[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4937-4959]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

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


                            Amendment No. 80

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

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

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

                      ``PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING

                       ``HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND

                              ``(DEFERRAL)

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

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with the 
provision in the bill that was reported from the committee that 
deferred spending from the temporary assistance to needy families 
account.
  This will defer, instead, monies from the section 8 fund of HUD. 
There is approximately $1.2 billion in that account. This will defer 
for 1 year the use of $350 million in that account. It replaces the 
TANF amendment in the bill. Under that amendment, we deferred until 
2001 the availability of funds which are transferred to the States.
  Because of the misunderstanding about that fund, I want to explain 
why we use that fund in the first place. I am once again alarmed over 
the misinformation that has been spread by some people in that entity, 
that agency, to try and make it look like somehow or other we took 
monies away from States or any specific State.
  In the first place, these grant awards are made quarterly. Actual 
cash outlays are made, but they are not transferred to the States until 
the States make expenditures in their TANF programs, the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families. In other words, the States first make the 
payments, and we pay it back. Some people, in the House in particular, 
have said this is a way that the States can use this money for a piggy 
bank. In no way can they take this money and put it into another bank 
account and draw interest on it if they comply with the law. That is 
one report I have heard--that we are preventing States from taking the 
money to put it into their own accounts.
  We checked and we found that there was between $3 billion and $3.5 
billion at the close of fiscal year 1998 in this fund. There are two 
quarters that have not even been distributed yet of this fiscal year 
1999. And it is clear that the States have spent some money, and there 
is plenty of money to meet the States' expenditures and their requests 
for reimbursement of those expenditures. But this is not a fund that 
the States can come to willy-nilly and transfer the funds to their 
accounts.
  Secondly, Mr. President, we deferred this money from obligation in 
this fiscal year--really until 2001, October 1, 2001.
  The States would not--the bill that was reported from the committee--
lose any of their funds. We, pursuant to the entitlement that was 
authorized, agreed that Federal funds, taxpayers' funds, in the amount 
of $16.5 billion, from 1997 through 2002, would be placed in this 
account, to be available to reimburse States for the expenditures they 
made for Assistance to Needy Families.
  Nothing in what the Appropriations Committee did harmed that program 
at all. But because by October 1 another $16.5 billion would have been 
added to $3 billion to $3.5 billion in that account--and there has 
never been a drawdown at the rate that would make those funds needed 
within that period of time.
  This is not a rainy day fund. We have been told that some people have 
said that States take these monies and put them in a rainy day fund to 
use at a later date. But the law says they can only get them to 
reimburse expenditures. If the administration is allowing this fund to 
be used as a rainy day account or a piggy bank account, it is wrong.
  We have had so many calls from so many States, including my own. And 
I see the Senator from New York is here, and I know that they have been 
besieged because of their population base. Of course, they are eligible 
for more money from this account, more than anyone other than 
California. But it depends on how much they spend before they can get 
it back.

[[Page 4938]]

  We made the decision to offset this bill. This is the first time we 
have offset totally a supplemental emergency bill. I have said to our 
committee, we ought to offset emergency funds with prior appropriated 
emergency funds and nonemergency funds with nonemergency prior 
appropriated funds. I think we are going to have a little discussion 
about that here on the floor.
  But clearly what we have done, Mr. President, is we have used this 
bill to reprogram prior appropriated funds. These funds that were 
appropriated to the TANF account are sitting there waiting for the 
States to spend money and then come and ask for it to be repaid. The 
process is so rapid that the administration has not paid the first two 
quarters of this year yet. So this is not something we have interfered 
with by deferring money until the second fiscal year. Because, as I 
said, this account would get $16.5 billion credited to it on October 1.
  What we have done is, in order to avoid this controversy--and we do 
not need a controversy on this bill. We need to get it done. This bill, 
in my opinion, is a very important bill. It will provide money for 
assistance because of a great natural disaster in a neighboring country 
in this hemisphere. The President asked us to declare that an 
emergency. We have taken the declaration of emergency through as far as 
the outlay categories are concerned, because it is very difficult to 
score under the budget process outlays that come from emergency 
accounts.
  We have not taken an emergency declaration through on those things 
that we believe are nonemergency in terms of the authorization process. 
So by that I mean, I fail to understand how we should extend the 
concept of emergency appropriations to natural disasters off our 
shores. We should be able to find the money, if we want to be good 
humanitarian members of this hemisphere, to assist our neighbors.
  I believe we should assist them. But I do not believe we should use 
the laws that were intended to demand taxpayers' funds immediately to 
meet natural disasters or declared emergencies by the President of the 
United States within the boundaries of our United States.
  So Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the spirit of compromise, 
to try and take away this battle that I saw coming over the use of TANF 
funds. No one supports the concepts of this Temporary Assistance to 
Needy Families. We all know it replaced the old Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children, the AFDC program, that assisted so many States, 
including mine for so many years.
  But this now is a block grant program that works in conjunction with 
the welfare-to-work concepts, and that is very vital for the States. We 
know that. And I think the fear that was engendered in those States 
that somehow or other we might not keep the commitment that was made, 
that if they make those expenditures we would repay them according to 
the formula under the law that was passed in 1996, the Welfare Reform 
Act, is unfortunate and wrong.
  I hope that someone in the administration is listening. One of these 
days I will find some way to tweak the nose of the people who keep 
doing this, because they did it in the terms of border guards last 
week, and now they are doing it in terms of the States themselves in 
terms of the comments that have been made that somehow or other we were 
taking money that the States were entitled to; we were deferring money 
that they were entitled to, which they would never get under the 
process of the law anyway until the time we deferred the expenditures.
  As a matter of fact, some people on this side of the aisle have 
argued with me to say this is not a full offset because I know that I 
am offsetting the expenditures under this bill against a fund that 
would never be expended this year. That is partially true. That is why 
we have declared an emergency, as far as the outlays, and we have 
admitted that, and we have said that is the only way we can do it. But 
we need to do it. I hope, in particular, my new friend from New York 
will understand that we are doing this to meet his objections and 
others, and we do so in the spirit of compromise.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, I want to, on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself, thank 
Chairman Stevens, as well as Senator Byrd, for their assistance in 
removing the $350 million offset from the TANF, Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families, account, which would have deferred the funds until 
2002.
  Mr. President, I and many others in New York feared that this offset 
set us off on the wrong course, that it would run counter to the 
intention of the welfare reform bill which allowed States to set aside 
TANF funds for use at a later date when welfare rolls would rise, such 
as during a future recession.
  My State, as the chairman knows, was particularly affected. The State 
was the source of nearly a quarter, about $80 million, of the $350 
million that was offset. So I am pleased that the alternative offset 
would shift some HUD funds from one fiscal year to the next, funds that 
never would have been used. We have checked with both the 
administration as well as our side on Housing and on Banking and on 
Appropriations, and they agree with that.
  I say to the chairman that I appreciate very much the spirit of 
compromise in which this was offered. I understand his view and I will 
bring that message back to our State. The people of New York will now 
be breathing a sigh of relief that this has been replaced.
  I also thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, who worked 
with me on this. He found his State in a similar position as ours. At 
least for my first foray into the Senate legislative process, it has 
been a bipartisan and productive effort. For that, I very much thank 
the chairman for his understanding of our needs and yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to ask for adoption of the 
amendment but I will not move to reconsider because there may be some 
who want to discuss this, too. I will make a motion to reconsider this 
later today. May I reserve the right to make that later today?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion can be made today or any of the 
next 2 following days.
  Mr. STEVENS. I shall make it this afternoon, and I ask for the 
adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 80) was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 81

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. __02. DEFINITION.

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

     SEC. __03. FUNDING LIMITATION.

       (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Department of Defense, 
     including funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and prior 
     fiscal years, may be obligated or expended for any deployment 
     of ground forces of the Armed Forces of the United States to 
     Kosovo unless and until--
       (1) the parties to the conflict in Kosovo have signed an 
     agreement for the establishment of peace in Kosovo;

[[Page 4939]]

       (2) the President has transmitted to Congress the report 
     provided for under section 8115 of Public Law 105-262 (112 
     Stat. 2327); and
       (3) the President has transmitted to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the 
     Senate a report containing--
       (A) a certification--
       (i) that deployment of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the 
     United States;
       (ii) that--

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

       (iii) that--

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

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

     SEC. __04. REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING BENCHMARKS.

       Thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, and 
     every 60 days thereafter, the President shall submit to 
     Congress a detailed report on the benchmarks that are 
     established to measure progress and determine the withdrawal 
     of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo. Each 
     report shall include--
       (1) a detailed description of the benchmarks for the 
     withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Kosovo;
       (2) the objective criteria for evaluating successful 
     achievement of the benchmarks;
       (3) an analysis of the progress made in achieving the 
     benchmarks;
       (4) a comparison of the current status on achieving the 
     benchmarks with the progress described in the last report 
     submitted under this section;
       (5) the specific responsibilities assigned to the 
     implementation force in assisting in the achievement of the 
     benchmarks;
       (6) the estimated timetable for achieving the benchmarks; 
     and
       (7) the status of plans and preparations for withdrawal of 
     the implementing force once the objective criteria for 
     achieving the benchmarks have been met.

     SEC. __05. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

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

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


                 Amendments Nos. 82 Through 88, En Bloc

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

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


                            AMENDMENT NO. 82

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. 17. EXTENSION OF AVIATION INSURANCE PROGRAM.

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



                            AMENDMENT NO. 83

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

       On page 29, insert after line 10:

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                        Office of the Secretary


                    General Departmental Management

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

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to speed up 
adjudication, by the appeals board of the Department of Health and 
Human Services, of appeals from nursing facilities of civil monetary 
penalties levied by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for 
violations of

[[Page 4940]]

standards established pursuant to the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. 
Currently, there is a substantial backlog of some 701 such cases. Delay 
in final adjudication of such cases subverts the purpose and effect of 
civil monetary penalties, delaying corrective action, and improvements 
in the quality of care offered by nursing facilities. Delays in 
adjudication of these cases also burdens nursing facilities through 
additional legal fees and the perpetuation of uncertainty caused by 
unresolved disputes.
  The number of such cases filed each year by nursing facilities has 
increased each year since 1995, the year when regulations for the 
Nursing Home Reform Act's enforcement standards went into effect. 
Currently, as I noted earlier in my statement, there are 701 such cases 
pending.
  Mr. President, the steady increase in appeals of civil monetary 
penalties since 1995 shows the effect of increased use, by the States 
and HCFA, of the enforcement regulations which went into effect in 
1995. Nevertheless, in hearings I held in the Special Committee on 
Aging last July, the General Accounting Office reported that nursing 
facilities providing poor quality of care regularly escaped sanctions 
which could cause care to be improved. The pattern seemed to be that a 
facility would be sanctioned for poor quality of care, be required to 
attest in writing through a plan of correction that steps had been 
taken to improve care, and then be found deficient on the next visit 
from State officials. This pattern often continued for long periods of 
time. And when sanctions such as civil monetary penalties were levied 
by HCFA, the sanctioned facilities would appeal, causing lengthy delays 
in final resolution of the case.
  One week before my July hearings, President Clinton launched a 
variety of new initiatives designed to improve the quality of care in 
nursing facilities. Among those new initiatives was one designed to 
eliminate paper compliance with quality standards and to proceed more 
quickly to sanctions for those homes with a history of poor care.
  The upshot of oversight by the Special Committee on Aging and the 
Presidential initiatives is that there has been a substantial increase 
thus far in 1999 of appeals of civil monetary penalties by nursing 
facilities.
  Certainly, facilities have the right to appeal sanctions levied by 
HCFA. But it is also important that appeals be heard and resolved in a 
reasonable amount of time. Delay subverts improvement in the quality of 
care in nursing facilities as real deficiencies go uncorrected. Delay 
also slows the development of precedents which would clarify 
outstanding issues. Slow development of such precedents encourages 
facilities and their legal representatives to file appeals because 
guidance as to the worthiness of an appeal is lacking. And, as the body 
of precedents becomes more complete, adjudication of cases becomes 
speedier.
  The root problem has been that the departmental appeals board does 
not have sufficient resources to keep up with the increase in new 
cases, to say nothing of working off the current backlog of cases. I am 
given to understand that, at the present time about 25 new cases are 
filed with the appeals board each week. As will be clear from the table 
I am attaching to my statement, the number of cases decided each year 
has averaged around 23 for the last 3 years. Clearly, the board is 
swamped and needs help.
  The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes $2.8 million for 
the board. Were the Congress to provide those funds, it will certainly 
take time for the appeals board to gear up and begin to speed up 
adjudication of appeals.We can't wait to begin addressing this problem, 
Mr. President. The amendment I offer would provide $1.4 million to be 
made available through the supplemental appropriation we are now 
considering. I have not proposed to provide the full $2.8 million the 
President's budget proposes for the next fiscal year because the 
appeals board could not effectively spend that amount in what remains 
of the fiscal year. Therefore, I have essentially prorated that amount 
over the time remaining in this fiscal year.


