[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7302-7307]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 1141, 1999 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
                           APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1141) making emergency 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1999, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H.R. 
1141) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, be instructed to 
disagree with the across the board reduction of funds appropriated with 
an emergency designation in division B of Public Law 105-277 in the 
Senate amendment, having the effect of reducing by 44 percent funds 
made available for counter drug activities, antiterrorism programs 
including security enhancements at U.S. embassies, Y2K computer 
upgrades, Plutonium disposition and Uranium purchase, the Coast Guard, 
Domestic Disaster Assistance, Child Survival, and other emergencies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me say that in the handling of this supplemental 
appropriation, the Republican majority in this House has given us a 
case study in how not to proceed. It seems that virtually every time we 
have an emergency which this Congress is asked to fund, we are being 
asked by the majority caucus to do one of two things: either to do 
nothing, or to blow up agreements which had just been reached in the 
previous year's budget bill by finding offsets to pay for emergency 
items designated by the administration.
  Madam Speaker, I would simply observe that if the provisions of the 
previous year's budget were so easy to reformat, it would not have 
taken the majority party 2 months into the new fiscal year before they 
got their work done last year. The decisions that were

[[Page 7303]]

arrived at in the budget last year were extremely hard to reach.
  When the administration first provided its request to this Congress 
to respond to the emergency events in Central America with the greatest 
natural disaster we had in this century, and when they asked us to deal 
with what is an emerging emergency in farm country, at first the 
Committee on Appropriations, under the chairmanship of the gentleman 
from Florida, produced a proposal which would have had the bipartisan 
support of this House. It was an honest, practical, sensible way to 
proceed. We thought we had a bipartisan agreement.
  Then what happened is that contrary signals were sent from the House 
leadership to the committee leadership. They said no, throw out that 
approach and identify offsets, so these items will be funded on a 
nonemergency basis.
  What the House did, in my view, was to come up with offsets which 
could not be more misguided if we had conducted a seminar on how to 
make mistakes. So we were asked by the majority party to eliminate 
funding which is necessary for us to have on the table in order to 
begin discussion with the Russians about how to secure plutonium now in 
the hands of the Russians so that it does not fall into the hands of 
terrorists or rogue Nation's, and I think that is a pretty important 
initiative.
  Yet we are being asked to sandbag the ability of the administration 
to begin those discussions by taking that money out. We are also being 
asked to take out money which the Congress had previously appropriated 
for callable capital to the international financial institutions, an 
act which has caused our Secretary of the Treasury to become extremely 
concerned about the long-term instability which that could bring in 
dealing with many of our international economic problems.
  In my judgment, those provisions were dumb enough, but then when this 
proposal went to the Senate, we saw a congressional version of the 
movie Dumb and Dumber. What they proceeded to do was to suggest that we 
ought to cut 43 percent from a number of other items in the budget last 
year, items which just a few months ago both parties thought were 
important enough to include in the budget.
  They suggested that we cut, or the Senate amendment suggested we cut 
$973 million in funding to correct the Y2K computer problem, which 
plagues many government agencies, as well as many private businesses.

