[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5159-5176]
[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. LOTT. Mr. President, we are obviously dealing with very serious 
matters for the future of our country and our military men and women 
today. We want to make sure we proceed properly. We are looking at how 
to proceed on the Kosovo issue and the supplemental appropriations and 
be prepared for consideration of the budget resolution beginning 
tomorrow.
  We have looked at a lot of options. Obviously, we have been talking 
among ourselves and the administration, and Senator Daschle and I have 
gone through a couple proposals.
  Our conclusion is, at this time we should go forward with the cloture 
vote as scheduled. The cloture vote is on the Smith amendment, which is 
an amendment to the Hutchison amendment to the supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  When that vote is concluded, depending on how that vote turns out, 
then we will either proceed on the Smith amendment or we will set it 
aside, if cloture is defeated, and work on the supplemental 
appropriations bill while we see if we can work out an agreement on 
language or how we proceed further on the Kosovo issue.
  We thought the better part of valor at this time is to have the vote 
on cloture. Is that Senator Daschle's understanding, too? We will 
continue to work with the interested parties. A bipartisan group will 
sit down together and look at language to see if we can come up with an 
agreement on that language. We may be able to, maybe not. But we should 
make that effort. Then we also will press on the supplemental 
appropriations bill while we do that.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Lott 
     amendment No. 124 prohibiting the use of funds for military 
     operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia:
         Trent Lott, Paul Coverdell, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, 
           Jeff Sessions, Don Nickles, Charles E. Grassley, Sam 
           Brownback, Tim Hutchinson, Michael B. Enzi, Bill Frist, 
           Frank Murkowski, Jim Inhofe, Conrad Burns, Mitch 
           McConnell, Ted Stevens, and Jim Bunning.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 124 to S. 544, a bill making emergency 
supplemental appropriations and rescissions for recovery from natural 
disasters, and foreign assistance, for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1999, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? The yeas 
and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran) is absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cochran
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Hutchison amendment, No. 81, be temporarily set aside under the same 
terms as previously agreed to with respect to the call for the regular 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will resume consideration of the 
supplemental appropriations bill with amendments in order as outlined 
in the consent agreement reached on March 19.
  I should advise the Senate that there is beginning now a working 
group of Senators who will be working to determine if they can draft 
language for the resolution regarding the Kosovo situation. We still 
have pending the Hutchison amendment and the Smith amendment. And there 
will be a bipartisan effort to see if there can be some compromise 
language worked out or some language that might be voted on in some 
form before the afternoon is over.
  In the meantime, we are working now toward an agreement with regard 
to consideration of the supplemental appropriations and beginning of 
the consideration of the budget resolution. The managers are here, and 
they are ready to begin to work on some amendments, I believe, which 
have been cleared. We hope that within the next 30 minutes we can enter 
into an agreement with regard to finishing the supplemental today, with 
Kosovo language being considered in the process as a possibility, and 
then begin tomorrow on the budget resolution.
  With that, I yield the floor so that the distinguished chairman can 
begin to have these amendments considered that are ready to be cleared.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be 
stricken from the amendment list Senator Harkin's relevant amendment, 
Senator Jeffords' three relevant amendments, and Senator Reed's OSHA 
small farm rider amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 125, 126, And 127, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me state, so that everyone 
understands, that there is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment offered by 
Senator Bingaman regarding the use of sequential billing policy in 
making payments to home health care agencies under the Medicare 
Program; an amendment by Senators Leahy, Jeffords, and Collins 
providing additional funds and an appropriate rescission to promote the 
recovery of the apple industry in New England; and the third amendment 
is offered by Senator Lincoln to provide adversely affected crop 
producers with additional time to make fully informed risk management 
decisions for the 1999 crop year.
  I send these amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate 
consideration, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered and 
agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) proposes amendments 
     en bloc numbered 125 through 127.


[[Page 5160]]


  The amendments (Nos. 125 through 127), en bloc, considered and agreed 
to are as follows:


                           amendment no. 125

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of the 
 sequential billing policy in making payments to home health agencies 
                      under the medicare program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING SEQUENTIAL 
                   BILLING POLICY FOR HOME HEALTH PAYMENTS UNDER 
                   THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Section 4611 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
     included a provision that transfers financial responsibility 
     for certain home health visits under the medicare program 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.) from part A to part B of such program.
       (2) The sole intent of the transfer described in paragraph 
     (1) was to extend the solvency of the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395i).
       (3) The transfer described in paragraph (1) was supposed be 
     ``seamless'' so as not to disrupt the provision of home 
     health services under the medicare program.
       (4) The Health Care Financing Administration has imposed a 
     sequential billing policy that prohibits home health agencies 
     under the medicare program from submitting claims for 
     reimbursement for home health services provided to a 
     beneficiary unless all claims for reimbursement for home 
     health services that were previously provided to such 
     beneficiary have been completely resolved.
       (5) The Health Care Financing Administration has also 
     expanded medical reviews of claims for reimbursement 
     submitted by home health agencies, resulting in a significant 
     slowdown nationwide in the processing of such claims.
       (6) The sequential billing policy described in paragraph 
     (4), coupled with the slowdown in claims processing described 
     in paragraph (5), has substantially increased the cash flow 
     problems of home health agencies because payments are often 
     delayed by at least 3 months.
       (7) The vast majority of home health agencies under the 
     medicare program are small businesses that cannot operate 
     with significant cash flow problems.
       (8) There are many other elements under the medicare 
     program relating to home health agencies, such as the interim 
     payment system under section 1861(v)(1)(L) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(L)), that are creating financial problems 
     for home health agencies, thereby forcing more than 2,200 
     home health agencies nationwide to close since the date of 
     enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Health Care Financing Administration should--
       (1) evaluate and monitor the use of the sequential billing 
     policy (as described in subsection (a)(4)) in making payments 
     to home health agencies under the medicare program under 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et 
     seq.);
       (2) ensure that--
       (A) contract fiscal intermediaries under the medicare 
     program are timely in their random medical review of claims 
     for reimbursement submitted by home health agencies; and
       (B) such intermediaries adhere to Health Care Financing 
     Administration instructions that limit the number of claims 
     for reimbursement held for such review for any particular 
     home health agency to no more than 10 percent of the total 
     number of claims submitted by the agency; and
       (3) ensure that such intermediaries are considering and 
     implementing constructive alternatives, such as expedited 
     reviews of claims for reimbursement, for home health agencies 
     with no history of billing problems who have cash flow 
     problems due to random medical reviews and sequential 
     billing.


                           amendment no. 126

 (Purpose: To appropriate an additional amount to promote the recovery 
         of the apple industry in New England, with an offset)

       On page 2, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:


                     Agricultural Marketing Service

       For an additional amount to carry out the agricultural 
     marketing assistance program under the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), $200,000, and the rural 
     business enterprise grant program under section 310B(c) of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1932(c)), $500,000: Provided, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request for 
     $700,000, that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by 
     Congress as an emergency requirement under section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
       On page 37, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

                          Farm Service Agency


                      emergency conservation fund

       Of the amount made available under the heading ``emergency 
     conservation program'' in chapter 1 of title II of the 1998 
     Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act (Public Law 
     105-174; 112 Stat. 68), $700,000 are rescinded.


                           amendment no. 127

(Purpose: To provide adversely affected crop producers with additional 
time to make fully informed risk management decisions for the 1999 crop 
                                 year)

       On page 7, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

                    GENERAL PROVISION, THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. __. Crop Insurance Options for Producers who Applied 
     for Crop Revenue Coverage Plus.--(a) Eligible Producers.--
     This section applies with respect to a producer eligible for 
     insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 
     et seq.) who applied for the supplemental crop insurance 
     endorsement known as Crop Revenue Coverage PLUS (referred to 
     in this section as ``CRCPLUS'') for the 1999 crop year for a 
     spring planted agricultural commodity.
       (b) Additional Period for Obtaining or Transferring 
     Coverage.--Notwithstanding the sales closing date for 
     obtaining crop insurance coverage established under section 
     508(f)(2) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(f)(2)) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation shall provide a 14-day 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, but 
     not to extend beyond April 12, 1999, during which a producer 
     described in subsection (a) may--
       (1) with respect to a federally reinsured policy, obtain 
     from any approved insurance provider a level of coverage for 
     the agricultural commodity for which the producer applied for 
     the CRCPLUS endorsement that is equivalent to or less than 
     the level of federally reinsured coverage that the producer 
     applied for from the insurance provider that offered the 
     CRCPLUS endorsement; and
       (2) transfer to any approved insurance provider any 
     federally reinsured coverage provided for other agricultural 
     commodities of the producer by the same insurance provider 
     that offered the CRCPLUS endorsement, as determined by the 
     Corporation.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the votes 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, we have, I think, a process now to sort 
of relieve the roadblock, or remove the roadblock, on this supplemental 
bill and get it ready to go to conference tomorrow with the House. The 
House will pass this bill tomorrow. So I urge Senators to offer their 
amendments, and we will, to the best of our ability, take the Senators' 
amendments to conference, if at all possible.


                           Amendment No. 128

  (Purpose: To eliminate any emergency designations from the bill and 
   provide additional offsets from unused fiscal year 1999 emergency 
                               spending)

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

       The Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 128.

  Mr. GRAMM. 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 end of the bill, add the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, none of the amounts provided by this Act are 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.
       (b) An additional amount of $2,250,000,000 is rescinded as 
     provided in section 3002 of this Act.


                 Amendment No. 129 To Amendment No. 128

    (Purpose: To eliminate any emergency designations from the bill)

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), for himself, and Mr. 
     Nickles, proposes an amendment numbered 129 to amendment No. 
     128.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 5161]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the amounts provided by this Act are 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.

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, a continuing problem with the emergency 
supplemental appropriations is that it is not paid for.
  I would like to remind my colleagues--and I will try to be brief--
that last year the President in the State of the Union Address took the 
hard and fast position that we should save Social Security first. The 
idea was that the whole surplus of the Federal budget should go to 
Social Security and should be used to reduce the outstanding debt of 
the Government.
  As everyone remembers, in the waning hours of the session last year 
we passed an emergency appropriations bill that contained numerous 
nonemergency items. And the net result was to spend $21 billion--
roughly one-third of the surplus--every penny of which was Social 
Security surplus. Therefore, in the words of the President, we had 
plundered the Social Security trust fund to fund all of these other 
programs of Government.
  As I am sure everyone is aware, along with the budget that will come 
to the floor of the Senate immediately following disposition of the 
issue on Kosovo, we will consider a lockbox provision that requires a 
reduction in the debt held by the public by the amount of Social 
Security surplus. That will automatically lower the debt limit we will 
set by law each time we have a Social Security surplus. So the net 
result will be that each and every penny of the Social Security surplus 
will, in fact, be locked away, going to debt reduction in the name of 
Social Security. While none of that saves Social Security, it does mean 
that none of it is spent on general government and that we actually 
reduce the indebtedness of the Federal Government in the process.
  Right in the face of this effort to lock away the Social Security 
surplus for Social Security, we found ourselves with an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill which is not paid for. And, in fact, 
in its current form, the bill increases spending and therefore takes 
$441 million right out of the Social Security surplus in fiscal year 
1999. And then, adding this year and the next 4 years, it would take 
almost $1 billion out of the surplus; $956 million would, in fact, be 
taken out of that surplus.
  It seems to me we can't be credible talking about a lockbox to lock 
this money away for Social Security at the very same moment that we are 
spending the money.
  So I have sent two amendments to the desk. One makes across-the-board 
reductions in the previous emergency bill we passed in areas other than 
agriculture and defense to such a degree that we pay for the $441 
million. So the emergency supplemental at that point will be deficit 
neutral in fiscal year 1999.
  The second-degree amendment, which I have submitted on behalf of 
myself and Senator Nickles, because in fact it was his amendment that 
he reserved the right to offer--the second-degree amendment is an 
amendment which waives the emergency designation, which will mean that 
this $515 million of spending in the years 2000 through 2005, will 
count toward the spending caps in those years. So by spending the money 
now, we will lose the ability to spend that amount of money in future 
years.
  These are two straightforward amendments which have one overriding 
virtue, and that is, they pay for the supplemental.
  Let me say of my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, that I am very 
grateful he has decided to accept these amendments. I know this only 
means postponing the battle until conference.
  There was a clever little poem I learned as a boy. And I am sort of 
ashamed to say that I forget exactly what the rhyme was. But it was, 
``He that is convinced against his will is unconvinced still.'' And I 
know that in this case, wanting to get on with this bill, our dear 
colleague, our loving colleague from Alaska, is convinced against his 
will to take these amendments, and I know he is unconvinced still.
  But the point is, we would have the ability to go to conference with 
our bill fully paid for and with no emergency designation. That would 
put those of us who believe that this should be the way we do business 
in this country in a position in conference to try to sway others. On 
that basis, I will be willing, with the adoption of these amendments, 
to let the bill go to conference where, obviously, at that point this 
will be fought out again.
  Let me conclude, before the Senator from Alaska changes his mind, by 
simply saying we are going to have to come to a moment of truth here. 
We cannot write budgets that say we are going to control spending and 
then continue to spend. We cannot lock away money for Social Security 
and then spend the money for Social Security. I know it is hard--when 
the President says one thing and does another--for Congress to say 
something and then actually do it because, obviously, it is easier to 
say it and not do it than it is to say it and then do it. But I do 
believe the American people have a higher standard that they apply to 
us, and I think the adoption of this amendment, especially if it can be 
held in conference, is a major step forward in getting credibility back 
into the budget.
  On that basis I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my friend brought a smile to my face 
because I remembered Miniver Cheevy:

       Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
       Cursed the day that he was born.