                            amendment no. 84

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


                            amendment no. 85

               (Purpose: To make a technical correction)

       On page 16, strike beginning with line 12 through page 23, 
     line 8, and insert the following:
       Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. (a) Short Title.--
     This section may be cited as the ``Emergency Steel Loan 
     Guarantee Act of 1999''.
       (b) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States steel industry has been severely 
     harmed by a record surge of more than 40,000,000 tons of 
     steel imports into the United States in 1998, caused by the 
     world financial crisis;
       (2) this surge in imports resulted in the loss of more than 
     10,000 steel worker jobs in 1998, and was the imminent cause 
     of 3 bankruptcies by medium-sized steel companies, Acme 
     Steel, Laclede Steel, and Geneva Steel;
       (3) the crisis also forced almost all United States steel 
     companies into--
       (A) reduced volume, lower prices, and financial losses; and
       (B) an inability to obtain credit for continued operations 
     and reinvestment in facilities;
       (4) the crisis also has affected the willingness of private 
     banks and investment institutions to make loans to the U.S. 
     steel industry for continued operation and reinvestment in 
     facilities;
       (5) these steel bankruptcies, job losses, and financial 
     losses are also having serious negative effects on the tax 
     base of cities, counties, and States, and on the essential 
     health, education, and municipal services that these 
     government entities provide to their citizens; and
       (6) a strong steel industry is necessary to the adequate 
     defense preparedness of the United States in order to have 
     sufficient steel available to build the ships, tanks, planes, 
     and armaments necessary for the national defense.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``Board'' means the Loan Guarantee Board 
     established under subsection (e);
       (2) the term ``Program'' means the Emergency Steel 
     Guaranteed Loan Program established under subsection (d); and
       (3) the term ``qualified steel company'' means any company 
     that--
       (A) is incorporated under the laws of any State;
       (B) is engaged in the production and manufacture of a 
     product defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a 
     basic steel mill product, including ingots, slab and billets, 
     plates, flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products, 
     bars, rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod; and
       (C) has experienced layoffs, production losses, or 
     financial losses since the beginning of the steel import 
     crisis, after January 1, 1998.
       (d) Establishment of Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan 
     Program.--There is established the Emergency Steel Guaranteed 
     Loan Program, to be administered by the Board, the purpose of 
     which is to provide loan guarantees to qualified steel 
     companies in accordance with this section.
       (e) Loan Guarantee Board Membership.--There is established 
     a Loan Guarantee Board, which shall be composed of--
       (1) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall serve as Chairman 
     of the Board;
       (2) the Secretary of Labor; and
       (3) the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (f) Loan Guarantee Program.--
       (1) Authority.--The Program may guarantee loans provided to 
     qualified steel companies by private banking and investment 
     institutions in accordance with the procedures, rules, and 
     regulations established by the Board.
       (2) Total guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans 
     guaranteed and outstanding at any 1 time under this section 
     may not exceed $1,000,000,000.
       (3) Individual guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of 
     loans guaranteed under this section with respect to a single 
     qualified steel company may not exceed $250,000,000.
       (4) Minimum guarantee amount.--No single loan in an amount 
     that is less than $25,000,000 may be guaranteed under this 
     section.
       (5) Timelines.--The Board shall approve or deny each 
     application for a guarantee under this section as soon as 
     possible after receipt of such application.
       (6) Additional costs.--For the additional cost of the loans 
     guaranteed under this subsection, including the costs of 
     modifying the loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a), there is 
     appropriated $140,000,000 to remain available until expended.
       (g) Requirements for Loan Guarantees.--A loan guarantee may 
     be issued under

[[Page 4941]]

     this section upon application to the Board by a qualified 
     steel company pursuant to an agreement to provide a loan to 
     that qualified steel company by a private bank or investment 
     company, if the Board determines that--
       (1) credit is not otherwise available to that company under 
     reasonable terms or conditions sufficient to meet its 
     financing needs, as reflected in the financial and business 
     plans of that company;
       (2) the prospective earning power of that company, together 
     with the character and value of the security pledged, furnish 
     reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan to be 
     guaranteed in accordance with its terms;
       (3) the loan to be guaranteed bears interest at a rate 
     determined by the Board to be reasonable, taking into account 
     the current average yield on outstanding obligations of the 
     United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable 
     to the maturity of such loan; and
       (4) the company has agreed to an audit by the General 
     Accounting Office, prior to the issuance of the loan 
     guarantee and annually while any such guaranteed loan is 
     outstanding.
       (h) Terms and Conditions of Loan Guarantees.--
       (1) Loan duration.--All loans guaranteed under this section 
     shall be payable in full not later than December 31, 2005, 
     and the terms and conditions of each such loan shall provide 
     that the loan may not be amended, or any provision thereof 
     waived, without the consent of the Board.
       (2) Loan security.--Any commitment to issue a loan 
     guarantee under this section shall contain such affirmative 
     and negative covenants and other protective provisions that 
     the Board determines are appropriate. The Board shall require 
     security for the loans to be guaranteed under this section at 
     the time at which the commitment is made.
       (3) Fees.--A qualified steel company receiving a guarantee 
     under this section shall pay a fee in an amount equal to 0.5 
     percent of the outstanding principal balance of the 
     guaranteed loan to the Department of the Treasury.
       (i) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Commerce shall 
     submit to Congress annually, a full report of the activities 
     of the Board under this section during fiscal years 1999 and 
     2000, and annually thereafter, during such period as any loan 
     guaranteed under this section is outstanding.
       (j) Salaries and Administrative Expenses.--For necessary 
     expenses to administer the Program, $5,000,000 is 
     appropriated to the Department of Commerce, to remain 
     available until expended, which may be transferred to the 
     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of 
     the International Trade Administration.
       (k) Termination of Guarantee Authority.--The authority of 
     the Board to make commitments to guarantee any loan under 
     this section shall terminate on December 31, 2001.
       (l) Regulatory Action.--The Board shall issue such final 
     procedures, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to 
     carry out this section not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (m) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available to carry out this section--
       (1) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)); and
       (2) shall be available only to the extent that an official 
     budget request that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement (as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.


                            AMENDMENT NO. 86

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

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


                            amendment no. 87

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


                            amendment no. 88

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

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


                            Amendment No. 89

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

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

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

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

[[Page 4942]]

     Means or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph 
     (C).
       (E) Consideration in the house.--A motion in the House of 
     Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a joint 
     resolution may only be made on the second legislative day 
     after the calendar day on which the Member making the motion 
     announces to the House his or her intention to do so.
       (3) Consideration of second resolution not in order.--It 
     shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate to consider a joint resolution (other than a 
     joint resolution received from the other House), if that 
     House has previously adopted a joint resolution under this 
     section.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am just trying to find out from the Senator, is there a 
time allotment or not?
  Mr. STEVENS. When the Senator finishes, I will make a motion to 
table. It should be about 1 o'clock.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just didn't know----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have not asked for a time limitation 
on the Senator making his presentation, but he knows that as soon as he 
finishes, I will make a motion to table.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is going to table both at 2:30?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make a motion to table the 
amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, and after the Senator from 
Iowa, I will make a motion, but I got unanimous consent that those 
votes occur at 2:30.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has the floor?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question--for 
a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I understand the distinguished Senator from Alaska is 
saying he is going to move to table. I would like to speak on the 
amendment, but the Senator is moving to table as soon as the Senator is 
finished.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would be pleased if the Senator would 
agree to try to reach a time agreement on that, because we have other 
Senators wishing to offer amendments this afternoon also.
  Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, first, that the Senator yield 
to me? I apologize.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished 
chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time would the Senator like to have?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think for my presentation I probably only need 15 
minutes. If there are those who speak against the amendment, I would 
like to yield proportionally then.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I still have the floor, how much time 
does the Senator from Montana seek?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I was thinking of 10, 15 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Could we have an agreement that there be 30 minutes on 
this amendment? Is the Senator from Montana speaking against the 
amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am speaking against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
  Mr. STEVENS. I am seeking a limitation of 30 minutes on the 
amendment, that the time following that time to be--I will make a 
motion to table, only a motion to table be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that Senators Roth and 
Moynihan wish to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
expanded to 40 minutes to be followed only by a motion to table offered 
by me.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. STEVENS. Forty-five minutes. The Senator wants to close.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suspect the others the Senator mentioned are going 
to speak in opposition. There are some who might want to speak in 
favor. If we are going to extend the time afforded Senators who want to 
speak against, I think we might have trouble extending the time with 
that restriction.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do desire to limit the time if 
possible, so we can have a vote when the Senate comes back out of that 
conference.
  Could we agree to 30 minutes on a side? Is there objection to 30 
minutes on a side? I renew my request----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. The agreement then is 1 hour equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.
  This is a very straightforward amendment that simply says that before 
China can be admitted to the World Trade Organization, there will have 
to be a joint resolution passed by the Congress supporting that 
accession of China to the World Trade Organization.
  It is very simple. It is simply saying we should have a voice in 
this. We should not have the administration arbitrarily and 
unilaterally making a very, very significant and major decision without 
the input of the U.S. Congress and this body. It does not prejudge what 
should happen. It does not say whether China should be in or not. There 
may be very compelling arguments that could be presented in such a 
debate. But it does say that before China is admitted to the World 
Trade Organization, every Senator in this body ought to have an 
opportunity to look at the evidence and have a say in the outcome of 
that debate. That is why we need this amendment, because Congress needs 
to, once again, assert its constitutional responsibility in the area of 
foreign commerce.
  I believe we must do it now for a couple of reasons. It is the only 
opportunity we are going to have before the recess, and our only 
opportunity before Zhu Rongji visits this Nation next month. He will 
come during our Easter recess. So, if Congress is going to have any 
kind of statement on this, if we are going to be able to take any kind 
of action on this, we must take it now.
  I know some of my colleagues will say this should have gone through 
committee. In an ideal world I would agree. It is very straightforward. 
I do not think it would require a great deal of debate, as to whether 
someone is for it or against it, but ideally that is where it should 
have gone. But, once again, the stream of negotiations that have taken 
place in recent weeks between our country and the Chinese Government, 
with our officials going to China--Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry 
Summers, Secretary of State Albright, U.S. Trade Representative 
Charlene Barshefsky have all been making repeated trips to China--
negotiating, obviously; attempting to broker a deal on the World Trade 
Organization accession of China.
  If we wait for an announcement by the administration that a deal has 
been reached, an announcement by the administration that the outlines 
of an agreement have been reached, we will make China's membership in 
the WTO a fait accompli. Any effort to stop it after the fact, after 
the negotiations are completed and after an agreement has been 
announced, I think will be too late for this body to really make a 
difference.
  The amendment is, as I said, very straightforward. It would require a 
joint resolution to be passed before the United States could support 
admission of China into the WTO. Again, it does not preclude our 
support for China's entry. It simply sends a clear statement that 
Congress should be involved in the process of deciding U.S. support for 
China's accession into the WTO. The administration should not make any 
hasty deals with China. We must give careful consideration to the 
timing as well as to the consequences of Chinese accession. Congress 
must be thoroughly involved in that debate.
  We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the most populous nation in the

[[Page 4943]]

