact that we are going to have to have another 
supplemental bill in just a few short months to handle this situation 
in Kosovo. And to raid the foreign operations account which has been 
handled in an admirable and I think efficient manner during the last 4 
years is wrong.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against the Tiahrt amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tiahrt amendment. As 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, I cannot support 
gutting the funding of the International Financial Institutions. I want 
to remind my colleagues that these financial institutions help 
guarantee the IRAs of millions of Americans whose mutual funds are 
invested in Asia. Currently we have a financial crisis in Asia that the 
financial institutions are key to combating. We are currently 
conducting military operations in Iraq and in Kosovo. We cannot afford 
an Asian crisis on top of those costly operations. This is the wrong 
time to undercut our financial institutions which are supporting 
reforms in Indonesia and in South Korea. In Korea, we face a crisis in 
North Korea and the strength of our South Korean ally's economy is 
critical to deterring aggression in that area.
  I join with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) in strongly 
opposing this amendment. Cutting callable capital is not the way to 
save a dime but can trigger yet a third crisis that could involve our 
troops in Asia. Let us stick with the bill as drafted by the gentleman 
from Florida, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  I commend the gentleman from Kansas for defending Social Security. I 
support that goal. But cutting callable capital for these institutions 
will not save one dime for Social Security. Let us work on reductions 
in other accounts not directly related to our Nation's security.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the debate on this amendment be limited to 15 minutes and 
that the time be equally divided, with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt) controlling 7\1/2\ minutes and that I would control the other 
7\1/2\ minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is understood that the limitation is on the 
amendment and any amendments thereto.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, that is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will each control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise 
in very strong support of the bipartisan Tiahrt-Goode amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting the Committee on 
Appropriations on their work. They did a tremendous job of offsetting 
85 percent of this supplemental appropriation and they are to be 
complimented for that. But in point of fact, it is possible to offset 
the balance, to offset 15 percent. I think the most eloquent spokesman 
on that point was my Democratic colleague the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goode) who pointed out quite clearly that if we went home to 
Americans and asked them, do they want this additional $195 million 
which would be offset by the bipartisan Tiahrt-Goode amendment, do they 
want that taken out of the callable capital account, an account which 
has never been used by the World Bank, or do they want that taken out 
of Social Security, their answer would be very clear, they do not want 
it taken out of Social Security, they want it taken out of the callable 
capital account.
  There is a very good reason for that. This is an account which is 
there for the World Bank to draw on as a backstop. But as the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) pointed out earlier, the United States is 
unique in the world in its funding of this account. Every other country 
participating in this account pledged their credit to fund the account 
if ever called upon. The United States by contrast put up the money. 
The money is sitting there and right now not being used for any 
purpose. It can clearly be used to offset the remaining 15 percent of 
the bill, of the emergency spending bill, and protect Social Security.
  For the gentleman from Alabama who says we should not do this and for 
the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, I would point 
out that in 1994 an amendment passed this House, sponsored by Mr. Fazio 
of the other side, going into the callable capital account to the tune 
of $902 million. Now, if it was okay in 1994 to dip into that fund for 
$902 million, tell me why then it is not appropriate to keep our word 
to the American people on

[[Page H1654]]