                              {time}  1030

  They suggest that we cut more than $200 million from various 
antiterrorism activities, including $9.3 million in antiterrorism 
efforts of the FBI and $43 million from the antiterrorism efforts of 
the Federal Aviation Administration to prevent bombings and other acts 
of violence against commercial airlines and their passengers.
  It cuts $288 million from antidrug efforts, including reductions in 
enforcement activities of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Coast Guard, 
and the Customs Service. It would have us cut more than $600 million 
for the improvement of security at U.S. embassies overseas just 1 month 
after the administration was chastised in three hearings on this side 
of the Hill for not putting enough money in that item.
  I have seen people fall off both sides of the same horse, but never 
at the same moment. Yet, that is what this Congress is doing by the 
actions that the Senate is trying to take on this conference report. It 
just seems to me that we ought to resist what they are doing.
  We have an emergency in Kosovo, and we are hoping that that will be 
dealt with on a bipartisan basis. We have also had an emergency in our 
own backyard in the Caribbean with the worst natural disaster that has 
occurred in this century, and we are trying to do something about that.
  We are being told that we are going to take 20,000 refugees from 
Kosovo to try to relieve that situation, and yet we face the prospect 
of having many times that number of refugees inundate our own country 
because of the economic collapse that is attendant to the natural 
disaster which occurred in Central America.
  Yet that funding is not being called an emergency and it is being 
delayed by actions taken by this House and the actions taken by the 
other body. It just seems to me that we ought to recognize an emergency 
when we see it.
  We cannot do much today about the fact that the House has already 
adopted what I consider to be incredibly ill-advised and misguided and 
certainly, in the case of the Russian plutonium item, a spectacularly 
destructive act. We cannot prevent the fact that the House has already 
done that in voting for the offsets that it has voted on. But we 
certainly should not compound the problem as the Senate amendment does.
  So, very simply, what this motion does is ask the House to go on 
record asking the conferees to reject that Senate amendment so that we 
are not in the ludicrous position of blocking efforts to fix the Y2K 
computer problems, that we are not in a position of cutting off drug 
funding, funding about which many Members of this body just a couple 
months ago were posing for holy pictures, trying to show who is most 
for drug control efforts.
  So I would simply say, I do not know any reason why any Member of 
either party would oppose this motion. We are going to have strong 
debates in the conference about the ill-advised offsets which this 
House adopted. But I would think that the House would at least agree 
that the Senate amendments which were adopted were at least as equally 
ill-advised and would agree that they ought to be rejected by the 
conference.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I agree on 
the need to move this bill quickly. We are dealing with a true 
emergency in Central America.
  Immediately upon recognizing the result of Hurricane Mitch, American 
armed forces were sent to Central America, and they did a tremendous 
humanitarian job. They saved lives. They pulled people out of swollen 
rivers. They helped get people out of the mud. They helped people get 
water that they could drink, and they improved sanitary conditions. The 
United States military did an outstanding job in Hurricane Mitch, but 
there is more to be done.
  As one of their good neighbors who spent billions of dollars in the 
late 1970's and early 1980's to stop communism from taking over that 
part of the world, which was a successful effort, by the way, I might 
say, we now have an obligation to help our friends and neighbors when 
they are in a real time of need.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I do not disagree too 
much on what we included in the bill for the obligations that needed to 
be met with the funding that we did include in this bill.
  We did have some differences on whether or not the spending should be 
offset by reducing other accounts in our Federal budget. The decision 
was made to offset all but the military part of this bill, and we did 
that.
  We had already seen the offsets provided by the other body when we 
developed our bill. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, we 
disagreed with the offsets suggested by the other body, and so we 
developed our own list of offsets. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and I disagree somewhat on some of those.
  But, Madam Speaker, the important thing is we need to get this bill 
moving. We need to get to conference. In conference, we will have great 
debates, especially about the offsets in this proposal. But we need to 
get it done, and we can't get it done until we appoint the conferees 
today.
  I have no objection to the motion that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) has offered because I agree with him. We do not agree with 
the offsets that the other body used. There will be, as I said, some 
vigorous debate on this issue. But, Madam Speaker, I do not object to 
this motion today, and

[[Page 7304]]