  He was born too late. Just think, I might have been chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee back in the days before the Budget Act, before 
scoring fights, when we just talked about what the country needed. 
Right? But it is one of those things.
  Mr. GRAMM. But then you would be dead, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. No, Cheevy just hoped he had lived sooner. You 
understand? By definition, he is dead.
  Mr. GRAMM. Oh, OK.
  Mr. STEVENS. I cannot match the memory of my friend from West 
Virginia as far as poetry is concerned. I was trying to think of 
another poem I remembered that would have been appropriate, but right 
now I will say this:
  Mr. President, here is the problem. We had a massive bill last fall. 
It had emergency monies appropriated that were outside the budget. Now 
we are reprogramming much of that money to new emergencies or to new 
programs which take the money away from the programs we appropriated 
for last fall. But now we are going to spend it somewhere else. OMB did 
not score that money last fall because it was outside the budget. Now 
the Senator from Texas has gone to the CBO and the CBO has scored that 
as money that is just being appropriated. We are really reprogramming 
appropriated money to new uses.
  When they score it, they do not come up with budget authority, which 
is the problem of the legislative committees. They come up with 
outlays, which is our problem. We do not have the outlays. By 
definition, the money, if we leave it where it is, it is going to be 
spent. It is going to be spent unscored.
  As a consequence, I have told the Senator from Texas, and I hope my 
friends from the other side of the aisle would agree, we will take this 
to conference. I made a commitment. I will sit down with the CBO and 
see if I can understand their point of view of why they should do this 
to us. Most people do not agree. It is only the Senate Appropriations 
Committee that is subject to this control. The House just waived the 
points of order. Over here, our bills are subject to points of order.
  The amendment of the Senator would lead to dramatic cuts in several 
priorities that were funded in the omnibus bill as emergency issues and 
not scored on outlays. And we have a provision in this bill that says 
those monies will continue to not be scored as outlays if

[[Page 5162]]

they are spent for the purposes we redesignated them for: Diplomatic 
security, to rebuild our embassies destroyed in Kenya and Tanzania, the 
funding that we put up for the U.S. Government's response to the Y2K 
computer problem. At my request last year, we went forward very early 
and the Senate started that process, $3.25 billion to deal with Y2K. It 
was not scored, and we are reallocating some of that. The agriculture 
relief from last year--again, it was an emergency. We are reprogramming 
some of that.
  Above all, the FEMA disaster relief monies, all of those were not 
scored for outlays, Mr. President. But I understand what my friend is 
doing. He is trying to do the same thing we are trying to do, and that 
is preserve Social Security. I will be willing to do anything I can to 
preserve the position we have taken that Social Security funds not be 
touched. They were touched last fall. We are not touching them, we are 
reusing them. That is something the CBO cannot quite grasp right now, 
and I have said I will go sit down and talk to them. As a matter of 
fact, I will invite the Senator from Texas to come along so he will 
have a worthy advocate as we try to understand the new concepts of 
scoring outlays on monies that were already appropriated on an 
emergency basis.
  I think the Senator from Texas raises some interesting points. I do 
hope we will be able to accept this. I have to tell the Senator from 
Texas that my decision to recommend these be taken to conference is 
still subject to being reviewed on the other side of the aisle, and I 
will have to defer the final approval of the amendment of the Senator 
until that time. But I will call him if there is any discussion to be 
had on his amendment.
  I hope he agrees we set it aside temporarily while awaiting that 
response to my request. But I do intend to recommend the amendments of 
the Senator be taken to conference where we will explore them and try 
to see if we can accommodate what the Senator is trying to do without 
disturbing the process that we feel is our duty--to meet the 
emergencies as they are presented to us this year, not last year.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and Senator Stevens, before he leaves the 
floor, I am going to ask a question of the Senator from Texas on the 
speech that he just made, although it is not directly on point. I thank 
Senator Gramm for the comments he made about Social Security and 
protecting it and the lockbox. He has explained the lockbox as 
legislation he has reviewed in my behalf, and described it as making it 
very difficult, if not impossible, to spend the Social Security 
surplus, because to do so one would have to increase the debt beyond 
that which is agreed upon, the debt held by the public, and in so doing 
they would need a supermajority.
  Since the administration says they want to save the Social Security 
trust fund, do you have any idea--can my colleague imagine why the 
Secretary of the Treasury would be against it?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes, I can tell you I not only have an idea, I think it is 
clear there is only one reason anybody would be against it, and that is 
they want to say they are saving Social Security, but they do not want 
to do it. They want to have it both ways. They want to give great and 
flowery speeches about ``Save Social Security first, save Social 
Security now,'' but when it gets right down to it, what the provision 
of my colleague in the budget does by changing the debt ceiling is it 
actually makes it impossible for them not to do it unless they can get 
60 votes in the Senate to raise the debt ceiling. So the only reason 
they would oppose it is they do not intend to do it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That would require statute law to do what I have 
recommended and what my staff and I have worked out? We would have to 
bring that to the floor, and that will be another test after the budget 
resolution about how serious people are about not touching the Social 
Security trust fund; is that correct?
  Mr. GRAMM. Anybody who is opposed to your bill is refusing to write 
into law in a binding manner what everybody pledges verbally to do. The 
provision of the Senator from New Mexico is an enforcement mechanism. 
And the only reason anybody would be against enforcing an 
antiplundering provision on Social Security is if they intend to 
plunder. I think that is what the whole issue is about.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask one thing further. My colleague has been here 
working with me for most of my time on the Budget Committee, although I 
was there for a while when he was in the House working on budgets 
there. I have talked, heretofore, about whether or not we can lock up 
the Social Security trust fund. But it is my recollection that no 
legislation of the type that I propose has ever been suggested to the 
Congress as a means of not spending that money. Is that your 
recollection also?
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, first of all, I don't know of any effort in the 
past, prior to 1979, when I came to the Congress. There had been no 
legislative action since 1979 that would have locked in a process to 
enforce debt reduction. This is the first in my experience of service 
in the Congress. My guess is there has never been a similar proposal 
before, but we do have an extraordinary circumstance. We have a 
President who is committed to saving Social Security money and using it 
for debt reduction. We have 100 Members of the Senate who say they are 
for it. Your amendment gives us a happy opportunity to marry all this 
up with a binding constraint. The question is, who is for real and who 
is not for real on this issue. That is what will be determined.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to put in the Record the scoring 
that we got on the supplemental bill as it came out of committee. It 
shows the problem. CBO showed we had $319 million in savings on 
outlays, and OMB said we had $567 million savings in outlays. OMB now 
has gone back and has changed the minuses to plus, and they say that we 
are over $441 million. It is because of a revision, I guess, of the way 
they have approached the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the scoring that we received 
on S. 544, as reported to the Senate, be printed in the Record and that 
it be followed by the Senator's chart, as of March 22, of scoring from 
CBO of the bill as it stands before the Senate today.
  There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                FY 1999 SUPPLEMENTAL S. 544, AS REPORTED
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Senate bill
                                           -----------------------------
                                                         CBO       OMB
                                               BA      Outlays   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  OFFSETS
 
Agriculture:
  Food stamp program......................      -285  ........  ........
                                           -----------------------------
      Net.................................      -285  ........  ........
                                           =============================
Commerce-Justice:
  DoJ OIG.................................        -5        -5        -5
  INS enforcement & border affairs........       -40       -32       -32
  INS citizenship & benefits, immigr.            -25       -20       -20
   support................................
  NOAA operations, research & facilities..        -2        -1        -1
  NOAA procurement, acquisition & constr..        -2        -1        -1
  Contributions to Int'l organizations....       -22       -22       -22
  Contributions to Int'l peacekeeping.....       -21       -21       -21
  Int'l broadcasting operations...........        -1        -1        -1
                                           -----------------------------
      Net.................................      -118      -103      -102
                                           =============================
Defense:
  Operations & maintenance, defense-wide..      -210       -78      -155
                                           -----------------------------
      Net.................................      -210       -78      -155
                                           =============================
Foreign Operations:
  Global environmental facility (GEF).....       -60        -5        -5
  Economic support fund...................       -10        -1        -1
  Assistance for E. Europe & Baltic States       -10        -1        -1
  Assistance for Newly Independent States.       -10        -2        -1
  Int'l organization and programs.........       -10        -9        -9
                                           -----------------------------
      Net.................................      -100       -18       -16
                                           =============================
Interior:
  BLM management of lands & resources.....        -7        -5        -5
                                           -----------------------------
      Net.................................        -7        -5        -5
                                           =============================
Labor-HHS-Ed:
  State unemployment service..............       -16       -16       -16
  Education, research, statistics.........        -8        -2        -1
    TANF (deferral).......................      -350  ........  ........
                                           -----------------------------
      Net.................................      -374       -18       -17
                                           =============================
Military Construction:
  BRAC....................................       -11        -2        -3
                                           -----------------------------

[[Page 5163]]

 
      Net.................................       -11        -2        -3
                                           =============================
VA-HUD:
  Emergency community development grants..      -314        -1        -7
  HUD management and administration.......  ........        -5  ........
  EPA science and technology..............       -10        -4        -4
                                           -----------------------------
      Net.................................      -324       -10       -11
                                           =============================
Chapter 1, title V, division B of P.L. 105-      -23       -18       -18
 277......................................
Reduction in non-DoD emergency                  -343       -67      -187
 appropriations in division B of P.L. 105-
 277......................................
Reduction in non-defense discretionary          -100  ........       -53
 spending from revised economic
 assumptions..............................
                                           -----------------------------
      Total...............................    -1,894      -319      -567
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   IMPACT OF S. 544 (EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, FY1999) ON
                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
 [Net Impact of Appropriations and Rescissions, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Outlays,      Total        Budget
                                      FY1999      outlays     authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 544 as Reported...............        +$275        +$719            0
Amendments Adopted...............         +166         +237          +$4
                                  --------------------------------------
      Current Total..............         +441         +956           +4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimates as of March 22, 1999.
  Total outlays in future years may be affected by subsequent
  legislation.

  Mr. STEVENS. I think it demonstrates that there is a legitimate 
battle here over people who make estimates. We have one group of 
estimators downtown, another group of estimators over in CBO. We have 
our own on the committee. We make estimates of what we are doing, and 
it is like three groups of lawyers. Fifty percent of them are wrong all 
the time. I say this as a lawyer.
  As a practical matter, there is no answer to the Senator from Texas' 
approach, unless we just set them all down in the same room and say 
find a way to come to an agreement. In the final analysis, there are 
three computers working on this bill and, as they say, if you put stuff 
in, stuff is going to come out; right? That is the trouble. I am not 
sure what color the stuff is that the Senator from Texas is using, but 
it is coming out. It disagrees with our conclusions of what this bill 
means.
  I am told that the other managers of the bill agree with my concept 
that this is something we should explore in conference, and we will 
give it our best review in conference. We are willing to accept the 
Senator's amendments now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Without objection, the second-degree amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 129) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the first-degree amendment, 
as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 128), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the votes by which the 
amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 130

    (Purpose: To maintain existing marine activities in Glacier Bay 
                             National Park)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 130,
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Glacier Bay.--No funds may be expended by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to implement closures or other 
     restrictions of subsistence or commercial fishing or 
     subsistence gathering in Glacier Bay National Park, except 
     the closure of Dungeness crab fisheries under Section 123(b) 
     of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, (section 101(e) of division A of 
     Public Law 105-277), until such time as the State of Alaska's 
     legal claim to ownership and jurisdiction over submerged 
     lands and tidelands in the affected area has been resolved 
     either by a final determination by the judiciary or by a 
     settlement between the parties to the lawsuit.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of my 
colleagues, let me identify specifically what is intended by this 
amendment.
  First of all, I should identify the specific area about which we are 
concerned. This is my State of Alaska. Over here on the right is 
Canada. We have our State Capitol here in Juneau. Just north of Juneau 
is an extraordinary jewel of our National Park Service called Glacier 
Bay. Glacier Bay is a pretty substantial area in size. It consists of 
about 3.3 million acres. That is about the size of 3 Grand Canyons or 4 
Yosemites or 17 Shenandoah National Parks or 825 Gettysburgs. It is 
part of the State of Alaska which has about 33,000 miles of coastline.
  Let me further identify specifically what Glacier Bay consists of 
relative to the map of Alaska which is before you.
  We have in southern Alaska in the northern tip, before you cross the 
Gulf of Alaska to go up to the Anchorage area, the area specifically 
known as Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. Over in this corner we 
have Gustavus, which is a small community, Bartlett Cove, where the 
Park Service has its concessions, and down here we have Chichagof 
Island, and over here, Juneau. The purpose of this map is to give the 
visitor some idea of the extraordinary size and attractiveness of 
Glacier Bay and the realization that there are absolutely no roads in 
this area, with the exception of this very short road from Gustavus, 
where there is an airfield, to Bartlett Cove. This is very rugged, 
glacier-bound terrain. The only entry is by vessel or aircraft flying 
over the area. There are kayaks, small boats, and so forth. The 
activity is monitored by the Park Service quite effectively.
  If you look at the map of Alaska, you also find that this entire area 
of Canada has no outlet to the Pacific Ocean. That is from roughly 
Cordova down through Ketchikan, all this area of northern British 
Columbia, Whitehorse, the Yukon Territory. There is no access. But 
there is in Glacier Bay a very tiny area, at the Tarr Inlet, where a 
glacier occasionally recedes and provides a bit of real estate in 
Canada at the head of Glacier Bay. Of course, the difficulty is you 
cannot go through a glacier for access. I just point this out to you so 
you will have a little better view of the real estate, the topography, 
and so forth.
  What we have before us in this issue is the traditional right of 
fishermen and subsistence gatherers who live in the area, either in 
Gustavus or Hoonah, which is a Native village. These are gatherers. 
What does that mean? To these people it is part of their heritage, part 
of their lifestyle.
  Mr. President, we do not have any chickens in this particular area. 
It is pretty wet, pretty cold. So the Natives occasionally go in and 
gather sea gull eggs. Now, there is not much demand for sea gull eggs. 
The question of their continued right to go in and gather those eggs as 
well as fish is what this issue is all about, because the action by the 
Park Service would preclude traditional fishing and gathering, which 
has been going on here for hundreds of years.
  The fishermen and subsistence gatherers really can't go someplace 
else. It is my opinion and that of my senior colleague, Senator 
Stevens, that their rights should be respected.
  What have we got that is different about this issue? The difference 
is the State of Alaska has indicated its intent to file suit and our 
Governor, Governor Knowles, has asserted claim to the submerged lands 
within the park. Granted, the Park Service has control of Glacier Bay 
National Park and Preserve. The State, under the Statehood Act, was 
given control of the inland waters. The question is, Who has 
jurisdiction over waters within the park? That is the issue.
  The conflict today is that the Park Service is enforcing today an 
elimination of fishing and an elimination of subsistence gathering, but 
the State has indicated it intends to bring suit.
  I have a press release by the Governor of the State of Alaska dated 
March 4 indicating the State's intent of bringing suit against the 
Interior Department over Glacier Bay fishing. It is titled, ``Governor 
asserts claim to