Social Security, to dip into it now for a total of $843 million which 
is the figure which would occur if the Tiahrt amendment passes?
  The simple truth is that we can dip into that account, the callable 
capital account, and protect Social Security. To my friend from the 
other side who was very offended that we are breaking our word to the 
world by not funding this account, where is it more important, that we 
would break our word, which, by the way, we are not breaking our word 
because we have put up the cash--the rest of the world has only put up 
their promise--but what about our promise to the American people that 
we would fund the Social Security trust fund?
  I suggest that the Tiahrt amendment keeps faith with the American 
people. It keeps faith with our national accounts. The callable capital 
account is an account which has never in its 40-year history been 
dipped into. I suggest that Members of this body interested in 
protecting Social Security without a risk should support the bipartisan 
Tiahrt-Goode amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the great privilege of representing a 
congressional district that has more people receiving Social Security 
checks every month than almost everybody else in this Chamber. I can 
promise Members that I would not cast a vote or take a position here 
that in my opinion would be detrimental to the Social Security program. 
To the contrary, I recall a few years back when Ronald Reagan was 
President, we had a very large tax increase to save the Social 
Security, and despite much criticism from many people in my district, I 
voted for that as a commitment to Social Security.
  Tomorrow we are going to be debating the budget resolution where we 
talk about how much we will set aside for Social Security. I am going 
to support every effort to protect the Social Security program and to 
set aside all of the FICA tax because that is why we created that tax 
in the first place. We are dealing with fiscal year 1999 money here. We 
are not dealing with next year's budget surpluses or anything like 
that. We are dealing with fiscal year 1999 money.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The bill as presented 
by the committee which the House has supported to this point is a good 
bill. The offsets are reasonable and responsible. I am concerned, as I 
said just a few minutes ago, that we would begin the precedent over 
again of offsetting from our defense requirements and our defense needs 
and the needs of the men and women who serve in our military. I do not 
want to begin the precedent of offsetting their extraordinary 
deployments that they are required to attend.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for not only opposition to this amendment but I 
ask for support of the bill. Let us get this bill into conference and 
let us get the bill to the President and let us get the support to our 
friends in Central America where the commitments have been made.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would just like to remind Members of the House that half this bill is 
currently offset by the callable capital account. That is a total of 85 
percent of this bill that is offset. I do not find any reason why we 
should not offset the full amount.
  I noted that the gentlewoman from California says she has a letter 
from Secretary Rubin. I have the Congressional Record. What happened in 
1994 was that the increases to capital stock going into the capital 
account was rescinded under the disaster bill. That vote passed by 415-
2.
  So a precedent was set then, and I think I am just following that 
precedent was set, I am following what the committee has done before, 
and I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the Tiahrt amendment. I 
think it is sound fiscal policy, it is pay-as-you-go policy, I feel 
strongly about these offsets that they are good offsets, and it is very 
much needed for the disaster down in Central America.
  So I would ask for support for the Tiahrt-Goode-Toomey amendment.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I simply applaud the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt) for offering this amendment because to me what this 
amendment is about is simply asking the question: ``Can you be one half 
pregnant?'' I do not think that one can be. Someone either is or they 
are not, and what he has boldly said here is that either we are going 
to set aside every dime for the things that we say we are going to set 
aside for or we are not, because if not, though this number is small, 
we run down a very slippery slope on the things we end up spending for 
and end up not spending for.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 264, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 69]

                               AYES--164

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--264

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee

[[Page H1655]]


     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Myrick
     Peterson (PA)
     Sanders
     Slaughter
     Stupak

                              {time}  1704

  Messrs. HINOJOSA, HILL of Indiana, SCOTT, FARR of California, GEORGE 
MILLER of California and Mrs. MINK of Hawaii changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GILCHREST, DAVIS of Virginia and BOEHLERT changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 36, line 10, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 36, line 10, is as 
follows:


                international organizations and programs

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277, $10,000,000 are rescinded.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the budgetary resources provided for ``Small Community 
     Air Service'' by Public Law 101-508 for fiscal years prior to 
     fiscal year 1998, $815,000 are rescinded.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                       State Infrastructure Banks


                              (rescission)

       Of the available balances under this heading, $6,500,000 
     are rescinded.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Trust Fund Share of Transit Programs


                          (highway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the budgetary resources provided for the trust fund 
     share of transit programs in Public Law 102-240 under 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(a)(1), $665,000 are rescinded.

                  Interstate Transfer Grants--Transit

       Of the available balances under this heading, $600,000 are 
     rescinded.

                     GENERAL PROVISION--THIS TITLE

       Sec. 1001. Division B, title I, chapter 1 of Public Law 
     105-277 is amended as follows: under the heading ``Operation 
     and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', strike ``$1,496,600,000'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``$1,456,600,000''.

                                TITLE II

              SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                             THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses,'' 
     $921,000, to remain available until expended.

                DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    United States Information Agency


                        buying power maintenance

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $20,000,000 are rescinded.

                               CHAPTER 2

      UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

       For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of 
     the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 
     105-292), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    EXPORT AND INVESTMENT ASSISTANCE


                export-import bank of the united states

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances of funds available under this 
     heading, $25,000,000 are rescinded.

                               CHAPTER 3

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 105-83, $6,800,000 are rescinded.

           Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians


                         federal trust programs

       For an additional amount for ``Federal Trust Programs'', 
     $21,800,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $6,800,000 is for activities pursuant to the Trust Management 
     Improvement Project High Level Implementation Plan and 
     $15,000,000 is to support litigation involving individual 
     Indian trust accounts: Provided, That litigation support 
     funds may, as needed, be transferred to and merged with the 
     ``Operation of Indian Programs'' account in the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs, the ``Salaries and Expenses'' account in the 
     Office of the Solicitor, the ``Salaries and Expenses'' 
     account in Departmental Management, the ``Royalty and 
     Offshore Minerals Management'' account in the Minerals 
     Management Service and the ``Management of Lands and 
     Resources'' account in the Bureau of Land Management.

