[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 74 (Thursday, May 20, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5667-S5682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in 
recess for 3 minutes.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 3:37 p.m., recessed until 
3:42 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by 
the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the very able and 
eloquent distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise for the first time since I have 
been in the Senate to oppose a supplemental appropriation. It hurts my 
heart because there is so much in this bill that is good. But I have to 
say there is a lot in this bill that does not belong in it, and there 
are some things left out of this bill, one or two things, that I 
thought were real emergencies that should have been in there.
  What started out as requests to fund unexpected emergencies has 
turned into a flurry of spending and riders that simply do not belong 
in this bill. The one area that I particularly cared about, violence in 
our schools--which is an emergency by anybody's measure when parents 
are telling us, 75 percent of them, they are concerned about their 
children when they go off to school--a very modest proposal by the 
Senator from Illinois was turned down by the House members of the 
conference after it was approved by the Senate members of the 
conference. So all kinds of dollars were found for many things, but 
they could not find it in their hearts to do something about violence 
in the schools by providing some counselors, some afterschool money so 
desperately needed in our country today.
  I am happy for the Senator from West Virginia, that he was able to 
get a commitment for a crisis he is facing in the steel industry in his 
State. I agreed with him, that particular piece of legislation and 
those funds should have been placed into this bill, and they were not. 
So I found this a very strange conference. I miss the Appropriations 
Committee. I was on it for two beautiful years. So I sat and watched at 
1 in the morning as Senators and House Members debated. You may wonder, 
why would the Senator from California do that? Very simple: It is a 
very important bill that is before us.
  I believe in what NATO is trying to accomplish. I agreed with the 
President that we needed to find about $6 billion for the military. It 
turns out it is almost double that, that winds up in this bill. The pay 
raise is taken care of. I wanted to do an even higher pay raise, but 
that pay raise--it is not an emergency, it is an obligation. We have to 
back the pay raise in the regular appropriations bills. This is just 
another way to push dollars around.
  I do not think it is fair to say that is an emergency. I supported 
the funds in there for America's farmers, for Hurricane Mitch; those 
things were fine. But some of the riders in this bill really were 
wrong, not only wrong in substance but wrong to put in this bill. For 
example, the rider that deals with the tobacco funds from the tobacco 
lawsuit. It is not that I object that the Federal Government will not 
get a share of that--because I am willing to say it is fine, the 
Governors are the ones who put their names out there and they should 
get these funds. But to say to the Governors who are getting our part 
of the reimbursement: By the way, spend it any way you like--we are 
going to see Governors use that money to put a swimming pool in the 
Governor's mansion; we are going to see Governors use that to build a 
little street in the neighborhood where maybe some of their donors 
live.
  I do not come from the school of thought that Governors are better 
than Senators. I think we run on a platform and most of us, most of us 
from both parties, believe we need to take care of the health care 
needs of our people. Comes along this bill, comes along a rider that 
says: Governors, you can spend that any way you want. Build a running 
track for your friends around the Governor's mansion? Fine, no problem, 
no strings. I have a problem with that. We should make sure our 
Governors are taking care of the health needs of their citizens since 
part of that money rightly comes from a recovery that included Federal 
programs--Medicaid, as an example.

  Then there are three riders that deal with the environment in one way 
or the other. One has to do with oil royalties. This is about the third 
time that antienvironmental rider has been placed in this bill, because 
colleagues know they cannot get the votes here. It is stopping the 
Interior Department from collecting the rent payments or the royalty 
payments from oil companies who drill on Federal land, taxpayers' land. 
That money is being stolen from us. How do I know that? Because there 
have been lawsuits. And every time the Federal Government wins those 
lawsuits--I ask for 1 additional minute, if I might.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining under my 
control?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. So here we have a situation where the Interior Department 
could use the money to help with our parks and open space, and the oil 
companies get another special rider on this bill. It is the third time 
that has happened. Mr. President, I do not think that is the way to 
legislate.
  Then we have an environmental rider placed in the bill by Senator 
Gorton who now, I understand, is not even going to vote for this bill 
which has his rider in it that does tremendous damage to the State of 
Washington by permitting a mine up there.
  There are so many things in this bill that do not belong in it. So it 
is with a heavy heart I say to my friends, for whom I have great 
respect, I cannot vote for this. I do not think everything in there is 
truly an emergency. Yet I think those things that were emergencies were 
left out.
  I look forward to working with my friends in the regular order so we 
can debate some of these important measures outside this so-called 
emergency designation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I will vote against the pending 
conference report because I believe it, and the policy and process 
behind it, represent a shameful failure on behalf of our American 
servicemen and women now in harm's way in the Balkans.
  This legislation before the Senate today displays exactly what's 
wrong with Washington, including the United States Senate. There is 
much in the pending conference report on Supplemental Appropriations 
which is urgently needed and which I support. American farmers need and 
deserve the disaster assistance included in this legislation. The 
Kosovar refugees need and deserve massive resettlement and 
reconstruction assistance, of which the pending measure provides at 
least a down payment. Our servicemen and women need and deserve the pay 
raise it provides and above all, those who are on the front lines in 
the Balkans and elsewhere in the world need supplies and equipment.
  However, in spite of these positive features, I will be voting ``no'' 
because of the bill's funding for an expanded, open-ended war against 
Yugoslavia, which in my opinion, has not been adequately and 
appropriately considered by the Congress, and also because this 
important legislation has been used for petty provincial interests. In 
effect, our servicemen and women are being held hostage while the bill 
has been loaded up with narrow amendments to assist special interests, 
such as a gold mine in Washington state, a dormitory for Congressional 
pages, and reindeer ranchers.
  While I have certainly observed this same game of special interest 
influence on the legislative process all too often since I have been in 
the Senate, this current case is particularly egregious

[[Page S5668]]

because of the boldness of the special interests and the apparent 
willingness of too many of our national leaders to allow those 
interests to be placed above consideration of the interests of our 
troops in the field.
  Our troops deserve better from all of us.
  I have spoken before my reservations about NATO's current policy in 
the Balkans and Congress' abdication of our Constitutional 
responsibilities with respect to war powers. To say the least, neither 
of those reservations have been alleviated in this conference report.
  Our leadership, including both the Clinton Administration and NATO, 
have failed to clearly state what our mission is in the Balkans, what 
specific goals we intend to achieve, and how we will end this mission.
  As perhaps the leading military analyst of the Vietnam War, Colonel 
Harry Summers, wrote in his excellent book ``On Strategy: The Vietnam 
War in Contest:''

       The first principle of war is the principle of ``The 
     Objective.'' It is the first principle because all else flows 
     from it. . . . How to determine military objectives that will 
     achieve or assist in achieving the political objectives of 
     the United States is the primary task of the military 
     strategist, thus the relationship between military and 
     political objectives is critical. Prior to any future 
     commitment of U.S. military forces our military leaders must 
     insist that the civilian leadership provide tangible, 
     obtainable political goals. The political objective cannot 
     merely be a platitude but must be stated in concrete terms. 
     While such objectives may very well change during the course 
     of the war, it is essential that we begin with an 
     understanding of where we intend to go. As Clausewitz said, 
     we should not ``take the first step without considering the 
     last.'' In other words, we (and perhaps, more important, the 
     American people) need to have a definition of ``victory.''

  Colonel Summers continues:

       There is an inherent contradiction between the military and 
     its civilian leaders on this issue. For both domestic and 
     international political purposes the civilian leaders want 
     maximum flexibility and maneuverability and are hesitant to 
     fix on firm objectives. The military on the other hand need 
     just such a firm objective as early as possible in order to 
     plan and conduct military operations.

  Mr. President, we've been here before, and speaking personally, I 
know all too well the kind of price that is paid by our men and women 
in uniform when our political leaders fail to lay out clear and 
specific objectives. More than thirty years ago, in Vietnam we also 
lacked clear and specific objectives. We attempted to use our military 
to impose our will in a region far from our shores and far from our 
vital national interests, and without ever fully engaging the Congress 
or the American people in the process. The result was a conflict where 
the politicians failed to provide clear political objectives, but 
intruded in determining military strategy, and where our policy was 
never fully understood or fully supported by the American people.
  Too many Americans never came home from that war, and others came 
home unalterably changed in mind or body. I cannot in good conscience 
sit here and watch it all appear to be happening again. I will not 
support putting American ground troops into Kosovo, and I cannot vote 
for this conference report which, in my opinion, moves us further in 
that direction.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
conference report before us. It uses funds for undeniably urgent 
needs--our operations in Kosovo, our rescue of struggling family 
farmers, our efforts to dig out from the hurricanes of last year and 
the tornados of this month--to mask spending on unnecessary and 
unbudgeted urges. That is more than dishonest; it is disgraceful. It is 
like agreeing to let your neighbors use your car to take their sick 
child to the hospital--if they also agree to pick up and pay for your 
groceries, your dry cleaning, a set of new tires for the car, and a 
pizza.
  It is no surprise that people are cynical about talk that comes out 
of Washington. By adopting this conference report, we prove our work 
means very little. We prove that the budget we endorsed just two months 
ago was not a promise--it was posturing. We prove that we are more 
interested in sound bites than sound accounting.
  Mr. President, I understand that there are genuine emergencies that 
require us to spend beyond what we had anticipated for a given fiscal 
year. I will vote to fund such emergencies immediately and work out the 
budget details later. I also understand that there are supplemental 
spending requirements that can come up during the year. And I will also 
support passing supplemental appropriations bills and paying for them 
within the budget limits we have set for ourselves. What I find 
unconscionable is what we are doing here today: attempting to get 
around the draconian budget resolution we passed in March by stuffing 
as much supplemental spending as possible in this bill and then 
treating it as an emergency.
  Given my strong feelings on this, I would like to clarify my vote to 
waive the Gramm point of order. Senator Gramm, rightly I believe, 
raised many of the same issues that concern me. His point of order, 
however, did a surgeon's job with a hatchet. His point of order would 
have brought down spending that was truly emergency, and therefore was 
not offset--spending for humanitarian aid for the Kosovar refugees, for 
infusions of cash into the struggling farm credit system, for helping 
areas hit by natural disaster. The point or order would also have 
brought down domestic spending that was not an emergency, but that the 
Appropriations Committee went to great pains to offset. There are over 
$2 billion in offsets in this bill, and the great majority come from 
cuts in nondefense programs.

  So, while I understand Senator Gramm's desire to make this bill 
fiscally honest and responsible, I cannot support his methods. Instead, 
we should defeat this bill and start again--passing only what the 
Department of Defense says they need to continue their operations in 
Kosovo, only what is truly a domestic emergency, only what is non-
emergency and offset.
  I have voted in support of the use of air power in Kosovo, a decision 
I made solemnly, and I am willing to vote to support funding the 
mission. This conference report, however, contains money the Pentagon 
never asked for and that will never have an impact on the situation in 
Kosovo. Almost five billion dollars in non-emergency defense spending 
has been attached to the President's request without even allowing the 
Senate an opportunity to vote or debate these additions. Calling some 
of these new military construction projects an ``emergency'' is 
shameful. Those projects cannot compare with the urgency in hurricane 
ravaged Central America, the economic hardship faced by our family 
farms, or the plight of refugees on the desolate hillsides of Albania.
  Obviously a great deal of munitions, fuel, and material have been 
expended in our mission over Yugoslavia. The need to fund these 
operations, however, should not be an excuse to fund other special-
interest projects that were never high enough priorities to be placed 
in the tight military budget. Suddenly these projects are so important 
they are given emergency designation, when a few months ago they hardly 
deserved mentioning, and were certainly not worth including in the 
budget resolution Congress adopted in March.
  It is wrong for those who want a much larger defense budget to hold 
hostage the emergency funds needed for the Kosovo operation, Central 
America, and the devastated rural America--and it is wrong to go to the 
American taxpayers to pay their ransom.
  Thus, it is with some regret that I must vote against this conference 
report. Regret, because there are a number of very good things in this 
bill,  including funding that I worked hard to ensure would be there to 
help respond to the desperate situation of our family farmer.