world, and, as we hear so often, the largest market in the world, in a 
vacuum. There are certain facts that we must face; there is a political 
environment in which all of these negotiations are occurring. The 
Chinese have used espionage to obtain important nuclear secrets from 
the United States. That is a matter that must be fully investigated. I 
believe it will be. I believe the appropriate oversight committees are 
moving expeditiously to investigate. But it certainly is not going to 
happen before we go out on the Easter recess. We may have hearings next 
week, but we will not see the end of this, we will not have all the 
facts on the table, before the Easter recess and before Zhu Rongji 
visits this country.
  Another fact that faces us is our trade deficit with the Chinese is 
at an alarming all-time high of $56.9 billion for 1998. It is rising 
exponentially every year. That reality ought to cause us to pause 
before we see the administration rush into a WTO deal. The Chinese 
continue to keep many of their markets closed, particularly to our 
agricultural sector, our farmers, who are in such crisis.
  The Chinese have signed and blatantly disregarded the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have engaged in a widespread 
crackdown on prodemocracy activists in China, effectively silencing all 
political dissent. We cannot give WTO membership in a vacuum, ignoring 
all other realities that face us. The 1999 State Department report on 
China, released in the last few weeks, demonstrably proves China's 
ignoring of the very covenant on civil and political rights that they 
signed last year. If we cannot trust them to live up to a human rights 
covenant that they signed, how can we assume they are going to live 
according to the rules and the obligations of the World Trade 
Organization? There is an issue of trust. They have not justified the 
trust we would show in placing them in the World Trade Organization.
  Article I of the Constitution gives Congress express power over 
foreign commerce. There is no question but that this is our right. 
There is no question in this Senator's mind that it is our 
responsibility to step forward and say: WTO membership for China will 
not be granted without a debate in the House and Senate and a joint 
resolution.
  There are serious questions that the House and the Senate need to 
address. For us to sit back and go off on our Easter vacation, to go 
off on recess, to hold our town meetings or to take our trips around 
the world, and to have been silent on this issue, I think, at this 
time, will be indefensible. I suspect there will be some kind of 
announcement on the U.S. position on China's membership in the WTO 
while we are gone. Then we would never have had the opportunity to 
debate very important questions.
  I do not have all of the answers to these questions, but I know they 
are serious questions and I know the Senator from Montana, the Senator 
from Alabama, who was on the floor just a moment ago, and myself ought 
to have a right, before we have the United States taking a position on 
WTO membership, to debate that on the floor of the Senate, to 
thoroughly examine the questions that have not yet been answered.
  One question I would have is this: Are we lowering the WTO bar for 
China, to rush them into membership?
  Since 1995, four countries have completed negotiations on accession 
protocol: Ecuador, Mongolia, Bulgaria, and Panama. All four of these 
nations were required to eliminate, on the date of accession or with 
very short transitions, trade practices that were incompatible with WTO 
rules. That has been the standard. Since 1995 the four nations that 
have sought to enter the WTO have been required to eliminate their 
trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. But China has 
firmly and continuously and repeatedly said they want a different 
standard. They want a longer transition period. They do not want to 
meet those WTO rules at the time of or soon after their accession to 
the WTO. That is a question I believe this body deserves the 
opportunity to investigate and debate thoroughly before we announce a 
national position regarding China's admission.
  Another question I think is a serious question for debate: Are we 
allowing China into the WTO before they have made the kind of market 
reforms to bring them into conformity with WTO standards? The 
administration argues if we will just let China in, we will have 
greater influence on China's reform efforts than we do now while they 
are outside of the World Trade Organization. I suppose that is 
debatable. But we ought to have the opportunity to have that debate.
  In my estimation, our influence on China would be far greater before 
they are admitted to the World Trade Organization than afterwards. Our 
ability to influence the kind of reforms the World Trade Organization 
would desire will be far greater if we say you are going to accrue the 
benefits of trade under the WTO only after these market reforms have 
taken place, these trade barriers have been lowered. Reforms should 
first be enacted, changes should first occur, and then membership 
should be granted--not vice versa.
  I think this question deserves debate: Can China be trusted on trade 
issues? When we look at our exploding trade deficit with China, can 
they be trusted on trade issues if admitted to the World Trade 
Organization, or will we admit them to the World Trade Organization and 
then find them cavalierly ignoring the standards and the rules of the 
World Trade Organization? Our administration's own Trade Representative 
Barshefsky stated in her testimony, a little over 2 years ago, in 
reference to China, that ``China imposes new import barriers to replace 
those it removed.'' In other words, there can be the appearance of 
reform taking place, but if there are new barriers that are being 
erected while the old ones are being brought down, you really have not 
achieved the reforms necessary for World Trade Organization membership.
  China has almost one-third of its industrial production controlled by 
the state. Almost two-thirds of urban workers are employed in state-
owned enterprises. These state-owned enterprises are notorious for 
their ability to destroy wealth. Some economists estimate that it would 
be cheaper for China to close down their state-owned enterprises and 
keep paying the workers--close down the enterprises, go ahead and pay 
them their salaries, they would still come out ahead, than to keep 
operating. But because the state-owned enterprises would be vulnerable 
to foreign competition, the Chinese Government has a strong 
disincentive to the state-owned enterprises that are heavily subsidized 
through China's centralized and insolvent banking system.
  One of the pledges that the Chinese Government made was that they 
would rapidly privatize the state-owned enterprises, shutting down 
those that they had to, privatizing others, allowing them to create 
capital by selling stock, but because of the recent economic downturn 
in China in which their robust growth rate has dropped appreciably, 
China now has backed off that pledge and has once again begun a round 
of bank loans to these very unprofitable, state-owned enterprises to 
subsidize them and to keep them in business.
  This is backpedaling already on the kinds of reforms that would be 
expected if China were in fact ready for admission to the World Trade 
Organization.
  Another question that this body needs to debate is, Should China be 
admitted as a developing country with far less stringent expectations 
and longer transition than allowed for other nations? That is what they 
desire. They say we are a developing Nation; therefore, we should be 
treated more leniently. They base their claim primarily upon their per 
capita gross domestic product. By every other measure, China is a major 
economic power in the world today and they want to be treated as such. 
They want to be recognized as a major economic power.
  China will argue that as a developing country, they are entitled to 
use subsidies. They are entitled to put limits

[[Page 4944]]

on exports and other policies to promote development of certain key 
industries such as automobiles and telecommunications and heavy 
industrial equipment.
  China maintains that such programs are a part of China's industrial 
policy and not related to its application to the World Trade 
Organization. Many trade officials simply disagree with that assertion 
by the Chinese Government. That is a question and that is an issue the 
Senate should have the opportunity to debate, not after the fact but 
before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization and before the 
U.S. Government announces its position on Chinese accession.
  A WTO paper, prepared in response to a request from Chinese 
negotiators, suggested that industrial policies in China and other 
countries could violate the basic principles of nondiscrimination and 
national treatment and other WTO rules. They are not in compliance. 
They are not ready to join the WTO. Political considerations should not 
be the driving force in rushing China into the WTO before they have 
made necessary reforms.
  Another question I believe we should debate is this: Should China be 
given membership in WTO before Taiwan, which is simultaneously seeking 
membership? Will it be the position of the U.S. Government that we 
support the admission of People's Republic of China to the World Trade 
Organization while not yet supporting Taiwan's admission? Which one 
should be admitted first? I think that is an important issue. I think 
that is one my colleagues in the Senate deserve to have the opportunity 
to discuss thoroughly.
  Many believe that once China is admitted, they will work feverishly 
to block Taiwan's entry, even though Taiwan is a much more developed 
Nation, has a much more developed economy, and an economy which is much 
more consistent with WTO rules. Yet without a vote of the Senate or a 
vote of the House, this administration is prepared to support the 
admission of China to the WTO before Taiwan's admission.
  I believe this question deserves debate as well: Will a premature 
entry by China into WTO hurt American business interests? I know that 
large corporate interests in this country support China's immediate 
accession to WTO, but many business people in this country have serious 
concerns as to how China's admission to WTO will impact them. U.S. 
business interests often want permanent MFN for China and would like to 
use an agreement on WTO, I believe, as a means to push for this goal, 
but many of these business interests are also concerned that China's 
WTO accession, without meeting market access and other requirements, 
would seriously limit U.S. business access to the Chinese market for a 
long time to come. The very access that American business wants so 
desperately, we would be locked out of that access permanently or for a 
long duration should they be admitted to the World Trade Organization 
before they have met market access rules. As a result, many U.S. 
interests are pushing U.S. negotiators to remain firm, to stand pat, 
and not concede on the conditions of China's entry into the World Trade 
Organization.
  I believe another question that this body needs to debate is, How 
will WTO admission for China affect jobs? Indeed, we should consider 
how it would affect our jobs here in the United States.
  I remind my colleagues, contained in this very supplemental 
appropriations bill, which we are soon prepared to vote on, is a 
measure to assist the U.S. steel industry and the jobs that go with it. 
Some of those jobs are in my home State of Arkansas, Mississippi 
County, Blytheville, AR, the No. 2 ranked county in the Nation in steel 
production. According to the Department of Commerce, last year alone 
the U.S.-China trade deficit in iron and steel was a $161 million loser 
for the United States. The year before that the U.S. realized a steel 
trade deficit of $141 million, and in 1996 the deficit was $140 
million. Each year the deficit in iron and steel increases 
dramatically.
  My point is, this Congress should have a say in whether we allow an 
agreement to be made when our trade imbalance is what we experience, 
even without granting China World Trade Organization status.
  At the appropriate time, I would like to see China join the World 
Trade Organization and abide by its rules. I do not believe China is 
ready at this time to go beyond paying lip service to the fundamental 
changes necessary for accession, though I know some of my colleagues do 
believe that they are ready. However, I believe we can all agree that 
we ought not make this decision hastily. The consequences are too great 
and long lasting and, just as importantly, we ought not let the 
executive branch make this determination unilaterally.
  Article 1 of the Constitution gives to us, the Congress, the express 
power over foreign commerce. This decision is too important for us to 
cede that power, and this amendment is a means by which we can preserve 
our legitimate role in the legislative branch.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I inquire how 
much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 11 minutes 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas raises obviously 
a very important question, and that is, essentially, the terms under 
which the United States should agree to help encourage China to be a 
member or accede to the WTO. It is obviously important because China, 
particularly in the next century, is going to be a very important 
country. It is now the largest country in the world, the most populous, 
the largest standing army, a nuclear power, one of the fastest growing 
``developing countries,'' thousands of years of history, a very proud 
people. We in the United States clearly must be very careful and clear 
headed in our relationship with such a country, particularly when the 
question arises as to the terms under which China would accede to the 
WTO.
  It is also true that under the Constitution, the U.S. Congress 
provides that the Congress essentially set trade policy. That is true. 
But the use of power is a very important matter. Sometimes it is 
important to use power that is entrusted to one. Sometimes it is 
important to forebear the use of power that is entrusted to one.
  Certainly, Congress has the authority to pass the amendment suggested 
by the Senator from Arkansas. But that is not the question. The real 
question is, Should Congress adopt that amendment?
  In my judgment, it has the ring of simplicity which often sounds 
good, but when one thinks about it a little bit more deeply and what 
the consequences of that amendment would be, it, at the very least, 
causes people to pause and, in my judgment, causes Senators to not 
support the amendment.
  I am reminded of a statement by H.L. Mencken, a famous Baltimore Sun 
journalist: ``For every complicated problem, there is a simple 
solution, but it is usually wrong.''
  That is this case. There is a complicated problem--China and our 
trade relationship--and the simple solution to some degree is, 
``Congress should vote on whether to admit China to the WTO or not.''
  This would set new precedent, a groundbreaking and very alarming 
precedent. In each of the previous 110 cases where countries have 
acceded to the GATT, or to the WTO, there has not been a congressional 
vote. Congress has never voted on whether a country should accede to 
the GATT, currently to the WTO. That is an executive decision.
  There is a good reason why Congress has not voted in the past. 
Essentially, it is for the reasons suggested already by the Senator 
from Arkansas, because if we were to vote on whether China should 
accede to the WTO, that vote would essentially be a vote not on WTO, 
but it would be a vote on our ``overall China policy.'' It would 
include countless other relationships that we have with China.

[[Page 4945]]

  The Senator from Arkansas already mentioned them. Human rights, for 
example. The Senator is very upset with China's human rights policy. He 
said that should be looked into. He implied looking into it in the 
context of this debate.
  I, too, am upset with China's human rights policy. I daresay every 
Member of the Senate is upset with China's human rights policy. But are 
those issues considered in trade negotiations? Are they considered by 
the World Trade Organization? The Senator from Arkansas might think 
that they should be, but they are not considered in trade negotiations 
and in whether or not China is or is not meeting commercially 
acceptable principles under which it would properly be admitted to the 
World Trade Organization.
  The Senator also mentioned the words ``political environment.'' He 
said this issue has to be considered in the total political environment 
of our relationship with China. He mentioned espionage. That is a 
charged issue right now. I daresay that if the Congress were to vote in 
the next several months presumably on whether China should accede to 
the WTO, there would be an amendment on espionage, there would be an 
amendment on human rights, an amendment on labor relations, an 
amendment on the environment. I can think of countless subjects that 
would be included, by the design of certain Senators, in any decision 
by the Congress whether or not China should be admitted to the WTO.
  It reminds me very, very much of the debate we already had with 
respect to China, and that is whether the Congress, when we come up 
with the annual MFN review--actually a lot of us like to call it normal 
trade relationship not most-favored-nation status. MFN is a gross 
misnomer. MFN is not at all what it implies. It is not most favored. In 
effect, it is least favored, because we have so many trade agreements 
with so many other countries under terms that are more beneficial than 
the bottom line terms of MFN.
  During the MFN debate, or normal trade relations debate, we have had 
in this Congress, particularly several years ago, the question was 
whether we should pass in this Congress every June a conditional 
extension of MFN or nonconditional extension of MFN.
  Those who argued for conditional extension said, ``Well, we will 
continue MFN with China for another year if China abides by certain 
human right regimes, if China abides by certain nuclear technology 
transfer provisions, if China signs a comprehensive missile test ban 
treaty, if China''--all these other things.
  In a sense, that debate became a debate about China and gave interest 
groups an opportunity--I use this term loosely--to kind of take off on 
or vent their spleens about a certain policy with which that Senator or 
interest group had a disagreement.
  I have no problem with that. In fact, I support it. I support Members 
of the Senate and the House working vigorously to improve upon the 
relationship with China in each of the specific areas that we engage 
China, and there are many of them. Trade is one. Even within trade, 
there are many, many different levels. There are tariffs. There are 
distribution systems. There is access. There are all kinds of matters 
with which we have to deal.
  Let's take national security, not very related to trade--indirectly 
but not directly. Our administration, other countries' administrations 
engage China on a host of national security issues.
  Let's take the Taiwan Straits, for example. That is a separate 
matter. It is an extremely important issue. It is one that has become a 
bit sensitive in the last several days, but the U.S. Defense 
Department, the NSC, and our executive branch are working out with 
Taiwan, with China, and with Japan as much as possible the various 
interrelationships of that issue.
  The main point is, those issues should be dealt with separately and 
on separate tracks. They should not be all subsumed in the one vote on 
whether China should be a member of the WTO.
  I think it is also important to remember we have a lot of problems 
with China, but China has done a lot of good things, too.
  What are they? Recently in the economic sphere, China, at great cost 
to itself, has not devalued its currency. China, in the last year, has 
been under tremendous pressure to devalue its currency so that it could 
sell more products overseas; it would help boost its economy. But China 
has not.
  Why has China not devalued its currency? In many respects because the 
Americans have encouraged them, have asked them not to devalue. Why? 
Because if they were to devalue their currency, then the other 
southeastern countries--the baht in Thailand, the Indonesian 
currencies, North Korea--there would be great pressure on them to 
devalue further, which means that our exports will be that much more 
expensive, their exports to the United States that much less expensive, 
and the trade deficit we are all so worried about will be even worse.
  China, at great cost to itself, has so far--that might change--not 
devalued the currency.
  China has also signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. They signed 
it. That is a major step. That is good. China has helped provide more 
stability between India and Pakistan, particularly when those countries 
were starting to test missiles. It has been a very great help to us.
  They also have begun to downsize their state-owned enterprises. That 
is not something we asked them to do, but at great cost to themselves, 
they are doing so, and that is a major effort.
  There is banking reform.
  The PLA, their army in China, which used to be a major competitor 
with companies in the United States, was not just an army, it was a 
manufacturing firm, an industry or a company making all kinds of 
products.
  The PLA are going out of business. It is not entirely done yet, but 
they are going out of business. That is good. Even more fundamentally, 
let's think of this. What if this were 25 years ago and we were faced 
with the Asian currency turmoil, which did spread over to Brazil and 
over to Russia and has affected the whole world, as a matter of fact? 
If this were to have happened 25 years ago, I daresay that China would 
have used it as an opportunity to further destabilize--they could have 
used it as an opportunity to gain a strategic position in, say, Vietnam 
or in Burma, Thailand, maybe even in Japan, as they did 25 years ago 
when they exercised their power, but not in the economic sense.
  Instead, today, 25 years later, when presented with this crisis, what 
has China done? It has not been a bad boy; it has been a good boy. 
China has, instead, downsized its state-owned enterprises as much as it 
possibly can. It is reducing its bureaucracy, cutting a lot of the dead 
wood. It is cutting back on the army dramatically. I was in China about 
a year ago talking with a general and all his colleagues who were being 
given the boot because the general officers corps, in addition to the 
lower ranks, was being cut back dramatically.
  They are going through a lot of painful times. I am not going to 
stand here and apologize for China. We are very concerned about China. 
But instead, China is trying to be a player.
  Why is WTO good for America and why is it good for China? WTO is good 
for America only under commercially acceptable principles. I must 
underline that forcefully. It is good for America because it will help 
encourage a greater rule of law in China, because there are commitments 
that China would have to agree to. It would help America because we 
could take China to the WTO.
  The Senator from Arkansas has a concern whether we could ``trust'' 
China. I tell you, Mr. President, China will do more of what we wish if 
they are a member of WTO, at least on trade issues, because we can take 
China to the WTO.
  The WTO is now much more impartial and more effective as a dispute 
settlement mechanism than it was under the old GATT, to be honest about 
it. The WTO as an institution is being tested now, particularly with 
respect to bananas and beef hormones, and some other issues--whether 
countries