[[Page 5164]]

submerged lands within park.'' This matter is being brought before us 
today, because the existence of the suit suggests that until it is 
decided, the residents of the area should not be disallowed their 
conventional access for fishing and gathering.
  In real terms, the delay does not jeopardize any park value. 
Gathering and fishing is fully regulated by the State of Alaska, the 
Department of Fish and Game, very effectively and very efficiently. All 
important fisheries are under the system that would prevent any 
increase--any undue effort on the resource. In the thousands of years 
that the Natives have been in the area, there has been no evidence of 
any resource problem.
  Let me also identify a couple of other specifics here. This is a 
traditional Hoonah Tlingit village that existed at the turn of the 
century. You can see the fish drying on the racks and the homes, the 
summer camps, where the Native people resided. This picture was 
actually taken in Bartlett Cove in Glacier Bay.
  The unfortunate part of this is, this village no longer exists. The 
Park Service eliminated it. The Park Service burned several Indian 
houses and smokehouses like this in the seventies. Again, this was a 
summer camp, a summer village.
  The history of subsistence in Glacier Bay spans, as near as we can 
tell, Mr. President, about 9,000 years. The Tlingit name of the bay 
means ``main place of the Huna people'' or was referred to as the 
``Huna breadbasket,'' because they depended, if you will, for their 
livelihood on some of the renewable resources there.
  As many as five Native strongholds once existed inside the park 
boundary, but, as I have indicated, the Natives were gradually forced 
out of their traditional places, and in the seventies the National Park 
Service burned down the Tlingit fishing camps like this in the park.
  Limited fishing began back in 1885, long before Glacier Bay was named 
as a national park. Again, it is interesting to reflect on the claim of 
jurisdiction of the Park Service. Not only did they claim the inland 
waters, but they claimed 3 miles out along the Gulf of Alaska, from 
roughly Dry Bay, which is near Yakutat, 3 miles out into these rich 
fishing grounds, which have always been open for commercial fishing 
under the State department of fish and game. They have the enforcement 
capability, and that is the point of mentioning this, for 3 miles out, 
to close that as well.
  Again, my appeal is, let the court determine who has control over the 
inland waters of the park, and let's get on with allowing the 
traditional gathering and limited commercial fishing activity that 
takes place there.
  As we look at a couple of things that are dos and don'ts, this is no 
longer allowed under the Park Service proposal. One- or two-person 
family-operated boats are not welcome. They are not welcome in the park 
anymore. There is no good reason for it. They say they do not want a 
commercial activity. But this is what they do allow in the park: A 
2,000-passenger cruise ship as big as three football fields. That is 
allowed. If that is not a commercial activity, I don't know what is. I 
happen to support it. You can look at the topography, the glaciers. 
There is no better way to see Glacier Bay National Park than from the 
deck of a cruise ship. But to suggest there is something wrong with the 
subsistence dependence of the Native people and something wrong with 
limited commercial fishing because it is commercial, and then to 
support what is truly commercial--the cruise ships--why, I think that 
is a grave inconsistency.
  I think it is important to go back to what the local residents were 
assured they would have--the local residents of southeastern Alaska. 
They were assured, as local residents, that the Government would not 
eliminate traditional uses, including fishing and subsistence 
gathering. That certainly is not the case anymore, is it?
  I think it is also important to recognize that while nationwide park 
regulations adopted in 1966 prohibited fishing in freshwater parks, 
these did not prohibit fishing in the marine or salt waters of Glacier 
Bay.
  I wish I had this in chart. The Park Service proposes closing 
fisheries in Glacier Bay, as we have already ascertained. But what is 
their overall policy nationally? In Assateague Island National Seashore 
in Maryland and Virginia, the Park Service authorizes commercial 
fishing. Biscayne National Park in Florida, the Park Service authorizes 
commercial fishing. Buck Island Reef National Monument, U.S. Virgin 
Islands, commercial fishing is OK there. Canaveral National Seashore in 
Florida, fishing is OK there. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North 
Carolina, commercial fishing is OK. Cape Kruzenstern National Monument 
in Alaska--way, way, way up here by Kotzebue--commercial fishing is OK 
there. Channel Islands, California, commercial fishing is OK. Fire 
Island National Seashore in New York, commercial fishing is all right. 
Gulf Island National Seashore, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, 
commercial fishing is OK. Isle Royale National Park in Michigan, 
commercial fishing is fine. Jean Lafitte National Historic Park, 
Louisiana, commercial fishing is OK. Lake Mead National Area, Nevada, 
fishing OK. Redwood National Park, California, commercial fishing is 
OK. Virgin Islands National Park, fishing is OK.
  Why kick out just Alaska, a few residents who rely on their 
traditional gathering? That is the question. And another question is, 
What is the justification?
  The fisheries consist of small numbers of small vessels, as I 
indicated. These are a type of traditional vessels, trollers, mom-and-
pop--many are a lot smaller than that--fishing for salmon. But Glacier 
Bay is not a significant salmon spawning ground, because there are no 
major rivers. The water is very glacially silty and, as a consequence, 
anadromous fish do not use habitat in the upper parts of the bay. They 
move in here a little bit to feed, that's all. Mostly, we have some 
crab fishing, we have some halibut fishing that is seasonal, and some 
bottom fish. These fish, as I have indicated, are not under any threat. 
There is no danger to the resource. All are carefully managed for 
subsistence harvest by the State of Alaska, and most of them are under 
limited entry.
  There is an argument out there that fishing is incompatible with such 
uses as sports fishing or kayaking, but these have been rejected by the 
various groups, the sport fishing groups, the kayak concessions, who 
favor continuation of limited commercial fishing and subsistence 
gathering.
  What are we really talking about in numbers? Because the big 
Department of Interior comes down and says they are opposed to this. 
They want to eliminate this activity. But for the people, this is their 
livelihood. They have no place else to go. They appeal to the Senate. 
I, as one of the two Senators from Alaska, proudly represent them in 
their voice crying out for fairness, crying out for justice.
  The Gustavus community has 436 residents; 55 are actually engaged in 
fishing. Gustavus is right here. Elfin Cove across the way, directly 
across, has 54 people. Out of those 54 people, 47 are engaged in 
fishing. Hoonah, a Tlingit Indian village, has 900 people, 228 involved 
in fishing. Pelican City, 187 residents, and 86 in fishing. That might 
not sound like much, but these are real people. This is their real 
lifestyle, and they are pleading for fairness and justice. I think we 
have an obligation to them.
  Mr. President, let me just read a note from Wanda Culp, a Tlingit 
historian. This was written February 13, 1998. I quote:

       The 1980 ANILCA law has done more damage to the Tlingit use 
     of Glacier Bay through National Park Service management. 
     Since the 1925 establishment of Glacier Bay National Park, 
     the National Park Service has been systematically eliminating 
     the native people, the Tlingit people, out of Glacier Bay 
     through their management practices.
       In the 1970s, the National Park Service destroyed the Huna 
     fish camps, burned down the smoke houses when tourism began 
     its importance in Glacier Bay.

  That is a little bit of the history. I could comment on the fisheries 
at greater length. I could comment on the research that suggests that 
the French

[[Page 5165]]

explorer, LaPerouse, in 1746, saw the local Tlingit fishing here. The 
park was established in 1916. But the Tlingit people have used it as a 
fishing camp as long as recorded or verbal traditional history of that 
proud people exists.
  I know we are going to have objections relative to prior arrangements 
concerning Glacier Bay, and I hope my colleagues will note that in the 
amendment we address the issue of the crab fishing, and I should like 
to refer to that.
  In the amendment, we specifically say ``with the exception of the 
closure of the Dungeness crab fisheries under section 123(b) of the 
Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.'' This 
is a certain type of fishery, a crab fishery, and we concede that a 
previous agreement to close it is binding. So that crab fishery is 
closed. There is no question about that. Compensation for that closure 
was provided for, but has not yet been to fishermen.
  The appeal to each and every Member is that while the State contests 
the question of who has jurisdiction in Glacier Bay, the Native people 
continue to be allowed to subsist and gather, and that the limited 
commercial fishery that is under the authority and management of the 
State of Alaska be allowed to continue.
  Why deprive these people simply because this matter is going to be 
resolved in the courts of the United States, particularly--again, I 
would emphasize--when we have acknowledged the number of national 
parks, marine refuges, and so forth that commercial fishing is allowed 
to take place in. So if we get into a debate, as we may, about any 
reference to the Dungeness crab and the compensation issue, I want to 
make sure the Record reflects the reality that no binding agreement has 
been made on other fisheries in the bay. There was reference to 
allowing them to continue to fish without compensation for one 
generation. So we are accepting the agreement on the Dungeness crab, 
but we are asking respectfully that we be allowed to continue the other 
present practices within Glacier Bay until the court suit is settled.
  You may wonder how this sits in the scheme of things, as we have 
expended a good deal of time and effort debating Kosovo and whether we 
should initiate an action there.
  Well, here we are talking about a few real people in my State of 
Alaska, people who are out there whose lives and livelihoods, as they 
view it, are at risk. They are looking to us for relief. So by this 
amendment, I implore my colleagues to recognize equity and fairness; 
how these people have been, if you will, removed from their heritage by 
the Park Service, and now that heritage is about to be terminated 
inasmuch as it would remove subsistence activities.
  I remind my colleagues that while there has been proposed 
remuneration for fishermen, there has never been any proposed 
remuneration for the subsistence-dependent Native people. So I 
encourage consideration be given to the merits of what we are asking. I 
think it is right. I think it is just. I think it is fair. If you 
consider the overall scheme of things, the Park Service, while managing 
Glacier Bay, for reasons unknown to me, has had a difficult time trying 
to determine what is, indeed, a commercial activity that is OK; namely, 
these large cruise ships, and what is no longer OK, which is a small 
fishing activity or the traditional rights of the Native people to 
gather in that area. There would be absolutely no harm done by allowing 
this moratorium to stand, if, indeed, it prevails, until such time as 
the courts resolve this issue once and for all as a consequence of the 
fact the State has seen fit to bring suit on who has jurisdiction over 
the inland marine waters.
  I see some of my colleagues may wish to discuss this amendment. I am 
happy to respond to any questions.
  I gather we are under no time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. So if my colleagues want to talk about the amendment, 
I shall be pleased to respond to questions or comment a little later.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. I intend to speak on this later though.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my good friend 
from Alaska. After all, he is one of the two Senators who represent the 
State of Alaska, and he believes strongly in this matter.
  Mr. President, this is the very same matter we discussed 6 months 
ago, exactly the same. This is one of those environmental riders which 
has popped up again. It is the Glacier Bay environmental rider. That is 
the environmental rider on the Interior appropriations bill of last 
year, a bill that never came before the Senate, I think, with all due 
respect to my good friend from Alaska, because a lot of Senators did 
not want to have those votes on those environmental riders. There were 
several of them. And so the whole Interior appropriations bill was then 
submerged into the omnibus appropriations bill, that giant and super 
granddaddy bill that came up before the House and Senate last year, and 
in that omnibus bill there was an agreement--this was a provision which 
was an agreement essentially between the White House and the Senator 
from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, 
on this matter. We have already dealt with this. There is an agreement. 
It was written into the law, and let me read you the agreement. This is 
the law. The agreement says very simply:

       The Secretary of Interior and the State of Alaska shall 
     cooperate in the development and the management and planning 
     for the regulation of commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay 
     National Park.

  On and on. Then it goes on to say:

       Such management plan shall provide for commercial fishing 
     in the marine waters within Glacier Bay National Park outside 
     of Glacier Bay proper and within marine waters within Glacier 
     Bay as specified in paragraph . . .