  This bill provides $43 million for Farm Service Agency personnel and 
$110 million and for the farm credit program requested by the 
Administration in response to the tremendous credit crunch facing our 
Nation's farmers. The Farm Service Agency funds are needed to provide 
the support staff so USDA can deliver disaster assistance promised to 
farmers last fall. The additional $110 million for USDA's farm credit 
program will provide essential loan guarantees to farmers as they 
struggle through historically low prices.
  The conference report also includes $63 million for FY 1999 and FY 
2000 to

[[Page S5669]]

allow the USDA to provide technical assistance to landowners as they 
enroll in USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service environmental 
programs. Because of funding shortfalls, Wisconsin's NRCS has already 
stopped providing technical assistance. That means thousands of acres 
of land, ready to be returned to their pristine state through the joint 
efforts of farmers and the USDA, are lying fallow.
  Finally, I want to highlight another provision I worked on in this 
conference report: food assistance to the Kosovar refugees. We have all 
seen the news accounts, the pictures, and have heard the terrible 
stories of tragedy that the people in the Balkans are facing daily. 
Reports from that region include hunger as another major problem that 
is hitting hardest among the children, the elderly, and the most 
vulnerable. Humanitarian food assistance, or PL-480 funds, have been 
diverted to Kosovo from other regions of the world where serious needs 
exist. Funding for Kosovo food assistance was not included in initial 
versions of this bill, but without it, people in Africa, Bangladesh, 
and other troubled regions will continue to suffer from hunger and 
deprivation. It is never good policy or sense to rob Peter to pay Paul, 
but it is disgraceful when Peter and Paul are innocent, starving 
children on opposite sides of the world.
  However, even with all these good things, this conference report is 
the harbinger of terrible things to come. By trying to slip so much 
non-emergency spending into this bill, the conference committee has 
acknowledged that we cannot meet the genuine needs of our citizens 
within the budget that was laid out in March.
  Mr. President, the American people deserve an honest budget, and they 
deserve to know that we will meet their emergencies in a forthright 
manner. I regret that we could not do that today. If we pass this 
conference report, we will further and deservedly lose the trust of 
those who send us their hard earned tax dollars. I urge my colleagues 
to vote no.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will reluctantly vote for this 
supplemental appropriations bill for three primary reasons: to provide 
our agricultural producers at least a portion of the support they need; 
to support our troops in Kosovo; and to assist the desperate Kosovar 
refugees and Hurricane Mitch victims. I strongly oppose the mining 
rider added in the middle of the night to this emergency spending bill 
and am saddened this Congress will not require States to spend of the 
tobacco settlement funds on actually preventing teen smoking or 
protecting public health.
  I very enthusiastically support the $109 million in this bill for 
direct and guaranteed loans to provide credit for American agricultural 
producers. This and the other agriculture-related provisions in this 
bill are vitally important to our growers, providing more than $700 
million for important agricultural programs. Every single dollar of 
this aid is all the more critical because Congress failed to support a 
funding level that would help producers weather these difficult 
economic times. I support the Harkin-Dorgan amendment to add $5 billion 
to this agricultural aid package during the conference committee's 
consideration of this bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected. 
Meanwhile, our growers are left waiting for more meaningful assistance 
as they struggle under the so-called Freedom to Farm Act.
  This bill also contains vital funding for our military forces in the 
Balkans. I strongly support the Administration's original request for 
monies to support the Kosovo effort. I am fully prepared to meet our 
responsibilities to our troops and personnel involved in this important 
NATO effort. It is unfortunate the House insisted on adding billions of 
additional, unrequested funding for defense projects, many of which are 
unrelated to the NATO action in the Balkans. I also endorse our 
commitment to assist the millions of refugees, who are victims of this 
unfortunate conflict.
  I, too, am pleased this bill provide critical assistance to the 
victims of Hurricane Mitch. This deadly and destructive hurricane 
decimated several Central American countries, and has been particularly 
difficult on families already surviving on subsistence levels. The U.S. 
should have long ago signaled our commitment to lead the international 
effort to aid the victims of Hurricane Mitch.
  These important issues aside, I strongly oppose the rider on mining 
included in this bill. I do not accept the argument put forth by 
several of my colleagues on the conference committee that the 
supplemental appropriations bill was the proper place to address an 
administrative interpretation of the 1872 Mining Law. Within this bill 
are two provisions that simply are not emergencies and do not belong. 
One is the further blockage of the Department of Interior's 
implementing regulations on hard-rock mining.
  The other provision is particularly troubling to me for it affects a 
proposed mine in my State of Washington. Included in this bill is a 
provision that blocks the Department of Interior from enforcing a 
recent solicitor's opinion interpreting allowable mill site acerage. 
That opinion reinterpreted the 1872 mining law and limited the amount 
of mining waste companies could dump on public lands. For many years, 
my constituents and people across the nation have been calling for true 
reform of the 1872 mining law. This late-night change is not what they 
have been asking us to do. The industry knows these provisions would 
not win approval in the normal legislative process, so they sought 
riders on a military and disaster relief appropriations bill. These are 
issues that deserve to be debated in full and in public, not in a mere 
10 minutes, late at night among conferees without the necessary 
expertise to determine whether this is the correct policy.

  I want to add that I have spoken with officials at the White House 
who have shared their concern about these mining provisions. I told 
them we must not allow this action to be a precedent for how we 
authorize new open pit mines on our public lands. We should debate 
reform of the 1872 mining law fully and in the bright spotlight of 
public review. Protecting the public's interest in their federal lands 
must be a top priority. They agree.
  I am also extremely disappointed this bill will allow the states to 
allocate the federal share of the multi-state agreement (MSA) with the 
tobacco companies to any program or project they desire. I strongly 
believe we have missed an historic opportunity to reverse the 
destruction caused by smoking. It is tragic to think that every day we 
delay reducing underage smoking, 3,000 children will try this deadly 
habit. Five million children today will face illness and premature 
death due to smoking. Yet we are allowing the states to spend the 
federal share on any program they may chose.
  I am proud that in Washington state, the state legislature and 
Governor Locke chose to do the right thing and spend the settlement 
money working to eliminate the plague of tobacco. However, Washington 
state is only one of three states using the MSA settlement funds to 
support public health efforts and smoking cessation.
  There is some irony in this debate about the role of the federal 
government in spending so-called settlement monies. The tobacco 
companies win immunity from future prosecution or liability from the 
states of federal government and because of states' inaction, the 
companies will be guaranteed a whole new generation of smokers. By not 
standing firm and using these monies to eliminate underage smoking and 
reduce adult rates, the cost of care for these individuals will be the 
burden of the federal government and federal taxpayers. As members of 
the Senate, we will have to find the additional funding to pay for 
increases in Medicare, FEHBP, CHAMPUS, and VA health care costs.
  I am disappointed that we could not reach an acceptable compromise 
that would have protected our children, allowed states' reasonable 
spending discretion, and shielded the federal budget. I am hopeful we 
can continue to work at the federal level to enact tough, anti-tobacco 
restrictions, including FDA regulation of tobacco and increased efforts 
by CDC to help the states reduce the burden of tobacco.
  Let me address one more topic. This bill transfers the Disaster 
Recovery Initiative (DRI) program, commonly known as the unmet needs 
program, from HUD to FEMA. While I do not oppose this transfer, my 
concerns about

[[Page S5670]]

it grew as Congress delayed its consideration of this supplemental 
bill. President Clinton declared two disasters in Washington state 
during calendar year 1998, including a slow-moving, on-going landslide 
in the Aldercrest community in Kelso. For a variety of reasons, FEMA 
public assistance dollars will not reach Aldercrest victims for some 
time. That makes the unmet needs money--now administered by FEMA--all 
the more critical. While I am frustrated with the delay in this 
process, I am pleased we are moving forward once again. This conference 
report highlights the conferees interest in ensuring Aldercrest victims 
get this disaster assistance as quickly as is possible.
  Mr. President, this is a very difficult vote for me. I chose not to 
sign the conference report, but I support the bill to help our ailing 
agricultural producers, support our troops, and provide assistance to 
refugees and disaster victims.


               effective human rights response to kosovo

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, an important provision in the Statement 
of the Managers on the 1999 Kosovo Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act recommends $13 million above the administration's 
request for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former 
Yugoslavia. It also recommends $10 million more than the administration 
requested for the State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund.
  The conferees on this legislation have recommended these additional 
resources to help support a more effective human rights response to the 
Kosovo crisis. Many of us are deeply concerned over the escalation of 
human rights abuses in Kosovo since the breakdown of the Rambouillet 
negotiations. The additional funding for the War Crimes Tribunal will 
enable it to expand its investigative efforts to see that justice is 
done.
  Justice Arbour has made a strong case that this funding is needed 
immediately for forensic investigative teams, mass grave exhumations, 
investigations, Albanian translators, equipment, and other associated 
costs. America is the strongest support of the War Crimes Tribunal, and 
it is essential for us to provide provide the additional resources the 
tribunal needs without delay to ensure that those responsible for the 
gross violations of international law in Kosovo are brought to justice.
  I also strongly support the work of the State Department's Human 
Rights and Democracy Fund. The HRDF's ability to respond quickly to 
emergencies has enabled the Department to begin documenting mass 
executions, rape, deportations, and torture. Unfortunately, its 
resources are stretched thin as a result of the large scale of these 
atrocities.
  the additional funds recommended by Congress for the HRDF will enable 
the State Department to enhance its ability to obtain information 
promptly and methodically from fleeing refugee victims and witnesses 
and provide the information to the U.S. Government, the War Crimes 
Tribunal, and the public to ensure that those responsible for these 
atrocities will be held accountable.
  The funds will also enable the State Department to provide documents 
to refugees whose passports, identity papers, and property titles were 
stripped from them when Serb forces compelled them to leave Kosovo. 
Doing so will help counter President Milosevic's cynical policy of 
``identity cleansing'' and facilitate the return of the refugees to 
their homes. The funds are also intended to enhance our government's 
efforts to ensure that victims receive proper counseling for the 
unconscionable trauma they have suffered.
  I commend the conferees for making these additional resources 
available to achieve an effective human rights response on Kosovo.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 1996, I authored the Justice for Victims 
of Terrorism Act to provide assistance to victims of terrorism and mass 
violence, wherever it occurred. This assistance is limited to victims 
who are citizens or employees of the United States who are injured or 
killed as a result of a terrorist act.
  Unfortunately, that legislation is not doing the job as we intended. 
There are still too many victims of terrorism who are not getting the 
help they need and deserve--the help that Congress meant to give them 
in 1996. Among those left out in the cold are the families of those 
killed in the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, and 
the victims of last year's embassy bombings in West Africa.
  Section 3024 of the emergency appropriations bill will provide a 
limited but immediate response by providing much-needed assistance to 
the families of the Americans who were killed in the bombing of Pan Am 
103. I am proud to have worked to get this emergency provision included 
in the conference report.
  Currently, in cases involving terrorist acts occurring outside the 
United States, the Office of Victims of Crime (OVC) may only give 
supplemental grants to the States, for compensation of state residents. 
This formulation has not provided the intended help to victims of 
terrorism who reside overseas and do not have a clear State residence, 
even though they are U.S. citizens. It is of little assistance to the 
non-citizen victims employed by our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 
who also deserve our support and assistance. And due to an overly 
restrictive interpretation of the 1996 law by the Department of 
Justice, it has not provided help to the victims of the Lockerbie 
bombing and other victims of terrorist acts that occurred before the 
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act went into effect.
  The current law has led to slower implementation than I intended when 
emergency aid is desperately needed, and has not enabled OVC to provide 
emergency relief, crisis response or training and technical assistance 
for victim service providers, as I intended.
  Accordingly, this week I offered an amendment to the juvenile justice 
bill, S. 254--which was accepted in the mangers' amendment--which would 
improve the law even further. It would ensure that OVC can provide 
efficient and effective assistance--and really make a difference--for 
Americans whose lives are torn apart by acts of terrorism and mass 
violence occurring outside the United States.
  In the meantime, the trial in the Pan Am 103 case is getting under 
way, and the families of those victims need our help now. This is an 
urgent matter, and I am glad that we are addressing it in this 
emergency bill.