[[Page 4946]]

live up to it--but still it is a lot better than the old GATT, under 
which there was virtually no dispute settlement mechanism.
  WTO is good for China, too. Why? Basically because it gives China 
status and more investment in China; it gives China the opportunity to 
be more of a player in the world economic scene. And that is all good. 
That is good for China; that is good for America.
  We are so interrelated today economically, politically, socially that 
when one part of the world's economy collapses or goes south, it has 
effects everywhere. It affects the Senator's farmers. They have a 
harder time selling soybeans. It affects farmers in my State. They have 
a harder time selling wheat. That is why, when the Asian currency 
crisis occurred, at least in my State, our agricultural exports fell 
$50 million compared to the preceding year.
  I must say, I think we have done a pretty good job as a country in 
managing, as near as we could, the currency crisis, which we did not 
cause. It was caused by a whole host of factors--essentially greed by a 
lot of creditors who did not look at financial statements closely 
anymore. But we have done a pretty good job managing. Secretary Rubin, 
Chairman Greenspan, Secretary Summers have done a good job of helping 
stabilize, as much as they possibly could, this turmoil.
  Mr. President, the Senator also asked, ``Well, gee, who should be 
admitted first, Taiwan or China?'' That is a political issue. We should 
not look at this as a political issue. We should look at these 
countries on their merits. And if China does meet the commercially 
acceptable principles test closely, tightly, we should admit China. If 
they do not, we should not.
  There are lots of different areas there that I wish to just briefly 
mention as to the test I think China should meet. I must say, Mr. 
President, I do not think this administration is going to send us a 
weak agreement. It would be foolish for them to agree to China's 
accession into the WTO under noncommercially acceptable terms. It would 
not make any sense. For one thing, it would be an outrage. Second, it 
would have an effect on MFN, a vote later. It would have an effect on 
fast-track proposals that may or may not come up. It just does not make 
sense. They will not do it.
  One final point is this. The Senator wants a vote. The Senator is 
going to have a vote. It is on MFN extension, because, by definition, 
if the United States agrees, because China has met commercially 
acceptable principles, that China should accede to the GATT, then by 
definition this Congress must vote on whether to give China permanent 
MFN status.
  There will be a vote. And obviously, if the U.S. Senate believes that 
the terms under which China is admitted are not acceptable, I daresay 
that this body will not agree to permanently extend MFN to China. So we 
ought to have a vote. The Senator wants a vote. By definition, there 
will be a vote.
  But to have a second vote--and the second vote would be whether to 
admit--I say, would essentially be a referendum on China. It would not 
just be trade issues, it would be all the other issues, with all the 
other amendments that would come up, just as they did in the old MFN 
extension debate. Back then, after lots of gnashing of teeth and 
working ourselves through all this, what did the Congress do? The 
Congress agreed, the President agreed, that it made more sense to have 
unconditional extension of MFN rather than conditional.
  What the Senator from Arkansas is essentially saying is, he wants 
conditional, he wants to have a vote on accession. And I would guess he 
also would like to have an opportunity to offer amendments on the 
pending bill. If the Senator says no amendments on the pending bill, 
that is another matter. I would like to hear the Senator's views on 
that--whether the Senator wants a straight up-or-down vote only on 
whether China should be a member of the WTO, whether he would oppose 
all amendments, whether he believes, frankly, there should be no 
amendments or not. That would be an interesting question.
  Anyway, Mr. President, I made my main point, which is, let's have the 
vote, let's have the vote on MFN extension, not on the overall policy, 
because it has never happened before. In all the trade agreements that 
have been submitted to the WTO and in all the questions of accession to 
the WTO in the past--there have been 110 of them--never has a Congress 
voted, never.
  And there are reasons. There are executive agreements. If we were to 
vote on it, particularly in this body, as a nonparliamentary form of 
government, it would be filled up with all different types of issues 
which are virtually unrelated to trade--very important issues: Human 
rights, national security, missile proliferation, nuclear 
proliferation, labor laws, environmental laws, but not WTO accession.
  So I say, let's not vote for the Senator's amendment. Let's look at 
WTO when it comes up in the context of MFN. Then let's also work to 
engage China on all of the other issues on which we are dealing with 
China but on separate tracks, separate ways, because that is going to 
be a lot more effective. We should not link all this together. We 
should not link it together, but, rather, deal with these issues 
separately.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the concern of the Senator 
from Arkansas regarding the possibility of China's entry into the World 
Trade Organization (WTO). However, I do not believe his amendment is 
warranted, and urge the Senate to reject it.
  The issue before us is the accession of China into the WTO. There is 
no question that China's accession into the world trading system 
carries important ramifications--not only for their economy, but for 
ours (and indeed, for those of all other WTO nations). Today, China is 
the world's third largest economy after the US and Japan, and the 
world's eleventh largest trading nation. US-China trade alone is more 
than $80 billion.
  Clearly, because of these facts, we have much to gain by bringing 
China into the world trading system and subjecting her to the WTO rules 
and regulations. At the same time, we understand that bringing China 
into the system also will mean some changes for our own industries. 
However, as long as China is brought in according to appropriate terms 
and conditions, I believe we have far more to gain than to lose.
  The China WTO accession negotiations have dragged on for 13 years 
now. Much of the delay is related to the periodic changes of mind by 
the Chinese government as to whether they really want to join or not. 
After all, it will mean enormous changes for them as well. At the 
moment, the Chinese appear very interested in concluding their 
accession. I believe we should take this opportunity to see what might 
be accomplished.
  That said, the United States has said repeatedly that China may enter 
only--and I stress, only--on ``commercially meaningful'' terms. Despite 
the current Chinese enthusiasm for the negotiations, if it does not 
lead to a ``commercially meaningful'' agreement, then the 
administration cannot accept it.
  That is a crystal clear fact. We in Congress has made clear that an 
agreement that is not ``commercially meaningful'' is unacceptable. 
USTR, Treasury, the State Department, and USDA know this. They fully 
understand that they will have one chance, and one chance only, to 
present us with an agreement. All the Chinese enthusiasm in the world 
cannot change that fact. Thus, I believe that the administration will 
not--and indeed cannot--bring home an accession agreement that does not 
meet those terms.
  The amendment before us would have Congress vote on the accession of 
China. Yet that is not the process that we follow for accession of new 
WTO members. Since 1995, 12 countries have joined the WTO. Congress has 
not voted on any of them. This would be a bad precedent to send. It 
would open a whole hornet's nest of votes on China's policies, trade or 
otherwise. And, given that the administration knows that a bad deal 
will not pass muster here, I

[[Page 4947]]

would argue that it's just not necessary.
  I say to my colleagues: let's let the experts do their job. They have 
their guidance from Congress. The USTR team, led by our experienced and 
tough Special Representative Charlene Barshefsky, have been working on 
China accession for years, and know the issues inside out. I am 
confident that they won't--indeed, can't--let us down.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I join with the distinguished chairman 
of the Finance Committee in opposing the pending amendment. I do agree 
with the senator from Arkansas that the Congress ought to take a close 
look at the terms of any agreement that is reached with China regarding 
its accession to the WTO. But that is already provided for in the law. 
Under section 122 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the 
administration must consult with the appropriate committees with regard 
to the accession of any country to the WTO. Those consultations are now 
taking place. I am assured that Ambassador Barshefsky will meet with 
each and every Senator who has an interest in this matter.
  Moreover, as a participant in the WTO's Working Party on the 
Accession of China, the United States already has an effective veto 
over China's admission if we determine that the protocol of accession 
and China's market access commitments are inadequate. Since the Working 
Party operates by consensus, we could simply block the approval of the 
Working Party report and that would be the end of the matter.
  It is clear that bringing China within the WTO framework--and subject 
to the WTO's rules--would be in the United States' interest. China is 
ranked as one of the top ten exporting countries in the world (WTO 
report, 1997 ranking) and ranks as the 12th largest importer. It must 
certainly be to the benefit of the world trading system to have China 
abide by the same rules as others.
  American farmers and businesses also have an interest in securing 
improved access to China's market, and the WTO accession negotiations 
may provide the best opportunity that we will have in a very long time.
  Certainly the United States should not accept an agreement that would 
bend the rules for China. Nor should we settle for a minimal market 
access package. And we will not. But neither should we cut off the 
negotiations at this point, which I fear this amendment would do. In 
essence, it signals, at a minimum, great skepticism on the part of the 
United States Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, whatever frustrations many of us may have 
right now regarding our bilateral relations with China, including 
allegations of Chinese espionage against our national labs, the 
deteriorating human rights situation in that country, the ballooning 
trade deficit, and more, we need to be careful about micro-managing the 
Executive as it conducts comprehensive negotiations over the terms of 
China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
  Congress' voice ought to be heard on this subject, and it will be. 
The Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 precludes granting 
unconditional MFN (permanent normal trade relations status) without a 
Congressional vote. By law, we will have the opportunity to carefully 
review and pass judgment on whatever agreement the Administration 
reaches with China, whenever that may occur: during Premier Zhu 
Rongji's visit next month, later this year, or perhaps years from now.
  Ambassador Barshefsky and the other USTR officials negotiating 
directly with the Chinese deserve credit for appropriately consulting 
with Congress. Just yesterday lead negotiator Bob Cassidy reviewed in 
great detail with our staffs all aspects of the negotiations. Active 
consultations at this stage make sense, but the Senate directly 
intervening in the process by requiring a congressional vote on a WTO 
agreement with China--on the front and back ends of the protocol 
negotiations--is redundant, unnecessary, and tramples on Executive 
branch prerogatives. On those grounds, I support the tabling motion.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson 
amendment and urge my colleagues to vote to table it.
  I support China's accession to the WTO. I believe that it is in our 
own best interests to draw China further into the world community 
through fora such as the WTO. It will benefit the United States by 
creating a more-equal trade relationship between us, and will work to 
promote the rule of law in China. I also believe that it will benefit 
the United States by taking bilateral trade disputes which may pop up 
between us and making them multilateral, thereby minimizing the 
opportunity for those disputes to spill over and infect the rest of our 
relationship.
  Of course, my support has an important caveat. China must accede on 
what are called ``commercially acceptable principles.'' China cannot 
accede as a developing country in some areas, and a developed country 
in others, leaving it to China to determine which are which. If the 
time comes for China's accession, Mr. President, you can be sure that 
if I am not convinced that the terms of China's accession are 
commercially acceptable, I will be the first Member to rush to this 
floor to oppose accession.
  This amendment though, Mr. President, is not about the mechanics of 
accession to the WTO. Rather, it is yet another thinly-veiled attempt 
by its author--one in a long series of attempts--to single China out 
and punish it for offenses--real or imagined--committed in other 
spheres. Let me be clear: there is no argument that there aren't 
problems in our relationship with China, serious problems that we need 
to address. But there are more appropriate ways to address those 
problems. WTO accession is a trade issue. It is not a human rights 
issue. It is not a military issue. It is not a technology or nuclear 
transfer issue. It is not an issue about how China treats Taiwan or 
Hong Kong or Tibet. The issue should not be linked under the guise of a 
WTO debate; we should not turn a decision on WTO into a referendum on 
the immediate state of our overall bilateral relationship.
  In addition, the sponsor makes a great deal of only wanting to pass 
this amendment in order to afford the Senate the opportunity to debate 
and then vote on all the merits of China's accession should that time 
come. But Mr. President, we already have that opportunity. If and when 
China accedes to the WTO, that is not the end of the process. Congress 
still has to vote on extending permanent most-favored nation status to 
China. That debate will give the Senate, and the sponsor, ample 
opportunity to address all of the myriad issues surrounding China that 
he rightly feels are so important. It will give us a chance to raise 
concerns about human rights, military buildup, trade deficits, and all 
the rest. There is no need to afford ourselves the same opportunity 
twice.
  In addition, Mr. President, requiring this second vote has no 
precedent. One hundred and ten countries have acceded to the WTO since 
1948, and not once has the Senate required that we be afforded a 
separate vote on one of those accessions. But the Senator from Arkansas 
would like to single China out and set a different standard for that 
country's accession, to treat it differently than any other country 
that has come before it, or--presumably--would come after. I don't 
believe he can make a compelling case for doing so. Moreover, I am not 
convinced that giving ourselves veto authority in this manner over a 
trade agreement reached by the Executive Branch could pass 
constitutional muster.
  For all these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment and support the motion to table of the Senator from 
Alaska.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson. Like him, I 
am deeply concerned about the issues he is