I would hope that the House could expedite our consideration of it, and 
move on to its next regular piece of business.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this motion to instruct conferees and that I may 
include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time and for bringing this motion to instruct to the 
floor.
  I am pleased to hear that the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations has no objection to the motion to instruct and would 
not agree to the Senate offsets. I wish he would not agree to the House 
offsets as well.
  The reason we are here having this discussion, as the Speaker knows, 
is that, according to the budget rules, when there is an emergency 
funding bill, an emergency supplemental, we do not have to have 
offsets.
  What is an emergency? Well, many of us think that the greatest 
natural disaster in this hemisphere in this century, Hurricane Mitch, 
was thousands and thousands of people losing their lives, millions of 
people losing their homes and their jobs. The economy is wiped out in 
Central America. We think that constitutes an emergency. By any 
measure, it is more of an emergency than most bills we have called 
emergencies, most of the situations we have called emergencies before.
  It was our understanding, going into the bill, that the distinguished 
leadership of the Committee on Appropriations of the subcommittee and 
the full committee did not see the necessity for offsets. But 
instructions from the Republican leadership were to have offsets.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has very eloquently described 
the consequences of some of the offsets in the House bill relating to 
plutonium, relating to callable capital, thrusting uncertainty on the 
international financial institutions.
  But this motion to instruct is about not making matters worse by 
having the House conferees not agree to the Senate offsets, which, as I 
say, would only make matters worse.
  So here we are in a situation where ordinarily we would not need 
offsets, but this time the Republican leadership has foisted them upon 
the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations.
  We have a bill coming up soon for Kosovo where I hope we will not 
have offsets. It is hard to explain the inconsistencies in how we deal 
with these emergencies.
  We agree that we must move this along, as the distinguished chairman 
said. But in order to do that, we have to have some very serious, 
mature conversations about these offsets.
  I just want to convey to the House briefly some of the consequences 
of this delay that has been caused by this debate on the offset, this 
departure from the regular order in terms of funding an emergency 
supplemental bill.
  Most of the world seems to have forgotten, because other events have 
begun to eclipse what has happened in Central America. It is the fate 
of the Central American countries who suffered the devastation of 
Hurricane Mitch.
  It is now the end of April, 6 months after Hurricane Mitch struck, 
and none of the sorely needed reconstruction assistance has been 
approved by Congress. This is an emergency. AID and the Defense 
Department were able to respond to the immediate needs and restore 
basic health and sanitation to the devastated areas. However, in doing 
so, they are using existing resources that have been exhausted.
  I associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), our distinguished chairman, when he talks and sings in 
praise of the work of the DOD and the U.S. military in Central America 
and their assistance there. They are to be praised; the situation would 
have been much worse without them. We are very proud of their effort.
  But it is hard to understand why the money going to the DOD does not 
need to be offset, but all the other spending on Hurricane Mitch needs 
to be offset, again, another inconsistency.
  To be more precise, several of the major NGOs operating in Honduras, 
such as CARE, the Catholic Relief Service, and Save the Church are 
running out of funding, really momentarily. The major Food for Work 
program under way in Honduras has run out of food to pay its workers.
  One hundred thousand small-scale farms will not receive credit or 
inputs for the first crop of basic grains, corn, bean, and rice as the 
planting season gets under way.
  Planting season is now upon us, and many farmers are without seeds to 
begin their first major crop since the hurricane. Low yields on the 
first crop will of course continue the food shortages and increase the 
emergency food requirements.
  Over 2,940 miles of roads and 300 bridges destroyed by the hurricane 
remain unusable. No significant funding has been provided to begin this 
rebuilding. Without funds for infrastructure or agricultural recovery, 
the over 100,000 laborers displaced by the hurricane will remain 
unemployed or underemployed. This increases pressure on migration to 
the U.S.
  Roughly 200,000 school kids have no schools or are managing in open-
air facilities. Over 1,700 schools were destroyed by the hurricane, and 
little funding to rebuild them has been made available.
  Over 700 health clinics, providing the most basic of health services 
to the impoverished area, were destroyed. The chances for the 
recurrence or the spread of epidemics for malaria, cholera and dengue 
fever increases as the recovery of health systems delayed.
  Congress needs to act now to make this funding available. It is in 
fact long overdue. We want an economic recovery in Central America. We 
do need to provide some assistance to spur that along. We should be 
doing it without offsets. Certainly we should do it without the Senate 
offsets.
  It is in that regard that I once again commend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his leadership in bringing this very 
enlightened motion to instruct to the floor, and I am delighted that 
the distinguished gentleman (Mr. Young) has no objection to it.
  Let us move forward, keep our promises to our Latin American 
neighbors and relieve their plight as we move forward. We must move 
now.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding me the time, and I rise in support, very strong 
support of this motion to instruct. I am not surprised that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is not objecting to this motion, and 
I congratulate the chairman on his leadership.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks both that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made earlier and that the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) has just made.
  With respect to offsets and with respect to the necessity to move the 
supplemental as quickly as possible both for our farmers and for those 
victims of Mitch, we have, as the gentlewoman indicated, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) may have referenced as well, some 800,000-plus people.
  We see the pictures of refugees in Albania and in Macedonia being 
created by the violence and, from my perspective, war crimes being 
committed by

[[Page 7305]]

the Milosevic army. But having said that, we also know that there are 
other reasons to support this motion to instruct.