                           Outstanding Claims

  Mr. INOUYE. I have a few questions for my colleague from Alaska on 
Section 3021 of the bill which authorizes the Attorney General to 
transfer funds available to the Department of Justice to pay 
outstanding claims of Japanese Americans under the Civil Liberties Act 
of 1988 and outstanding claims of Japanese Latin Americans under the 
settlement agreement in the case of Carmen Mochizuki et al .v. United 
States (Case No. 97-294C, United States Court of Federal Claims).
  Am I correct that this provision would allow the Attorney General to 
pay redress of $20,000 to Japanese Americans who were interned by the 
United States during World War II and who filed a timely claim for 
redress under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, 
the United States has paid redress to more than 82,000 eligible 
individuals over the 10 year life of the program. Eligible individuals 
under this Act had to file a claim for redress by August 10, 1998. 
There were a number of individuals, however, who did not complete the 
documentation necessary for the Department of Justice to determine, 
prior to the termination of the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund 
and the expiration of the redress program six months later, whether 
they were eligible for redress under the Act. This provision would 
allow those individuals, if they filed timely claims, to provide any 
necessary information to the Department of Justice, and allow the 
Department to complete its review of their files. If the Department 
determines that they are eligible, this provision allows the Attorney 
General to pay the claimants restitution under the Act.
  Mr. INOUYE. In the case of Carmen Mochizuki et al versus United 
States, plaintiffs brought a class action against the United States 
seeking redress for Japanese Latin Americans who were interned by the 
United States during World War II. The United States settled this case. 
The settlement provides that each eligible class

[[Page S5671]]

member would receive a $5,000 restitution payment, to the extent there 
were funds available in the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund. Even 
though this Fund has now terminated, does this provision also allow the 
Attorney General to pay restitution to Japanese Latin American 
individuals who are found eligible under the Mochizuki settlement 
agreement and who filed timely claims covered by the agreement?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct. Some of the class members in this 
lawsuit were paid $5,000 restitution before the funds in the Civil 
Liberties Education Fund were exhausted. However, there are a number of 
class members who filed timely claims under the Mochizuki settlement 
who were not provided with restitution because there were no funds 
remaining. In addition, some class members were not able to complete 
the documentation necessary for the Department of Justice to determine, 
prior to the termination of the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund 
and the expiration of the redress program six months later, whether 
they were eligible for redress under the settlement agreement. This 
provision would allow those individuals, if they filed timely claims, 
to provide any necessary information to the Department of Justice, and 
allow the Department to complete its review of their files. If the 
Department determines that they are eligible, or has already done so, 
this provision allows the Attorney General to pay them restitution 
under the settlement agreement.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague from Alaska for the clarification on 
this provision in the bill.


                     cleanup from spring tornadoes

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues, 
Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl, the chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development and Related Agencies, for their help regarding clean up 
needs in my state following the devastating tornadoes that struck on 
January 21, 1999. On that day, an estimated 38 tornadoes touched down 
in at least 16 counties in Arkansas, a one-day record for the number of 
tornadoes in a single state in one day. Eight deaths and scores of 
injuries resulted. The storms damaged or destroyed two thousand homes, 
at least 126 businesses, and various utilities in eleven counties. As 
you might imagine, a tremendous amount of debris is scattered 
throughout the damage area.
  When the Senate considered S. 544, the supplemental appropriations 
bill which is now before us as the conference report to H.R. 1141, an 
amendment of mine was adopted that would direct the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) to assist in the removal of debris left 
from those storms. It is extremely important that we provide assistance 
necessary to remove this debris in order to help restore lands to a 
more productive state, but even more importantly, to prevent more 
serious emergencies that will result if this debris is allowed to 
obstruct stream flows and cause flooding, erosion, and other economic 
and environmental problems. Could the Senators please explain how his 
conference report addresses this situation.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for her comments and I understand her 
concern about the need to provide debris removal assistance following 
the violent storms in her state and other states. The amendment of the 
Senator, to which she refers, would have expanded the statutory 
authority of NRCS to exercise debris removal activities on lands not 
covered by current law. This would not only have included the lands of 
which the Senator speaks, but could be interpreted to cover a wide 
array of other lands. It is our understanding that statutory authority 
does exist for the debris removal activities about which the Senator 
speaks, making bill language unnecessary. However, certain 
administrative actions by the Department will be necessary before these 
activities can be carried out.
  From time to time, we are asked to provide emergency funds in 
response to natural disasters. Too often, there is a human cost to 
these disasters that we have no power to compensate. In other 
instances, the level of our assistance is appropriate and necessary for 
the task. There are times, however, when the sums required could have 
been reduced had a little prevention been in place before the crisis 
struck.
  Obviously, the force of a tornado is such that mankind may never be 
able to control or overcome. The devastation we all have witnessed this 
Spring in several states including Arkansas, and more recently Oklahoma 
and Kansas, was of such a magnitude in economic and human costs that 
calls for our assistance must not go unheard. Now, however, we are 
faced with choices about actions that might, at this point, prevent 
future damage and future costs.
  The debris of which the Senator describes is not only that which 
currently is obstructing stream flows or causing flooding or erosion, 
but it also includes debris located in the immediate vicinity of those 
streams and waterways. It takes little imagination to envision another, 
far less intensive storm in the region that would cause that debris to 
be removed directly into the steambed with substantial damage and cost 
as a result, costs for which we and the American taxpayers might very 
well be asked to compensate in the near future. in this case, a little 
prevention today may save substantial sums tomorrow. That is why the 
Senator is precisely correct and why we must ensure these needs are 
met.
  The conference report now before the Senate does not include the bill 
language the Senator offered earlier due to the fact that, as mentioned 
above, the statutory authority for those activities of concern to her 
and to others currently exists. The Statement of Managers makes that 
point. However, the purpose of her amendment is well taken in bringing 
to the attention of the Department that necessary administrative 
actions must be taken immediately to address the emergency situation 
that remains. We do not here suggest that the Watershed and Flood 
Prevention Operations authorities be broadened to include ``any'' 
lands. Instead, it is important for us all to recognize that reasonable 
steps by the Department should be taken to remove the debris in 
question before it becomes the cause of more substantial losses in the 
future.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for raising this issue 
and I appreciate the comments of my other colleagues on this subject. I 
agree with the Senator from Wisconsin that the Department should 
exercise any preventive measures practicable as the best way to avoid 
more costly restoration and rehabilitation in the future.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleagues for this explanation.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the 1999 Supplemental 
Appropriations legislation. Let me make a few brief remarks explaining 
why I will vote against it. I do so reluctantly because some of this 
funding is necessary, such as the agriculture spending, and some is 
offset. I co-sponsored and strongly supported the Enzi amendment to 
fully offset spending in this bill. Since our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle blocked this effort to be fiscally responsible, 
thereby giving their support to this spending of Social Security 
surplus funds, I cannot endorse this irresponsible spending.
  The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan watchdog of fiscal policy, calls 
this bill a ``SAYGO'' bill, and SAYGO stands for spend-as-you-go. 
According to the Concord Coalition, ``Congress is using the emergency 
spending loophole to create a new budgetary concept--spend as you go 
(SAYGO). I fully agree with the Concord Coalition. Sadly, the term 
``SAYGO'' has captured the essence of this legislation.
  However, there is nothing new about this practice. Congress has 
repeatedly used this old trick on the American taxpayers as a way to 
expand government programs and escape budget disciplines.
  Let me remind my colleagues about what happened last year.
  As you recall, Mr. President, despite the rhetoric of President 
Clinton and Congress to use every penny of the budget surplus to save 
Social Security, last year, we spent nearly $30 billion of the Social 
Security surplus for alleged ``emergency spending.'' This was more than 
one third of the entire Social Security surplus for 1998. In last 
year's omnibus spending legislation alone, Congress spent $22 billion, 
and nearly $9.3 billion in regular appropriations was shifted into 
future budgets, a new

[[Page S5672]]

smoke-and-mirrors gimmick, since we are now hearing how impossible it 
will be to live within budget caps for FY 2000. No wonder!
  In addition, few of these ``emergency spending'' items were true 
emergencies. Many of these dollars could have been included in the 
annual appropriations process.
  Last year's irresponsible spending used up the Social Security 
surplus we were supposed to save, broke the statutory spending caps we 
promised to keep, and as a result made the caps even tighter for this 
year.
  Clearly, that was a big mistake. That's why many of us believe we 
should end this practice before it becomes automatic and even more 
egregious in the future. In fact, that's why we passed this year's 
Budget Resolution with a new enforcement mechanism which allows any 
Senator to raise a point of order against non-defense emergency 
designations in an appropriations conference report. In my judgment, 
this should include defense as well.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, we are repeating the same mistake in 
the 1999 Supplemental Appropriations bill. It includes $15 billion of 
spending with an estimate of only $2.5 billion actually outlayed this 
fiscal year. So it is quite obvious this spending is a way to relieve 
some of the pressure on the FY 2000 spending caps. If the spending caps 
need to be lifted, let's vote on that up front, not this way. I would 
not vote to lift the caps anyway, but it is a more responsible way of 
handling what some believe is a budget crisis.
  The legislation was originally intended to provide disaster relief to 
Central America and was later expanded to cover our military action in 
Kosovo, which are necessary and important spending. Even the 
agriculture spending is necessary. But conferees also added significant 
funding that is not emergency-related and was not requested by the 
President in the conference report.
  The conference report for this year's emergency spending bill 
includes $15 billion with only $1.9 billion offset. This means Congress 
is spending $13 billion of the Social Security surplus, which is over 
10 percent of this year's Social Security surplus.
  The President requested $5.5 billion for military operations in 
Kosovo and Southwest Asia. But the conferees have doubled that amount. 
As a result, American taxpayers now have to pay $10.9 billion 
additional for defense, much of which should be considered in FY 2000 
appropriations and was not an emergency. These add-ons include $1.84 
billion for military pay and pension increases and $2.25 billion for 
spare parts, depot maintenance and readiness training.

  I believe we must allocate sufficient resources to ensure our 
national security and I am concerned about readiness. We must provide 
adequate funding to maintain our military operations and support our 
troops in Kosovo and elsewhere. However, I don't believe we can use our 
immediate needs as a vehicle for non-emergency defense spending. 
General defense readiness needs, such as a military pay raise and a 
pension benefits increase, is not an emergency and should be handled 
through the normal budget, authorization and appropriations process. 
Again, if the spending cap is a problem, we should deal with that 
problem head on, not by this back-door approach.
  Further, this conference report is a Christmas tree that's loaded not 
with ornaments, but with plenty of non-emergency spending items under 
the guise of an emergency, totaling over $200 million. Even some 
emergency related funding is far above what is needed and requested. 
For example, the President requested $370 million funding for FEMA, but 
the conference report has almost tripled that amount. This is not 
right. Attached is a copy of Senator McCain's list on the objectionable 
provisions contained in this conference report.
  My biggest concern is that we have promised the American people we 
will save every penny of the Social Security surplus exclusively for 
Social Security. In the recently-passed budget resolution we included a 
provision to lock in $1.8 trillion of the Social Security surplus to 
save and strengthen Social Security. We are continuing to pursue Social 
Security lockbox legislation to prohibit Washington from continuing to 
loot the Social Security surplus for unrelated government spending. Now 
we are backing off from that promise, claiming we will make it up next 
year. I've heard that before. I believe this will damage our 
credibility and accountability with the American people, as well as 
further endanger our already damaged Social Security system.
  As I mentioned earlier, there are some good provisions I strongly 
support in this bill. Frankly, some of the provisions and funding will 
help my own state of Minnesota. But the non-emergency spending which is 
not offset overshadows these good provisions. I cannot in good 
conscience vote for this legislation.
  Finally, the Concord Coalition challenges us, I quote: ``Fiscally 
responsible Members of both parties should put an end to SAY-GO by 
rejecting this emergency supplemental.'' They are right. Above all we 
must maintain the fiscal discipline and responsibility we promised the 
American people. We must keep our commitment to protect Social 
Security. I hope my colleagues will reject this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this list of objectionable 
provisions in H.R. 1141 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Objectionable Provisions Contained in H.R. 1141, the Emergency 
 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for Recovery From Natural 
 Disasters and Foreign Assistance for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 
                                  1999


                             bill language

       Bill language directing that funds made last year for maple 
     producers be made available for stream bank restorations. 
     Report language later states that the conferees are aware of 
     a recent fire in Nebraska which these funds may be used. 
     (Emergency)
       Language directing the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
     $26,000,000 to compensate Dungeness crab fisherman, and U.S. 
     fish processors, fishing crew members, communities, and 
     others negatively affected by restrictions on fishing in 
     Glacier Bay National Park, in Alaska. (Emergency)
       A $900,000,000 earmark for ``Disaster Relief'' for tornado-
     related damage in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Tennessee. 
     This earmark is a $528,000,000 increase over the 
     Administration's request and is earmarked for ``any disaster 
     events which occur in the remaining months of the fiscal 
     year.'' (Emergency)
       Report language providing FEMA with essentially unbridled 
     flexibility to spend $230,000,000 in New York, Vermont, New 
     Hampshire, and Maine, to address damage resulting from the 
     1998 Northeast ice storm. Of this amount, there is report 
     language acknowledging the damage, and the $66,000,000 for 
     buy-outs, resulting from damage, caused by Hurricane George 
     to Mississippi, and report language strongly urging FEMA to 
     provide sufficient funds for an estimated $20,000,000 for 
     buy-out assistance and appropriate compensation for home 
     owners and businesses in Butler, Cowley, and Sedgwick 
     counties in Kansas resulting from the 1998 Halloween flood. 
     (Unrequested)
       $1,500,000 to purchase water from the Central Arizona 
     project to maintain an appropriate pool of stored water for 
     fish and wildlife purposes at the San Carlos Lake in Arizona. 
     (Added in Conference)
       An earmark of an unspecified amount for Forest Service 
     construction of a new forestry research facility at Auburn 
     University, Auburn, Alabama. (Unrequested)
       Language directing that the $1,000,000 provided in FY 99 
     for construction of the Pike's Peak Summit House in Alaska be 
     paid in a lump sum immediately. (Unrequested)
       Language directing that the $2,000,000 provided in FY 99 
     for the Borough of Ketchikan to participate in a study of the 
     feasibility and dynamics of manufacturing veneer products 
     in Southeast Alaska be immediately paid in a lump sum. 
     (Unrequested)
       Language directing the Department of Interior and the 
     Department of Agriculture to remove restrictions on the 
     number or acreage of millsites with respect to the Crown 
     Jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington for any fiscal 
     year. (Added in Conference)
       Language which prohibits the Departments of Interior and 
     Agriculture from denying mining patent applications or plans 
     on the basis of using too much federal land to dispose of 
     millings or mine waste, based on restrictions outlined in the 
     opinion of the Solicitor of the Department of Interior dated 
     November 7, 1997. The limitation on the Solicitor's opinion 
     is extended until September 30, 1999. (Added in Conference)
       Specific bill language providing $239,000 to the White 
     River School District #47-1, White River, South Dakota, to be 
     used to repair damage caused by water infiltration at the 
     White River High School. (Unrequested)
       A $3,760,000 earmark for a House Page Dormitory. (Added in 
     Conference)