                               CHAPTER 4

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       Under this heading in section 101(f) of Public Law 105-277, 
     strike ``$3,132,076,000'' and insert ``$3,111,076,000'' and 
     strike ``$180,933,000'' and insert ``$164,933,000''.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                federal capital loan program for nursing

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under the Federal Capital Loan 
     Program for Nursing appropriation account, $2,800,000 are 
     rescinded.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


            education research, statistics, and improvement

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in section 
     101(f) of Public Law 105-277, $6,800,000 are rescinded.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                  Corporation for Public Broadcasting

       For an additional amount for the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting, to remain available until expended, $30,600,000 
     to be available for fiscal year 1999, and $17,400,000 to be 
     available for fiscal year 2000: Provided, That such funds be 
     made available to National Public Radio, as the designated 
     manager of the Public Radio Satellite System, for acquisition 
     of satellite capacity.

                               CHAPTER 5

                        CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds


                         house office buildings

                          house page dormitory

       For necessary expenses for renovations to the facility 
     located at 501 First Street, S.E., in the District of 
     Columbia, $3,760,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol shall transfer to 
     the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives such portion of the funds made available 
     under this paragraph as may be required for expenses incurred 
     by the Chief Administrative Officer in the renovation of the 
     facility, subject to the approval of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives: Provided 
     further, That section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (41 U.S.C. 5) shall not apply to the funds made 
     available under this paragraph.


                     o'neill house office building

       For necessary expenses for life safety renovations to the 
     O'Neill House Office Building, $1,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That section 3709 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (41 U.S.C. 5) shall not 
     apply to the funds made available under this paragraph.

                ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 501. (a) The aggregate amount otherwise authorized to 
     be appropriated for a fiscal year for the lump-sum allowance 
     for the Office of the Minority Leader of the House of

[[Page H1656]]

     Representatives and the aggregate amount otherwise authorized 
     to be appropriated for a fiscal year for the lump-sum 
     allowance for the Office of the Majority Whip of the House of 
     Representatives shall each be increased by $333,000.
       (b) This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 
     2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.
       Sec. 502. (a) Each office described under the heading 
     ``HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFICES'' in the Act making appropriations 
     for the legislative branch for a fiscal year may transfer any 
     amounts appropriated for the office under such heading among 
     the various categories of allowances and expenses for the 
     office under such heading.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 
     amounts appropriated for official expenses.
       (c) This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 
     1999 and each succeeding fiscal year.

                               CHAPTER 6

                             POSTAL SERVICE

                  Payments to the Postal Service Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Payments to the Postal 
     Service Fund'' for revenue forgone reimbursement pursuant to 
     39 U.S.C., 2401(d), $29,000,000.

                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

                          Unanticipated Needs


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 101-130, the Fiscal Year 1990 Dire Emergency Supplemental 
     to Meet the Needs of Natural Disasters of National 
     Significance, $10,000,000 are rescinded.

                               CHAPTER 7

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                   Community Planning and Development


                   community development block grants

       Notwithstanding the 6th undesignated paragraph under the 
     heading ``Community Planning and Development--community 
     development block grants'' in title II of the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-276; 112 Stat. 2477) and the related provisions of the 
     joint explanatory statement in the conference report to 
     accompany such Act (Report 105-769, 105th Congress, 2d 
     Session) referred to in such paragraph, of the amounts 
     provided under such heading and made available for the 
     Economic Development Initiative (EDI) for grants for targeted 
     economic investments, $250,000 shall be for a grant to 
     Project Restore of Los Angeles, California, for the Los 
     Angeles City Civic Center Trust, to revitalize and redevelop 
     the Civic Center neighborhood, and $100,000 shall be for a 
     grant to the Southeast Rio Vista Family YMCA, for development 
     of a child care center in the City of Huntington Park, 
     California.

                     Management and Administration


                      office of inspector general

       Under this heading in Public Law 105-276, add the words, 
     ``to remain available until September 30, 2000,'' after 
     $81,910,000,''.