  Anybody who wants to can read all of the relevant provisions. 
Basically, the agreement is this: That fishing, commercial fishing, 
outside of Glacier Bay is fine.
  It is fine. Even fishing next to the boundaries of Glacier Bay is 
fine. A commercial fishery within Glacier Bay was to have certain 
restrictions because there was a conflict between the national park 
values within Glacier Bay--for example, wilderness areas within Glacier 
Bay--and commercial fishing interests within Glacier Bay.
  So we worked out an agreement--the White House and Senator Stevens, 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee--worked out an agreement, 
of which I read part. Other parts of the agreement are not quite as 
relevant as the parts I read. That is the essential nature of the 
agreement.
  We have debated this before. This is not new. I stood on this floor 
several hours, with other Senators, debating other environmental 
riders. Izembek was an environmental rider; now we have Glacier Bay, 
another environmental rider. After several hours of debate on the 
Senate floor, we concluded debate because the Interior appropriations 
bill never came up. It was withdrawn. It was then subsumed into the 
large omnibus appropriations bill with the agreement that I just 
outlined between the White House and the senior Senator from Alaska.
  Now, here we are all over again; same issue, same subject; nothing 
new.
  I say to my colleagues, we have discussed this. We have debated it. 
We have reached an agreement on this issue. We are here now on the 
supplemental appropriations bill. We want to get this bill passed today 
so we can send it over to the other body and have a conference, come 
back, and be through with the supplemental appropriations this week.
  Why prolong the Senate on an amendment which has already been 
debated, an amendment which has already been agreed to, in the sense 
that a compromise was worked out that recognized both the National Park 
interests and the wilderness interests--

[[Page 5166]]

which, after all, are American interests--in Glacier Bay on the one 
hand, with the fishing interests and particularly the indigenous 
interests on the other hand?
  I say to my colleagues, we are hearing this argument all over again. 
We have an agreement. Essentially, what the amendment by the Senator 
from Alaska provides is to rescind that agreement. That is what the 
amendment does, rescind it. It is couched a little bit by saying 
rescind it and tell the State that it will be rescinded until the State 
of Alaska has resolved its lawsuit with the Federal Government--but we 
don't know when that will be; some lawsuits go on forever with appeals 
and so forth. It is essentially a recision of the agreement that we 
already agreed to.
  The State of Alaska and the Department of Interior are now engaging 
in discussions as to what the management plan at Glacier Bay should be. 
Those are ongoing discussions. To override the agreement we have 
reached just because a couple weeks ago we heard that the State of 
Alaska intends to file a lawsuit--a suit which may or may not occur, a 
suit which may last for years; who knows if it will ever be finally 
terminated--and for us to then stop an agreement on that basis, I 
think, does not make a lot of sense, frankly.
  I think it makes much more sense--and this is a bit presumptuous on 
my part--for the State of Alaska to, in good faith, sit down with the 
Department of Interior and see if they can work out any remaining 
issues. Certainly filing a lawsuit raises questions as to how feasible 
an agreement is, whether one can be reached. I say don't file the suit. 
Sit down with the Department of Interior and try to work it out. If in 
good faith the State of Alaska believes the Department of Interior is 
not acting in good faith, then we will see what we can work out at that 
point. We are not at that point. We are certainly not at that point 
when a lawsuit has been filed by the State of Alaska which only muddies 
the waters--no pun intended--on this whole issue.
  I am not going to go into all the details of this because we have 
gone over it so many times and in so many hours, except to say this has 
been debated, this very subject. This is one of those environmental 
riders which, incredibly, has popped up again. We have reached an 
agreement; the White House and the senior Senator from Alaska reached 
an agreement. I say abide by the agreement, try to make that work. If 
it doesn't work, then we will see if we can resolve it later.
  We all understand the Senator from Alaska is here standing up for the 
people at Glacier Bay, and I understand that. However, there is an 
agreement worked out in the omnibus appropriations bill. I say let's 
stand by that agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I reiterate some of the points that the 
Senator from Montana just made. I don't think anybody will dispute 
this. The facts are as follows: In last year's Interior appropriations 
bill, there was a provision prohibiting the Secretary of Interior from 
promulgating regulations affecting commercial or subsistence fishing in 
Glacier Bay. As the Senator from Montana said, first of all, the 
Department of Interior found that provision objectionable in the 
appropriations bill, so they worked out with the senior Senator from 
Alaska a compromise that was included in the omnibus appropriations 
bill.
  In other words, this is ``deja vu all over again.'' We have been down 
this road. We reached a compromise, a compromise between Alaska and the 
Department of Interior. I really have great difficulty understanding 
why we are revisiting this 6 months later. I guess it isn't quite 6 
months.
  What did the compromise do? It required the Secretary of the Interior 
and the State of Alaska to develop a management plan, and the Senator 
from Montana has just referred to that. The management plan would allow 
commercial fishing in the waters outside Glacier Bay and it would 
regulate a closed fishery within the bay. The compromise consists of 
this management plan. They are going to work on it together.
  In addition, shortly after that, in the supplemental appropriations 
bill, there is an increase in compensation to the fishermen as a result 
of the compromise. In other words, the fishermen are receiving more 
money as a result of the compromise--the Federal Government is paying 
out money. We are doing our part of the bargain.
  I hope that the Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, will not 
press this amendment. There is, as I say, the groundwork for a 
management plan and the State of Alaska has filed notice of an intent 
to sue within the past 2 weeks. They are in that suit; they are going 
to claim ownership over the submerged lands.
  If they don't like the management plan that they work out, then they 
can go back to their suit. But I don't think we ought to be here 
debating this all over again just after we reopen everything. Can't we 
arrive at any conclusions around this place?
  As I say, less than 6 months ago a deal was reached with the senior 
Senator from Alaska. My question to the chairman of the Energy 
Committee is, Why don't we stick with that agreement? Indeed, as I 
mentioned before, the Alaska fishermen have benefited from it because 
there have been payments to them pursuant to the compromise that was 
worked out.
  Let me say I can totally understand the enthusiasm of the Senator 
from Alaska to get more. We all like more. It seems to me at some point 
we have to reach closure on these things. Indeed, as both of us have 
mentioned and referred to the compromise that seemed to settle this, 
the issues were exactly the same.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond to my friend from Rhode Island, I 
think he is confusing or misinterpreting the intent of our amendment.
  If one examines the amendment closely, there is a recognition of the 
deal that was made last year. That recognition is in line 5 where it 
says,

       . . . except the closure of Dungeness crab fisheries under 
     Section 123(b) of the Department of Interior and Related 
     Agencies.

  We are abiding by that arrangement that was made and we are not 
changing that.
  The crab fishermen, I might add, would much rather fish than be paid 
by the Federal Government not to fish. They are, in fact, being 
eliminated from their fishery in that particular part of Glacier Bay.
  To suggest that we are changing the deal is, in fact, totally 
inaccurate and, again, is a misinterpretation.
  I hope that my distinguished colleague will recognize that, indeed, 
there is a difference. First of all, the crab fishermen have not been 
paid one red cent by the Federal Government. They will, hopefully, be 
paid, but that has not occurred yet. We are talking about the balance 
of the fishery, which amounts to some bottom fish and some halibut.
  We are also talking about something that is more important, which 
really, I say to the Senator from Rhode Island, is overlooked: What is 
the value of the subsistence to the dependent Native people who are 
being kicked out and eliminated? They are not receiving any 
remuneration or being taken care of in any deal. Would that be just, I 
ask my friend from Rhode Island, if it were his State? Would it be 
right if the indigenous people could no longer gather sea gull eggs 
when they don't have chickens? I mean that in a literal sense because, 
as the Senator is well aware, we don't have any chickens up there; it 
is too wet, too cold. They rely on a few sea gull eggs, and they have 
always been allowed to do that, for generation after generation. Is 
that justice?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in last year's appropriations bill, there 
was language that went beyond the crabbers. It included a provision 
prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating regulations 
affecting commercial or subsistence fishing. So that was the provision 
in last year's bill. The Department of the Interior found those, as I 
mentioned, provisions objectionable, so they worked out a compromise. 
The compromise was meant to cover the entire rider that

[[Page 5167]]

was involved. It wasn't meant to settle the deal.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That isn't what the amendment says.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Which amendment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It eliminates the crab fishery. That was the 
arrangement made last year. Those fishermen are to be given 
remuneration for not fishing by the Federal Government. They would much 
rather fish.
  Mr. CHAFEE. In other words, you exclude them?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. They are excluded, yes. That is the only agreement 
that has been made and binding for remuneration.
  Mr. CHAFEE. There may not be provisions for remuneration, but the 
provisions that you originally had last year in your rider were 
encompassed within the deal with Senator Stevens, and so the matter was 
settled as far as everybody goes, plus the admonition--I guess you can 
call it that--that they would reach this management plan--I don't know 
what has become of that--but also the State of Alaska proceeded to file 
suit in this thing anyway.
  So it seems to me that what you are proposing here is to undo 
something that was agreed to last year--not just in connection with the 
crabbers, which you mentioned, but with the total package that you had 
in your rider last year. And so it was settled, it seemed to me. That 
is all I have to say.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Well, Mr. President, perhaps I can enlighten my 
colleagues a little bit. I would be prepared to respond to questions. 
He refers to waiting for a management plan from the Park Service. We 
have that management plan, Mr. President. That management plan is quite 
explicit. It is to close the commercial activities associated with 
fishing. I encourage my colleague to recognize it for what it is. If 
you look at this picture, this is commercial fishing activity. They 
don't want commercialization of the park. I don't see my friends from 
Montana or Rhode Island commenting about this commercial activity, 
where 2,000 people are aboard this ship. That is a commercial activity. 
They are paying to come into Glacier Bay.
  The management plan is a management dictate by the Department of the 
Interior to kick out the fishermen and to eliminate the Native people 
from Hoonah, Elfin Cove, and so on. There is not an awful lot of 
affection for the Park Service, which I think my friend from Montana, 
who knows something about rural America, understands when the Federal 
Government just comes in through a process of osmosis and dictates more 
and more attention.
  Now, we have not changed this deal. Last year's deal eliminates the 
Dungeness crab for compensation. It is in the amendment. The other 
fisheries inside the bay were proposed to be closed--and this is what I 
think he is referring to--after one generation without compensation. 
They don't have any compensation. So basically, when you suggest that 
the State and Federal Government can work together on some kind of a 
management resolve, the Federal Government has spoken. It is kicking 
them out.
  The Federal Government maintains that it has jurisdiction over the 
inland waters. The State has seen fit to indicate that it is going to 
file suit to determine who has jurisdiction. Make no mistake about it, 
Mr. President, the Federal Government and Department of the Interior 
has a philosophy of creeping bureaucracy where they extend their 
jurisdiction; and they can do it if the State is not successful in 
resolving its suit. They have jurisdiction 3 miles out from Federal 
land. Believe me, it is just a matter of time before they come around 
for Bartlett Cove and go out to Cape Spencer and north from Cape 
Spencer up toward Yakutat.
  So we are accepting the Dungeness crab deal. But there is no 
justification for more--and I implore my colleagues to recognize this. 
Let the courts decide it, but for goodness sake, in the meantime, allow 
the Native people to continue what they have been doing for thousands 
of years; allow the limited commercial fishery to continue until such 
time as the court gets it resolved.
  I would love to compromise on this, but there is no compromise with 
the Park Service. They want to eliminate the fisheries. The State has 
brought suit. That is what is new and different about this. My 
colleagues fail to recognize that the State is saying, OK, it is time 
to settle the jurisdiction issue. We have tried to negotiate and work 
out with the Park Service a management plan that would allow the State 
to continue to manage it. What does the Park Service know about 
managing fisheries? They have no biologists. The State of Alaska spends 
more than any other State on fishery biology; we are good at it. That 
is why we have fish. To suggest that the Park Service should enter into 
a process to generate expertise in this area is unreasonable, 
impractical and, finally, unnecessary.
  We have nothing but creeping advancement by the Department of the 
Interior within our State because we are a public land State. But it is 
time that the people of Alaska express their views, and they have 
expressed their views through the Governor's announcement of the suit.
  Again, it is not the same as 6 months ago. The lawsuit changes that. 
The omnibus bill, in spite of what my colleagues from Montana and Rhode 
Island have said, was not ever considered satisfactory; it was only 
considered to delay more sweeping closures. To suggest that this matter 
has been debated on this floor is totally inaccurate. It has not been 
debated before. This is to allow the judicial process to be completed, 
and that is what the suit is all about.
  Again, in the interest of fairness, Mr. President, why does the Park 
Service say it is OK to commercially fish in Maryland, in Assateague; 
in Florida, Biscayne; in the Virgin Islands, Buck Island; in Canaveral, 
Florida; in Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; in Channel Islands, 
California; in Fire Island, New York; in Gulf Island, Alabama and 
Florida, on and on and on. But it is not OK anymore here. Here you have 
an added dimension. You have the people--the few hundred people who are 
dependent on Glacier Bay for a subsistence lifestyle and a small amount 
of commercial fishing.
  We are not reneging on any deal, we are merely keeping people 
working--keeping people working, keeping people employed, keeping 
people productive while the jurisdictional issue is decided. What in 
the world is wrong with that? The courts are going to make this 
decision. But, for goodness' sake, let the people who are dependent on 
it for their lifestyle and their traditions continue.
  Mr. President, I have gone on long enough. If there are some 
questions of my friend from Montana, I would be happy to answer.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a few brief questions, if I might. 
The question is, Has the State of Alaska filed a lawsuit?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. No. As I indicated, the State indicated its intent to 
file a lawsuit and will be filing it late this summer or early this 
fall.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Assuming they will file late this summer, or early this 
fall, on this issue, how long might that lawsuit be pending?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sure the Senator from Montana would agree that 
neither he nor I has any idea. The point is, these people have had 
access to the park for thousands of years. And what difference does 6 
months or a year make?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might that lawsuit conceivably take a couple, or 5, or 10 
years before it is resolved? Is that possible?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I hope it will not. I hope it will be very short.
  Mr. BAUCUS. But it is possible.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I don't know. We have had access since we became a 
State in 1959 and the Federal Government always recognized the state's 
management. They have technically allowed this to go on since 1959. 
Suddenly, under this administration, they are kicking us out.
  So I don't know what a year, or 2, or 3, necessarily has to do with 
it. The point is, it is going to be resolved. If the State loses, it is 
all over.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by explaining why it is important for 
the Senate to address this issue. Again, we should not put people on 
public assistance without a cause. That is what we