[[Page S5673]]

       A $180,000,000 earmark for life safety renovations to the 
     O'Neill House Office Building. (Added in Conference)
       An earmark of $25,000,000 to provide for the construction 
     and renovation of family housing units at Fort Buchanan, 
     Puerto Rico. (Unrequested)
       Bill language, added by the conferees, directing that 
     $2,300,000 be made available only for costs associated with 
     rental of facilities in Calverton, NY, for the TW 800 
     wreckage. (Added in Conference)
       $750,000 to expand the Southwest Border High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Area for the state of New Mexico to include Rio 
     Arriba County, Santa Fe County, and San Juan County. 
     (Unrequested)
       Bill language directing $750,000 to be used for the 
     Southwest Border High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area for the 
     state of Arizona to fund the U.S. Border Patrol anti-drug 
     assistance to border communities in Cochise County, AZ. 
     (Added in Conference)
       A $500,000 earmark for the Baltimore-Washington High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Area to support the Cross-Border 
     Initiative. (Added in Conference)
       Earmarks $250,000 in previously appropriated funds for the 
     Los Angeles Civic Center Public Partnership. (Unrequested)
       Earmarks $100,000 in previously appropriated funds for the 
     Southeast Rio Vista Family YMCA, for the development of a 
     child care center in the city of Huntington Park, California. 
     (Unrequested)
       Earmarks $1,000,000 in previously appropriated funds for 
     the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development 
     for work associated with the building of Caritas House and 
     for expansion of the St. Ann Adult Medical Day Care Center. 
     (Added in Conference)
       Bill language permitting the Township of North Union, 
     Fayette County, Pennsylvania to retain any land disposition 
     proceeds or urban renewal grant funds remaining from 
     Industrial Park Number 1 Renewal Project. (Added in 
     Conference)
       $2,200,000 earmark from previously appropriated funds to 
     meet sewer infrastructure needs associated with the 2002 
     Winter Olympic Games in Wasatch County, UT, for both water 
     and sewer. (Unrequested)
       $3,045,000 earmarked for water infrastructure needs for 
     Grand Isle, Louisiana. (Added in Conference)
       The conference report language includes a provision which 
     makes permanent the moratorium on the new entry of factory 
     trawlers into the Atlantic herring and mackerel fishery until 
     certain actions are taken by the appropriate fishery 
     management councils. (Added in Conference)
       Additional bill language indicating that the above-
     mentioned limitation on registered length shall not apply to 
     a vessel used solely in any menhaden fishery which is located 
     in the Gulf of Mexico or along the Atlantic coast south of 
     the area under the authority of the New England Fishery 
     management Council for so long as such vessel is used in such 
     fishery. (Added in Conference)
       Bill language directing Administrator of General Services 
     to utilize resources in the Federal Buildings Fund to 
     purchase, at fair market value, not to exceed $700,000, the 
     United States Post Office and Federal Courthouse Building 
     located on Mill Street in Fergus Falls, Minnesota. (Added in 
     Conference)


                            report language

       A $28,000,000 earmark in FY 99, and a $35,000,000 earmark 
     in fiscal year 2000 to the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     carry out the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands 
     Reserve program. (Emergency)
       The conference agreement provides $70,000,000 for the 
     livestock assistance program as proposed by the Senate, and 
     adds language providing that the definition of livestock 
     shall include reindeer. (Emergency)
       $12,612,000 for funds for emergency repairs associated with 
     disasters in the Pacific Northwest and for the full cost of 
     emergency replacement of generating equipment at Midway Atoll 
     National Wildlife Refuge. (Emergency)
       Report language acknowledging the damage caused by 
     Hurricane George to Kansas. (Unrequested)
       Report language urging FEMA to respond promptly to the 
     appropriate disaster needs of the City of Kelso, Washington. 
     (Unrequested)
       Language where the Conferees support the use of the 
     emergency supplemental funds to assist organizations such as 
     the National Technology Alliance for on-site computer network 
     development, hardware and software integration, and to assess 
     the urgent on-site computer needs of organizations assisting 
     refugees. (Unrequested)
       $200,000,000 earmarked for the Coast Guard's ``Operating 
     Expenses'' to address ongoing readiness requirements. 
     (Emergency)
       Report language detailing partial site and planning for 
     three facilities, one which shall be located in the mid-
     Atlantic region, to house non-returnable criminal aliens 
     being transferred from the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service (INS). (Unrequested)
       A $1,300,000 earmark, for the cost of the World Trade 
     Organization Ministerial Meeting to be held in Seattle, WA. 
     (Added in Conference)
       $1,000,000 earmarked for the management of lands and 
     resources for the processing of permits in the Powder River 
     Basin for coalbed methane activities. (Unrequested)
       $1,136,000 earmarked for spruce bark beetle control in 
     Washington State. (Unrequested)
       A $1,500,000 earmark to fund the University of the District 
     of Columbia. (Added in Conference)
       $6,400,000 earmarked for the Army National Guard, in 
     Jackson, Tennessee, for storm related damage to facilities 
     and family housing improvements. (Unrequested)
       A $1,300,000 earmark of funds appropriated under P.L. 105-
     276 under the EPA's Programs and Management for Project 
     SEARCH water and wastewater infrastructure needs in the state 
     of Idaho. (Unrequested)
       Report language clarifying that funds appropriated under 
     P.L. 105-276 under the EPA's Programs and Management for 
     Project SEARCH water and wastewater infrastructure needs for 
     Grande Isle, Lousiana, may also be used for drinking water 
     supply needs. (Added in Conference)
       Report language which authorizes the use of funds received 
     pursuant to housing claims for construction of an access road 
     and for real property maintenance projects at Ellsworth Air 
     Force Base. (Unrequested)
       The conference agreement includes language proposed by the 
     Senate directing a statutory reprogramming of $800,000 for 
     preliminary work associated with a transfer of Federal lands 
     to certain tribes and the State of South Dakota and for 
     cultural resource protection activities. (Unrequested)
       The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by 
     the Senate that clarifies the scope of certain bus and bus 
     facilities projects contained in the Federal Transit 
     Administration's capital investment grants program in fiscal 
     year 1999. The conferees direct that funds provided for the 
     Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project in the 
     Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 shall be available 
     for the purchase of rights-of-way in addition to conducting a 
     major investment study to examine the feasibility of 
     establishing commuter rail service. (Unrequested)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, this marks the third time I have been to 
the floor to discuss the emergency supplemental bill. For months now I 
have been trying to get my colleagues' attention about the extreme 
urgency of the items included in this bill. There are provisions 
included in this bill that were deemed an ``emergency'' back in March 
of this year. In addition to the tornado-related funding we just 
referenced, I have received call after call from farmers who have been 
anxiously awaiting the loan money that is tied up in this supplemental 
appropriations bill. Mother Nature does not wait for Congress to act. 
The ideal planting window has already come and gone for several 
commodities in the South, and yet, many producers have not been able to 
put a crop in the ground because they do not have adequate funds for 
operating expenses. The money is included in this bill and it is 
critical that we act on this matter as quickly as possible.
  While I am pleased that these funds are included, I am disappointed 
that more assistance is not provided to the agriculture community. If 
ever there was an emergency in this country, we are seeing one now in 
rural America. I commend the distinguished ranking member of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, on his efforts to provide 
additional assistance to farmers. I hope that my colleagues will be 
ever mindful of the potential consequences this country will face if we 
allow our producers to simply die on the vine, and I strongly urge this 
body to revisit the agricultural crisis as soon as possible.
  Some of my colleagues have chosen to use this bill, which is designed 
specifically for emergency needs, to fund projects that would have a 
hard time passing the laugh test of emergency spending. In spite of 
this, I will be casting a vote in favor of this bill on behalf of the 
brave servicemen and women representing our nation in the conflict in 
Kosovo, and on behalf of our nation's family farmers.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.


          emergency community development block grant funding

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise regarding the conference report 
language in the supplemental bill regarding the transfer of emergency 
Community Development Block Grant funding from HUD to FEMA.
  January 1998 will long be remembered in the State of Maine because of 
the extraordinary and historic Ice Storm that crippled the State. The 
combination of heavy rains and freezing temperatures left much of the 
State under a thick coat of ice which downed wires, toppled 
transformers and snapped utility poles in two. At the peak of the storm 
more than 80 percent of the entire State was literally in the dark. 
Vice President Gore best summed up the situation during his visit on 
January 15, 1998, when he said,

[[Page S5674]]

``We've never seen anything like this. This is like a neutron bomb 
aimed at the power system.''
  The response from the federal government to our plight was for the 
most part remarkable. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 
the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Defense all 
answered Maine's call for immediate help. In addition, utility workers 
from up and down the East Coast came to work in freezing temperatures 
and hazardous situations to kill live wires and free remaining wires 
from downed trees and poles. These men and women worked side by side 
with Maine's utility companies around the clock until the lights were 
back on in every house in the State.
  I am here today, however, because while the storm brought out the 
best in people across the State and in many federal agencies, we still 
have not received the assistance we need from the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. In fact the lack of help from HUD has surpassed 
the storm in many people's minds as the truly extraordinary event.
  To understand fully, one has to know the history. The Stafford Act 
which provides FEMA's guidelines for assistance covers public power 
companies. It will reimburse 75 percent of the costs related to a 
disaster. Because Maine and much of the Northeast have utilities that 
are investor-owned rather than government-owned, we were ineligible to 
receive assistance from FEMA for this purpose, despite the fact that, 
FEMA's own Ice Storm ``Blueprint for Action'' noted that the greatest 
unmet need from the storm is the cost of utility infrastructure. The 
``Blueprint'' also noted that ``(The) HUD Community Development Block 
Grant Program can supplement other federal assistance in repairing and 
reconstructing infrastructure, including privately-owned utilities . . 
.''
  Utility reimbursement is of great concern to Maine as it was not only 
the largest unmet need from the Ice Storm, but ratepayers in our State 
already pay the fourth highest utility costs in the country. Without 
some federal help, ratepayers would have been called on to cover 
utility infrastructure repair costs through increased rates.
  So the Maine Congressional Delegation joined with the delegations 
from Vermont, New Hampshire and New York to obtain funding in the 1998 
Supplemental Appropriations Act to provide money for the CDBG program 
to help our States complete their recovery from the Ice Storm. Working 
with Senator Bond, Chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Senator Mikulski the Ranking Member; and Appropriations Chairman 
Stevens, we secured $260 million in the Senate's 1998 Supplemental.
  When the Senate considered this legislation, members from the 
Northeast spoke of the need for, and reasons behind, this additional 
funding and in a colloquy between Senators Bond and D'Amato, it was 
noted that $60 million of this funding was meant specifically for the 
Northeast to help with the recovery costs from the Ice Storm. During 
the subsequent conference, that amount was dropped to $130 million, as 
the House version of the bill only contained $20 million for this 
purpose.
  The Supplemental was signed into law on May 1, 1998. On November 6, 
1998, 11 months after the disaster and six months after the bill had 
been signed into law, HUD announced that it was allocating 
approximately half of the $130 million, including $2.2 million for 
Maine. With an unmet need of more than $70 million, this funding was 
simply unacceptable and made all the more so because HUD would not or 
could not explain the rationale behind the numbers. Phone calls were 
made, meetings were held, letters were sent and still we received no 
explanation.
  In the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill adopted by Congress at the 
end of the 105th Congress, $250 million was provided for emergency CDBG 
money to cover disasters occurring in both FY98 and FY99. Secretary 
Cuomo told me in a phone conversation on March 2, 1999 that he would 
use some of this money to allow States dissatisfied with their original 
allocation to reapply. This discussion occurred a few days before the 
Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the 1999 Supplemental that 
included language to transfer the remaining CDBG emergency funding from 
HUD to FEMA because, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee 
report,

       The Committee is concerned over HUD's continuing failure to 
     implement an effective emergency disaster relief program for 
     the ``unmet needs'' of states with Presidentially-declared 
     natural disasters. Instead, the Committee believes that FEMA 
     is the appropriate Federal agency for addressing these unmet 
     disaster needs since FEMA has primary responsibility for 
     assessing and responding to all natural disasters and for 
     administering most primary programs of disaster assistance.
       In particular, FEMA is urged to review and respond 
     appropriately to the needs of the Northeast for damage 
     resulting from the ice storms of last winter. HUD failed to 
     respond properly to these needs despite congressional concern 
     over the ice damage.