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

       Sec. 2001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 2002. (a) Loan Deficiency Payments for Club Wheat 
     Producers.--In making loan deficiency payments available 
     under section 135 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 7235) to producers of club wheat, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may not assess a premium adjustment on the amount 
     that would otherwise be computed for club wheat under the 
     section to reflect the premium that is paid for club wheat to 
     ensure its availability to create a blended specialty product 
     known as western white wheat.
       (b) Retroactive Application.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall make a payment to each producer of club 
     wheat that received a discounted loan deficiency payment 
     under section 135 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 7235) before that date as a result of the 
     assessment of a premium adjustment against club wheat. The 
     amount of the payment for a producer shall be equal to the 
     difference between--
       (1) the loan deficiency payment that would have been made 
     to the producer in the absence of the premium adjustment; and
       (2) the loan deficiency payment actually received by the 
     producer.
       (c) Funding Source.--The Secretary shall use funds 
     available to provide marketing assistance loans and loan 
     deficiency payments under subtitle C of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231 et seq.) to make the 
     payments required by subsection (b).

                               TITLE III

                         TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

       Sec. 3001. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (as contained in division A, section 101(a) of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) is amended--
       (a) in title III, under the heading ``Rural Community 
     Advancement Program, (Including Transfer of Funds)'', by 
     inserting ``1926d,'' after ``1926c,''; by inserting ``, 306C, 
     and 306D'' after ``381E(d)(2)'' the first time it appears in 
     the paragraph; and by striking ``, as provided in 7 U.S.C. 
     1926(a) and 7 U.S.C. 1926C'',
       (b) in title VII, in section 718 by striking ``this Act'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``annual appropriations Acts'',
       (c) in title VII, in section 747 by striking ``302'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``203'', and
       (d) in title VII, in section 763(b)(3) by striking ``Public 
     Law 94-265'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Public Law 104-
     297''.
       Sec. 3002. Division B, title V, chapter 1 of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277) is amended under the heading 
     ``Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service'' 
     by inserting after ``$23,000,000,'' the following: ``to 
     remain available until expended,''.
       Sec. 3003. The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
     Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 ( as contained in 
     division A, section 101(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277)) is amended--
       (a) in title II under the heading ``Burma'' by striking 
     `headings ``Economic Support Fund'' and' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof `headings ``Child Survival and Disease Programs 
     Fund'', ``Economic Support Fund'' and',
       (b) in title V in section 587 by striking ``199-339'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``99-399'',
       (c) in title V in subsection 594(a) by striking 
     ``subparagraph (C)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``subsection (c)'',
       (d) in title V in subsection 594(b) by striking 
     ``subparagraph (a)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``subsection (a)'', and
       (e) in title V in subsection 594(c) by striking ``521 of 
     the annual appropriations Act for Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``520 of this Act''.
       Sec. 3004. Subsection 1706(b) of title XVII of the 
     International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r-
     262r-2), as added by section 614 of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1999, is amended by striking ``June 30'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``September 30''.
       Sec. 3005. The Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in division 
     A, section 101(e) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) 
     is amended--
       (a) in the last proviso under the heading ``United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, Administrative Provisions'' by 
     striking ``section 104(c)(50)(B) of the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``section 104(c)(5)(B) of the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407)''.
       (b) in section 354(a) by striking ``16 U.S.C. 544(a)(2))'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``16 U.S.C. 544b(a)(2))''.
       (c) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of this 
     section shall take effect as if included in Public Law 105-
     277 on the date of its enactment.
       Sec. 3006. The Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (as contained in division A, section 101(f) of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) is amended--
       (a) in title I, under the heading ``Federal Unemployment 
     Benefits and Allowances'', by striking ``during the current 
     fiscal year'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``from October 1, 
     1998, through September 30, 1999'';
       (b) in title II under the heading ``Office of the 
     Secretary, General Departmental Management'' by striking 
     ``$180,051,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$188,051,000'';
       (c) in title II under the heading ``Children and Families 
     Services Programs, (Including Rescissions)'' by striking 
     ``notwithstanding section 640 (a)(6), of the funds made 
     available for the Head Start Act, $337,500,000 shall be set 
     aside for the Head Start Program for Families with Infants 
     and Toddlers (Early Head Start): Provided further, That'';
       (d) in title II under the heading ``Office of the 
     Secretary, General Departmental Management'' by inserting 
     after the first proviso the following: ``Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading for 
     carrying out title XX of the Public Health Service Act, 
     $10,831,000 shall be for activities specified under section 
     2003(b)(2), of which $9,131,000 shall be for prevention 
     service demonstration grants under section 510(b)(2) of title 
     V of the Social Security Act, as amended, without application 
     of the limitation of section 2010(c) of said title XX:'';
       (e) in title III under the heading ``Special Education'' by 
     inserting before the period at the end of the paragraph the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That $1,500,000 shall be for 
     the recipient of funds provided by Public Law 105-78 under 
     section 687(b)(2)(G) of the Act to provide information on 
     diagnosis, intervention, and teaching strategies for children 
     with disabilities'';
       (f) in title II under the heading ``Public Health and 
     Social Services Emergency Fund'' by striking ``$322,000'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$180,000'';
       (g) in title III under the heading ``Education Reform'' by 
     striking ``$491,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$459,500,000'';
       (h) in title III under the heading ``Vocational and Adult 
     Education'' by striking ``$6,000,000'' the first time that it 
     appears and

