[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9923-9932]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1141, 1999 
               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 173 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 173

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1141) making emergency supplemental appropriations 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule 
to provide for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
1141, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
1999. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report 
and against its consideration. The rule also provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 173 should not be controversial. It is 
a normal conference report rule, allowing for timely consideration of 
the emergency supplemental bill.
  While I suspect that many of us will have strong opinions about the 
underlying spending bill, let us pass this rule and have the debate on 
the floor.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has described, this rule waives all 
points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1141, 
which is the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for fiscal year 
1999.
  The measure appropriates $15 billion for military operations in 
Kosovo and other defense spending, humanitarian assistance to refugees 
and misplaced persons in the Balkans, hurricane-related relief in 
Central America and the Caribbean, aid to the country of Jordan, 
assistance to U.S. farmers hurt by low commodity prices, tornado 
victims in Oklahoma, Kansas, and for other purposes.
  Most of the spending is considered emergency, and therefore is not 
offset by spending cuts in other programs.
  Mr. Speaker, there is something for everyone in this massive spending 
bill. If Members like the bill, they can find critical programs that 
are funded. If they do not like the bill, they can find wasteful 
spending and harmful cuts.
  I am particularly pleased with the refugee relief and humanitarian 
assistance provided by the measure. The conference agreement includes 
$1.1 billion for international assistance programs, refugee 
resettlement, and State Department funding. This is more than 60 
percent above the level approved by the House.
  I am grateful to the conferees for including $149.2 million in food 
assistance to refugees and misplaced persons in the Balkans through the 
PL-480 Food for Peace program. Failure to include money for this 
program was a serious omission, and I am glad that this has been 
corrected in the conference committee. These funds will ensure America 
provides its share of the food needed in the Balkans through the end of 
the year 2000.
  Equally important, this change follows the longstanding tradition of 
providing food aid through the Food for Peace program, which is an 
established channel that benefits America's farmers. This program has 
proven to be the most effective way to provide the large quantities of 
food essential to any relief effort.
  Including funding for PL-480 food aid is an example of bipartisan 
leadership at its best, and I am particularly grateful to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The measure also includes $2.2 billion for enhancing military 
operations and maintenance, and this will improve the readiness of our 
armed services.
  I am concerned about some of the offsets for nonemergency spending. 
The offsets include cuts in food stamps and Section 8 housing for low-
income individuals. Also, I regret that the conferees rejected a Senate 
proposal to include funding to pay the money the U.S. owes to the 
United Nations for back dues. I think it is a disgrace that our Nation 
has not paid our debt to the U.N., and this bill would have been a good 
vehicle to include that payment.
  On the whole, the conference report represents a good compromise, and 
I say that in a good way. It is much better than the House-passed 
version, and I intend to support it. Though the measure under 
consideration is by no means ordinary, this is the standard rule for 
conference reports.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriations conference report 
contains critically needed resources for our armed forces to assure 
that they continue unchallenged as the finest fighting force in the 
world for the protection of the people and the freedom of the people of 
the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report, among other things, contains aid 
for America's farmers, and it contains humanitarian and development 
assistance for our neighbors in Central America who suffered the recent 
natural disaster known as Hurricane Mitch.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, this Congress today makes a clear demonstration 
of solidarity with and concern for the well-being of our friends and 
neighbors in Central America.

[[Page 9924]]