                              {time}  1045

  I want to specifically refer to the Y2K emergency fund that was put 
in, the supplemental that we proposed last year, or the omnibus bill we 
appropriated last year, some $2.25 billion for nondefense agencies to 
make sure their critical computer systems are Year 2000 compliant. The 
motion that the Senate adopted would cut that by 44 percent. Quite 
obviously, that would have a devastating effect on all the other 
programs, but as well on the Y2K, which all of us, all of us, admit is 
an emergency.
  There is not a day that goes by that we do not hear on our 
televisions or our radio or read in our newspapers about the issue of 
Y2K. Are we, on December 31 of 1999, going to have our computer 
systems, which are involved in almost everything we rely on on a daily 
basis, going to recognize the change and be able to ensure that the 
systems remain operative as they should? Obviously most critical, I 
suppose, with the FAA airplanes flying, but to so many other systems, 
large and small.
  On the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government of the Committee on Appropriations, we tried in a bipartisan 
manner to enact the critical appropriation as an emergency fiscal year 
1998 supplemental. But we were continually told by the leadership to 
wait until the end of the year. Unfortunately, now the Senate has 
waited until well into the fiscal year and are proposing a 44 percent 
cut.
  Madam Speaker, I am hopeful that not only will this motion to 
instruct prevail, which I presume it is going to, but also that the 
Senate, in conference, will see the wisdom of this motion to instruct 
and will not only reconsider this amendment to cut by 44 percent those 
supplemental funds but will, in addition, also see the necessity, the 
emergency of reconsidering their requirement for offsets. And that on 
those matters that are truly emergency, which we believe the 
supplemental is, we will move ahead without political rancor, without 
debate about offsets, to see that our farmers, those ravaged by an act 
of God such as Mitch, and those as well ravaged by war and by genocide 
will all be given the help of this Nation and of our people as quickly 
as possible.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Let me simply say in closing, Madam Speaker, that I think this 
Congress needs to recognize that we are facing a genuine emergency in 
the consideration of this bill. A bunch of people wearing suits on the 
floor of the House of Representatives, or sport coats, might not think 
that there is an emergency in farm country, but real live dirt farmers 
see the fact that world farm prices are at near record low levels; they 
see that commercial lenders are refusing to extend the credit that is 
necessary in many instances for farmers to proceed with planting; and 
they understand why the President thought that this was an emergency 
and so designated it.
  I would simply note that it is now the latter part of April and we 
are just now talking about going to conference on this legislation. It 
is getting dangerously late for those American farmers. And I would say 
the situation in Central America is also pressing.
  Now, many people will ask why should we provide emergency funding 
because of the Hurricane Mitch problems in Central America. I would 
simply make the following observation.
  We spent almost $9 billion in countering what we thought was a 
military threat in Central America through the funding of the Contras, 
through the funding of military aid and economic aid to El Salvador and 
a number of other Central American countries when they were having 
military problems. But we now run the danger of ignoring what is 
happening in that region at a time when something is going on which is 
just as destabilizing and in fact could be more so than the military 
confrontations that were taking place just a few short years ago.
  Polls have shown that almost 10 percent of the population of 
Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador are thinking about leaving their 
countries and moving north because of the devastation caused by that 
hurricane. If that happens, we could see over a million people trying 
to work their way up, either legally or illegally, into this country. 
If people have a choice of simply standing in the rain or walking in 
the rain, they are going to start walking north. That could cost this 
country as much as $7,000 a child for every child who comes into this 
country.
  And so it seems to me even if we do not want to focus on the 
humanitarian obligations we have to our neighbors, it seems to me at 
least we have a self-interest reason for moving this legislation on and 
recognizing it for the emergency that it really is.
  I would urge adoption of the amendment and a recognition that, in 
general, the offsets which are being proposed both by this body and the 
other body are ill-advised, counterproductive, and in some cases 
downright dangerous.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and want to thank him for his leadership on bringing this motion 
to the House.
  I felt compelled to speak on this because of the condition of rural 
America and the fact that again we are encountering delay in the 
consideration of this legislation; more amendments being offered in the 
other body, slowing down a very important supplemental package that 
contains many items relating to assistance for Central America and 
Hurricane Mitch, but equally important for the farmers here in this 
country.
  There is a literal depression that is affecting our country from 
coast to coast among people who are hard-working, taxpaying Americans, 
and this Congress is incapable of clearing a bill quickly to help the 
American people who so desperately need it.
  I find it completely ironic that now we here in the House have to 
instruct the conferees to go back to the other body and say, no, we do 
not want this amendment either because they are dipping into cuts in 
other accounts that deal with Y2K and other programs, but tucked under 
all of that is this giant need in rural America where farmers are being 
put at the end of the line waiting as Congress dithers more, is unable 
to reach any kind of conclusion, and we have to have more delays.
  So, to me, I will support the motion to instruct simply as an act of 
protest against the inability of this institution to protect the 
American people's interests. Frankly, I am very much interested in us 
being internationally involved and doing what is responsible elsewhere, 
but the point is that rural America is in depression and we are acting 
like nothing is happening.
  I just wish every tractor would come back to Washington and surround 
this place and make the leadership of this institution and the other 
body responsible for what is happening. Farm income is going to drop 
another 20 percent this year. USDA has used up all of its emergency 
loan authority. Credit is not being extended this spring. Seed 
companies back home are holding debt from last year.
  Now is planting season, my colleagues. Spring has been in existence 
for over a month now and we cannot bring a bill out of this Congress. 
Where is the leadership of this institution and the other body in 
trying to meet the real needs of the American people, which are urgent? 
For the life of me I do not understand. To me, it is a disgrace that we 
have to debate these kinds of amendments that are being loaded on over 
in the Senate and not clear that portion of the bill which is so 
desperately needed by our own people.
  I want to thank the ranking member on our full committee, the 
gentleman