[[Page H1657]]

     inserting in lieu thereof ``$14,000,000'', and by inserting 
     before the period at the end of the paragraph the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the amounts made available for 
     the Perkins Act, $4,100,000 shall be for tribally controlled 
     postsecondary vocational institutions under section 117'';
       (i) in title III under the heading ``Higher Education'' by 
     inserting after the first proviso the following: ``Provided 
     further, That funds available for part A, subpart 2 of title 
     VII of the Higher Education Act shall be available to fund 
     awards for academic year 1999-2000 for fellowships under part 
     A, subpart 1 of title VII of said Act, under the terms and 
     conditions of part A, subpart 1:'';
       (j) in title III under the heading ``Education Research, 
     Statistics, and Improvement'' by inserting after the third 
     proviso the following: ``Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under section 10601 of title X of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, $1,000,000 
     shall be used to conduct a violence prevention demonstration 
     program: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under section 10601 of title X of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, $50,000 shall be 
     awarded to the Center for Educational Technologies to conduct 
     a feasibility study and initial planning and design of an 
     effective CD ROM product that would complement the book, We 
     the People: The Citizen and the Constitution:'';
       (k) in title III under the heading ``Reading Excellence'' 
     by inserting before the period at the end of the paragraph 
     the following: ``: Provided, That up to one percent of the 
     amount appropriated shall be available October 1, 1998 for 
     peer review of applications'';
       (l) in title V in section 510(3) by inserting after ``Act'' 
     the following: ``or subsequent Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Acts''; and
       (m)(1) in title VIII in section 405 by striking subsection 
     (e) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(e) Other References to Title VII of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.--The table of contents of 
     the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11301 et seq.) is amended--
       ``(1) by striking the items relating to title VII of such 
     Act, except the item relating to the title heading and the 
     items relating to subtitles B and C of such title; and
       ``(2) by striking the item relating to the title heading 
     for title VII and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

               `` `TITLE VII--EDUCATION AND TRAINING'.''.

       (2) The amendments made by subsection (m)(1) of this 
     section shall take effect as if included in Public Law 105-
     277 on the date of its enactment.
       Sec. 3007. The last sentence of section 5595(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code (as added by section 309(a)(2) of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-
     275) is amended by striking ``(a)(1)(G)'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``(a)(1)(C)''.
       Sec. 3008. The Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in division 
     A, section 101(g) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) 
     is amended: (a) in title I under the heading ``National 
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Operations and 
     Research, (Highway Trust Fund)'' by inserting before the 
     period at the end of the paragraph ``: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding other funds available in this Act for the 
     National Advanced Driving Simulator Program, funds under this 
     heading are available for obligation, as necessary, to 
     continue this program through September 30, 1999''.
       Sec. 3009. Division B, title II, chapter 5 of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277) is amended under the heading 
     ``Capitol Police Board, Security Enhancements'' by inserting 
     before the period at the end of the paragraph ``: Provided 
     further, That for purposes of carrying out the plan or plans 
     described under this heading and consistent with the approval 
     of such plan or plans pursuant to this heading, the Capitol 
     Police Board shall transfer the portion of the funds made 
     available under this heading which are to be used for 
     personnel and overtime increases for the United States 
     Capitol Police to the heading ``Capitol Police Board, Capitol 
     Police, Salaries'' under the Act making appropriations for 
     the legislative branch for the fiscal year involved, and 
     shall allocate such portion between the Sergeant at Arms of 
     the House of Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and 
     Doorkeeper of the Senate in such amounts as may be approved 
     by the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate''.
       Sec. 3010. Section 3027(d)(3) of the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5307 note: 112 Stat. 366) 
     as added by section 360 of the Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained 
     in division A, section 101(g) of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277)) is re-designated as section 3027(c)(3).
       Sec. 3011. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
     the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 
     (as contained in division A, section 101(b) of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277)) is amended--
       (a) in title I, under the heading ``Legal Activities, 
     Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'', by 
     inserting ``and shall remain available until September 30, 
     2000'' after ``Holocaust Assets in the United States'', and
       (b) in title IV, under the heading ``Department of State, 
     Administration of Foreign Affairs, Salaries and Expenses'', 
     by inserting ``and shall remain available until September 30, 
     2000'' after ``Holocaust Assets in the United States''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to the bill?