  On March 5, 1999 I spoke again with Secretary Cuomo when he called to 
express his concern that he could not publish the notice as OMB said 
that the Senate Appropriations Committee's actions on March 4 to 
transfer the money from HUD to FEMA prevented him from doing so. After 
conversations with OMB, I sent a letter to the Secretary detailing 
OMB'S response that it was permissible to publish the notice as long as 
funding was not allocated.

  On March 10, the Federal Register (p. 11943 to p. 11945) contained a 
notice from HUD that provided a review for states unhappy with their 
original funding allocation. Maine began work at once on an application 
for this funding.
  On March 23, we learned that HUD had allocated the rest of the money 
from the 1998 supplemental and that Maine was slated to receive another 
$2.158 million. HUD took this action despite the fact that they had 
been informed by the VA/HUD Subcommittee Chair and Ranking member, 
Senators Bond and Mikulski respectively, that they ``wait for final 
action by the Congress on the program structure for the award of 
emergency funding for ``unmet'' disaster needs'' and that ``because of 
a number of outstanding program issues, we believe that HUD should 
``hold'' all final award allocations pending final congressional action 
on S. 544.'' So HUD's allocation announcement was somewhat confusing as 
they did not have the authority to release the money. I request 
unanimous consent that a copy of the HUD notice be included in the 
Record.
  Secretary Cuomo told me on March 24 that the State should get their 
application in response to the March 10 Federal Register in as soon as 
possible, and the State delivered it to HUD on March 25.
  On May 4, as conferees were working on the Supplemental, I received a 
letter from Cardell Cooper, Assistant HUD Secretary for Community 
Planning and Development, announcing that Maine would receive an 
additional $17,088,475 based on the State's March 25 application under 
the March 10 Federal Register notice. This letter also noted that 
Maine's money was subject to Congressional action.
  Mr. President, mere words cannot explain the frustration that Mainers 
have experienced with HUD throughout this process. I am deeply grateful 
for the leadership that Senator Bond, Senator Mikulski, Chairman 
Stevens and the entire Senate Appropriations Committee have 
demonstrated in their willingness to work with us and to help us 
address Maine's unmet needs.
  The conference report language on this bill states that:

       The Department is directed to award the remaining funds in 
     accordance with announcements made heretofore by the 
     Secretary, including allocations made pursuant to the March 
     10, 1999 notice published in the Federal Register, as 
     expeditiously as possible.

  This language directs HUD to live up to its March and May promises of 
funding for Maine to help pay for the unmet needs of the Ice Storm.
  Mr President, with passage of the Supplemental, Maine's fifteen month 
journey for equity will hopefully end. We can now complete the recovery 
that began in January, 1998 and has dragged on far too long.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would like to comment today on the 
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program which my distinguished colleague 
from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, worked so hard to have included in 
the Senate-passed Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. Despite 
his tireless efforts, the measure was stripped from the bill at the 
eleventh hour for reasons which are beyond me.

[[Page S5675]]

I take umbrage with the misleading moniker that some Members of the 
House Leadership have shamelessly placed upon this vital program for 
partisan political purposes.
  This program, far from being a handout for any one company in my 
state of West Virginia or anywhere else, would provide emergency relief 
for more than a dozen American steel producers who have been stricken 
by the effects of the unprecedented surge in steel imports into the 
U.S. over the last year. This crisis, which has caused as many as 
10,000 layoffs at steel factories across the nation and threatens as 
many as 100,000 more jobs, has unfairly injured the credit ratings of 
America's steel manufacturers by forcing them to compete with dirt 
cheap foreign steel, which is often being sold in the U.S. at costs 
below that of production.
  If you ask me, this important crisis, without question, is 
appropriately classified as an ``emergency''. If you ask the 
steelworkers who've either been laid off or who are the next to go, I 
bet they say the same thing. Ask their families and communities if this 
is an emergency, and you'll get the same answer. The emergency is that 
our American steel industry is being pummeled by illegal foreign 
competition, and that the imports are taking a very real and 
devastating toll on the people who depend on steel for their 
livelihood.
  The program that Senator Byrd proposed in the Senate-passed version 
of the Supplemental Appropriations bill would have made it possible for 
many of the most financially-unstable steel producers in this country 
to persevere until we in the Senate can take decisive and comprehensive 
action to address the underlying cause of our domestic steel industry's 
current predicament--imports. The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee 
Program would have made much-needed capital available to those 
companies who have been the hardest hit by the import surge, and it 
would have done so at minimal expense to the American taxpayer. The 
program just made good sense, and I was extremely disappointed to hear 
that Members of the House Leadership insisted that it be eliminated.
  The argument was, from what I hear, that Senator Byrd's provision was 
too expensive and of benefit only to Weirton Steel Corporation in West 
Virginia. The fact is, Mr. President, that Weirton was just one of more 
than a dozen companies which the Department of Commerce determined 
would be eligible for loans under this program. All of these distressed 
companies have been doing everything in their power to survive the 
current crisis. I know first hand the great lengths to which Weirton 
Steel has gone through simply to keep its head above water. In my state 
alone we've had nearly 1,000 layoffs as a direct result of the import 
surge. The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program would have made it 
possible for companies across the nation to make upcoming debt payments 
which many steel producers are in jeopardy of defaulting on because of 
the current crisis. Moreover, the cost of the program was $140 million 
to leverage $1 billion in loans--that's a good investment. I deeply 
regret that the unwillingness of some Members of Congress to open their 
eyes to the plight of America's steelworkers has resulted in the loan 
program being removed from this vehicle. That is very bad news for the 
many steel companies who stood to benefit from the program. Some of 
them are now that much closer to joining the other four major American 
steel producers who have already been forced into bankruptcy by this 
crisis.
  However, there remains time to reverse this mistake. I hope that the 
Members of Congress, who did not understand the details of how this 
loan program functions or the benefits that it would bestow upon a 
large number of steel companies across the nation, will reassess their 
position. We still have an opportunity to support this important 
program. I intend to work with Senator Byrd in moving this program on 
another legislative vehicle.
  Each of my colleagues knows how strongly I believe that this body 
must act to address the import surge in a comprehensive way. However, I 
also know how vital the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program is to 
many U.S. steel producers. It is a critically important stop-gap 
measure which would allow companies like Weirton steel to remain in 
business long enough for the United States Senate to take the tough and 
comprehensive action which is necessary to protect our domestic 
industry from unfair foreign competition.
  Mr. President, I truly hope that we seize the opportunity to take up 
this measure again. Without it, steel companies in a number of 
different states may soon find themselves the next victims of our 
failure to aggressively enforce our unfair trade laws.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I do not support the adoption of the 
conference report on H.R. 1141, the fiscal year 1999 emergency 
appropriations act.
  My decision to oppose this bill was not an easy one, Mr. President. 
This legislation contains funding for our U.S. military forces in 
Kosovo, Iraq, Bosnia, and elsewhere around the world. Regardless of my 
deep concerns about NATO's Kosovo operations, I realize that our 
military, already stretched to the limit by numerous foreign 
deployments, needs the resources provided by this legislation. Further, 
this bill contains funding to help farmers in Oklahoma who are finding 
it hard to get credit, and it will make sure disaster assistance for 
Oklahoma tornadoes does not deplete FEMA's funding reserves.
  Unfortunately, it is also fiscally irresponsible.
  H.R. 1141 provides $15 billion in new spending authority, $13 billion 
of which is provided for fiscal year 1999 and $2 billion of which is 
provided for fiscal year 2000.
  The outlays flowing from this budget authority will reduce our budget 
surplus by $14.6 billion over the next five years. In fiscal year 1999 
and 2000, when the entire budget surplus is attributable to the Social 
Security trust fund, this bill spends $11 billion of the surplus.
  Additionally, $14.7 billion of the bill's total spending is 
designated as emergency spending, so that it is outside of the spending 
caps. $10.9 billion of the emergency spending is attributable to 
defense.
  Unfortunately, the efforts of my colleague Senator Gramm to remove 
the nondefense emergency designations failed earlier today. I supported 
him in that effort, and I am disappointed that more of my colleagues 
did not join us.
  This legislation makes a mockery of our budget process. I believe 
Congress cannot continue to squander the economy's good fortune on a 
bigger, more invasive government. I believe the fiscal restraints we 
all agreed to in 1997 should be enforced, and I believe the budget we 
passed just a few weeks ago must be complied with.
  A soaring economy and the 1997 budget agreement combined last year to 
produce the first budget surplus since 1969. What was Congress' 
reaction?
  We abandoned all fiscal restraint and passed a monstrous Omnibus 
spending bill which included a record $22 billion in emergency 
spending.
  With CBO predicting an even bigger budget surplus this year, $111 
billion, we are rushing to enact a $15 billion emergency spending bill.
  Since spending caps were instituted in the 1990 budget deal, Congress 
has appropriated $132 billion in emergency spending; $70 billion since 
the end of the Gulf War. The average annual emergency appropriation 
from 1993 to 1997 was $8 billion.
  I believe that Senators must decide if they truly intend to abide by 
the budgets we pass, or simply ignore them.
  As I have already mentioned, this bill includes $1.13 billion in new 
spending for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, partially offset 
by a $230 million transfer from the Community Development Block Grant 
program. This $1.13 billion is in addition to the $1.2 billion Congress 
has already appropriated to FEMA for fiscal year 1999.
  While I support the work FEMA is doing to help my state recover from 
massive tornado damage, I believe the funding in this supplemental is 
far more than the agency needs. In fact, after touring Oklahoma tornado 
damage two weeks ago, the President asked for an additional $372 
million for FEMA. I have been assured by FEMA that they do not require 
resources beyond this request to accommodate the Oklahoma disasters.
  Unfortunately, the conferees on the supplemental decided to pile on 
$758 million more than the President requested. This extra funding has 
nothing to do with FEMA's current needs.

[[Page S5676]]