[[Page 5168]]

are doing here with these subsistence dependents. We shouldn't second-
guess the court. Let the court decide, and recognize that there are 
real people out there--real constituents of mine and yours--whose lives 
and livelihoods are really at risk, and they are looking to you and me 
for relief. This is all they have.
  So I implore my colleagues to recognize the legitimacy of this.
  It will be my intention, Mr. President, at the appropriate time, to 
ask for the yeas and nays, subject to whatever the joint leadership 
decides to do about future votes. But I will ask for a vote on the 
amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I don't know why 
this issue needs to go on forever. It is deja vu all over again.
  The Senator from Alaska has admitted that his amendment has the 
effect of preventing the management plan from going into effect for 
years--5, 10, who knows how many years--because his amendment 
essentially says no funds may be expended by the Secretary of Interior 
to implement the plan until such time as the State of Alaska's legal 
claim over ownership and jurisdiction, et cetera, is resolved. Who 
knows how long that is going to take? That could take a long, long 
time. That would mean for up to many, many years that this issue 
remains unresolved.
  We resolved this issue in the omnibus appropriations bill. It was 
resolved. The senior Senator from Alaska agreed with the White House on 
the compromise, recognizing, on the one hand, the interests of the 
national park and the wilderness area and, on the other hand, the 
fishing interests of the people who live in and about Glacier Bay. It 
has already been agreed to. There is a compromise agreed to by both 
sides--the Senator from Alaska, the senior Senator, Senator Stevens, 
and the White House--in the omnibus appropriations bill. It has been 
agreed to.
  So here we are now faced with an amendment which undoes that 
agreement. It very simply undoes that agreement by saying no funds may 
be expended with respect to any management plan in Glacier Bay until a 
lawsuit, not yet filed, is resolved. I say that we should go ahead with 
the plan. We should go ahead with working out the provisions of the 
plan. The State of Alaska can still file its lawsuit if it wants to. 
And that lawsuit may or may not change the result.
  In addition, I might add, this is a national park. This is a 
wilderness area. This has very pristine values which all Americans want 
to protect. We do at the same time want to recognize--and do 
recognize--the interests of the fishermen in Glacier Bay; thus, the 
compromise. The compromise, the agreement, is already reached. It has 
been debated ad nauseam. So I am going to stop right here.
  I urge the Senate to uphold the original agreement, which most 
Senators already agreed to when they voted for the omnibus 
appropriations bill last year.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to read my 
amendment and recognize the consideration that has been made to live by 
the agreement by recognizing that the closure of a Dungeness fishery 
under this section will occur as agreed to, and the balance of the 
fisheries have never been addressed on this floor or debated.
  I conclude by referring to one remark, which my friend made 
concerning this beautiful wilderness and the opposition of commercial 
activity. Just look at this cruise ship with nearly 3,000 people on it, 
if you want to see the commercial activity and compare that to the 
sensitivity of my subsistence-dependent Native people whose lives are 
at risk as a consequence of not having an opportunity to pursue their 
traditional resources and their appeal to you and me for relief.
  I have no further statements. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside so that I may take up an amendment 
which I believe has been or will be cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 131

  (Purpose: To authorize payments in settlement of claims for deaths 
 arising from the accident involving a United States Marine Corps A-6 
          aircraft on February 3, 1998, near Cavalese, Italy)

  Mr. ROBB. 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 Virginia (Mr. Robb), for himself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
     Kerrey proposes an amendment numbered 131.

  Mr. ROBB. 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 27, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 203. (a) Authority To Make Payments.--Subject to the 
     provisions of this section, the Secretary of Defense is 
     authorized to make payments for the settlement of the claims 
     arising from the deaths caused by the accident involving a 
     United States Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on February 3, 
     1998, near Cavalese, Italy.
       (b) Deadline for Exercise of Authority.--The Secretary 
     shall make the decision to exercise the authority in 
     subsection (a) not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Source of Payments.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, of the amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available for the Department of Navy for operation and 
     maintenance for fiscal year 1999 or other unexpended balances 
     from prior years, the Secretary shall make available $40 
     million only for emergency and extraordinary expenses 
     associated with the settlement of the claims arising from the 
     accident described in subsection (a).
       (d) Amount of Payment.--The amount of the payment under 
     this section in settlement of the claims arising from the 
     death of any person associated with the accident described in 
     subsection (a) may not exceed $2,000,000.
       (e) Treatment of Payments.--Any amount paid to a person 
     under this section is intended to supplement any amount 
     subsequently determined to be payable to the person under 
     section 127 or chapter 163 of title 10, United States Code, 
     or any other provision of law for administrative settlement 
     of claims against the United States with respect to damages 
     arising from the accident described in subsection (a).
       (f) Construction.--The payment of an amount under this 
     section may not be considered to constitute a statement of 
     legal liability on the part of the United States or otherwise 
     as evidence of any material fact in any judicial proceeding 
     or investigation arising from the accident described in 
     subsection (a).

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today not only in my capacity as a 
U.S. Senator but also as a former U.S. Marine and as a father.
  Along with Senators Snowe, Leahy, Feinstein, Kerrey, Bingaman, and 
others, I am offering an amendment that will permit the United States 
to shoulder unambiguously its responsibility, uphold the honor of the 
U.S. military, both at home and abroad, and begin to ease the grieving 
of 20 families who lost their loved ones in a tragic accident near 
Cavalese, Italy, last year.
  On February 3, 1998, a U.S. Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler was flying low 
and fast through the Italian Alps on a training mission. Just minutes 
from its scheduled return to base, the pilot suddenly caught a glimpse 
of a yellow gondola off to his right at eye level.
  A split second later, he spotted the two cables that carried the 
gondola, and, fearing for his life, he put the plane into a dive. His 
action probably saved the lives of the four-member crew, but it was not 
enough to prevent the wingtip from clipping the cables.
  Unaware of the devastation left in his wake, he completed his mission 
and returned the damaged plane to Aviano Air Base.
  The plane's wing had stretched and then snapped the cables supporting 
the gondola, which was then 307 feet above the valley floor. Inside 
were 20 people;

[[Page 5169]]

among them, a Polish mother and her 14-year-old boy, seven German 
friends, and five Belgian friends, including an engaged couple.
  I am told that those 20 people had just 8 seconds to live from the 
time the cable was struck. Eight seconds doesn't seem like a long time, 
unless you know you are going to die.
  [Pause.]
  That was eight seconds. The next day in Cavalese, Italy, a lone bell 
tolled. Shops ``closed for mourning,'' a memorial mass was planned and 
skiing was halted out of respect for the dead. And the families of 
those dead spent their first day of grief.
  One year later, Cavalese is once again teeming with tourists. The 
cable car has been rebuilt, and a memorial stone erected.
  One year later, however, the United States has not yet acted to 
accept full responsibility for those twenty deaths. Following a lengthy 
court martial, the pilot of the jet was acquitted of any criminal 
wrongdoing. President Clinton reacted by stating that the United States 
would ``unambiguously shoulder the responsibility for what happened.'' 
We need to follow those words with deeds. We need to accept our 
responsibility by compensating the families of the victims, quickly and 
fairly. While many factors contributed to this accident, and we may 
never know exactly which one was the proximate cause, we do know that 
it was our fault. They were our air crew. It was our plane.
  Because there is no question whether the United States is responsible 
for the accident, the only question is whether we have the will to act 
honorably and settle the issue of compensating the families quickly--
doing everything we can to not prolong their agony--for they have 
already suffered unspeakable grief.
  Since last summer, I have repeatedly urged the Department of Defense 
to develop a mechanism that acknowledges our responsibility and allows 
the families to begin putting their lives back together. And I believe 
every official in the Department associated with this matter shares 
this desire to put the tragedy behind us. Unfortunately, the Department 
of Defense does not believe it has the authority to resolve these 
claims on its own.
  This belief stems from the Department's conclusion that this case is 
governed solely by the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, which 
regulates the relationship among the military forces of NATO allies. 
Following an accident in a host country involving a NATO ally, the SOFA 
requires injured third parties to file claims in the host country and 
pursue them as if the host country itself had caused the injury. Then, 
the claims are litigated or settled as the host country determines. 
Once a level of compensation is decided, the host country pays the 
claim and seeks reimbursement of 75% of that claim from the country at 
fault.
  The Department of Defense has informed me of its belief that the SOFA 
provides the sole remedy in this case and that therefore the DoD does 
not have the authority to settle the claims of the families arising 
from this accident.
  While I disagree with that conclusion, this amendment resolves the 
question. My amendment specifically grants the Department the authority 
they believe they presently lack, rather than forcing the families to 
wait to resolve this question in a judicial process that could take 
many years. The amendment allows the Secretary to settle the claims and 
sets aside $40 million for that sole purpose. It leaves to the 
Secretary the discretion to determine an amount of compensation, but 
limits the Secretary to offering no more than $2 million for any single 
claim. Further, it requires the Secretary to move quickly and resolve 
the claims within 90 days after enactment of this legislation. Finally, 
my amendment explicitly avoids interfering with the ongoing SOFA 
process.
  This is an important point. The SOFA allows civil claims to be 
decided in the host country but criminal allegations to be decided in 
the country at fault. This structure protects local citizens in the 
host country from having civil claims decided on the ``home turf'' of 
the wrong-doer, while also protecting our troops from criminal 
prosecutions in another nation. Some have suggested that if we adopt 
this amendment, we put at risk this entire structure of the SOFA. I 
fail to see the logic of this assertion. I doubt any country would move 
to scrap the SOFA and begin trying members of our military in their 
courts simply because we offered a supplemental payment to own up to 
our responsibility for a tragic accident. In fact, I believe such an 
act of acknowledgment would have just the opposite effect, and reduce 
the tensions that the acquittal in this case have created. My belief is 
based in part on the fact that three of our NATO allies who lost 
citizens in this accident support this amendment. In fact, the 
ambassador from Belgium wrote to me that his country ``would welcome 
each initiative that might contribute to a quick settlement of the 
claims of the victims' families. In that spirit, we fully support your 
proposed amendment to S. 544, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
Act, and hope that your proposal will gain the necessary support in the 
U.S. Senate.'' He goes on to state his belief that this ``legislative 
initiative is not incompatible with the SOFA-procedure.'' The German 
and Polish governments share this view.
  I've been sensitive to the concerns of the Department of Defense 
regarding the importance of the SOFA, which is why the amendment speaks 
in terms of supplementing the SOFA, not displacing it. The SOFA has 
worked well for over forty years and I have no intention of disrupting 
that process with this amendment.
  But we also need to consider the purpose of that process. In 1953, 
when the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was considering the 
SOFA, they wrote that the structure of the claims process was 
``calculated to reduce to a minimum the friction that almost inevitably 
arises from [injuries caused by members of a foreign military] against 
members of the local population.'' In this case, however, I believe 
blind adherence to the perceived requirements of the SOFA is causing 
friction with our NATO allies, not reducing it.
  The procedures established in the SOFA are designed to do justice. In 
this case, under these circumstances, justice is best served by having 
the United States take responsibility for the harm we've caused.
  Last July, the Senate adopted unanimously a Sense of the Senate I 
offered stating that ``the United States, in order to maintain its 
credibility and honor amongst its allies and all nations of the world, 
should make prompt reparations for an accident clearly caused by United 
States military aircraft'' and that ``without our prompt action, these 
families will continue to suffer financial agonies, our credibility in 
the European community continues to suffer, and our own citizens remain 
puzzled and angered by our lack of accountability.''
  Since last July, each of our predictions have sadly been realized. 
Our allies, especially Italy where we have strategically important 
basing agreements, are outraged by our lack of accountability. They 
feel angry and betrayed. Americans everywhere cannot understand why we 
don't act to accept responsibility for the deaths of these 20 people. 
Editorial writers from the New York Times to the San Francisco 
Chronicle, the Cleveland Plain Dealer to the Atlanta Constitution have 
called for prompt and adequate compensation to the families of those 
who were killed.
  Finally, I have met with many of the family members. Some have been 
pushed nearly into poverty, having lost their primary means of 
financial support. Last September, I met with three of the Belgian 
families, as well as the Polish doctor who would have been in the 
gondola with his wife and son if he had not strained a leg muscle and 
decided not to take the final run of the day. Last Thursday, I met with 
families of the German victims.
  Having met personally with the families, I can tell you they are not 
angry with the United States, but they don't understand. They are 
grieving, but they are not greedy. They want accountability, but they 
are not vindictive. They simply want someone to be

[[Page 5170]]