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bentsen

  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bentsen:
       Page 36, after line 10, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 3012. None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to release from detention any 
     criminal alien subject to mandatory detention pending removal 
     from the United States.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today, 
which the gentleman has reserved a point of order against, would 
prohibit the use of any funds in this act or any other act for the 
release of criminal aliens from detention centers run by the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. This would only apply to 
criminal aliens subject to mandatory detention who are pending removal 
from the United States.
  With the passage of the 1996 immigration reform law, Congress and the 
President placed a high priority on removing noncitizen criminals from 
the United States. This bipartisan reform law mandated detention of 
criminal aliens until their removal and provided the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service with two additional years to implement the law. 
It is worth noting that since 1996, Congress has doubled the funding 
for detention and deportation to $730 million.
  In February of this year, reports surfaced that the INS planned to 
release criminal aliens, many of whom are being held on felony charges. 
Specifically, the INS issued a memorandum on January 8, 1999, which 
alerted field offices of a shortfall in detention space funding and 
offered guidelines for the release of criminal aliens who comprise the 
vast majority of the INS detainees awaiting deportation.
  In response, the INS eastern region's regional director released a 
draft plan in early February to free 1,550 criminal aliens under a 
point system that would give priority to those with the least serious 
convictions. Among those eligible for release under the proposal were 
criminal aliens who had been convicted in U.S. courts for such crimes 
as drug trafficking, assault, burglary, counterfeiting and alien 
smuggling.
  After much congressional criticism, INS Commissioner Meissner 
reversed the agency's plan. However, it is incomprehensible why such an 
idea was considered in the first place. Quite simply, it is imperative 
that the INS continue to detain and remove criminal aliens subject to 
the mandatory detention requirements of the 1996 immigration law. To do 
so effectively, it is important to disallow the use of all INS funding 
alternatives, including funds appropriated in previous budgets from 
being used for the release of criminal aliens, not just those contained 
in the bill before us today.
  The amendment I am offering would thus codify the stated plans of 
Commissioner Meissner who said before the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims on February 25, 1999, that INS will not now release any 
aliens subject to mandatory detention under section 303 of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the INS has been woefully inadequate 
in dealing with this problem. I know

[[Page H1658]]