[[Page 4948]]

attempting to address with this legislation--human rights violations 
and security concerns involving China, particularly the theft of 
scientific information from Los Alamos. I am concerned about China's 
military build-up, its continuing threats of force against Taiwan, and 
what is taking place in Tibet. I believe that appropriately addressing 
these issues is vitally important and I look forward to working with 
Senator Hutchinson and others to do so.
  However, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I must oppose both the 
method and timing of this approach. It not only fails to allow the 
Senate to raise and address the sensitive issue of trade relations with 
China in the appropriate forum of the Finance Committee--a forum where 
the merits of such an amendment can be carefully studied and weighed 
against the best interests of our nation--but this approach also has 
tremendous foreign policy implications that need careful scrutiny.
  Let me address the first concern. Trade negotiations and trade 
agreements go to the core of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction over 
trade matters. Together with Senator Moynihan, I as Chair, and he as 
ranking member, are responsible, not only for the Committee's 
substantive role in the trade policy process, but also are the 
guardians of its prerogatives. The Committee was the first formed in 
the United States Congress when tariffs were the central source of 
revenue to a still new republic. Trade and tariff policy remain central 
to the Committee's role in the legislative process.
  For example, the Finance Committee reported out a trade bill the 
first day of the 106th Congress. In addition, at my instigation, the 
Committee has launched a comprehensive review of America's trade 
policy, including the role that China's accession to the WTO would play 
in our trade policy.
  Unfortunately, there has been no attempt to offer this legislation 
and lay it before the Finance Committee for its review. Nor has there 
been any attempt by its supporters to engage with the Committee in the 
process of our review of America's trade policy.
  Instead, this amendment seems to be driven by the emotions of the 
moment toward a form of legislative anarchy. It has gone around the 
Finance Committee in a way that provides no time for the deliberations 
for which the Senate is designed. It attempts to move legislation of 
monumental importance to our trade and foreign policies on the back of 
a supplemental appropriations measure principally designed to help 
impoverished countries in Central America and to support the 
constructive role Jordan has played in the Middle East peace process.
  Beyond these procedural concerns, I am deeply concerned about the 
underlying intent of this amendment. Is this bill being raised at this 
time out of a concern that our trade negotiators will not strike a deal 
that serves our commercial interests in China? Or is this bill being 
offered simply to hinder those negotiations in response to recent 
allegations of spying or the theft of secrets from Los Alamos?
  I ask those questions because there seems to be a rush to pass this 
measure in advance of the visit of Zhu Rongji to the United States. It 
rests on the assumption that the United States will reach an agreement 
on WTO accession and that, by virtue of that deal, China will enter the 
WTO the day after Zhu leaves.
  That is simply wrong. Everything we hear of the negotiations is that 
it will be difficult even to reach an agreement on U.S. access to 
China's market. I want to emphasize to my colleagues that a deal on 
market access, even if it is reached in time for the summit, is only 
one step along the road to China's accession to the WTO. The more 
difficult negotiations on when and how China will agree to be bound by 
the basic rules of the WTO remain. No protocol of accession will be 
approved until those negotiations are complete.
  In other words, there is no reason to act precipitously on this 
measure. There is no reason to subvert the normal legislative processes 
to secure passage of this amendment at this time. Indeed, the Finance 
Committee is actively at work on trade matters as part of the trade 
policy review I have initiated. That is the appropriate venue for the 
initial discussion of this measure and any necessary refinements to my 
colleague's approach.
  China has been the subject of intense concern to the Finance 
Committee. We have made it clear at every stage that constructive trade 
relations with China must offer concrete assurances of U.S. market 
access consistent with our national interest. We have also made it 
clear that there must be no rush to judgment or attempt to offer a 
politically-motivated deal to the Chinese simply because the White 
House wants a foreign policy ``deliverable'' to cap the upcoming summit 
meeting.
  My impression from our discussion with Ambassador Barshefsky is that, 
while there has been considerable progress in recent days, there is 
still a considerable distance to go even before the United States could 
agree to a package on market access, much less the more difficult 
process of negotiating the actual protocols of accession.
  Beyond these reasons, Mr. President, I oppose Senator Hutchinson's 
amendment on China's accession to the World Trade Organization because 
of the damaging precedent it would set for all future WTO accessions. 
It would dramatically undercut the United States' consistent position--
under both Republican and Democrat presidents--that accession to the 
WTO and its predecessor organization, the GATT, is not a political 
decision, but is one we as Americans base simply on another country's 
willingness to be bound by the same rules that govern our other trading 
partners in the world trading system. It is quintessentially a 
commercial agreement that should be judged on its merits as such.
  I also oppose this amendment as a matter of Senate procedure. I have 
always objected to attempts to legislate on appropriations measures. 
Offering substantive amendments to appropriations bills subverts the 
normal process of the Senate by which legislation is introduced, moved 
through the committee of jurisdiction with expertise on the matter, and 
moved to the floor.
  Attempts to modify substantive law on the back of appropriations 
bills often results in the delay of the appropriations themselves. 
Whether my colleagues support the current supplemental or not, I think 
we would all agree that the bill deserves to rise or fall on its own 
merits, not as a result of extraneous and unrelated matters.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator 
Hutchinson's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, might I inquire as to how much time 
each side has remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 11 minutes 15 
seconds. The Senator from Montana has 9 minutes 52 seconds.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  If I might just briefly respond to a few of the points that my good 
friend from Montana made in his excellent statement.
  It seems to me to be a difficult proposition to come to the floor of 
the Senate and argue that we should not have a debate and to argue we 
should not have a vote on the admission of China to the World Trade 
Organization. Yet that is the posture which the opponents of this 
amendment must be.
  The Senator from Montana has said it would be an ``alarming 
precedent''--I believe those are the exact words--that has never 
happened before. In many ways, China is unprecedented. They are 
unprecedented in their size, their population, and their impact upon 
world events. And in many ways the abuses that are currently going on 
by their government to their own people are unprecedented. It is 
unprecedented to have a nation in the World Trade Organization with 40 
percent of the economy controlled by the state. That is unprecedented.
  Perhaps that is a good reason to have a debate on this issue and have 
a vote on who should be admitted to the World Trade Organization, since 
it

[[Page 4949]]

would be unprecedented for a nation of this size, with such a mixed 
economic system, to be admitted to the World Trade Organization. It is 
unprecedented to admit to this trade organization a nation that views 
us as a hostile power and, as evidence indicates, has aggressively 
spied on the United States and stolen nuclear secrets from the United 
States.
  To say it is an ``alarming precedent,'' I think is a great 
overstatement. In fact, if there was ever a reason to change the 
precedent, it would be because of China's behavior.
  The Senator from Montana said amendments would certainly be messy. 
That is what democracy is about. That is what happens; that is what 
debates are about; that is what freedom is about. It might be messy; it 
might be unpleasant to vote on amendments that might be offered. But to 
respond to the question of the Senator from Montana, I am more than 
delighted to have a straight up-or-down vote with no amendments. If we 
were in the House of Representatives, we could have the Rules Committee 
provide such an order; we would have no amendments, and we would vote 
up or down on whether China ought to go into the World Trade 
Organization. I am delighted to have such an opportunity, and I make a 
commitment to that right now. If we have a unanimous consent, at the 
appropriate time, I support having a clean vote on China's accession to 
the World Trade Organization.
  I was somewhat surprised to hear my colleague from Montana say China 
has not been a bad boy, they have been a good boy; a number of things 
they helped us with--Pakistan and India. They had signed international 
agreements. They had shown restraint.
  They have been adjudged one of the greatest proliferators of weapons 
of mass destruction in the world today. In fact, they were a great 
contributor to the problems and the arms race that has developed 
between Pakistan and India.
  Signed international agreements--indeed, they have signed 
international agreements. Last year, they signed the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and since they signed that 
international agreement our State Department has adjudged their 
behavior on civil and political rights abysmal. They have a new and 
vicious and brutal crackdown upon the rights of their own people. That 
is the international agreement.
  My colleague said they have shown restraint, not like the 
adventuresome nature of their politics 25 years ago; they have shown 
restraint. Well, I don't believe it is restraint for them to vigorously 
modernize their weapon systems and to vigorously seek American 
technology through legal and illegal means.
  All of that aside, some of the questions were answered, but many of 
the questions I raised were not addressed at all and have nothing to do 
with anything other than trade and the economy. But they are questions 
that need to be debated, questions that need to be answered. Are we 
lowering the WTO bar for access to the Chinese? To say that we can deny 
them permanent MFN after the fact, after they have been admitted to the 
WTO, and that will be our vote, I think begs the question. There will 
be such international pressure for permanent MFN if we have already 
supported their admission to the WTO that it will be inexorable. It 
will be a fait accompli. But the evidence clearly is that we are 
setting a different standard for China.
  In my discussions with the State Department over a year ago, they 
made it very clear to me that they were debating within the State 
Department whether we would have greater influence on China with them 
in at a lower standard, or out waiting for them to change and to make 
the necessary reforms. It is very clear that the administration has 
pursued the idea of lowering the standards so that China could be 
brought in prematurely. Admitting them as a developing country is 
changing the standards for China. These are issues which have not been 
addressed today in our debate but need to be addressed by the U.S. 
Senate.
  I will not go through all of those questions again, but they are 
important questions. The Senate and the Congress should not keep 
``punting'' on trade issues. We have a constitutional role. We are a 
coequal power with the executive branch. This is an opportunity for us 
to regain our voice on those very, very important issues that affect 
the lives of every American. The issue today is not do we want China in 
the WTO; the issue is do we want to have an opportunity to debate that 
and to vote on that. That is the issue.
  I have said, and I will say again, I want China in the World Trade 
Organization at the right time and under the right circumstances. But I 
do not believe that we should allow the administration to make a 
unilateral decision coopting the constitutional right of the House and 
Senate to express itself on this very, very important issue.
  I hope that this amendment will be passed, that we will have the 
opportunity at the appropriate time to vote yes or no on China's 
admission to the World Trade Organization. I hope that the reforms are 
made in China so that I could vote yes on that. I would like to see 
that, but I believe that we have the greatest leverage we will ever 
have in bringing about reforms before we concede ahead of time that 
they should go into the WTO.
  I believe this is an eminently reasonable amendment because we are 
not prejudging what the outcome should be. We are simply saying we 
should have the right to vote. We should say yes or no--not trade 
negotiators in a vacuum apart from those who were elected by the people 
to represent.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has a little under 4 
minutes, and the Senator from Montana has a little under 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will take just 2 or 3 minutes before I yield back my 
time. We are getting into the repetitious stage.
  Let me say that it is important to think about the precedent. 
Congress has never voted on this issue before. There are a lot of other 
countries that are going to be seeking membership in the WTO. They are 
basically former Soviet Union republics. Russia--name them. They all 
are going to be looking for membership in the WTO. If we start voting 
now on membership, I think we have to do the same for all the others, 
and they will get caught up in the other issues, too, that have already 
been discussed.
  Frankly, the Senator from Arkansas made my case when he said that at 
this time we have the greatest leverage. It sounds to me as if the 
leverage he is talking about is on human rights. It is on lots of 
issues. I just think that we do not want to get to a debate on China 
policy if and when the U.S. executive branch seeks to have China become 
a member of the WTO.
  I also suggest to my good friend from Arkansas it is a good 
opportunity for the Senator and all of us who are concerned about the 
terms of China's infamous WTO, the economic terms, to make our case 
very strenuously now with the administration, with Ambassador 
Barshefsky, with others in the administration, so that they do come up 
with terms that we would more likely agree with than not.
  Now is the time. There are intense negotiations going on now. Premier 
Zhu Rongji is about to visit this country. I think it is Premier Zhu 
Rongji's visit to the United States which gives us ``leverage,'' 
because he will want to come with an agreement. We should make use of 
that leverage by vigorously talking with the administration.
  It has been a good debate and I think we should deal with all these 
issues of China separately, not in the context of WTO. I hope that the 
Senators would agree with the Senator from Alaska when he moves to 
table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I will take a moment, and then I will 
yield my remaining time.
  I say that the leverage of which I speak--I think the Senator from 
Montana knows and agrees that the leverage is greater now before China 
goes

[[Page 4950]]

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


                            Amendment No. 92

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

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

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

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

     SEC. __. LIMITATION OF FUNDING.