held responsible for the deaths of their children, their husbands, 
their wives.
  That is what my amendment is about--responsibility. It is not about 
money. Compensation is no substitute for the companionship of a lost 
loved one. By resolving these cases now, however, the United States can 
clearly and unambiguously acknowledge its undeniable culpability in the 
deaths of these twenty people, something the families have so far 
sought without success.
  In speaking with the families following the first court-martial, I 
have been struck by a single seemingly incomprehensible fact regarding 
its outcome. They were not so much determined that the pilot spend his 
life in jail. They simply sought closure on the question of who was 
responsible for the deaths of their loved ones so they could begin to 
cope with the loss. They also wanted the chance, at sentencing if it 
had come to that, to talk about those who had died. I invited them to 
do that when I met with them. As they described their children, I 
thought of my own. Last week, I asked the mother of one of the victims 
if she had a picture. She removed the locket from around her neck, with 
the photos of her dead son and his wife she keeps near her heart.
  The Belgian families also shared pictures with me last September. I 
wanted to show those to you. Stefan, aged 28, shown here with his 
mother; and Hadewich, aged 24; and Rose-Marie, also aged 24. In an 
interview late last year, Rose-Marie's father said he drove by the 
graveyard every day, and said hello to his daughter. He explained why 
he did this: ``It's easy. We have lost our daughter, but she is still a 
little bit alive there. To say hello to her is a way for me to ease the 
stress a little bit. And it is also a tribute to her. I say: Rose-
Marie, you gave us so much love and joy, I am trying to give it back to 
you as much as possible.''
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and set 
aside $40 million for these families. To put that into some 
perspective, the plane involved in this accident cost some $60 million, 
and fortunately for us neither the plane nor the crew were lost.
  In the Defense Appropriations bill last year, the Congress set aside 
$20 million to enable the town to rebuild its gondola, a project which 
has cost nearly $18 million to date. In fact, my amendment is modeled 
after Section 8114 of the bill we adopted last year, which set aside 
the $20 million from the Department of the Navy's Operation and 
Maintenance account to pay for ``property damages resulting from the 
accident.'' The President has acknowledged that our willingness to set 
aside these funds has helped ``speed the economic recovery process'' of 
the town.
  Here is a picture of that new gondola. Last year, the Congress passed 
an amendment to help rebuild the gondola our aircraft destroyed. This 
year, the Congress should pass an amendment to help rebuild the lives 
of the loved ones our aircraft destroyed. Let us show the world we care 
as much about loss of life as we do about loss of property.
  I urge adoption of my amendment. The honor of the United States is at 
stake.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise as an enthusiastic co-sponsor of the 
Robb amendment to the fiscal year 1999 emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  By giving the Secretary of Defense the discretionary authority to 
compensate the families of the 20 victims of the tragic Marine Corps 
aircraft accident near Cavalese, Italy last Winter, Congress would 
close a moral gap between the United States and millions of grieving 
citizens in our allied countries.
  The victims of the Cavalese accident came from six European 
countries, and the depth of this tragedy has led Secretary Cohen to 
appoint a panel under the leadership of retired Adm. Joseph Prueher to 
determine whether faulty training, mapping, or equipment malfunctions 
contributed to the plane's severing of a ski resort cable that led to 
the 20 innocent deaths.
  Depending on the findings of the Prueher Commission, the judgment of 
Secretary Cohen, and the outcome of ongoing U.S. military litigation 
regarding the Cavalese incident, our amendment gives the Pentagon the 
flexibility to provide direct cash payments of up to $2 million per 
victim to the families of the deceased.
  Under the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, between the United 
States and each of its NATO Allies, we have already repaid the $60,000-
per-victim amount given to the families by the Italian Government. In 
addition, the administration has agreed to furnish up to 75 percent of 
any wrongful death civil suit damages awarded to the families by the 
Italian courts.
  But SOFA culpability applies only to the negligent acts of U.S. 
military personnel operating on the territory of an allied nation. The 
agreement does not apply to reckless activities that occur on U.S. 
territory but contribute to the causes of an accident overseas.
  These possible activities in the Cavalese case, such as reliance on 
an insufficiently detailed map, a potentially malfunctioning aircraft 
altimeter, or inadequate pilot training, remain unresolved. But if 
conclusive findings show that developments on American soil had a 
relationship with the tragedy of Cavalese, SOFA would prohibit the 
United States from offering any further compensation to the families of 
the victims. In the meantime, the Italian litigation could end 
inconclusively and continue for several years.
  Beyond our moral obligation on this matter, Mr. President, we have 
strong legislative precedents for the Robb amendment. The fiscal year 
1999 Defense appropriations bill set aside $20 million for the property 
damage that the military plane caused at the resort.
  In addition, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution last summer 
calling for the United States to resolve the claims of the Cavalese 
victims ``as quickly and fairly as possible.''
  Finally, this new funding would require no offsets, and the 
Congressional Budget Office has certified the Robb amendment as 
revenue-neutral.
  Congress, Mr. President, acted wisely last year in compensating the 
Italians for the physical damage done at the ski resort. It should take 
similar action today to provide the Defense Department with legal 
authority for the compensation of the families who lost their loved 
ones in this tragedy.
  I therefore urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment on a 
strong bipartisan basis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his 
courtesy in working with us to try to assure that the provisions 
regarding the timeframe for decision by the Secretary were not a 
mandate but, rather, a period of time within which the discretion 
conferred on the Secretary must be made. Under the circumstances of the 
changed form of this amendment that the Senator has now presented, one 
which I find we are all very sympathetic to, I am prepared now to 
accept this amendment and ask that the Senate allow this amendment to 
go forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his 
effort to resolve this so that we can go forward. I very much 
appreciate that. We have been working with the Department of Defense 
and many others, but I particularly appreciate his willingness to 
accept the amendment at this point.
  I have no additional debate, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know this part of Italy. I know what 
the Senator is trying to do. I think there is a national obligation on 
our part to try to reach out as much as we possibly can under the 
circumstances. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to, and the motion to 
reconsider is laid upon the table.
  The amendment (No. 131) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 130

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I may, in connection with the debate

[[Page 5171]]

that just took place involving my colleague, Senator Murkowski, I would 
like to point out the statement that I made on October 21 of last year 
in connection with the proposal that was in the conference report 
regarding Glacier Bay commercial fishing. I made this statement about 
matters the way that we finally arranged them in that bill and the 
provision that was passed at my suggestion. I said:

       I view this compromise as an insurance policy, a safety net 
     that offers better protection to Glacier Bay's fishermen than 
     was offered by the draft Park Service regulations, but I do 
     not view it as the end of the story. There are provisions 
     that I do not like.

  For that reason, I have cosponsored Senator Murkowski's amendment 
this year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the 
amendment that Senator Stevens just referred to. Senator Murkowski's 
amendment related to Glacier Bay. Senator Murkowski's amendment would 
prohibit the Secretary of Interior from expending any funds to 
implement closures or other restrictions of subsistence or commercial 
fishing or subsistence gathering within Glacier Bay National Park. This 
prohibition would continue under the language of the amendment. The 
prohibition would continue until the State of Alaska's claim to 
jurisdiction over ownership of the submerged lands in Glacier Bay were 
resolved, either by a final determination by the judiciary or by a 
settlement between the parties.
  The amendment, as I understand it, would undo a compromise that 
Senator Stevens entered into last year with Secretary Babbitt. 
Certainly it was understood by the Secretary of Interior as a 
compromise on last year's appropriation bill. In addition, Senator 
Stevens has already included an amendment earlier this week in the 
supplemental appropriation bill which provides additional money to buy 
out commercial crabbing operations in Glacier Bay.
  The issue of regulating commercial fishing in Glacier Bay is an 
extremely contentious issue. There were attempts in the last Congress 
to include an appropriations amendment that would have prohibited the 
Park Service from enforcing restrictions on commercial fishing in 
Glacier Bay National Park. The amendment was strongly opposed by the 
administration. The Secretary of Interior indicated that he would 
recommend the President veto the bill if the amendment was included. I 
have been informed that the Secretary of Interior will, if this 
amendment is included in the final version of this bill going to him, 
again recommend a veto.
  The provision that was finally agreed upon last year between 
Secretary Babbitt and the Senator from Alaska, I understood, resolved 
the issue and provided the Park Service and commercial fishing 
operators with certainty as to future fishing operations in the park. 
If this current amendment is adopted, that certainty, of course, will 
be disrupted.
  The amendment that is being offered this year would make major policy 
changes in the management of Glacier Bay. These changes should not be 
considered as part of this emergency spending bill.
  As I am sure we all know, Senator Murkowski is chairman of the 
appropriate committee to consider this legislation. I serve as the 
ranking member of that committee. What we should do is consider this 
matter in a hearing before that committee before bringing it to the 
Senate floor.
  The amendment states that no funds may be expended by the Secretary 
to implement closures or other restrictions of subsistence or 
commercial fishing or subsistence gathering in Glacier Bay National 
Park. This would mean that the Park Service would be completely unable 
to regulate commercial fishing operations within the park.
  The amendment would appear to override wildlife and resource 
protections required by other laws, including the Endangered Species 
Act. For example, fishing is currently prohibited for four fish species 
which provide critical food resources for the endangered humpback 
whale. No other park in the country is prohibited from protecting its 
resources as this amendment would prohibit this park from protecting 
its resources.
  The amendment states that the funding and enforcement prohibition is 
to remain in effect until the claim of jurisdiction of the State of 
Alaska claim ``has been resolved either by a final determination of the 
judiciary or by settlement.''
  Last week, the State of Alaska filed a notice of intent to file a 
lawsuit, but it should be clear to all here, everyone should understand 
that there has not been a suit filed yet.
  The amendment that has been offered would prohibit the Park Service 
from taking any actions to protect any of its resources from commercial 
or subsistence fishing or from subsistence gathering for the entire 
time period that this future lawsuit might be litigated.
  Senator Murkowski is claiming that the amendment simply allows local 
Native communities to gather seagull eggs from the park. However, 
unlike some other parks in Alaska, subsistence is not an authorized use 
in this park. If these types of fundamental changes to the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act are required, then it should 
be considered in the normal legislative process. This is not simply a 
Native issue. The amendment would allow all Alaskans to collect plant 
and wildlife resources in the park and with the Park Service unable to 
regulate any of these activities.
  In short, Mr. President, this amendment makes far-reaching policy 
changes in the law that applies to this particular national park. It is 
contrary to the policy that applies in all other national parks. It is 
contrary to the action we took last year, and it is one which I am 
constrained to oppose.
  I hope the Senate will not adopt this amendment as part of the bill. 
If it is adopted, I am advised that the Secretary of the Interior will 
urge the President to veto the bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Alaska on the 
floor. I am about to move to table the Murkowski amendment and to give 
the Senator notice as to when he may or may not want to vote on this.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that? I 
understand my colleague would like to respond briefly before that 
motion is made. If the Senator will accord him that courtesy, I will 
appreciate it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Fine.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in 1995, the Department of Defense agreed 
to evaluate a British missile, the Starstreak, for use as a helicopter 
borne air-to-air missile as an inducement to the British Ministry of 
Defence to choose the U.S. Army Apache Longbow helicopter as its own 
attack helicopter over a competing European candidate. The British did 
indeed agree to buy the Apache.
  Increasingly, military helicopters are being outfitted with air-to-
air missiles that increase their lethality, a development that began 
with the Russian HIND helicopter. According to the Army Air to Air 
Mission Need Statement, the proliferation of technology available on 
the open market will make it likely that U.S. forces will encounter 
threat helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, lethal unmanned aerial 
vehicles and cruise missiles. The Army believes the probability is 
increasing that Army helicopters will encounter an airborne threat and 
recognizes that Army helicopters need an improved air-to-air capability 
to counter that threat.
  This is why the Congress has been directing the Army to fulfill its 
commitment to the British Ministry of Defence and its own air-to-air 
needs by conducting an operational test and evaluation of the 
Starstreak through a live fire side-by-side shoot-off of the Starsteak 
and the Army's preferred alternative, the air-to-air Stinger.

[[Page 5172]]

  Mr. President, at this time I would like to engage the chairman and 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee in a colloquy along with 
my colleague from Oklahoma and the distinguished senior Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. He and I have worked 
together on this issue over the past several years. We proposed that 
the Appropriations Committee address the issue of an operational test 
and evaluation in its bill and they did so after the Army failed to 
comply with report language that was included in the FY 1998 Defense 
Appropriations Conference Report. To me, it is clear that the Congress 
directed the Army, in bill language in Title IV of the FY 1999 Defense 
Appropriations Act, to begin the development of a test and evaluation 
plan during this fiscal year using the $15 million provided in Title IV 
as well as to commence work integrating the two candidate missiles on 
an AH-64D helicopter; and that the money could be used for no other 
purpose. Does the distinguished Chairman agree with me?
  Mr. STEVENS. I do.
  Mr. LEAHY. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I 
am familiar with the Congress' involvement in this program and the 
specific provisions under discussion. The law requires that the 
Secretary of the Army make certain certifications concerning the 
missiles and the program prior to the conduct of the actual test. The 
required certifications must be made at the appropriate time, which is 
just prior to the actual live-firings. I understand that the 
requirement for these certifications has caused some confusion about 
what efforts the Army can take during Fiscal Year 1999. I believe the 
law is clear with respect to what the Army should be doing. The Army 
was directed to commence its efforts in Fiscal Year 1999. We believe 
that such efforts should include, at a minimum, development of a test 
plan and the letting of contracts, using the $15 million provided by 
the Appropriations Committee, to begin the systems integration work. Is 
this the Chairman's understanding also?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes it is.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am very familiar with this issue and have discussed it 
at length with the Army. We expect that the Secretary of the Army will 
provide the requisite certifications at the appropriate time, which is 
just prior to the actual conduct of the live-fire tests. I know that in 
the case of Starstreak, the missile contractor must make certain 
modifications at its own expense in order to make the missile 
compatible for use at air speeds consistent with the normal operating 
limits of the Apache helicopter and consistent with the survivability 
of the aircraft. The missile contractor has briefed these fixes to the 
Army and informed the Army in writing that the fixes will be made at no 
expense to the United States. By the time the Army is ready to conduct 
actual live firings the Secretary will be able to make all the 
certifications required by law.
  Mr. LEAHY. So, I ask the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Appropriations Committee, is there anything in the law to prevent the 
Army from releasing the FY 1999 funds and beginning the necessary 
efforts to conduct an operational test and evaluation?
  Mr. STEVENS. No there is not.
  Mr. BYRD. I have been listening to this colloquy. I agree with the 
Chairman, the Senator from Vermont as well as the distinguished Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member.