there are a lot of concerns about the IRAIRA law as it relates to 
certain resident aliens and people who were in the country legally, but 
this applies to people who enter the country illegally and who then 
commit either a felony or a misdemeanor and then are subject to 
deportation.
  In my State of Texas, in the State of Florida, in California, in the 
eastern region of this country, this has been a serious problem. The 
INS has not been very good at getting back to us.
  Earlier this year my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, from 
the Houston area, wrote to Commissioner Meissner asking that she 
address this problem. She did not respond to us until today, when I 
received a letter from her, coincidentally. In that letter, actually, 
it was from her Director of Congressional Relations, in the letter they 
did state that they have reversed the policy.
  It states that various options are being explored which will give the 
agency some relief, both in the short-term and long-term detention, 
including the possibility of seeking additional funding or the 
restoration of temporary period custody rule release authority; that 
is, they want to go back to releasing people who have been convicted of 
felonies. That is unacceptable to the constituents in my district. I 
think it would be unacceptable to most Members' constituents in their 
districts.
  So while it is unfortunate that the point of order will probably be 
raised on this, the fact remains that this is the only game in town 
right now. If we are not going to get around to dealing with this until 
we take up the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, how do we know 
that the INS is not going to go back and change their policy once 
again?
  I appreciate the chairman not wanting to load up his bill with a lot 
of amendments, but if this was the fiscal year 1999 bill, this would 
have been a straight limitation which I would have offered. At that 
time we did not know this was going to be a problem.
  This does not add any new money. It does something that I think the 
Congress has already spoken on. I would hope the gentleman would not 
raise this point of order, and we could go ahead and have this adopted 
on a voice vote by the committee and move on.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law, constitutes 
legislation on an appropriations bill, and it violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, ``No amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' This 
amendment does not apply solely to the appropriation under 
consideration, and as much as I believe in what the gentleman is trying 
to do, and I think through the regular process we can do it, I must ask 
for a ruling of the Chair on this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) wish to 
respond to the point of order?
  Mr. BENTSEN. The only thing I will say is, I am disappointed that my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida, would do this. We have an 
opportunity to address this today. There is no guarantee that the 
committee of jurisdiction would get around to it. It is unfortunate. 
This is a real problem, but so be it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) makes a point of order that 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  As stated at page 131 of House Practice, to avoid legislating a 
limitation must apply solely to the funds in the bill under 
consideration and may not be applied to funds appropriated in other 
acts.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) 
explicitly addresses funds in other acts. The provision therefore 
constitutes legislation, and the point of order is sustained.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
       At the end of title II (page 26, after line 2), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 2003. (a) Authority To Make Payments.--Subject to the 
     provisions of this section, the Secretary of Defense is 
     authorized to enter into agreements to make payments for the 
     settlement of the claims arising from the deaths caused by 
     the accident involving a United States Marine Corps EA-6B 
     aircraft on February 3, 1998, near Cavalese, Italy.
       (b) Deadline for Exercise of Authority.--The Secretary 
     shall exercise the authority under subsection (a) not later 
     than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Source of Payments.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, of the amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available for the Department of the Navy for operation 
     and maintenance for fiscal year 1999, the Secretary shall 
     make available $40,000,000 only for emergency and 
     extraordinary expenses associated with the settlement of the 
     claims arising from the accident described in subsection (a), 
     unless the agreements made pursuant to the authority granted 
     in subsection (a) provide for payments over a longer period.
       (d) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment under 
     this section in settlement of the claims arising from the 
     death of any person associated with the accident described in 
     subsection (a) may not exceed $2,000,000.
       (e) Treatment of Payments.--Any amount paid to a person 
     under this section is intended to supplement any amount 
     subsequently determined to be payable to the person under 
     section 127 or chapter 163 of title 10, United States Code, 
     or any other provision of law for administrative settlement 
     of claims against the United States with respect to damages 
     arising from the accident described in subsection (a).
       (f) Construction.--The payment of an amount under this 
     section may not be considered to constitute a statement of 
     legal liability on the part of the United States or otherwise 
     as evidence of any material fact in any judicial proceeding 
     or investigation arising from the accident described in 
     subsection (a).

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) reserves a point 
of order on the amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, while I will not contest the 
point of order because this is legislating on an appropriation bill, I 
thought this issue was important enough to bring it before this body 
right now.
  On February 3 of last year, near Cavalese, Italy, a Marine pilot 
inadvertently ran into a gondola on a ski lift and killed 20 people. It 
has been an international incident ever since.
  While I agree and fully support the ruling of the court-martial that 
those pilots were not in error in this horrible tragedy, I do believe 
that we owe those people who died some monetary damages. We owe their 
families some monetary damages.
  We have spent $20 million repairing the gondola and the ski lift and 
the other things that were damaged near Cavalese, Italy, but we have 
not done really very much to take care of the people who were really 
hurt by this horrible tragedy, the families of those people.
  The Italian court system takes between 3 and 10 years to settle these 
kinds of claims. It seems to me relatively inhuman to make these people 
wait that long before we pay them the damages to which they are 
entitled. They are suffering a great deal right now.
  I do not know what kind of message it sends to the world when we take 
care of the ski lift but we do not take care of the Human tragedy that 
was involved. It is my opinion that the Defense Department has about 
$68 million in unobligated funds from prior years from which to draw 
this money. We are talking about a maximum of around $1 to $2 million 
for each one of the families that were involved. I would just say to my 
colleagues, although I know there is going to be a point of order that 
is going to be sustained on this, that we ought to do something about 
this in the very near future.
  I would urge the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
chairman of the Committee on Armed

[[Page H1659]]