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

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Iowa, Senator Harkin, and on behalf of Senator Durbin, Senator 
Feinstein, and Senator Reid of Nevada, to offer an amendment to bring 
some rational conclusion and fair determination to the issue of 
independent counsels in the U.S. Government.
  I begin with a simple admission. In 1994, as a Member of the House of 
Representatives, I voted for and argued for the enactment of an 
independent counsel statute. I was not mindful then, as I am now, of 
the complete record and statements as to the likely outcome of the 
independent counsel statute.
  Howard Baker, then a Member of this institution, argued that the 
independent counsel statute would ``establish a virtual fourth branch 
of Government, and would substantially diminish the accountability of 
law enforcement to the President, the Congress, and the American 
people.''
  Acting Attorney General Robert Bork, warned: ``What you are doing 
[with the independent counsel statute] is building an office whose sole 
function is to attack the executive branch throughout its tenure. It is 
an institutionalized wolf hanging on the flank of the elk.''
  Mr. President, I take no delight in admitting it, but it is 
inescapable. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bork, and other Members of this institution 
were right. And many of us in my party, and, indeed, President Clinton, 
who ultimately signed the law, were wrong.
  It is now clear--I think unmistakably clear--that the independent 
counsel law, when it expires on June 30, 1999, will not be 
reauthorized. There is not only not the votes in this Senate or in the 
other body, but there is not a rationale based on the historic 
experience to allow this law to continue.
  It brings me no pleasure to bring to the floor of the Senate the 
weight of the evidence that supports the conclusion that the law should 
expire. But it is overwhelming, and it isn't only Kenneth Starr. 
Independent counsels, from Walsh to Smaltz, have given us no choice but 
to close this unfortunate chapter. The list of abuses by independent 
counsels are daunting, and they are dangerous. Mr. Starr has no 
monopoly in his violations of law, ethics, or common sense. But the 
investigation that is now underway in the Justice Department of Judge 
Starr is still instructive. It teaches us a lot about the basic 
failings of this law, how it can be abused, and why the amendment that 
I offer today, along with Senator Harkin, is of such value.
  First, Mr. Starr apparently may have failed to inform the Attorney 
General about his contacts with Paula Jones' attorneys. Indeed, he may 
have misled the Attorney General on this issue.
  Second, it is overwhelmingly clear that Mr. Starr, or his 
subordinates, leaked confidential grand jury information in direct 
violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures.
  Third, it is possible that Mr. Starr may have used questionable 
prosecutorial tactics by making an offer of immunity to Ms. Lewinsky 
contingent on her not contacting her attorney.
  These may not be the only violations of procedure or law, but they 
tell us something about the fact that there is something 
institutionally wrong with how the independent counsel statute has 
functioned.
  I do not raise these things out of any vendetta against Mr. Starr, or 
his tactics, or his office, because this is an institutional problem. 
Indeed, in the last few years, Donald Smaltz has spent $7 million 
investigating former Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy. Last

[[Page 4951]]

year, after a 2-month trial, in which the defense never found it 
necessary to call a single witness, that $7 million investigation 
resulted in a jury acquitting Mr. Espy on each and every one of the 30 
counts in the indictment.
  C. David Barrett spent $7 million investigating former HUD Secretary 
Cisneros on allegations that he lied about payments to a former 
mistress. Mr. Barrett went so far as to indict the former mistress over 
misstatements on a mortgage application form. Nor is it limited to this 
administration.
  In the previous administration, after a 6-year investigation, 
Lawrence Walsh indicted Casper Weinberger only 5 months before the 1992 
Presidential election in either a moment of political convenience, or 
worse. Mr. Walsh had spent $40 million over 7 years in his 
investigation.
  I believe it is now clear that, despite the best of intentions and 
our frustration with the Watergate experience, we now know the 
independent counsel statute is deeply flawed. It has created a 
prosecutor that is accountable to no one. It is a contradiction with 
the most basic lessons of our Founding Fathers in the Constitutional 
Convention. Indeed, in Federalist 51, Madison sums up the need for 
checks and balances of every office, every center of power in the 
Federal Government, with a simple phrase ``Ambition must be made to 
counteract ambition.''
  Mr. Walsh, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Starr, and Mr. Smaltz are ambitious men, 
but their ambition is met with no countervailing power.
  There is, in theory, in the Office of the Attorney General the 
opportunity to dismiss for cause, to hold accountable, but in the 
political realities of our time no Attorney General could exercise that 
authority against an independent counsel investigating an 
administration in which he or she is a component part.
  The Congress does not even control the ability of oversight of 
expenditures. As a Member of the Senate, and as a member of the 
Judiciary Committee with oversight responsibilities for the Judiciary, 
for the operation of the Attorney General, I wrote to Mr. Starr and to 
the Justice Department asking about how this $50 million had been spent 
and received nothing but a vague reply with broad categories. Mr. 
Starr's office remains the only functioning office in the entire U.S. 
Government where the people's representatives cannot inform on behalf 
of the people how millions upon millions of dollars are spent. But 
mostly, I suppose, if the money were wasted and power were exercised 
responsibly but the net result was still a rising level of public 
confidence in public integrity, it might be worth the abuse or the 
expenditure. But this isn't the case either.
  The independent counsel statute has not succeeded in removing 
politics from prosecution. It has brought a new element to politics, 
the hijacking of these offices, the use of them for their own political 
purposes, only now without oversight. Public confidence in the 
administration of justice has not only not improved but it has 
completely failed.
  Now it is being argued that the law will expire and there will never 
be independent counsels again. I believe that is an accurate portrayal 
of the situation, but the current five independent counsels should 
simply be allowed to continue in their work. The question remains, how 
long and for how much?
  Mr. Starr has suggested his investigation may go to the year 2001. He 
has the power for it to continue until the year 2010, 2020. When will 
Mr. Barrett complete his case, in this decade or the next? And, if $50 
million was an outrage by the public for the expenditures of Mr. Starr, 
there is nothing between here and his expenditure of $100 million, $200 
million. Is he the only person in the Federal Government who will 
retain the power to unilaterally spend unlimited sums of funds with no 
oversight for any purpose?
  That is what brings me to the floor today with Senator Harkin, to 
offer an amendment that allows Mr. Starr, Mr. Barrett, and the other 
three remaining independent counsels to continue with their 
investigation for 6 months after the expiration of the independent 
counsel statute on June 30. For the remainder of this year, they retain 
their authority, their budget appropriations, and they should complete 
their files and prepare their cases. During that 6 months, they should 
work with professional prosecutors in the Justice Department, the 
Public Integrity Section, as applicable, and prepare the transfer of 
their cases. The cases will continue. They will be in able hands with 
professional prosecutors, with ample resources.
  This law is not intended to end any investigation. It will not end 
any investigation, but it will allow for the orderly transfer of these 
investigations and prosecutions within the Justice Department. Those 
two investigations which have not had independent counsels appointed 
for 3 years, involving Secretary Herman and Secretary Babbitt, are not 
affected by this amendment. It is our belief those independent counsels 
have not had at least 3 years to prepare their cases. We will give them 
every benefit: Take the time as independent counsels after the law has 
expired, prepare your cases, continue the prosecution if you have a 
case, or dismiss it if you do not. This amendment is reserved only for 
those cases where more than 3 years has expired and where, after the 
expiration of the independent counsel statute, there is a need to then 
proceed.
  I believe this amendment is fair. It will help restore public 
confidence and allow the Congress to know the taxpayers' money is being 
spent properly. It will transition the Federal Government into the 
post-independent counsel statute method of dealing with these important 
questions.
  I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin for joining with Senator 
Harkin and with me in offering this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with respect to my colleague from New 
Jersey and the other cosponsors of this amendment, I rise to oppose the 
amendment. I understand some of what has moved them to have the strong 
feelings they do that lead to this amendment, but I think it is 
certainly ill timed and ultimately ill advised.
  I say it is ill timed because the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
on which I am honored to serve as the ranking Democratic member, is in 
the middle of an inquiry, holding hearings on the fundamental question 
of whether to reauthorize the independent counsel statute, hearings 
which will continue for at least a month more. I think it is worth 
letting that process work what we hope will be its thoughtful and 
constructive way.
  I know many of my colleagues oppose reauthorizing the statute, and 
that is true of Members on both sides of the political aisle, just as I 
am heartened by the fact that Members on both sides of the political 
aisle support the retention of the independent counsel statute or some 
version of it. I hope we can work together to develop a law that 
establishes the principles of independence of investigation when the 
highest officials of our Government are suspected of criminal behavior. 
It may take some time and some convincing. Most people believe this 
will not happen by the June 30 expiration date of the current statute. 
The statute, therefore, may lapse for a time while we work on this. But 
that would not be a catastrophe, because under existing law the 
independent counsel who are in effect now would continue to do their 
work.
  Regardless of how the underlying question of whether we have an 
independent counsel--inside the Justice Department, outside the Justice 
Department--or not, is resolved, I believe it would be a serious 
mistake to single out, as this amendment does, what I gather to be four 
of the independent counsels for termination while their investigations 
are ongoing. In that sense, this amendment is not just a preemptive 
attack on the statute while we are still considering as a committee and 
as a body whether to reauthorize it, it is what might be called a 
personal attack on the most controversial independent counsels. In that 
sense, it actually cuts against the purpose of the statute in

[[Page 4952]]

the first place, which was to provide for independence of investigation 
and prosecution. The fear was, when the statute was drafted and adopted 
in 1978 after Watergate, that prosecution--investigation of high-
ranking officials of our Government would be interfered with by people 
in the executive branch who would be affected by those investigations.
  There is a way in which this amendment puts Congress in a position of 
compromising the independence of these investigations. Under the 
amendment, all the independent counsel investigations besides the ones 
covered still operating after the law expires on June 30, would 
continue. It is not until they reach the 3-year deadline in the 
amendment, but until their work had been completed and their offices 
were terminated pursuant to the statutory provisions which are 
currently in effect.
  There are two other ongoing independent counsel investigations begun 
in 1998 which, as my friend and colleague from New Jersey, I believe, 
just indicated, would never be affected--in fact, would never be 
affected by this amendment. Similarly, there may be other independent 
counsel currently operating under court seal, which we would therefore 
not know about, who would not be affected. And the Attorney General may 
appoint additional independent counsel before the statute expires on 
June 30. All of these would not be affected. This amendment as I 
understand it and read it, affects only four independent counsel: 
Kenneth Starr, David Barrett, Donald Smaltz, and Larry Thompson.
  I am not rising to oppose this amendment because I want to defend the 
investigations that these four men have carried out. I do not want to. 
I don't need to. Some of the criticisms of their work may be valid; 
some may not be. But that is not the point, as I see it. The point is, 
and the question is: Do we in Congress want to set the precedent of 
terminating an ongoing separate branch investigation and prosecution 
for whatever the reason that it has aroused our opposition? I think 
this would be a bad precedent which smacks of violation of the 
separation of powers doctrine and values.
  I know we maintain the power of the purse, and it is an important 
power, but it has to be exercised with great discretion and 
sensitivity, particularly when we are affecting one of the other 
branches of Government and particularly when we are affecting a branch 
of Government whose particular participants here are involved in 
controversial independent investigations. It was no accident that the 
framers of the Constitution went out of their way in a whole series of 
cases, including in the impeachment provisions in the Constitution 
which we have just come through, to make it very clear that Congress 
does not have the power to prosecute. That was one of the lessons the 
framers learned from their own history. So, as we remember in the 
impeachment provisions, and it was central to the decision that many of 
us made, that impeachment existed not to prosecute the President in 
that case.
  That was something that the Constitution tells us could be done after 
an individual left office by the appropriate branch of government. I 
worry very much about the effect of the precedent that will be set 
here, understanding some of the concerns that motivate the amendment, 
but thinking beyond the current situation. A precedent would be set for 
Congress to intervene and terminate independent criminal investigations 
and/or prosecutions. We do not have to do it. The law makes clear that 
there are others who can take these steps. The independent counsel 
statute itself contains a mechanism by which the Attorney General can 
remove any independent counsel, including these four, for cause. So far 
she has declined to use that authority. I think to some extent what is 
involved here is our respect for her right, as the Nation's chief law 
enforcement officer, to make the decision as to whether to use the 
power we have given her in statute to decide whether or not to remove 
these four independent counsel.
  Why should we presume to replace our judgment for hers? The statute 
also contains a provision by which either the Attorney General, the 
independent counsel, or the special panel of three appellate judges can 
move to terminate an investigation, if its work has been substantially 
completed, whether or not the independent counsel himself thinks that 
is the case. This amendment makes an exception to those ongoing 
statutory provisions for four independent counsel. It is not the proper 
role of Congress, in my belief, to decide that certain prosecutors 
should be fired in the midst of their work. We should apply the same 
provisions of the law to those independent counsel whose investigations 
have displeased us, either because of the content or the length of the 
investigations, as we do for those that have not displeased us.
  Even if this amendment's 3-year cutoff applied equally to all of the 
independent counsel, it may well constitute an unjustifiable 
interference in ongoing criminal investigations.
  The independent counsel statute, as it exists today and as I 
mentioned earlier, grandfathers existing investigations, if the statute 
is not renewed, for a number of very good reasons. Among them are that 
after a prosecutor has spent time on a lengthy and complex 
investigation, he has built up a store of information, institutional 
memory, ongoing leads and relationships. Much of that would be lost if 
these cases were turned over to the Department of Justice midstream. 
Again and again, I have heard critics of the independent counsel 
statute complain of the inefficiencies involved in requiring newly 
appointed independent counsel to find office space and assemble staff 
before they begin their work, but we need to weigh carefully whether 
there are greater inefficiencies and greater harms involved in tearing 
apart these offices before they have finished their work. The 
inefficiencies, I think, would be compounded if we in Congress 
ultimately pass a statute to replace the current law.
  The legislative process has barely begun on the question of whether 
or not to renew in its current form or some revised form the 
Independent Counsel statute. None of us, certainly not I, can say where 
this will lead. Perhaps a new independent counsel would have to be 
appointed and attempt to reconstruct the work that had been done. 
Before a new law is passed, it is not clear to me how the Attorney 
General would be expected to handle the investigations that would be 
returned to the Department at the end of the year.
  Yesterday, in testimony before the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
the Attorney General promised to continue appointing independent 
counsel where necessary, pursuant to regulations, if the current 
statute expires.
  The amendment before us may have the ironic effect of requiring the 
Attorney General to immediately appoint a new independent counsel to 
resume investigations and prosecutions that were already well underway 
towards completion, which I fear might mean not only a bad precedent 
and principle, but additional expenses as well.
  Finally, Mr. President, the Attorney General declared yesterday that 
she is opposed to reauthorizing the independent counsel statute, but I 
think it is fair to say that she nonetheless saw dangers, problems 
implicit in the pursuit and purpose of the amendment before us now. I 
thought she urged us to reject it. At least she said it didn't make 
sense to her. I admire her forthrightness on both counts, though I 
disagree with her on one. Whether or not you support the independent 
counsel statute, I hope my colleagues will think twice before going on 
record and supporting the precedent of premature termination by 
Congress of prosecutors who are appointed to be independent guardians 
of justice, independent from the executive branch and independent from 
the legislative branch as well.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I want to make certain that the record is complete and accurate. The 
Senator has suggested that it would be interfering with an ongoing 
criminal