          Transfer of Supplemental CDBG Money From HUD to FEMA

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to engage the Senator from Missouri, 
Mr. Bond, the Chairman of the VA/HUD Subcommittee, in a colloquy.
  Senator Bond and I have been working, for over a year now, to see 
that Maine and the Northeast have their needs from the January 1998 Ice 
Storm which devastated much of New England and upstate New York 
addressed.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct, and I know that neither of us 
thought we would be here, almost a year later, still trying to ensure 
that adequate funding was provided to the Northeast, as we felt we had 
provided for that in the FY98 Supplemental.
  Ms. SNOWE. The Senator from Missouri has been a real champion for my 
state of Maine in our efforts to ensure that the money this Senate 
appropriated went to alleviate some of the costs from the Ice Storm 
which could not be covered by FEMA.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's kind words. I did a colloquy on 
the Senate floor last March on this issue with the then junior Senator 
from New York, Mr. D'Amato, outlining the funding needs of the 
Northeast. In that colloquy we discussed the fact that of the $250 
million the Senate was appropriating for HUD's Community Development 
Block Grant Program (CDBG) , that $60 million was meant for Maine and 
the rest of the Northeast.
  Ms. SNOWE. Of course in the conference the final funding figure was 
$130 million as the House had only appropriated $20 million.
  Mr. BOND. Yes, the figure was smaller, but the fact remained that the 
Ice Storm, as the first big storm of the year, was the impetus for us 
to provide supplemental funding to the CDBG program to help Maine and 
other states cover the costs of the disaster where FEMA wasn't able to 
assist.
  Ms. SNOWE. The FY98 Supplemental was signed into law on May 1. On 
November 6, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced 
that it was giving Maine $2.1 million to address $80 million in unmet 
needs as reported by FEMA to HUD. Needless to say, this amount was 
wholly unacceptable, and I have been working with HUD to try and 
address this very serious situation, which has left Maine unable to 
fully address the costs of the disaster.
  Mr. BOND. As the Senator and I have discussed, I also was dismayed at 
the treatment Maine and the other Northeast states received--the fact 
that the money was not provided until six months after the bill was 
enacted, and the fact that I have yet to receive an acceptable 
explanation from HUD as to the funding formula used to allocate the 
money. The Northeast's experience is one of several reasons why the 
bill before us today transfers the money to FEMA.
  Ms. SNOWE. At one point in Maine more than 80 percent of the people 
in the State were without power. In fact, as Vice President Gore 
explained it, during a visit to Maine on January 15, 1998 ``We've never 
seen anything like this. This is like a neutron bomb aimed at the power 
system.'' We asked for your assistance in obtaining money for the CDBG 
program because it would allow States to use the money for utility 
infrastructure costs, Maine's largest unmet need according to both 
FEMA, who listed it as first in their February 1998, ``Blueprint for 
Action'' and the Governor. With the transfer of the funding, will FEMA 
be able to provide funding for a State, like Maine, which wants to use 
the money to address the damage to the utility infrastructure in order 
to keep the utility rates--which are already the fourth highest in the 
country--from increasing to cover the storm costs?
  Mr. BOND. The language will allow FEMA to assess and fund the States 
unmet needs, as determined by FEMA and the State.
  Ms. SNOWE. Again, I wish to thank the Senator for his concern and 
hard work to help close this chapter in Maine's Ice Storm Disaster. I 
look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, HUD, and 
FEMA to ensure that Maine's disaster needs are finally addressed.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill 
for their hard work in putting forth this legislation. This measure 
provides much-needed federal funding for foreign assistance, and 
recovery from the recent plague of natural disasters that have hammered 
many parts of the United States and its neighboring countries in recent 
months.
   Mr. President, I am glad that the Appropriations Committee decided 
to reject the President's designation of this entire disaster 
supplemental appropriations bill as ``emergency'' spending. While the 
need for relief is clear, I believe it is important to provide offsets

[[Page 5173]]

for any additional spending so that we avoid dipping into the surplus 
that is desperately needed to shore up the Social Security system and 
provide meaningful tax relief to American families.
  Unfortunately, although well-intentioned, the Committee did not 
succeed in fully offsetting the costs of this bill. In future years, 
hundreds of millions of dollars in spending resulting from this bill 
will eat into future surpluses, whether we want to account for it or 
not. The better course would have been to fully offset all of the new 
spending in this bill, rather than continue the dangerous practice of 
profligate ``emergency'' spending.
  Speaking of profligate spending, I regret that I must again come 
forward this year to object to the millions of unrequested, low-
priority, wasteful spending in this bill and its accompanying report. 
This year's bill originally contained $72.25 million in pork-barrel 
spending. But, as usual, we added pork on top of pork through a litany 
of amendments. To make matters worse, many of these amendments were 
adopted without ever being seen by most Senators. This time around, we 
added an additional $13 million of pork-barrel spending to this already 
pork-laden spending bill.
  Projections of surpluses into the foreseeable future should not lead 
to an abandonment of fiscal discipline. CBO now projects a non-social 
security budget surplus of over $800 billion over the next 10 years, 
but projections do not equate to ``real'' dollars until they actually 
materialize.
  While each individual earmark in this bill may not seem extravagant, 
taken together, they represent a serious diversion of taxpayers' hard-
earned dollars to low-priority programs.
  I have compiled a list of the numerous add-ons, earmarks, and special 
exemptions provided to individual projects in this bill, such as:
  Earmark of $50,000 for a feasibility study and initial planning and 
design of an effective CD ROM product to the Center for Educational 
Technologies in Wheeling West Virginia. The CD ROM product would 
complement the book We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.
  $1,136,000 earmarked for suppression of western spruce budworm on the 
Yakama Indian Reservation, and
  $1,000,000 for construction of the Pike's Peak Summit House in 
Colorado.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of objectionable provisions be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Objectionable Provisions Contained in S. 544--Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations and Rescissions for Recovery From Natural Disasters and 
      Foreign Assistance for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1999


                             Bill Language

       A $3,880,000 earmark for additional research, management, 
     and enforcement activities in the Northeast Multispecies 
     fishery, and for acquisition of shoreline data for nautical 
     charts.
       An earmark of $4,000,000 for Forest Service construction of 
     a new forestry research facility at Auburn University, 
     Auburn, Alabama.
       A $2,200,000 earmark to meet sewer infrastructure needs 
     associated with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games to Wasatch 
     County, UT, for both water and sewer.
       Earmark of $50,000 for a feasibility study and initial 
     planning and design of an effective CD ROM product to the 
     Center for Educational Technologies in Wheeling, West 
     Virginia. The CD ROM product would complement the book We the 
     People: The Citizen and the Constitution.


                            Report Language

       Committee language recommending $20,000,000 for farm 
     workers in areas of California and Florida impacted by 
     natural disasters through the Emergency Grants to Assist Low-
     Income Migrant and Seasonal Farm workers Program.
       An earmark of $2,000,000 in section 504 of the Rural 
     Housing Insurance Fund Program, for very low-income repair 
     loans, and to meet rural housing needs in Puerto Rico 
     resulting from Hurricane Georges.
       $12,612,000 for construction to repair damage due to rain, 
     winds, ice, snow, and other acts of nature in the Pacific 
     Northwest and Nevada.
       $2,000,000 in emergency funding earmarked for the Holocaust 
     Memorial Council.
       Language urging FEMA to work to ensure that the City of 
     Kelso, Washington, receives such assistance as is necessary 
     and appropriate to compensate homeowners in the federally-
     declared disaster area impacted by the Aldercrest landslide.
       An earmark of $20,000,000 for partial site and planning for 
     three facilities, one which shall be located in McDowell, 
     West Virginia, to house non-returnable criminal aliens being 
     transferred from the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     (INS).
       $921,000 earmarked for FY 1999 to fund the hiring and 
     equipping of 36 additional police officers to staff the 
     security posts established to improve security for the 
     Supreme Court.
       $1,136,000 earmarked for suppression of western spruce 
     budworm on the Yakama Indian Reservation.
       A $1,000,000 earmark for the Bureau of Land Management's 
     Wyoming and Montana state offices to pay for activities 
     necessary to process applications for Permits to Drill (APD) 
     in the Powder River Basin.
       $5,200,000 for eradication of the Asian Long-horned Beetle, 
     from the Commodity Credit Corporation. $2,500,000 of this 
     $5,200,000 is set aside for the Chicago, Illinois area.
       Committee report language urging the Forest Service to 
     transfer funds appropriated in the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999 to Auburn University for 
     construction of a new forestry research.
                                  ____


       Objectionable Provisions Added on as Amendments to S. 544


                      amendment provision language

       An earmark of $5,000,000 for emergency repairs to the 
     Headgate Rock Hydroelectric Project in Arizona.
       $239,000 to be used to repair damage caused by water 
     infiltration at the White River High School in White River, 
     South Dakota.
       An earmark of $750,000 for drug control activities which 
     shall be used specifically for the State of New Mexico, to 
     include Rio Arriba County, Santa Fe County, and San Juan 
     County.
       Earmark of $500,000 for technical assistance related to 
     shoreline erosion at Lake Tahoe, Nevada.
       Language for funds for the construction of a correctional 
     facility in Barrow, Alaska to be made available to the North 
     Slope Borough.
       The Corps of Engineers is directed to reprogram $800,000 of 
     funds made available in Fiscal Year 1999 to perform the 
     preliminary work needed to transfer Federal lands to the 
     tribes and State of South Dakota and to provide tribes within 
     South Dakota with funds for protecting invaluable Indian 
     cultural sites.
       Language to appropriate $700,000 under the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946 and the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act to promote the recovery of the apply industry 
     in New England.
       An earmark of $2,000,000 for the regional applications 
     programs at the University of Northern Iowa.
       $1,000,000 for construction of the Pike's Peak Summit House 
     in Colorado.
       $2,000,000 earmark for the Borough of Ketchikan to 
     participate in a study of the feasibility and dynamics of 
     manufacturing veneer products in Southeast Alaska.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also wish to state my objections to a 
provision that creates a $1 billion loan guarantee program to support 
the domestic steel industry.
  Specifically, this provision provides a loan guarantee of up to $250 
million for any domestic steel company that ``has experienced layoffs, 
production losses, or financial losses since the beginning of 1998.'' 
The purported reason for this program is to help steel companies 
suffering because of a flood of foreign steel. The measure, however, 
does not require that the losses relate to the so-called ``steel 
crisis.'' The measure also fails to set terms, conditions or interest 
rates for the guarantees. Instead, it leaves these critical decisions 
to the discretion of the board making the loans. The only guidance 
given to the board is that the terms should be reasonable. These 
provisions are problematic and will eventually result in the taxpayer 
guaranteeing bad loans.
  In the mid-sixties, the Economic Development Administration operated 
a similar program. The result of that program was disastrous for the 
taxpayer. Steel companies defaulted on 77% of the dollar value of their 
guarantees. An analysis of the loan program by the Congressional 
Research Service concluded that steel loans represent a high level of 
risk. Nevertheless, we are poised today to provide an additional $1 
billion in guarantees.
  I also have to question the need for such legislation. In a recent 
editorial, the Wall Street Journal declared ``there really is no U.S. 
steel `crisis'.'' They went on to note that several U.S.

[[Page 5174]]

companies are posting significant profits. For example, last year, 
Nucor earned $263 million, USX earned $364 million and Bethlehem Steel 
earned $120 million.
  Finally, Mr. President I have problems with how this provision came 
before the Senate. The creation of a program like this on an 
appropriations bill is just wrong. The provision places at risk 
hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars. The Senate should have the 
opportunity to fully consider and debate this provision.
  Mr. President, again, the amount of wasteful spending in this bill is 
less onerous than many other bills I have seen. However, I still must 
object strenuously to the inclusion of $85.5 million in pork-barrel 
spending. We cannot afford pork-barrel spending, even in the amount 
contained in this bill, because the cumulative effect of each million 
wasted is a million dollars robbed from the surplus or an additional 
million dollars in debt on which we must pay interest.
  In the upcoming FY 2000 appropriations season, I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to ensure 
that we do not waste taxpayers dollars on projects that are low-
priority, wasteful, or unnecessary, and that have not been evaluated in 
the appropriate merit-based review process.


            oil royalty rider on the emergency supplemental

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to 
repeal a special interest rider attached to the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations bill.
  This rider prevents the Interior Department from acting to ensure 
that oil companies pay a fair royalty for oil drilled on public lands. 
My amendment would have stripped that rider--allowing the Interior 
Department to finalize their rule so that the taxpayers will receive 
the millions of dollars they are owed in royalty payments.
  I have decided that while I still firmly believe that this rider 
should be stripped, because of recent action taken by the Interior 
Department, this amendment would not be timely. However, I would like 
to assure you that if I will block any future attempts to further delay 
this necessary and important rulemaking process.
  Mr. President, this is a very simple issue.
  For years, oil companies have been cheating the American taxpayers 
out of millions--if not billions--of dollars.
  The Department of Interior took action to stop the cheating.
  Now, Congress is preventing the Interior Department from stopping the 
cheating.
  Just as the Interior Department was about to finalize a new rule to 
resolve arguments over royalties, here comes yet another rider on an 
unrelated must-pass bill to stop the new rule from going into effect.
  So who benefits from this rider? Big Oil. And who loses? The American 
taxpayer.
  We had this same debate last Congress. Some of my colleagues will say 
that this delay is necessary to force the Interior Department to listen 
to the oil companies.
  Mr. President, the Interior Department has listened. In fact, in 
response to pressure from the Big Oil, the Interior Department has re-
opened the comment period on the proposal to--once again--see if there 
is anything new.
  Because of the Interior Department's action, it is unlikely that the 
Department will be able to finalize the rule before October 1, 1999 
despite this rider. The rider is unnecessary and is just another 
attempt by Congress to bully the Interior Department.
  The Interior Department has gone through a thoughtful and detailed 
process to get this rule done. The Interior Department has acted in 
good faith to respond to concerns of the oil industry and members of 
the Senate--meeting with Members of Congress on several occasions and 
reopening the comment period on the rule.
  It is now time for the Congress to act in good faith and let the 
Interior Department proceed.
  Mr. President, let me explain how royalty payments work. When oil 
companies drill on public lands, they pay a royalty to the federal 
government. This royalty is like paying rent. The oil companies want to 
use federal land or offshore tracts, so they pay rent--a percentage of 
the value of the oil--to the federal government to use this land. A 
share of this royalty is given to the state, and the remaining money is 
used by the federal government for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
and the Historic Preservation Fund.
  The oil companies sign an agreement to pay a fixed percentage of the 
value of the oil they produce on federal lands--12.5%. The question is 
12.5% of what? It's that number that the big oil companies understate.
  According to the signed agreement, that number for the value of the 
oil, ``shall never be less than the fair market value of the 
production.'' But the oil companies are currently understating the 
value, and as a result, they underpay their royalties.
  The debate is over how to determine the true value of oil. Is the 
true value of the oil the value that the oil companies themselves 
decide? Or is the true value of the oil the market price that one would 
pay if they actually purchased a barrel of oil? I agree with the 
Interior Department that the oil companies must base their royalty 
payments on the market price.
  Currently, oil companies themselves determine the value of the oil 
and pay a royalty based on that value. The value determined by the 
companies is called the posted price and merely reflects offers by 
purchasers to buy oil from a specific area. It is just an offer to buy 
and does not represent any actual sale of oil.
  Now you may be hearing from the oil companies that this proposed 
system is unfair and that it harms the small independent producers. The 
Department of Interior has informed me that the new regulations will 
only increase royalty payments for 5% of all the companies. This 5% is 
not your mom and pop operations--this is Shell, Chevron, Exxon, Texaco, 
Mobil, Marathon and Conoco. This is the large integrated companies that 
trade with their affiliates and have no actual sale of oil.
  You may also hear from my colleagues that the oil companies are 
hurting. With oil prices the lowest they've been in decades, how can we 
increase their royalties? This isn't about increasing the royalties, 
this is about the American public getting their fair share--whatever 
the value. And with the Interior Department's proposed regulations, as 
oil prices fall, so does the royalty. It's all based on the market.
  So in summation, to guarantee taxpayers a fair royalty payment in the 
future, the Interior Department proposed a simple and common sense 
solution: pay royalties based on actual market prices, not estimates 
the oil companies themselves make up. The new rule was proposed over 3 
years ago. Since that time, the Department has held 14 public workshops 
and published 7 separate requests for industry comments on this rule--
and three more public workshops are scheduled in the next month. High 
level Interior officials have met with Members of Congress and industry 
on several occasions and have made several changes to the regulations 
to address industry's concerns.
  At some point the negotiating must stop and the Interior Department 
must be allowed to move forward with this fair rule.
  This rider is outrageous. It saves the wealthiest oil companies in 
the world millions of dollars while shortchanging taxpayers and, in the 
case of California, our schoolchildren which is where my state's oil 
royalty payments go. What does this say about our nation's priorities?
  The Interior Department's proposed regulations are fair and they are 
accurate. They are not based on the subjectivity of the big oil 
companies, but are based on actual market prices.
  It is time that we end this flawed system of calculating royalties 
and move to an objective, market driven system. The Department of 
Interior has spent much time developing an equitable system and we 
should allow it to move forward.