It has everything to do with the appropriations committee's desire to 
``pre-fund'' the agency in an attempt to avoid the fiscal year 2000 
spending caps.
  Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for his efforts to keep 
the cost of this bill down and remove some of its objectionable 
provisions. However, I deeply regret that I cannot support this 
emergency supplemental spending bill. I believe we are losing our grip 
on fiscal sanity, and I fear that worse is coming later this year. I 
plan to work aggressively throughout this year to make sure we comply 
with the budget we enacted last month.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the supplemental 
appropriations conference report.
  Mr. President, this bill is not perfect, and I realize that some of 
my colleagues do not believe it is worthy of support. I disagree. This 
legislation meets several pressing demands that we have a 
responsibility to meet. First, this compromise provides essential 
funding for our military operations in Yugoslavia as well as 
humanitarian aid for Kosovo refugees. Without this funding our fighting 
men and women will face equipment and material shortfalls and view a 
``no'' vote as a lack of support for them and their mission. Second, 
this legislation follows through on a commitment we made to provide a 
long-overdue pay raise for our troops. Third, this legislation provides 
disaster assistance to help our Latin American neighbors recover from 
the hurricane which struck that region so viciously earlier this year, 
and it contains funds to aid recovery from the recent spate of 
tornadoes here at home. Lastly, it extends the Airport Improvement 
Program which helps our nation's airports reduce aircraft noise and 
ensure aviation safety.
  However, I am disappointed that the Conference Committee decided to 
retain the Hutchison-Graham tobacco settlement recoupment provision in 
this year's Supplemental Appropriations bill. This amendment clearly 
does not deal with an ``emergency'' situation and should, therefore, 
not be included in this legislation. I am also deeply concerned that we 
have not thoroughly considered the potential impact this provision will 
have on the federal budget in years to come.
  In essence, this provision usurps the ability of the Congress to 
engage in a healthy debate about the use of the federal share of the 
tobacco settlement. While many argue that the federal government has 
absolutely no claim to this money, those assertions simply are not 
true. Current law dictates that the federal government rightly has a 
say over the percentage it contributes to the Medicaid program. Yet, 
instead of bringing this matter to the floor and considering it in an 
honest fashion, we are allowing an unprecedented opportunity to make a 
real difference in the lives of millions of Americans completely slip 
away from us. It is unfortunate that proponents of turning over the 
federal share of the tobacco settlement to the states without any 
guidelines have taken this backdoor approach.
  In essence, we have allowed our hands to be tied by the states, who 
wish to use this money to cut taxes, fix roads and build new buildings, 
among other things. According to a recent survey conducted by the 
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the majority of states, as of today, 
have no definite plans to spend a portion of the settlement on programs 
to prevent children from starting to smoke or to help current smokers 
quit the habit. This action is in direct contrast with the desires of 
the majority of Americans who would like to see a major portion of this 
money set aside for tobacco prevention and cessation programs and 
health care to cover the cost of tobacco related illness. In my state, 
Rhode Islanders have resoundingly supported dedicating a significant 
amount of the settlement for tobacco related activities.
  I am saddened that we appear to have lost sight of the fact that the 
process of suing the tobacco companies was not so states could get more 
money for roads or schools, but because for decades these companies 
purposefully deceived the American public about the dangers of smoking. 
As a result, generations of Americans have suffered the adverse health 
effects of this campaign of deceit, and the federal government spent 
billions addressing the health care needs of these folks. While states 
were triumphant in reaching this monumental agreement, what will the 
effort have been for if there is no change in teen smoking rates in 
this country?
  Lastly, I am concerned that the conference report contains a number 
of dubious environmental riders that should be more fully debated as 
well as several budgetary off-sets that raise a number of questions. In 
particular, as a Senator who serves on the Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs Committee, I believe that the rescission of $350 million worth 
of Section 8 funds could jeopardize the renewal of affordable housing 
contracts for thousands of elderly and low-income Americans, which 
would be a step backwards in our effort to increase the amount of 
affordable housing in our nation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I regret that I have to come to the floor 
to cast my vote against the emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
before the Senate today. When we face crises in this country, when you 
have American men and women serving courageously in Kosovo, when you 
have the borders in Macedonia and Montenegro overflowing with refugees, 
and when you have hundreds of thousands of hurricane victims in Central 
America, you would expect that the U.S. Senate would be capable of 
coming together--unanimously--to address these challenges. It used to 
be that way in the Senate. It's not that way anymore. Now we fund our 
operations in Kosovo, and we help the refugees, and we aid the 
hurricane victims, but at the same time we practice legislative 
extortion--we say to every Senator, ``You want to vote for Kosovo? You 
want to vote for aid for hurricane victims? Go ahead--but you have to 
vote to cut vital housing programs for working Americans across this 
country. And you need to vote to eliminate environmental regulations.'' 
That's not the way we ought to do business in the U.S. Senate, and I 
think it's time we start to talk about changing that course before it 
contaminates public life any further. That is why I will cast my vote 
against this emergency supplemental appropriations bill: to register my 
frustration and my sadness with the way we now do business in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Before I say more about the damage this bill does to so many of the 
vital areas of public policy in the United States, I must tell you that 
in many respects I only have the liberty of voting against this bill--
of casting a symbolic stone against legislative blackmail--because I 
know this bill will pass the Senate overwhelmingly. Critical 
investments for our troops in Kosovo--which, as a veteran, as a 
citizen, and as a senator, I have aggressively supported--will be made 
in spite of my vote against this bill. The truth is, if this were not 
the case, if my vote would have undermined in any respects our efforts 
in Kosovo, I would have had to vote for this bill, in spite of the 
damage it does. I would have had to--regrettably--support this bill 
because we have a responsibility to support the American troops we have 
committed overseas, and I would never stand by and allow the Senate to 
send what I believe is the wrong message to our troops, and the wrong 
message to Slobodan Milosevic about American resolve . I believe the 
United States, and NATO as a whole, must remain united against the 
systematic killing, raping and pillaging of innocent Kosovar Albanian 
men, women, and children at the hands of Serb forces. The funding 
included in this supplemental appropriations conference report will 
provide support for the U.S. service men and women who are putting 
their lives in jeopardy and will, I believe, give them a greater 
capacity to achieve our military objectives in Kosovo. It will also 
provide the desperately needed relief for humanitarian efforts already 
underway to assist the refugees in that region. And these investments 
will be made by the U.S. Senate, reflected in our final tally.
  I believe this Nation must have a bipartisan foreign policy, and that 
we can not afford to allow politics to endanger our troops. But I wish 
that more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, those who 
included provisions which cut directly against the interests of low 
income working Americans and our environment, would

[[Page S5677]]

also have a commitment to bipartisanship on domestic issues of 
tremendous importance to so many working Americans struggling to keep 
their heads above water even in this great economy we celebrate on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate. The rescissions and changes in policy 
included in this Conference Report will eventually hurt the poorest 
Americans and will immediately hurt our environment. That should not be 
acceptable in a Senate which prides itself on its ability to do what is 
right for all Americans. I can not in good conscience support these 
measures.
  I question what it says about our commitment to helping those who are 
being left behind in this new economy, that we could find the resources 
to provide $983 million in disaster relief for those whose lives were 
disrupted when Hurricane Mitch struck the Central American nations of 
Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala and when Hurricane 
Georges struck in the Caribbean last year--but we are cutting critical 
investments in housing for working Americans. Hurricanes in Central 
America have left almost 10,000 dead and have driven millions from 
their homes. The cost of damages to businesses, hospitals, schools and 
individual homes have been enormous. We are right to provide assistance 
to the victims of these hurricanes. But we ought to be able to do it 
without abandoning thousands of our neediest citizens here at home.
  Today there are more than five million low-income Americans facing 
severe housing needs, receiving federal housing assistance. At least 
another 15 million Americans qualify for help but do not receive it 
because of limited budget appropriations. They suffer from 
homelessness--600,000 Americans homeless each night; 5.3 million 
Americans pay rents that are more than 50 percent of their household 
income, or live in severely substandard conditions--these are the 
severe housing problems we once hoped to address. These families are 
one misfortune away from homelessness. A child gets sick, a parent gets 
laid off--even for a week or two, the car breaks down, and that family 
ends up on the streets. So what are we doing in this supplemental 
appropriations bill? We're rescinding $350 million from the Section 8 
program that helps these families who are working through the tough 
times--and we're rescinding this money in spite of the fact that the 
HUD budget in FY1999 will already be almost $1 billion less than it was 
in FY1994. This rescission will result in a shortfall that will cause 
the loss of subsidy and the displacement of approximately 60,000 
families. 60,000 families. It will make the current waiting list 
crisis, where families must sometimes wait years to find some relief, 
even more difficult to solve.
  This isn't the first time this has happened. Year after year, HUD's 
budget is raided--targeted for cuts in 1995, in 1997, in 1998, and 
again this year--to pay for emergencies which, by their nature and by 
law, are not required to be offset with budget cuts. Only a very small 
portion of this $15 billion bill is offset with spending cuts. I am 
disturbed, really, that some of my colleagues have chosen to make cuts 
to this program because they believe it is politically vulnerable. 
HUD's budget should not fall victim to this type of spending cut--and 
families struggling to stay off the streets shouldn't fall victim to 
this kind of politics.
  I am not new to this game. I have fought year in and year out against 
substantial cuts that have been made to the HUD budget. These cuts have 
jeopardized the existing public housing services and have undermined 
HUD's capacity to continue the Secretary's ambitious program of reform 
or even just to make up for previous under-funding of capital needs to 
meet our Nation's demand for affordable housing. Last year, the 
Congress passed the first new section 8 vouchers in 5 years. This 
rescission would reverse in large part the down payment Congress made 
in addressing unmet housing needs. At least 100,000 new vouchers are 
needed to begin to address the outstanding needs. This rescission moves 
us in the wrong direction.
  As the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, as someone who 
sees first hand in Massachusetts the struggles of so many families 
working their fingers to the bone and trying to stay off the streets, I 
can not support these draconian cuts in housing.
  But this bill doesn't stop there. Some of my colleagues have included 
dangerous environmental riders in this bill--in a practice that is 
becoming all too common in this Senate. It wasn't this way 15 years ago 
when I came here, it wasn't that way 30 years ago when Democrats and 
Republicans worked together to write our first environmental laws, but 
it's that way now--even basic environmental protections have become a 
partisan fight--and the riders in this bill do serious damage to our 
environment. Specifically, the conference report includes three 
environmental riders that I believe will set back environmental 
progress, unnecessarily limit federal revenues and undermine the 
legislative process--and I oppose all of them.

  The conference report extends the moratorium on issuing a final rule-
making on crude oil valuation until October 1, 1999. It restricts the 
implementation of the Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion on 
mining that limits the number of millsites to one five-acre millsite 
per patent.
  The environmental rider that I find most egregious prevents the 
Department of Interior from issuing new rules for hardrock mining on 
public lands. This is the third time the Senate has attached such a 
provision to an appropriations bill. As a result, the hardrock mining 
industry continues to cause environmental damage and costs the 
taxpayer.
  The extraction of hardrock minerals like gold, silver and copper 
usually includes the excavation of enormous pits and the use of toxic 
chemicals like cyanide, and its results have been destructive. 
According to the General Accounting Office, there are almost 300,000 
acres of federal land that have been mined and left unreclaimed. 
Abandoned mines account for 59 Superfund sites and there are more than 
2,000 abandoned mines in our national parks.
  The Mineral Policy Center estimates that the cleanup costs for 
abandoned mines on public and private lands may reach $72 billion. 
Rather than reform the industry through comprehensive legislation or 
proper execution of existing executive branch authority, we will once 
again block reform through a rider.
  It is time that we put an end to this policy of undermining the 
environment, of gutting environmental protections, by slipping riders 
through the back door of every spending bill. We ought to be a better 
Senate than that. We ought to have our debates on the floor, in public, 
and if you want to promote a vision of an America where we turn the 
environment over to polluters, over to those who would destroy our 
natural resources, if that's your vision, then let's debate it--and 
let's end the practice of environmental degradation through 
appropriations bills.
  Before I yield the floor, I do want to draw our attention to 
something in this supplemental bill which I believe is an important 
victory for Massachusetts, and for our fishermen. I am pleased that 
$1.88 million was included for NOAA's National Marine Fisheries 
Service, NMFS, to promote cooperative management and research 
activities in the Northeast multispecies fishery. These funds will 
complement the $5 million in emergency assistance that was appropriated 
for Gulf of Maine fishermen last November.
  Many in this Chamber know that too many fishermen in New England are 
experiencing economic hardship due to new groundfish regulations 
recently imposed in the Gulf of Maine. In order to help alleviate the 
negative effects of these new regulations, fishermen have joined with 
NMFS in developing a spending plan for the $5 million in emergency 
assistance. The plan proposes to compensate fishermen for lost fishing 
opportunities that have resulted from inshore groundfish closures. 
Fishermen, in return, will make their vessels available to take part in 
cooperative research projects. A portion of the $1.88 million will be 
used to fund the cooperative scientific projects that will be conducted 
by NMFS and other institutions. In addition, some of the new funding 
will be used to employ fishermen as scientific observers. This new 
partnership will have a twofold benefit. Cooperative research 
activities will keep fishermen employed on the water while groundfish 
stocks recover,

[[Page S5678]]

and this plan will promote a more constructive relationship between 
fishermen and NMFS with the goal of improving management activities in 
the Gulf of Maine groundfish fishery. I express my very real 
appreciation for the support of Senate Appropriations chairman, Senator 
Ted Stevens and the Democratic ranking member, Senator Byrd, for 
including this provision in the conference report and for their 
continued steadfast support of the New England fishermen.
  In conclusion, let me just say that I fully support the American men 
and women who are putting their lives in jeopardy in the Kosovo region 
for a mission which I believe in very deeply--as a veteran, I support 
their interests very personally in fact. I would have liked to have 
seen the Senate produce an Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill 
that we could all vote for, unanimously. But this bill is a far cry 
from that kind of legislation, a far cry from the kind of bipartisan 
foreign policy we demand from our leaders in the United States. I am 
entirely disappointed that some members of the Senate have used this 
bill as a vehicle to hurt low-income working families and damage the 
environment we all share.
  Mr. President, we are a great country of Americans who care about 
each other, who believe that we have a national purpose and that part 
of the reason we are a special nation is that we help each other make 
it through the times and make the most of our own lives. We're a great 
nation. We ought to be a great Senate that reflects that sense of 
commitment to one another, and I look forward to the day when those 
values return to this Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have three additional speakers. I sent 
word to them. Does the distinguished Senator from Mississippi have any 
suggestions at the moment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I intend to reserve our time until just 
before the vote, if that is satisfactory.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if it is agreeable with the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi, I ask unanimous consent there be a recess for 
3 minutes and it not be charged against the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. We would just suggest the absence of a quorum for that 
time.
  Mr. BYRD. We can't call off a quorum in 3 minutes if anybody objects.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I do not intend to object and I hope no one would.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time will not be 
charged.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no more requests for time. I yield my 
time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there has been some conversation about 
disaster assistance for farmers and complaints that this bill does not 
go far enough to address the needs in the agriculture community for 
disaster assistance.
  I point out to Senators that there are funds in here that will 
provide guaranteed loans for those farmers who are having difficulty 
getting financing for this year's crop so that the Government will 
guarantee the repayment of that loan. That will allow them to get loans 
they otherwise would not be able to get because of the inability to 
show that this year's crop will produce a profit.
  This is a real problem, and we are sensitive to that. We have had 
hearings on that subject, and we are aware of it. In this conference 
report, we spell out, in addition to the funds I have talked about 
already in the bill, the following:

       The conferees recognize the problems facing agricultural 
     producers today and understand that the actual needs for 
     disaster assistance funds provided last year likely will 
     exceed the projections of the Department of Agriculture. The 
     Department of Agriculture has projected that net farm income 
     will decline $3 billion below last year. The conferees expect 
     the administration to monitor the situation closely and if 
     necessary, submit requests for additional funds to the 
     Congress for consideration.