[[Page 4953]]

investigation. The Senator understands that in these 6 months, the 
independent counsel would have time to take their cases, as they are 
now prepared, and their relatively small offices and give them to 
professional prosecutors in the Justice Department who have been 
pursuing similar or more important cases for years. There is no 
diminution in resources, quality of personnel, or ability to pursue the 
case. Ironically, this is probably bad news for the potential 
defendants, because they are going to be facing much more experienced 
prosecutors.
  I just wanted to make certain that was clear on the record and the 
Senator understood that.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Jersey. I do 
understand it. My reaction to it is that we are still taking from these 
offices that have been working on these cases and establishing a 
precedent for various reasons. It is a precedent that can be misused, 
as time goes on, of terminating an ongoing independent counsel 
prosecution by the individual, firing the individual who is doing it, 
turning it over to the Justice Department, which, of course, has many, 
many capable and experienced lawyers, but who have not been working on 
this case. Therefore, I think that it would suffer not only from 
redundancy and inefficiency, but most of all, I worry, no matter what 
we think about these four or the independent counsel statute, it would 
set a bad precedent of legislative intervention into independent 
investigation and prosecution.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, will the Senator continue to yield for 
one more inquiry?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The point was made, as well, as to whether or not 
this is an unconstitutional interference. The right of the Congress to 
reassign responsibilities, to reassign appropriations, of course, is an 
innate part of the function of Congress. The Senator from Connecticut, 
as did the Senator from New Jersey, I am sure, voted, for example, for 
the State Department reauthorization, the Department of Energy 
reauthorization, where we simply reassigned executive responsibilities 
as part of our constitutional power.
  Finally, I, too, was there for the Attorney General yesterday. The 
Senator from Connecticut may remember, I asked her, in my concluding 
questions, whether or not the Justice Department had the resources to 
deal with these cases. She was confident they would and could deal with 
these cases so that justice was done and there was no diminution of 
effort in the pursuit of justice in these cases.
  I simply want the Record to reflect that her answer was affirmative. 
I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding and apologize to the 
Senator from Iowa for taking the time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from New Jersey. I will speak for a 
moment more and then yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  I think the Attorney General yesterday was asked two different 
questions, quite different, and didn't give inconsistent answers, but I 
think my interpretation was, she said that an amendment of this kind 
would be unwise. She did say that if it was agreed to, the Department, 
as the Senator from New Jersey has indicated, would be capable of 
picking up these cases.
  Secondly, I want to indicate that I am not reaching a constitutional 
judgment that this is a violation of separation of powers. I have tried 
to be careful in my comments to state that. I do think it evokes 
separation of powers concerns and values. Taking the example that the 
Senator from New Jersey gives of reauthorization of State Department or 
Energy Department Offices, to me this would be a little bit like 
abolishing an assistant secretaryship in one of those Departments 
because we didn't like the work that the particular Assistant Secretary 
was doing and saying, turn it over to the Secretary of State or 
Secretary of Energy and let them do it the way they want to do it. 
While we have the power to do that and we have the power of the purse, 
it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
  I thank my colleagues, I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I yield 
to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the 
arguments made by the author of the amendment, Senator Torricelli--of 
course, I am a cosponsor of the amendment--and the very lucid and well 
thought out arguments of my friend from Connecticut.
  First I will respond to my friend from Connecticut by saying that he 
used the word ``ill-timed'' on a number of occasions in his argument. I 
quite disagree with my friend on that. I believe this is perfect 
timing.
  What are we talking about here? We are on a supplemental 
appropriations bill. We are making some cuts someplace. We are spending 
money. We are trying to reach some emergency spending moneys that we 
need, and we are all looking for places to save money. Here is one 
place we can save some money. That is what this is about, too.
  If there is one thing I continually hear from my constituents in Iowa 
and from people around the country, it is, ``How much more money are 
you going to pour down that rat hole?'' How much more money are we 
going to spend on these special prosecutors that go on and on and on? I 
think the timing is very appropriate right now, when we are on an 
appropriations bill talking about how much money we are spending and 
how much money we can save to meet critical needs in this country. I 
think it is very appropriately timed on this legislation.
  Mr. President, the Starr investigation has been traumatic for this 
country, it has been divisive for our national fabric, and these gaping 
wounds need to be healed. The focus so far has been on allowing the 
independent counsel statute to lapse on the assumption that it will put 
an end to the episode. In reality, that is far from the case.
  The independent counsel statute will lapse on June 30, but it does 
not put an end to the ongoing investigations. Keep in mind that the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey and others, of which I 
am a cosponsor, basically goes just to those investigations that have 
been ongoing for over 3 years. There are a couple that are less than 3 
years. Our amendment does not touch them.
  We are only answering the three--actually there are four. The Senator 
from Connecticut mentioned the fourth one. It caught me by surprise and 
I had to look it up. It turns out the fourth one is an ongoing 
investigation into Secretary of HUD Samuel R. Pierce. If I am not 
mistaken, he was Secretary of HUD under Ronald Reagan. They still have 
an investigation going on him. It just goes to show you, these things 
just go on year after year after year.
  What we are saying is, if we have an independent counsel who has been 
operating for more than 3 years, in 6 months--by the end of this year--
they have to close up shop and turn it over to the Justice Department.
  We are not saying that no one will be let off. No appeal is going to 
be dropped. No valid investigative lead will be abandoned. The cases 
will be pursued in keeping with Justice Department rules by some of the 
most experienced prosecutors in the country.
  Again, I point out there is little doubt that these cases will be 
under scrutiny internally at the Justice Department, certainly by the 
media and by the Congress.
  We have a President, an Executive, of one party, Congress run by 
another party. I daresay there are going to be some checks and balances 
here. Anyone who thinks this can be smothered by the Justice Department 
does not recognize how this town works. What it will do is save us a 
lot of money, and that is what I keep hearing about from my 
constituents.
  Until I started looking at this independent counsel law during the 
impeachment trial we had in the Senate, I had not paid all that much 
attention to it. In fact, I admit freely, when the extension passed in 
1993, I was one of those who voted to extend it. I wish now I had not, 
because I think it has run amok. That is why I will be in favor of 
letting it expire on June 30.

[[Page 4954]]

  In looking at this, I was trying to find out how Ken Starr could rack 
up a bill between $40 million and $50 million in less than 3 years. How 
could that be possible?
  I began trying to find the line items where he was spending the 
money. Guess what I found out. We cannot get that information. I can go 
to the Department of Agriculture and I can find out where every last 
nickel they spend goes. I can go to the Defense Department and find out 
exactly where every nickel they spend goes. They have to line item 
everything. That is true of any branch of Government but not of the 
independent counsel. Believe it or not, you cannot find out where he is 
spending the money. All they have to put it under is general broad 
categories, summaries.
  For example, here is a bill, and this came from the Los Angeles 
Times. They said they paid $30,517 for psychological analysis of 
evidence in the suicide of former White House lawyer Vincent Foster by 
the same Washington group that looked into the untimely death of rock 
musician Kurt Cobain. What is that all about?
  Then there is $370 a month in parking. We do not know who for or what 
for, but it is there, $370 a month. Here is $729,000 on five private 
investigators who were hired to supplement dozens of FBI agents. What 
did it go for? Where did that money go? We do not know. Here is a 
report that Mr. Starr paid $19,000 a month in rent at a luxury 
apartment building for staff members--19,000 bucks a month? I would 
like to know what he was renting. Again, we do not know because we 
cannot get into the line items.
  That is just another glaring deficiency in this huge loophole that we 
opened with the independent counsel law. It is, in fact, a fourth 
branch of Government with no checks and balances and no accountability 
to Congress.
  Despite the fact that Mr. Starr made his referral to Congress, it was 
considered and dispensed with through a long, tortuous episode in the 
House and long, tortuous episode in the Senate with the impeachment 
trial. According to newspaper accounts, Mr. Starr has no plans to wind 
things down. In fact, there are indications he may keep the 
investigation going not for 1 year, not for 2 years, but for 3 more 
years. That is why we are offering our amendment; cut funding in 6 
months for any independent counsel investigation that has been ongoing 
for 3 years or more. That is enough time.
  The Starr investigation has been going now for almost 5 years, and I 
think we are pretty darn close to $50 million, maybe more by now. We 
are just saying, during these 6 months, to Mr. Starr and these other 
independent counsel, even the one who is investigating Samuel Pierce 
from the Reagan administration, it is time to put their books together 
and make any referrals for any additional action or investigations to 
the Attorney General.
  This deadline gives plenty of time to the independent counsel to 
finish their work. And, again, if there is any problem, the American 
people can rest assured that these cases will be handled by a 
specialized office of the Justice Department that has been doing this 
for over 20 years.
  I think we have all concluded that the independent counsel law is 
fatally flawed. Under these circumstances, it would be a mistake to let 
the Starr investigation continue on indefinitely without any end date, 
without any oversight, without any rein on prosecutorial excess, 
without any rein on money.
  I think we ought to listen to people and let the country move on. Mr. 
Starr has had long enough to investigate Whitewater and Monica 
Lewinsky. The Senate considered the charges against the President. We 
dispensed with them. I think 6 months is long enough to wrap things up. 
Make the referrals he deems necessary so we can put this behind us.
  Again, I just point out, Mr. President, that Mr. Starr is sort of 
like a gold-plated energizer bunny--his investigation keeps going on 
and on, and the money just keeps going up and up and up.
  Twenty independent counsel investigations have been initiated since 
1978, at a cost estimated at nearly $150 million. Here is one. Donald 
Smaltz began his $17 million investigation of former Ag Secretary Espy 
in November 1994. He filed 30 counts. The jury threw them all out. The 
jury threw them all out. He spent $17 million. What happened? Well, it 
sure ruined Agriculture Secretary Espy, I can tell you that; but the 
jury found him innocent--$17 million.
  David Barrett began his investigation, which I understand is now 
around $7 million, of former Housing Secretary Cisneros in May of 1995.
  So the bills just keep getting racked up. The independent counsel 
keep going, and the people of this country are wondering, What in the 
heck are we doing? Here we are on an appropriations bill, we are trying 
to scrounge every nickel, every penny we need to meet the critical 
needs of people in this country. We have it in the farm sector. We have 
a lot of critical needs in rural America, I can tell you that right 
now, with the devastating crop prices and livestock prices. And we are 
looking for money for some assistance for farmers. We can't find it. 
Yet we have millions for Ken Starr and for all these other 
investigators to just keep living in luxury apartments and running up 
the bills to the taxpayers with no accountability.
  So that is why I think we have to do this. Six months is long enough. 
I do not know what the Governmental Affairs Committee will report out, 
when they report it out. It is my own observation that when this law 
expires on June 30 there are not the votes here to extend it. Some 
people may want to extend it, but I do not think there will be the 60-
plus votes necessary to extend that law. But that does not make any 
difference; the ones that are going on now can just keep right on 
going. I just think it is time to heed the common wisdom of the people 
of this country and shut the spigot off and turn it over to the Justice 
Department by the end of the year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we at the Governmental Affairs Committee 
are, indeed, conducting hearings with regard to the independent 
counsel. The criticisms of the Independent Counsel Act have been many 
and well known for many, many years. The Act was passed in 1978. I was 
one of the ones who was critical of the idea that you could set 
somebody up totally separate and outside the process and not 
accountable in the very beginning.
  A lot of my friends now who criticize the Act, of course, thought it 
was a very good idea back when the independent counsel were 
investigating the other party. All of the criticisms about Mr. Starr, 
of course, were applicable to Mr. Walsh's investigation, which went on 
longer, cost more than Mr. Starr's investigation back during previous 
administrations.
  We should not look at this in terms of who is investigating whom. As 
I say, I have been critical of it all along. I still am. But the 
question is, Where is the power going to reside if you have a real 
conflict of interest? If you have a President of the United States who 
has been accused of serious misconduct, can his appointee, the Attorney 
General, investigate that with any credibility? I think for most of the 
Attorneys General we have had throughout our history, the answer is, 
yes, they have been people of great integrity. But what about the 
perception? Is that a good idea?
  So if we do not have an independent counsel, we give it back to the 
employee of the President to investigate the President? That is an 
inherent conflict of interest. Attorney General Reno herself, the 
Department, the administration back in 1993, all agreed that was a bad 
idea, and they were for the independent counsel. Now, recent events, 
and Mr. Starr's criticism, has caused them to reverse on a dime and say 
that they have discovered structural defects in the statute.
  The statute has been basically the same since 1978. They are just now 
discovering those structural defects in the