[[Page 7306]]

from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), whose State is as heavily affected as my 
own, as well as every other Member here who understands the pain of the 
rural countryside today, what has happened to prices, as we sit here on 
our haunches and are unable to clear a bill. I ask again, where is the 
leadership in this body and in the other one to recognize the pain of 
the rural countryside?
  Please support the motion to instruct and, more importantly, disgorge 
the farm portion of this bill and get it moving.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, having been led to believe there 
was not to be any debate on this motion, I yielded back my time. But at 
this time I ask unanimous consent that I may reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I did believe that we were not to have any debate here so that we 
could expedite this motion and get on with the rest of the business of 
the House. But I would like to respond again, as I said earlier, we did 
not agree with the Senate offsets in the bill. That is why I am willing 
to support this motion that does not agree with the Senate offsets. 
There has been sufficient leadership in the House on this measure to 
move this to conference, and we will move it to conference quickly.
  The gentlewoman is right, there has been a little bit of a delay on 
the part of the other body. I met with the majority leader of the 
Senate yesterday and discussed that issue and we are prepared to move 
expeditiously.
  There will be differences, even among those of us who are conferees, 
on the House offsets. But what I have to tell my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, we made a determination that we were going to, 
except for true national defense emergencies, offset the spending 
bills.
  Now, when we dealt with disasters in our own country just a few years 
back, we offset the money that we spent for those disasters. In fact, 
one of the sources for those offsets was one of the offsets that the 
other side objects to now.
  So we will work this out, but I would hope that we would keep this 
from becoming a partisan political issue. I am attempting to move the 
appropriations bills in such a way that they relate to the needs of the 
country and to move them as expeditiously as possible under the House 
rules.
  So we are prepared to do this, and we are prepared to accept this 
motion today. I would suggest that I am ready to vote if the gentleman 
from Wisconsin is ready to vote.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I am informed now that I have one additional request for time, and 
then that will be the last person I yield to on this side on this 
issue.
  I just think the record is clear and we need to be reminded of it. 
This side has not made this supplemental a partisan issue. This side 
made clear to the gentleman that we were willing to support, on a 
bipartisan basis, his initial recommendations that he intended to make 
to the committee and to the House on how we ought to proceed on this 
supplemental, because the gentleman did correctly recognize that this 
was an emergency which should be funded on an emergency basis.
  It was then the gentleman's caucus or his leadership, I am not sure 
which, who then instructed the majority side of the Committee on 
Appropriations to take a different route and, instead of seeking common 
ground with the President and us on this issue, they produced a 
proposal which they knew we would not buy.
  I am sorry, but I believe it is downright stupid and dangerous for us 
to take off the table the money which we need in order to negotiate a 
settlement with the Russians that will remove the possibility that 
weapons-grade plutonium, which is now in their hands, will be diverted 
to other far more dangerous hands.