[[Page 5175]]

  While I am not offering my amendment this time, I am here to say that 
this cheating must stop and these riders must stop. Let the Interior 
Department do its job and move forward with these regulations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbit, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                The Secretary of the Interior,

                                       Washington, March 18, 1999.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to call on you and your 
     colleagues to delete from the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency 
     Supplemental appropriations legislation the Senate provision 
     extending the moratorium prohibiting the Department of the 
     Interior from issuing a final rulemaking on the royalty 
     valuation of crude oil until October 1, 1999.
       Prior to a series of congressionally imposed moratoria, the 
     Department was prepared to publish a final rule on oil 
     valuation on June 1, 1998. On March 4, 1999, I announced that 
     the Department would reopen the comment period for the 
     federal oil valuation rule. On March 12, 1999, we formally 
     reopened the comment period and announced a series of public 
     workshops to discuss the rule in Houston, Texas, Albuquerque, 
     New Mexico, and Washington, D.C.
       We are committed to a constructive dialogue over the next 
     few weeks as we seek new ideas that can help move the 
     rulemaking process forward while ensuring that the public 
     receives fair value for the production of its resources. 
     Extension of the current moratorium, which ends on June 1, 
     1999, will not be conducive to constructive discussions.
       Any action that further delays implementation of a final 
     rule on oil valuation causes losses to the Federal Treasury 
     of about $5.3 million per month. States, which use this money 
     for education and infrastructure development, lose about 
     $200,000 per month. In addition, potential delay of the 
     proposed Indian oil valuation rule could cost Indian tribes 
     and individual Indian mineral owners about $300,000 per 
     month.
       We urge you to delete the moratorium proposal and allow the 
     rulemaking process to proceed. The process we have set in 
     motion will ensure full and open consideration of all new 
     ideas for resolving the concerns that have been raised and 
     will lead to a solution that best meets the interests of the 
     American public.
       As you are aware, the Statement of Administration Policy on 
     the Emergency Supplemental states that the President's senior 
     advisers would recommend that he veto the legislation if it 
     is presented with currently included offsets and 
     objectionable riders.
       Thank you for your continued involvement in this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Babbitt.


          transfer of supplemental cdbg money from hud to fema

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Bond, the Chairman of the VA/HUD Subcommittee, in a 
colloquy.
  Senator Bond, you and I and the other members of the Northeast 
delegation have been working, for over a year now, to ensure that Maine 
and the Northeast have their needs from the January 1998 Ice Storm 
which devastated much of New England and upstate New York addressed.
  Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. It has been almost a year and I 
know that we are both extremely frustrated that we are still wrestling 
with using emergency CDBG funds for appropriations needs.
  Ms. COLLINS. You have been a real champion for our state of Maine and 
of our efforts to ensure that the money this Senate appropriated went 
to alleviate some of the costs from the Ice Storm which could not be 
covered by FEMA.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's kind words. I did a colloquy on 
the Senate floor last March on this issue with the then junior Senator 
from New York, Mr. D'Amato outlining the funding needs of the 
Northeast. In this colloquy we outlined the history of the funding 
including the significant needs of Maine and New England.
  In fact, as we both discussed at that time, the Ice Storm, as the 
first big storm of the year, was the impetus for us to provide 
supplemental funding to the CDBG program to help Maine and other states 
cover the costs of the disaster where FEMA wasn't able to assist.
  Ms. COLLINS. For those that did not experience it, the devastation 
this storm caused in Maine is hard to imagine. Thick ice, in some cases 
up to ten inches thick, encased virtually every inch of the state and 
decimated our electric infrastructure. As a result of the Herculean 
efforts of hundreds of utility crews, power was restored to Maine after 
17 long days. Like other Americans who have suffered natural disasters, 
Mainers need this assistance to recover from the costs incurred from 
the devastating blow nature dealt us.
  Mr. BOND. As the Senator and I have discussed, I remain very 
concerned by HUD's treatment of Maine and the other Northeast states, 
especially the fact that initial funding was not provided until six 
months after last year's supplemental bill was enacted, and the fact 
that I have yet to receive an acceptable explanation from HUD as to the 
funding formula used to allocate the money. The Northeast's experience 
is one of several reasons why the bill before us today transfers the 
money to FEMA.
  Ms. COLLINS. It is my sincere hope that FEMA will expedite this 
process and provide to Maine the assistance it has been promised by the 
current Administration and has been in need of for over one year. I 
wish to thank the Senator from Missouri for his continuing efforts on 
behalf of the people of Maine. He has truly been a champion in this 
long process, and his cooperation is greatly appreciated by the people 
of Maine.


      ENVIRONMENTAL RIDERS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns 
regarding two troubling sections of S. 544, the Supplemental 
Appropriations bill. Section 2002 further delays the promulgation of 
new regulations governing the management of hardrock mineral mining 
operations on federal public lands. Section 2005 extends the moratorium 
on the issuance of new regulations by the Minerals Management Service 
regarding oil valuation. I hope that all provisions which adversely 
affect the implementation of environmental law, or change federal 
environmental policy, will be removed from this legislation when it 
returns to the floor.
  I want to note, before I describe my concerns in detail, that this is 
not the first time that I have expressed concerns regarding legislative 
riders in appropriations legislation that would have a negative impact 
on our nation's environment.
  Mr. President, for more than two decades, we have seen a remarkable 
bipartisan consensus on protecting the environment through effective 
environmental legislation and regulation. I believe we have a 
responsibility to the American people to protect the quality of our 
public lands and resources. That responsibility requires that I express 
my strong distaste for legislative efforts to include proposals in 
spending bills that weaken environmental laws or prevent potentially 
beneficial environmental regulations from being promulgated by the 
federal agencies that carry out federal law.
  Mr. President, the people of Wisconsin continue to express their 
grave concern that, when riders are placed in spending bills, major 
decisions regarding environmental protection are being made without the 
benefit of an up or down vote.
  Wisconsinites have a very strong belief that Congress has a 
responsibility to discuss and publicly debate matters affecting the 
environment. We should be on record with regard to our position on this 
matter of open government and environmental stewardship.
  Mr. President, I have particular concerns regarding Section 2002. I 
think this rider is another attempt to move us away from implementing 
new mining regulations. This is the third time, in as many years, that 
a rider has been put forward on this matter. The rider, as drafted, 
would delay the regulatory process for at least an additional 120 days 
beyond the final rider compromise language in the Omnibus bill which 
passed in October 1999. The Omnibus language says that the regulations 
can not be issued before September 30, 1999. There is no basis for 
arguing that the Interior Department would not have time to review the 
on-going National Academy of Sciences study on this topic, which the 
Omnibus language required to be completed by July 31, 1999.

[[Page 5176]]

  The ``3809'' mining regulations, as they are called, are the 
environmental rules that govern hardrock mining on publicly owned 
lands.
  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to ``take any action necessary, by regulation 
or otherwise, to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation on the 
federal lands.'' The regulations in question are the Bureau of Land 
Management's promulgated in response to the requirements of this 
federal law.
  The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill mining rider blocks 
the issuance of the final 3809 regulations certainly through the end of 
the fiscal year. The language further blocks the Administration from 
spending funds to seek public input on its new draft regulations until 
after the National Academy of Sciences issues its on-going study 
examining the adequacy of the existing patchwork of fedeal and state 
mining rules, as I mentioned earlier.
  The rules are important, Mr. President, and so is the need to update 
them. Mining technologies, according to the Interior Department, have 
outgrown existing safeguards. The original regulations, released in 
1981, have never been revised. Since that time, the mining industry has 
widely adopted new extraction technologies which raise environmental 
questions and concerns. One such technique, which caused grave concern 
two years ago in my state when it was proposed for use on private lands 
in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, was the use of sulfuric acid 
mining.
  In addition, Mr. President, existing regulations also need to allow 
the BLM to balance the fact that multiple activities take place on 
lands before permitting new mines. In determining whether a proposed 
mine is appropriate, BLM is not permitted to take into account other 
land uses that would be displaced by mining.
  Finally, I believe that existing regulations don't do enough to 
require meaningful cleanup. Currently there is no requirement to 
restore mined lands to pre-mining conditions and they leave taxpayers 
paying for the mining industry's mistakes. To address this issue, I 
recently introduced legislation to repeal the percentage depletion 
allowance for mining on public lands and I set aside a portion of the 
increased revenue to be used to create an Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
fund. Any clean-up fund, however, needs good clean-up standards to put 
it to use.
  In conclusion, I think that continued delay of these regulations is 
indefensible, and certainly inappropriate as part of a supplemental 
bill.


                      crop insurance requirements

 Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to thank Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl 
for agreeing to my amendment to provide fairness to the administration 
of the crop disaster program enacted by Congress last Fall. I also wish 
to thank Senator Harkin for his interest in this issue.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator for his remarks and would like to 
engage him and other Senators in a discussion regarding the purpose of 
the Senator's amendment and the overall policy considerations attached 
to it. When Congress enacted farm disaster legislation last Fall, we 
recognized the dire circumstances of farmers from both natural and 
economic conditions. Not only did that legislation recognize the 
problems farmers faced in 1998, but it also dealt with problems farmers 
have had over the past several years. From a policy perspective, it is 
well recognized that a sound, reliable risk management program, which 
includes crop insurance, needs to be established to avoid the 
inherently unfair and unpredictable ad hoc disaster programs of years 
past.
  The amendment by the Senator from Alabama recognizes that crop 
insurance is available to farmers through both federally reinsured 
policies and policies based solely by private companies. His amendment 
modifies language included in last year's omnibus appropriations bill 
regarding the requirement that the Secretary not discriminate or 
penalize producers who have taken out crop insurance by stating the 
requirement applies to both federally reinsured policies and those 
offered solely by private companies. We all recognize the difficult 
times facing farmers and we want to see all farmers treated fairly and 
equally.
  It is equally important that we do not take steps that inadvertently 
undermine our overall objectives for both long-term farm policy and 
immediate administration of the pending disaster payments. In accepting 
the amendment by the Senator from Alabama, we hope to continue a 
dialogue with him and other Senators as we approach conference to 
ensure the amendment is in the best interest of farmers.
  Mr. HARKIN. I also want to thank the Senator from Alabama for his 
remarks and I want to associate myself with the remarks by my friend 
from Wisconsin. It is clearly our objective to make the administration 
of farm program as fair as possible, recognizing the geographical 
differences of agriculture in America.
  Senator Kohl is correct in his observation that farmers need and 
deserve a reliable risk management program that will not be tied to the 
political winds of any given year. For that reason, we must do all we 
can to improve and promote the availability of crop insurance products 
to farmers across the country. I point out to my colleagues that 
farmers could have purchased federal catastrophic coverage for a cost 
of fifty dollars to cover an entire crop. That is a bargain and I am 
still troubled by the reluctance of some farmers to invest in that 
minimal amount. Had a farmer made that simple investment in recent 
years, the amendment by the Senator from Alabama would not be 
necessary.
  I am also concerned, as is Senator Kohl, about the effect this 
amendment may have on administration of the pending farm disaster 
program. Secretary Glickman came under criticism lately when he 
announced that payments to farmers would not begin until this summer. I 
admonish my colleagues that we must take no action that would 
exacerbate that problem. Farmers in Iowa, in Wisconsin, and in Alabama 
all need assistance sooner rather than later.
  Mr. KOHL. I agree with the remarks by my friend from Iowa and I would 
like to further note that farmers in Wisconsin are equally in need of 
assistance immediately. As we approach conference, I hope to stay in 
close contact with all interested Senators to ensure that nothing is 
done to overwhelm the Department's administration of the disaster 
program by imposing a new series of control and verification 
requirements. We want to be responsive to all Senators' interests, but 
we know farmers are looking for a responsive, and timely disaster 
program. As some have noted, many farmers believe we are past the 
period of a proper and timely response.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I join my colleagues in approving the amendment by the 
Senator from Alabama and agree that we must proceed in a fair manner 
that will not disrupt the delivery of disaster payments to farmers. 
There is need for immediate and necessary relief from natural and 
economic losses. I will continue to work with the Senator from Alabama 
and my colleagues from Wisconsin and Iowa in order to address the 
concerns they have raised.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Again, I thank the Senators.
  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. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________