[[Page 4955]]

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


                        Vote on Amendment No. 89

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                               YEAS--69 

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

                               NAYS--30 

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

                             NOT VOTING--1 

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


                            Amendment No. 92

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the agreement we have, there will 
be 1 minute on each side to explain the next amendment. Senator 
Torricelli will be first with that minute. Following that, I have 2 
minutes to explain to the Senate what we have to do after this vote.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered, Mr. President. I did order the 
yeas and nays.
  But before that vote, Senator Torricelli is to be recognized for 1 
minute. It is only 1 minute. I hope we could have order so the Senate 
can hear these Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, before the Senate is the question of 
when the independent counsel statute expires. There is still the issue 
of the appropriations, and whether the poor continuing independent 
counsel will be able to spend, not just this year, but on into the 
future, $10 million, $20 million, $100 million.
  We begin the orderly process, on 6-month notice, of moving those 
cases into the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department where 
the Attorney General has assured us she is prepared to receive the 
cases. They will be pursued professionally and prosecuted

[[Page 4956]]

to the full extent of the law. All we have provided for is the orderly 
transfer of those cases. Justice will be done. Every case will be 
pursued. It will be done within the Justice Department, and at long 
last there will be accountability of how much we spend.
  If you have been asked by constituents: Isn't $50 million too much? 
Will it be $100 million? Will it be $200 million? This is the answer to 
your constituents' inquiry. It is control, but it also assures justice 
within the Department.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The time of the Senator has 
expired. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, the Senate has previously determined if, 
in fact, the Independent Counsel Act is allowed to expire, 
investigations that are currently underway will be ongoing. Why did the 
Senate decide that? The obvious reason is it is a bad idea for the 
Congress to be terminating investigations in midstream and sending them 
back to Justice.
  This amendment would reverse that previous determination that this 
body has made. They would send it back to Justice with choices: They 
would either have to shut down the investigation, make the 
determination themselves, which would be terrible in terms of 
appearance, or they would have to continue the investigation and bring 
somebody else in to do it, which would be terrible in terms of 
efficiency.
  I asked Attorney General Reno in the Governmental Affairs Committee 
what she thought about it. She said, ``I think, since these 
investigations are underway, they should probably be concluded under 
the current framework.''
  I suggest this is a very bad idea and should be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for 2 minutes here to inform the 
Senate what procedure I hope we will follow at this time. We have a 
list of amendments here, some 70 amendments, but I do not expect them 
all to be offered. Particularly, I do not expect them all to be offered 
when you see what is going to happen to this amendment. I say that 
advisedly, after being advised by the proponents.
  But, Mr. President, it is going to be my policy as the majority 
manager of this bill to move to table every amendment that is not 
cleared on both sides. This is an emergency measure. We are going home 
a week from Friday. Next week is all taken up with the budget. We 
either get this done now so we can go to conference with the House on 
Monday or Tuesday and bring it back before Friday, or we might as well 
forget about it.
  So I respectfully inform the Senate I shall move, as the manager, to 
table every amendment that does not have bipartisan support. So, if you 
have an amendment on that list and you do not want to lose on it, now 
is the time to take it off.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the yeas and nays 
that have been ordered be vitiated, and we take a voice vote on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, may I pose a question to 
the Senator?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. This is a motion to table the amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes. The Senator will see we are going to voice vote it 
and it will carry.
  Mr. GRAMM. With that assurance from the manager of the bill, I do not 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 92) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are prepared to go through any 
amendment that is going to be offered and give our advice as quickly as 
possible as to whether or not we will support that amendment. I urge 
Senators to bring the amendments to us. Senator Byrd and I will go over 
them immediately, and we can determine how many of these amendments we 
might have to vote on. As soon as the leader has made his request for a 
time agreement, we will go further into the operation here of the 
Senate before we finish this bill.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am curious to know what amendments might 
be coming up. Is there a list available we can look at? Obviously, they 
are not all going to be approved. It is my understanding, from what the 
manager said, if any amendment is objected to, then he will include 
that amendment in those to be tabled by voice vote?
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't know about the voice votes, Mr. President, if 
the Senator will yield. I do know we will have a list here very soon. 
The leader will present it. That is what we are waiting for now. I do 
say we have a tentative list. We are trying to winnow that down, but if 
we can get agreement on that list, I think then we can proceed. I don't 
know whether we can get agreement on the list and that is what we are 
waiting for. But we will show you the list as soon as possible.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Should we wait around here?
  Mr. STEVENS. We should have that list within about 20 or 30 minutes.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

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


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

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to send to the desk a package 
of amendments.
  The first is an amendment by Senators Helms and McConnell directing 
the Office of Inspector General, Agency for International Development, 
to audit expenditures for emergency relief activities.
  The second is an amendment by Senator Reid to provide an additional 
$500,000 for technical assistance related to shoreline erosion at Lake 
Tahoe, NV.
  The next is an amendment by Senator Kyl to provide an additional $5 
million for emergency repairs to Headgate Rock hydroelectric project in 
Arizona.
  Next is an amendment by Senators Domenici and Reid making a 
rescission of $5.5 million to funds available to the Corps of Engineers 
to offset additional funds provided in the previous two amendments.
  Next is an amendment by Senators Jeffords and Bingaman directing the 
Agency for International Development to undertake efforts to promote 
reforestation and other environmental activities.
  Last is an amendment by Senator Levin allowing the President to 
dispose of certain material in the National Defense Stockpile.

[[Page 4957]]

  These have all been cleared on both sides, and they are all fully 
offset.
  I send the package to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be 
considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

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


                            Amendment No. 93

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

       On page 8, line 22, insert before the proviso the 
     following: ``Provided further, That up to $1,500,000 of the 
     funds appropriated by this heading may be transferred to 
     `Operating Expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development, Office of Inspector General', to remain 
     available until expended, to be used for costs of audits, 
     inspections, and other activities associated with the 
     expenditure of funds appropriated by this heading: Provided 
     further, That $500,000 of the funds appropriated by this 
     heading shall be made available to the Comptroller General 
     for purposes of monitoring the provision of assistance using 
     funds appropriated by this heading: Provided further, That 
     any funds appropriated by this heading that are made 
     available for nonproject assistance shall be obligated and 
     expended subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations and to the notification 
     procedures relating to the reprogramming of funds under 
     section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2394-1):''.


                            amendment no. 94

       Insert in the appropriate place:

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil


                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

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


                            amendment no. 95

       Insert in the appropriate place:

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         Bureau of Reclamation

                      Water and Related Resources

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


                            amendment no. 96

       Insert in the appropriate place:

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil


                         CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL

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


                            amendment no. 97

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


                            AMENDMENT NO. 98

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

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

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

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

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

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

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


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

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

                    Amendment List for Supplemental

       Domenici:
       1. New Mexico southwest border HIDTA.
       2. Oil/gas loan guarantee.
       Specter/Durbin: Unfair foreign competition/trade fairness.
       Hutchison: Kosovo.
       Robb: Cavalese, Italy claims.
       Stevens:
       1. Non-Indian health service.
       2. Glacier Bay compensation.
       3. Relevant.
       4. Relevant.
       Hatch: Ethical standards for Federal prosecutors.
       Gregg: Fishing permits.
       Gorton:
       1. Hardrock mining.
       2. Power generation equipment.
       Brownback/Roberts: Natural gas producers.
       DeWine:
       1. Counterdrug research.
       2. Counterdrug funding.
       Smith (NH): Kosovo.
       Enzi:
       1. States' rights.
       2. Livestock assistance.
       3. Livestock assistance.
       4. Relevant.
       Murkowski: Glacier Bay.
       Ashcroft: Emergency assistance to USDA.
       Bond:
       1. Hog producers.
       2. 1998 disaster.
       Jeffords: Relevant.
       Gramm:
       1. Strike emergency designation.
       2. Steel loan program (4 amendments).
       3. Offsets (4 amendments).
       4. Relevant.
       Kohl: Bankruptcy technical correction.
       Lincoln:
       1. Debris removal.
       2. CRCT.
       Gorton: Loan deficiency payments.
       Dorgan: Shared appreciation amendment.
       Kohl: NRCS conservation operation funding.
       Lott: 3 relevant amendments.
       Lott: Rules.
       DeWine: Steel.
       Leahy/Jeffords: Funding for apple growers.
       Cochran:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       Grams: $3.4 million transfer within HUD.

[[Page 4958]]

       Burns: Sheep improvement center.
       Nickles: Emergency.
       Craig: Agriculture sales to Iran.
       Biden: Relevant.
       Bingaman:
       1. SoS Home care.
       2. Energy related.
       3. Ag related.
       Byrd:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       3. Relevant.
       Daschle:
       1. Ellsworth AFB.
       2. Missouri River.
       3. Firefighters.
       4. Relevant.
       5. Relevant.
       6. Relevant.
       7. Tobacco recoupment.
       Dorgan: Grain sale to Iran.
       Durbin:
       1. Medicaid recoupment.
       2. Kosovo (2nd degree).
       3. Relevant.
       Edwards: TANF.
       Feinstein: WIC increase.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Harkin;
       1. Tobacco.
       2. Relevant.
       3. Relevant.
       4. Relevant.
       Johnson:
       1. Relevant.
       2. Relevant.
       3. Relevant.
       Kerry: Hard rock mining.
       Kerrey: Flood control--Corps of Engineers.
       Landrieu:
       1. Central America--disaster fund.
       2. Immigration.
       3. Immigration.
       Leahy: Apple growers.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Murray: Rural schools--class size fix.
       Reed: OSHA Small farm rider.
       Robb: Ski gondola victims.
       Torricelli: Relevant.
       Graham:
       1. Micro Herbicide.
       2. Sec. 3002--Counterdrug.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not, I will just describe the list for our colleagues to indicate that 
there are approximately 45 Republican amendments and approximately 35 
Democratic amendments on the list just submitted, but I do not object. 
I support the request made by the majority leader.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure I 
understand what the majority leader has put forward. The amendments 
would be amendable with relevant second-degrees; is that correct? Would 
substitutes also be allowed on amendments?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in answering the question of the Senator 
from Texas, all first-degree amendments that are listed would be 
subject to relevant second-degree amendments, but if they are not on 
that list, then they would not be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments. I guess that a second-degree amendment in the nature of a 
substitute would be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If it is relevant, it would be in order.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Did we get agreement to that request? I will go ahead and 
complete the entire request. Let me say on the list of amendments, 
Senator Daschle is correct. There are apparently 80-something 
amendments on that list. I assume that a lot of them are defensive in 
nature and some of them can very likely be accepted. We have the two 
best managers, probably, in the Senate handling this bill--the Senator 
from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. 
I am sure they will go through that list like a knife through hot 
butter. But there are some on that list that certainly will have to be 
dealt with in the regular order. We will work on our side to get that 
list worked down, just as I am sure Senator Daschle will.
  Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the 
disposition of the above-listed amendments, the bill be advanced to 
third reading and passage occur, all without any intervening action or 
debate. I further ask that the bill remain at the desk, and when the 
Senate receives the House companion bill, the Chair automatically 
strike all after the enacting clause, insert the text of S. 544, as 
amended, the House bill be advanced to third reading and the bill be 
passed, all without intervening action or debate.
  I further ask that the Senate insist on its amendments, request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  For the information of those who might be wondering about that, the 
House has not yet acted on this supplemental. It is anticipated they 
will not act until Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Therefore, we do 
not want to run this to final completion. This will allow us to stop at 
a critical point and wait for the House action and then go straight to 
conference.
  Finally, I ask that the Senate bill be placed back on the Calendar 
and final passage occur no later than 11 a.m. on Friday, March 19, and 
that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have just noted that there are 
approximately 90 amendments. I agree with the characterization of the 
majority leader that we have the two finest managers the Senate could 
put forth as we work through this bill, and I am sure that they will 
cut through those amendments like a knife through hot butter. As 
eternal an optimist as I am, I am still not optimistic at this point 
that we can complete work on all 90 amendments prior to 11 o'clock, so 
I will object.
  I do ask for the cooperation of our colleagues in the hopes that we 
can finish this bill. Obviously, there is a great deal of work that yet 
needs to be done. If we work this afternoon and work hard, perhaps as 
early as this evening we might be able to finish, but let's give it our 
best effort and revisit the question of when we can go to final 
passage. So I object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I revise my unanimous consent request. It is 
the same as earlier stated, but I will delete the last phrase with 
regard to these words: ``And final passage occur no later than 11 a.m. 
on Friday, March 19, and that paragraph 4, rule XII, be waived.'' 
Therefore, it will conclude with these words: ``Finally, I ask that the 
Senate bill be placed back on the Calendar.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is likely there will be an 
amendment offered relating to Kosovo. I would like to speak briefly on 
that subject, if I may, in the absence of any other Senator on the 
floor.
  I note the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has 
just come to the floor. Does the chairman wish to take the floor?
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Kosovo amendment has been set aside 
temporarily. The meeting is going on in the leader's office. I wonder 
if the Senator knows that is going on and should participate in that.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the chairman. I will participate. I want to make 
just a couple of comments.
  Mr. President, the Kosovo matter again raises the issue about the 
respective power of Congress under the Constitution, the sole authority 
to declare war, and the authority of the President as Commander in 
Chief. This is a recurrent theme of consideration.
  Within the course of the past year, we faced the issue of airstrikes, 
which were anticipated against Iraq in February of 1998. At that time, 
I wrote the President, and spoke on the floor of the Senate calling on 
the President to seek congressional authority, if action was 
contemplated there, because an airstrike was an act of war and only the

[[Page 4959]]

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

                          ____________________