Services, to do what they can to make sure reparations are dealt with 
in a very timely fashion. We do not want these people to suffer for 
another 3 to 10 years because this thing is being dragged out. Yell.
  Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the United States was at fault. There is no 
question about that. While the pilots may not have been at fault, those 
maps did not have the gondola on them, did not have the ski lift on 
them. The altimeter on the plane, there is some question about whether 
or not it was working. When they flew into that valley, even though 
there was an optical illusion, there were other factors that factored 
into this that caused this tragedy to occur.
  I would just like to say before I yield to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana, the United States owes a responsibility to the 
people of Italy that were harmed by this terrible tragedy, and we ought 
to make restitution as quickly as possible.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Indiana, for bringing this measure. I would like to inform the 
Members about this issue with the ski lift in Italy.
  When the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) made a comment about the 
monies have been paid for the damage to the ski lift, we put monies 
aside, there was $20 million, but those monies have not been accessed. 
The ski lift has been replaced, the owner-operator has gone through the 
claims process in Italy, and it has not yet been adjudicated, so the 
$20 million has not been accessed. I wanted to clarify that point.
  We have a Status of Forces agreement in Italy, and for the claims 
process, the Navy has jurisdiction. Right now when there is a claim, 
they are to go through the Italian government. Through the Status of 
Forces agreement, we, the United States, pay 75 percent and Italy pays 
25 percent, but they are to go through the adjudicative procedures 
through the Italian government.
  Right now, because we have that agreement in place, I will give 
advice to my colleagues, let us permit the adjudication to go through 
the Status of Forces agreement.
  I would say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), I applaud him 
and recognize his efforts, and the image that it shows around the 
world, but I would ask the gentleman to let us go through the 
adjudicative procedures that we have under our Status of Forces 
agreement in Italy.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying 
that the process the gentleman from Indiana just alluded to could take 
3 to 10 years. I think that is too long. The other body passed this 
resolution that I am talking about, this amendment, yesterday. I think 
it was Senator Robb that sponsored it. It passed, I think, without any 
opposition whatsoever.
  Those people who are suffering, and their families who are suffering 
right now, should not have to wait for an adjudication process that is 
going to go on for 3 to 10 years. They suffered enough. We need to get 
on with it.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) makes a point of order under 
clause 2 of rule XXI that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton) changes existing law. The amendment changes 
existing law by, among other things, waiving provisions of existing law 
and imposing new duties on the Secretary of Defense.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, as somebody who is a strong supporter of 
the amendment that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Todd Tiahrt) brought 
to this Floor, that as we get ready to vote on final passage of this 
bill, we need to step back and ask ourselves what it is we are voting 
on.
  We did not choose to further offset the defense spending with other 
savings from nondefense, but I think we need to look at what the 
committee has done. They have done a great job of saving over $1 
billion from the social security trust fund, essentially, because that 
is where that money comes from if we do not offset it. We need to 
recognize that and praise them for that work.
  Today we have seen the President order bombings in Kosovo. All of us 
realize that while the President has made that decision and ordered the 
military to engage, we in Congress will be asked later to find the 
money to pay for that, and that it will become increasingly difficult 
to do so without jeopardizing our national defense.
  In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge my 
colleagues, all of us who share a desire to save social security, to 
recognize the good job that the committee has done in finding offsets 
for the domestic spending. More than $1 billion has been offset. That 
means more than $1 billion has been saved for the social security trust 
fund. They have done that without the help of the President, without 
the help of the White House, without the help of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. They deserve to be recognized for putting 
social security as a top priority in this bill.
  Although I was a supporter of the Tiahrt amendment, I thought it was 
the right thing to do. I am also prepared and think the right thing for 
us to do today is to vote yes on final passage, and recognize that we 
have begun a very arduous task of saying that we are going to make sure 
that we offset spending, make sure that we save social security by 
offsetting those requests for additional spending, and recognizing that 
we have to preserve that trust fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his good work, and I would 
urge all my colleagues to vote yes on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes. I simply want to say, in 
light of the comments by the previous speaker, that repeating a 
misstatement of fact does not make it a fact, no matter how many times 
that misstatement is repeated.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so to compliment the Chairman for having presided 
in this Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union in a 
very professional and magnificent fashion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read the final two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``1999 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act''.

                              {time}  1730

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1141) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 125, he reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

[[Page H1660]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 211, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 70]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--211

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Myrick
     Slaughter
     Stupak

                              {time}  1750

  Messrs. HERGER, RADANOVICH, RYUN of Kansas, SENSENBRENNER, GUTIERREZ, 
ROGAN, BARTON of Texas, McINNIS, MANZULLO, GRAHAM, POMEROY and MINGE 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. JOHN and Mr. REYES changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________