                              {time}  1100

  It is stupid and ridiculous for this House to take that position, and 
yet that is one of the offsets that this House decided to impose on the 
President. At the very time that we are talking about trying to get the 
Russians to help in solving the Yugoslav mess, they are yanking off the 
table the principal carrot that we have to reach agreement on the 
disposal of the most dangerous material in the universe.
  Now, there is nothing partisan about that, but there is something 
very stupid about it. And that is why we are opposed to what the House 
did. We regret the fact that a proposal, which started out to be 
bipartisan because of the wise and correct judgments of the gentleman, 
have now been turned into something else by the determination of the 
Republican leadership of this House to have yet another unnecessary 
fight with the President.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Let me just say in the 1 minute that I have, this is in the national 
interest of the United States. Forget about being humanitarian and 
helping Central Americans, which we want to do.
  Do we want to see a million people who have no home and no place to 
work and have nothing to lose? They will come north; that is their 
mission if they have no opportunity, no hope. Do we want to see disease 
spread? It will spread north. Do we want to see the drug cartels take 
over regions that otherwise have no other hope? They will do that.
  It is in the national interest of the United States to provide this 
funding, to have done so already. The rainy season starts. A million 
people who have nothing to lose. It is in the national interest of the 
United States to do this.
  But our Republican friends have proposed those provisions that are 
impossible to accept as offsets to the supplemental. Imagine in the 
Senate having domestic drug programs cut at a time that the drug 
cartels are even moving more forcefully forward.
  So I support the amendment of the gentleman, but our cause and our 
case is that this is an emergency. We have got a million people right 
to the south of us and they need help now and we are languishing with 
this. We need to move it and move it now.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to suggest that if the worst thing the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) calls me during the balance of the appropriations 
process this year is stupid, I will be happy because there are other 
things that will be mentioned.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I did not call him stupid, and I do not 
believe him to be stupid. I called the action taken by this House 
stupid, and I stand by that statement.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I must 
respond that offsetting spending when we are trying to balance the 
Federal budget is not stupid. When we have a national debt that has 
debt service that is equal to or exceeds what we invest in our only 
national security, it is not stupid to try to do something about that 
debt and to try to balance the budget.
  And if we are going to spend on one hand without taking the budget 
into a deficit situation, we have got to take it away somewhere else. 
And we cannot go visiting around the world dropping off commitments for 
money for one thing or another without even consulting with the 
Congress and expect the Congress to just pay the bill when it gets 
here.
  Now, that is not partisan either. What it is is trying to be 
responsible and keep the commitment that all of us have made.
  I do not know of anyone, there may be one or two, that have said we 
should not balance the budget. But everyone

[[Page 7307]]

that I know in this House has committed themselves to a balanced 
budget. And you cannot balance the budget by continuing to spend. So we 
take some of the items that are not quite as important as responding to 
the disaster and we offset them.
  Now let me mention what the offset was that the gentleman is so upset 
about. We used as an offset callable capital to the World Bank, 
callable capital which has not been called in over 20 years and that is 
not even important, but callable capital which was the same source that 
was used in this House to offset a disaster appropriations bill. For a 
disaster in the United States in the western part of our country, we 
used callable capital as the offset.
  I know the gentlewoman is shaking her head, but the fact is, the 
Congressional Record has it on record and indicates who voted for that 
amendment by our friend and previous colleague from California (Mr. 
Fazio) to reduce the callable capital for the World Bank by the amount 
needed to offset that bill.
  Now, if that consistency was mentioned before, if we are going to be 
consistent, if callable capital as an offset was okay now, why is it 
not okay now?
  So I think, Madam Speaker, that we have what I think Harry Truman 
called a red herring, but we are going to debate these issues in 
conference and we will come to a resolution and this bill will be 
provided.
  We are not withholding the immediate emergency support that was 
needed in Central America. We did that already. We sent troops and they 
took care of the immediate emergency requirements.
  So, anyway, despite all of this debate and despite this argument, I 
still support the motion made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), and I say we get on about our business and get into conference 
and settle this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414, 
nays 0, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 96]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bonilla
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Engel
     Ford
     Hastings (FL)
     Kasich
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     McKeon
     Moore
     Nussle
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Saxton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Towns
     Weiner

                              {time}  1126

  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 22, 1999, I was unable to 
record a vote by electronic device on roll No. 96. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 96.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Young of Florida, Regula, 
Lewis of California, Porter, Rogers, Skeen, Wolf, Kolbe, Packard, 
Callahan, Walsh, Taylor of North Carolina, Hobson, Obey, Murtha, Dicks, 
Sabo, Hoyer, Mollohan, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Serrano and Mr. 
Pastor.
  There was no objection.




                          ____________________