  This acknowledges that the problems are real. We know they are real. 
Last year was a big disaster in agriculture, and the Congress and the 
administration agreed to respond with a multibillion-dollar disaster 
assistance program. Some of the farmers have not gotten the benefits of 
that program yet. We provide funds to accelerate the availability of 
those benefits from the Department of Agriculture, and we are meeting 
every request that has been submitted by this administration for 
additional funds for that purpose.
  The conference is sensitive to those needs. We did reject an 
amendment that was offered to increase the funding, and we hope the 
administration will let us know if additional funds are truly needed.
  In many cases, it is impossible to determine what the assistance 
needs will be until after the crop year has begun. In many places, we 
have not even seen planting, but we do think this is responsive to that 
problem.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 1141, the fiscal year 1999 emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  The pending bill includes emergency funding to finance the United 
States participation in NATO military operations in Kosovo and 
Yugoslavia. This supplemental makes available $11.0 billion in 
emergency, and contingency emergency, defense appropriations based on 
the crisis in Kosovo and the closely related readiness crisis in our 
armed forces.
  Of these funds, $10.8 billion are appropriated to the Department of 
Defense:
  The supplemental provides the $5.5 billion the President requested 
for military operations in Kosovo and Department of Defense refugee 
assistance.
  It also provides some very needed readiness funding, specifically: 
$1.0 billion for procurement of depleted munitions stocks; $1.1 billion 
for spare parts, stocks of which have reached crisis proportions for 
some weapon systems; $700 million for overdue maintenance of these same 
weapons systems; $100 million for recruiting to address DoD's retention 
crisis; $200 million to improve the declining training of military 
personnel in high priority military specialties, and $200 million to 
repair aging bases.
  These are important additions that clearly merit this additional 
funding and an ``emergency'' designation. Some will argue that these 
adds for defense are too much; others will argue, correctly I believe, 
that these readiness increases are overdue. I have received both 
official and unofficial reports of extremely serious readiness problems 
in our armed forces. This additional funding will just begin to address 
these problems correctly.
  The legislation also makes $475 million available to the Secretary of 
Defense for Military Construction for him to use, under proper 
controls, as he sees fit. Another $1.8 billion is provided for military 
pay and pensions, subject to authorization legislation that Congress 
may choose to enact.
  Both of these latter additions are deemed ``contingent emergencies.'' 
The money will only be expended if the President agrees that the needs 
constitute an emergency and the funds should be spent for the stated 
purpose. The President need not spend these funds if he so selects. 
This, I believe, is an appropriate way to make these funds available.
  I strongly support these funds for our troops in the Balkans and for 
those in other parts of the world who may soon find themselves also 
involved in this troubling conflict. Regardless of our views regarding 
the conflict in the Balkans, we must fully support our armed forces 
being employed there and ensure that their equipment and training is 
fully and completely supported. It would be dangerous and foolish to do 
anything less.
  The conferees also provide $1.1 billion for humanitarian assistance 
to refugees from Kosovo. Congress provided an additional $548 million 
above the President's request to aid refugees that have fled Kosovo and 
the 20,000 that are temporarily resettling in the United States. This 
is a significant infusion of

[[Page S5679]]

resources to address an increasingly desperate situation in the nations 
bordering Kosovo.
  I commend the managers of the conference report for including the 
emergency aid to Central American countries who suffered form the 
ravages of Hurricane Mitch. This aid is for our neighbors who faced 
devastation of Biblical proportions last fall. The final aid package 
totals $814 million for the region.
  I remind my colleagues that the United States has worked for more 
than a quarter of a century to help develop democratic movements in 
this region. The need to move quickly and pass this funding cannot be 
overstated. When I visited the region in December, I was gratified to 
hear government agencies and relief groups emphasize over and over 
again, ``We want your help, not forever, but so we can begin to help 
ourselves and continue building stable and democratic societies.''
  In addition to these critical items, the final bill addresses the 
President's request for a $100 million appropriation for Jordan under 
the Wye Peace Accord. The Congress also provides an additional $574 
million for aid to America's farmers following the $5.9 billion in 
emergency aid approved by Congress last October. It is also important 
to note that the conferees have taken swift action to ensure that 
sufficient disaster aid through the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, is available for Oklahoma, Kansas, and other Midwestern 
states that have been severely damaged by recent tornadoes.
  Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to print in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks a table by the Congressional Budget Office 
that summarizes the spending in the pending bill.
  Mr. President, including offsets to some of the nondefense emergency 
and non-emergency spending in the bill, the net total of the final bill 
is $11.35 billion in BA and $3.7 billion in outlays for fiscal year 
1999. An estimated $2.0 billion in BA and $7.4 billion in outlays will 
be expended in fiscal year 2000 according to CBO estimates of the bill.
  Finally, I address an issue raised by the inclusion of a provision in 
the conference report concerning the Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation, OPIC. Because this language in the conference report 
attempts to change the way we treat an OPIC program under title V of 
the Budget Act (The Federal Credit Reform Act), it violates section 306 
of the Budget Act.
  We have consulted with CBO and OMB, and both agencies say they will 
not change their treatment of OPIC programs from past practices because 
of this provision. Therefore I will not challenge this language, 
because I do not think the conference report will have any practical 
effect on credit reform or our budgetary treatment of OPIC programs.
  I support this bill. It is largely an emergency spending package that 
responds to serious natural disasters at home and abroad, and to the 
NATO military campaign in the Balkans and the resulting tragedy of 
thousands of Kosovar refugees displaced during this conflict. I urge 
the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the table to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                SUMMARY OF FY 1999 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, H.R. 1141
                                             [Conference agreement, by fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005      Beyond     Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary:
    Emergencies:
        Defense......................  BA                  9,049      1,838  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     10,887
                                       O                   2,509      6,168      1,437        438        174         18         10          4     10,758
        Nondefense...................  BA                  3,733         43  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      3,776
                                       O                   1,073      1,090        741        497        346        226         24         10      4,007
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total emergencies..........  BA                 12,782      1,881  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     14,663
                                       O                   3,582      7,258      2,178        935        520        244         34         14     14,765
                                      ==================================================================================================================
    Non-emergencies:
        Defense......................  BA                      1  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........          1
                                       O                      19         17        -13        -13         -4         -1         -1          3          7
        Nondefense...................  BA                   -300         74          8          8          8          8          8          8       -178
                                       O                      76         85         18         -4         -5         -4         -4       -351       -189
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total non-emergencies......  BA                   -299         74          8          8          8          8          8          8       -177
                                       O                      95        102          5        -17         -9         -5         -5       -348       -182
                                      ==================================================================================================================
    Total discretionary:
              Defense................  BA                  9,050      1,838  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     10,888
                                       O                   2,528      6,185      1,424        425        170         17          9          7     10,765
              Nondefense.............  BA                  3,433        117          8          8          8          8          8          8      3,598
                                       O                   1,149      1,175        759        493        341        222         20       -341      3,818
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total................  BA                 12,483      1,955          8          8          8          8          8          8     14,486
                                       O                   3,677      7,360      2,183        918        511        239         29       -334     14,583
                                      ==================================================================================================================
Mandatory (\1\)......................  BA                 -1,135  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........     -1,135
                                       0               .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Bill.....................  BA                 11,348      1,955          8          8          8          8          8          8     13,351
                                       O                   3,677      7,360      2,183        918        511        239         29       -334     14,583
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Food stamp rescissions of -$1,250 million (assigned to appropriations committee) and grants-in-aid for airports supplemental of $115
  million (assigned to authorizing committee).
 
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

                    Kosovo: A Long Road to Nowhere?

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we will soon vote on a $15 billion 
spending bill that will, among other things, further fund the war 
against Yugoslavia. Although the Administration requested some $6 
billion for military and humanitarian needs for the Kosovo operation, 
this amount has almost doubled, and is well over $11 billion. Sadly, 
this higher figure will not get our readiness back where it needs to 
be--where we could, at the drop of the hat, successfully wage two full 
scale wars at the same time--as directed in the ``Quadrennial Defense 
Review.''
  It also illustrates something seriously gone wrong here in 
Washington, D.C. Only a small amount of these funds are subject to 
offsets--its as if there is this notion, both in the Administration and 
in Congress, that this is ``free money.'' Well it's not, Mr. President. 
For every dollar spent, another priority loses out. And I can think of 
a whole host of areas where this money would be better spent than in 
fighting a war in a part of the world where most Americans can't 
clearly identify on a map. Tax cuts, Social Security, Education, to 
name just a few.
  I will vote against this bill for two reasons: (1) our Kosovo policy 
is seriously flawed and the only way we in Congress can truly voice our 
opposition is voting where it hurts the most--the pocketbook; and (2) 
this is a spending bill gone mad--there is no fiscal accountability 
here, nor is there any notion of fiscal responsibility.
  This vote, at least for me, will be one of the toughest I have had to 
cast in my tenure in the United States Senate. I strongly support our 
military, and am proud of our men and women in uniform. I certainly do 
not want to jeopardize our people who are charged with carrying out 
this war. But even so, this is not a vote against our military--rather, 
it is a vote in opposition

[[Page S5680]]

to the Administration's seriously flawed, if not inept Kosovo policy.
  No one disputes that Milosevic is a bad person and that he should be 
stopped. His brutal, persistent attacks on the Albanian Kosovar people 
is akin to Germany in the Second World War. But air strikes alone are 
not going to do it--they will level Yugoslavia, destroy most of its 
infrastructure, terrorize its civilian population, and most likely, not 
be successful stopping Milosevic.
  I do not believe that our war fighters' are being given sufficient 
latitude to make this mission a success. Their decisions are subject to 
dual-review: (1) the ``political'' review of the White House; and (2) 
the ``consensus'' of our NATO allies through every step of the war.
  A few examples. General Clark's request to deploy gunships continues 
to be denied by ``senior military advisors in Washington, D.C.'' Who 
are these people? The Joint-Chiefs of Staff? Or Sandy Berger and 
Madeleine Albright?
  It took over a month to get Apache helicopters to the region; and 
they sit grounded because the ``polls'' show no support for a ground 
campaign.
  It seems to me that one of the first priorities in waging a war is to 
cut off the supply lines of the other side--and oil, in particular, so 
that they cannot fuel their tanks and planes.
  Unbelievably, the NATO alliance refused to cut off the flow of fuel 
that fires Milosevic's war machine. Although the U.S. proposed a 
blockade to stop the oil, it was defeated by France which opposed 
implementing a blockade without a formal declaration of war.
  We are executing massive, full scale air bombings every day; people 
are being killed; but the French believe a declaration of war must be a 
precondition for a blockade.
  Our bombs have gone off course several times, hitting refugee 
convoys, the country of Bulgaria, and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade--
which is technically Chinese soil in Yugoslavia.
  At least in the case of the Chinese embassy, it wasn't the bombs at 
fault, it was our intelligence. Although the tourist maps in Belgrade 
accurately place the Chinese embassy in that locale, our intelligence 
was using an outdated map that led them to believe it was a procurement 
center for the Serbian military.
  The Chinese people are outraged, and well they should be. But the 
American people should be just as outraged--not just by this bombing, 
but by the continued incompetence which has come to typify this policy.

  I fail to understand how waging this war by NATO consensus is getting 
us anywhere except more deeply involved militarily, and less likely to 
find a diplomatic solution to this crisis. Mr. President, wars should 
not be waged by consensus, and diplomacy should not be directed by 
polls.
  Internationally, the world is a much less stable place than it was 
even two months before. There was a sense of optimism that Russia might 
help broker a diplomatic solution to Kosovo. The possibility remains, 
but Russia is far less stable than previously thought: President 
Yeltsin survived an impeachment proceeding, but he has again disbanded 
his government to the degree that it is unclear who in Russia has the 
power to help negotiate an end to this crisis.
  The Chinese are no longer just a sideline observer. While China has 
opposed the NATO bombings from the outset, it didn't have a dog in this 
fight until we bombed their embassy in Belgrade. If a deal on Kosovo is 
reached, it will have to pass muster with the Chinese who hold veto 
authority on the U.N. Security Council.
  We continue to bomb Iraq daily--stretching our Air Force readiness 
even further. Saddam Hussein shows no signs of letting up, and will 
most likely use this as an opportunity to push us even further.
  And last, but not least, the Korean Peninsula continues to be a 
crisis in waiting. Starvation in North Korea is rampant, food supplies 
are gone, and the country is undergoing one of the worst droughts in 
history. If the North Koreans decide to engage us militarily, we will 
be fighting three wars at the same time--beyond that envisioned by our 
military strategists in the Quadrennial Defense Review, and perhaps 
much more than we are currently prepared to do.
  Again, we will soon vote on this supplemental funding package. Over 
$15 billion. And when the war is over, we will be asked to vote on 
additional funding to rebuild Yugoslavia. We will probably vote to 
rebuild the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. And if we approve additional 
funds for the military campaign, the end costs of rebuilding Yugoslavia 
will only continue to mount.
  My vote does not undermine my support, concern or pride for our 
military. But I do believe that a diplomatic solution to this problem 
should have been found, can still be found, and must be found if we are 
to avoid the further escalation of this war. Failure to do so will cost 
us precipitously--not just in dollars, but in American lives.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the $15 billion 
supplemental appropriations conference report before us. The 
supplemental spends far more than is necessary to support our effort in 
Kosovo and, worse, will take vitally needed money out of the Social 
Security surplus, thereby raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Protecting the Social Security trust fund is one of my highest 
priorities. The Social Security system is expected to go into deficit 
in 2014 and we will need every dollar of that surplus today in order to 
be prepared for the tomorrows ahead of us.
  Until this point, the Senate has been headed in the right direction 
on Social Security. The Budget Resolution, which I strongly supported, 
called for reduced debt and taxes, increased funding for education and 
national defense, and maintaining the spending caps so necessary to 
control spending.
  Perhaps most importantly, the budget resolution built in on-budget 
surpluses from the year 2001 and beyond. This is significant because 
surpluses that are accumulating in the Social Security Trust Funds will 
no longer be used to finance on-budget operations of government. Social 
Security surpluses should not be used to finance deficits in the rest 
of government.
  The Budget Resolution stood in stark contrast to President Clinton's 
budget, which, over the next five years, proposed spending $158 billion 
of the Social Security surpluses on non-Social Security programs.
  The Budget Resolution, in addition to preserving every penny of 
Social Security surpluses, also contained procedural hurdles blocking 
future budgets from spending Social Security surpluses.
  These procedures included a point of order against on-budget deficits 
and an amendment calling for reducing the debt ceiling by the amount of 
the Social Security surplus--the lockbox provision.
  The Senate voted in favor of both the point of order and the lockbox 
by unanimous votes during the budget resolution.
  In addition, the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft lockbox legislation, which 
is still pending in the Senate, would put these procedures into law, 
and ensure that Congress could not spend the Social Security surpluses 
on non-Social Security purposes.
  Unfortunately, the supplemental appropriations package before us 
would undo some of the good work that we have already done this 
session.
  By not offsetting $13 billion of the spending, the supplemental takes 
money from the Social Security surpluses, money that is necessary to 
protect the Social Security trust funds.
  Thus far, Congress has been committed to stopping the raid on Social 
Security. This Congress has passed a budget that is balanced without 
using Social Security funds.
  This conference report, however, not only spends Social Security 
funds, but also contains $1.2 billion in traditional pork spending.
  I refer to such spending as $45 million for Census funding, $3.76 
million for the House page dormitory, and $1.8 million for the O'Neill 
House building.
  If this bill were just for Kosovo and true emergency spending, I 
would vote for it. If this bill were fully offset, I would vote for it. 
But this bill is neither all emergency nor all offset. This bill, like 
the $21 billion omnibus appropriation last fall, is an abrogation of 
our responsibility to protect the Social Security surplus.
  Mr. President, this is not the way that we should handle Congress' 
responsibility over the federal purse

[[Page S5681]]

strings. If we face real emergencies, we should fund those emergencies.
  But funding those emergencies is not free. We need to pay for all 
spending, emergency or not. This is why I support Senator Enzi's 
attempt to make sure that this entire appropriation is offset.
  If we do not offset our spending, the money comes out of the Social 
Security surplus. There is no getting around this fact. We must pay for 
any new funding. If we do not pay for it, it comes out of the Social 
Security surplus.
  The Social Security program is too important to be raided. While I 
recognize the importance of emergency funding, particularly for Kosovo, 
I also recognize that spending needs to be paid for.
  Mr. President, this request is not unreasonable. All across this 
great land, when families face unexpected expenses, they must offset 
their spending by readjusting their priorities. No family in America 
would react to an unexpected crisis by going out and spending more 
money on other discretionary, non-budgeted items. All I am asking is 
that the Congress do the same.
  This supplemental spends too much money and offsets too little of it. 
If we are to keep our financial house in order, and to protect the 
Social Security trust funds, it is time that we in Congress started to 
change our behavior.
  If we are to maintain our Social Security obligations, we need to 
learn how to spend less money, and offset more. It is with regret that 
I feel obligated to oppose this conference report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support this supplemental emergency 
appropriations bill. It is far from perfect, and I have serious 
reservations about some provisions. At the same time, the legislation 
would provide vitally important funding for our operations in Kosovo, 
as well as several other important provisions. So, on balance, I have 
concluded that the bill deserves my support.
  Mr. President, of the $15 billion in new spending this bill contains, 
$12 billion is to support our important mission in Kosovo, to punish 
Slobodan Milosevic for his brutal policy of ethnic cleansing, compel a 
political settlement, and facilitate the return of the Kosovar Albanian 
refugees to their homeland. The tragedy in Kosovo represents a turning 
point for NATO, European security, and American leadership in the 21st 
century. I am glad that Congress has shown its support for the 
President with the funding contained in this bill for the military 
operation and the humanitarian assistance.
  The bill also contains funds to ensure that the International 
Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia can effectively investigate and 
prosecute the perpetrators of the atrocities committed in Kosovo and 
those in Belgrade who ordered them to carry out this campaign of 
terror. They must be brought to justice.
  I am also glad that after a long delay we have provided the necessary 
assistance for Central American countries to recover from the 
devastation imposed last fall by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges.
  Mr. President, this bill also contains a provision that helps family 
members of the victims of the terrible Pan Am 103 bombing to attend the 
trial of the charged criminals before the Scottish court in the 
Netherlands. As you know, Mr. President, many New Jersey natives were 
on that flight. These families have waited too long for justice to be 
brought, and I am glad that they will be able to see it rendered 
firsthand.
  The bill also provides $100 million for Jordan, to help support its 
role in advancing the Middle East peace process. The region stands at a 
critical juncture after the death of King Hussein and the election of 
Ehud Barak as Israeli Prime Minister. I am glad we provided this down-
payment for Jordan. Now we must follow through on our commitment for 
Israel and the Palestinian Authority per the Wye River Memorandum the 
U.S. helped broker.
  Mr. President, despite these positive elements, the bill before us 
has many flaws.
  It contains more than $6 billion in unrequested defense spending, far 
in excess of what it will take to prosecute the air war against 
Milosevic. It stretches the definition of what constitutes an 
``emergency'' to such an extent that it mocks the notion of fiscal 
discipline.
  This year's concurrent resolution on the budget established five 
explicit criteria to guide the use of the emergency designation, which 
allows funding beyond the discretionary caps. These criteria relate to 
whether an item is (i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely 
useful or beneficial); (ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not 
building up over time; (iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need 
requiring immediate action; (iv) unforeseen, unpredictable, and 
unanticipated; and (v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
  Unfortunately, it is difficult to see how some of this defense 
spending constitutes an emergency. For example, while increasing 
military compensation may be a laudable goal, it hardly represents an 
emergency under these criteria.
  I also am disturbed by the apparent disparate treatment of offsets. 
As my colleagues know, under the Budget Act, funding for emergency 
spending does not count against the discretionary caps and therefore 
does not have to be offset. For some reason, however, the Majority 
feels that offsets are necessary--but for only for the agriculture and 
humanitarian emergencies, not the military portion. This double 
standard defies logic. If something is an emergency, no offsets should 
be required. If it is not an emergency, then we should not use the 
emergency designation and we should pay for it with spending 
reductions.
  However, of all the problems with this bill, I am most disappointed 
in the provisions related to the recent multi-state tobacco settlement. 
These provisions waive the Federal government's right to recoup its 
share of recovered tobacco Medicaid costs without any guarantees that 
State governments will spend even a penny of these settlement funds on 
tobacco control programs.
  Mr. President, these provisions--stuck into this large emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill--hand the tobacco industry a big 
victory. The tobacco lobby wanted to avoid an effective, nationwide 
anti-youth smoking effort. And unfortunately, it looks like their wish 
was granted.
  Mr. President, some have characterized this recoupment of Federal 
Medicaid dollars as a Federal ``money grab'' of State dollars. Nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  It is without question that a large portion of the state settlements 
with the tobacco industry represents a recovery of Federal funds. I 
should know, because I have been working with the state attorneys 
general on these cases since they were filed.
  In fact, I introduced the first ``Tobacco Medicaid Waiver'' bill back 
in 1996. At that time, I was joined by Mississippi Attorney General 
Mike Moore and Minnesota Attorney General Skip Humphrey at the 
introduction of a bill that would allow States to keep part of the 
Federal share of Medicaid. At the time, there were only ten states 
suing, and my bill was aimed at urging more States to bring claims.
  Mr. President, back then, none of these pioneering state officials 
ever said that the Federal Government had no right to Medicaid 
recoupment. It is a preposterous argument. The states sued under the 
Federal Medicaid statute--they knew that then and they know that now.
  Mr. President, there is no question under current law that a portion 
of these settlements are Federal funds. It is also important to note 
that the tobacco settlement signed by the States blocks the Federal 
government from seeking reimbursement for Federal Medicaid costs caused 
by tobacco company misconduct in the future. So, in other words, the 
States waived our rights too.
  Let me be clear: I think we should ultimately give this money back to 
the States--but we must have guarantees that a portion of this tobacco 
recoupment will be used to reduce youth smoking, assist children and 
promote public health.
  Mr. President, the provisions stuck into this bill are bad policy and 
primarily benefit one party: the tobacco industry. The losers will be 
America's children. Because of this provision, more young people will 
begin to smoke. And many of them, ultimately, will die as a result.

[[Page S5682]]

  Mr. President, that's not right. And I hope Congress will reconsider 
this decision in the future.
  Still, Mr. President, this conference report does contain several 
other important provisions, including funding for our operations in 
Kosovo. So, while I do so with some reluctance, I will support it.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes 12 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair, and I thank my good friend from 
Mississippi for managing the bill for us as we had a distinguished 
visitor in the Appropriations Committee room.
  Mr. President, there is a lot of controversy about this bill, but I 
think this bill represents the best of America. We have reacted to 
crises abroad and crises in this country.
  There are items in this bill that are not emergencies. While many 
people are saying they should not be here because they are not 
emergencies, they are here because this is a supplemental and an 
emergency bill. It is a bill that we can all vote for in good 
conscience, and I hope there will be an overwhelming vote for this.
  Again, I point out for the Senate that the men and women of the armed 
services are aware of this bill. It means a great deal to them. It is a 
symbol of our commitment to the pay raise for which we have already 
gone on record.
  It is a symbol that we are going to step forward to modernize the 
armed services. It is a symbol that we are going to provide the money 
to assure these people when they are sent overseas, whether it is 
Kosovo or in the area of Iraq or in South Korea, or in Bosnia--wherever 
it may be in those 93 countries of the world that the American service 
men and women are now serving--we are going to stand behind them and 
give them all the support they need not only for their safety but for 
their comfort.
  The passage of this bill will mean that we can now go ahead with the 
balance of our necessary actions in the Appropriations Committee. We 
have 13 full bills that come forward. I hope this will be the last 
supplemental of this year. I join the majority leader in not welcoming 
supplemental bills. But I know there are times when it is necessary; 
and this one is necessary.
  Anyone who looks at our involvement in the world knows that we cannot 
calculate in advance the costs of events, such as the Kosovo operation, 
both militarily and in regard to refugees. These were things that came 
up after we planned expenditures for 1999 in the fall of last year.
  I urge the Members of the Senate to vote for this bill. I urge that 
we, as quickly as possible, get it to the President so he can sign it 
today.
  I yield back any time I have and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1141. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--36

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Burns
     Cleland
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wyden
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________