  I wish at this point to thank all of those who have worked to make 
this a reality, especially the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker 
Hastert), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bill Young), the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and all of the congressional 
leaders who have made this day possible.
  It is a day in the best tradition of the generosity of the American 
people, and I rise to support the rule, as well as the underlying 
legislation.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, said, ``This $15 billion 
bill is about helping people: American farmers, American troops, storm 
victims here in the United States and in Central America; and Balkan 
refugees will all immediately benefit from passage of this essential 
aid package.''
  These are all laudable goals, and I support that. But I want to make 
the point that this $15 billion emergency spending bill also creates an 
emergency for the most vulnerable people right here at home. For those 
who are hungry and homeless right here at home, this bill is a 
disaster.
  What if the American people knew that, in order to fund these 
laudable goals and a bunch of other things in the bill, that we had to 
cut programs for the hungry and homeless and those who are in need of 
subsidized housing?
  The bill cuts $350 million from the Housing and Urban Development 
Section 8 housing program. The HUD says that the loss of this money 
could create the displacement of approximately 60,000 families right 
here at home.
  We are worried, of course we are, about the displacement of people in 
Kosovo. We should be. But we also need to worry about the possible 
displacement of 60,000 families right here at home because of this. It 
creates a longer waiting list of people who need subsidized housing and 
increases the number of families in need who are underserved right here 
at home.
  What if the American people knew that this bill cuts $1.25 billion 
from the food stamp program? I am told that this money is not being 
spent. Does that mean that there are not hungry people right here? No.
  In a 1999 survey of U.S. food banks, a report released in March by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), we discovered that 87 percent of 
the food banks surveyed indicated that requests were up in the last 
year. On average, requests for food assistance outstripped food 
available by 22 percent.
  The Midwest Antihunger Network reports that, in Illinois, that there 
is a drop of 15 sponsors of the summer food service program in 1998. 
This is a nutrition program for low-income children in the summertime. 
These sponsors cited welfare reform cuts in meal disbursement rates 
that Congress instituted among the principal reasons. So there are 
going to be children this summer who do not have food programs. This is 
money that is being cut from the food stamp program in order to fund 
this.
  What if the American people knew some of the things that were being 
funded in this program; that in this supplemental emergency bill, there 
is $5 billion in defense spending above the President's request, $26 
million for Alaska fishermen to compensate for Federal fishing 
restrictions, $3.7 million to renovate homes for congressional pages, 
$3 million for commercial reindeer ranchers, $2.2 million for sewers in 
Salt Lake City for the Olympics, $30 million for renovations to D.C. 
area airports, $422 million above the President's request for farmers 
crippled by low prices.
  This is a piece of legislation that has many needed things and many 
things that we do not need and does create an emergency for our hungry 
and homeless people in need of housing and food right here at home.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we watch the developing human catastrophe taking 
place in the Balkans on our television sets night after night, we must 
not forget that in our own hemisphere our neighbors in Central America 
have undergone a humanitarian crisis of their own, one caused by a 
hurricane which ravaged homes and wiped out entire communities.
  More than 6 months after Hurricane Mitch swept through Central 
America, the region is still waiting for the much-needed funds to 
rebuild their infrastructure and to start healing the wounds that the 
hurricane left long after the rains and the floods have stopped.
  But today we have an opportunity to end their suffering, to help 
revitalize the economies of our neighbors to the south, to give 
children back their schools, families back their homes and their 
churches, communities back their sense of normalcy. The funds are not a 
handout. They are a helping hand to those who have suffered almost 
insurmountable hardships.
  My district in south Florida has experienced the disastrous effects 
of a hurricane. It is not an easy task to rebuild, even less so for 
those who have limited resources on hand. It is within our power and it 
is indeed our duty and responsibility as brothers and sisters in the 
greater hemispheric family to help them with this aid and to stop 
prolonging their suffering.
  Supporting this measure is not only beneficial to Central America but 
to the greater economic stability and prosperity of our hemisphere.
  Under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) with 
this measure, Mr. Speaker, we are helping both American farmers and our 
American troops as well as storm victims here in the U.S. and in 
Central America. I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this rule would authorize a resolution 
that asks for money to support an undeclared war. It would appropriate 
money for bombs, yet Congress has voted against the bombing. It 
appropriates money for ground troops, yet Congress opposes the use of 
troops in Kosovo.
  It contains provisions that will enable the prosecution of a wide war 
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, even though Congress has 
expressly voted not to declare war. This war is without constitutional 
authorization, and it is losing its moral authority as well.
  In the name of helping the refugees, NATO has bombed refugee convoys. 
From the Los Angeles Times a few days ago, I quote: ``Many of the 
refugees in Korisa were asleep when explosions sprayed shrapnel and 
flames everywhere, survivors said. Mattresses left behind in covered 
wagons and in the dirt underneath were soaked with blood.
  ``At least a dozen children were among the dead. An infant buttoned 
up in terry cloth sleepers lay among the corpses that filled the local 
morgue.
  ``Another child was incinerated in a fire that swept through the 
camp. The child's carbonized body was still lying on the ground Friday 
morning beside that of an adult, in the middle of a tangle of farmers' 
tractors and wagons that were still burning 12 hours after the 
attack.''
  NATO and the United States have been bombing villages to save 
villages. NATO and this country have bombed passenger trains, buses, an 
embassy, factories, office buildings. Cluster bombs are raining down 
and maiming and killing countless children.
  Today we are being asked to pay for the bills for this war. We ought 
to put a stop payment on the checks which will be used to kill innocent 
civilians and to wage an undeclared war. We ought to stop the bombing 
and negotiate a withdrawal of Serbian troops and stop the KLA's 
military activities.
  We need an international peacekeeping force in Kosovo as a product of 
a peace agreement. We need to rebuild the province. Our government 
should

[[Page 9925]]

work as vigorously for peace as it does to prosecute a war. This war is 
rapidly becoming a debacle that rivals Vietnam itself.
  We need to stand up and speak out against this war and ask good 
thinking people everywhere to keep the consciousness of peace alive and 
keep working for peace. The people in the State Department ought to 
hear that message first.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but in 
opposition to the emergency supplemental appropriation.
  The President came to us and promised if we approved his plan for 
Bosnia that American participation in the operation would last a year 
and cost about $1 billion. That was nearly 4 years ago and $10 billion 
ago.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who I often quote, has said 
that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over 
again but expecting different results. Well, today we are being asked 
to drop more tax dollars down this bottomless pit. It will lead to tens 
of billions of dollars more being similarly dumped into the Balkans.
  Those voting for this bill should realize their fingerprints will be 
all over this ongoing and misguided commitment. Do not kid yourselves. 
In the end, tens of billions of dollars will be spent in the Balkans, 
and it will come right out of the hide of Social Security and Medicare 
reform, right out of any effort to modestly reduce the tax burden on 
our people, and right out of the hide of our military personnel who are 
being put at risk in other areas of the world where our national 
security interests are at stake, those military personnel who are 
currently being stretched to the point of exhaustion.
  Perhaps the most distasteful part of what we are doing today is that, 
in order to get even limited help to our vulnerable defenders, we are 
being told that we must provide $6 billion more for a military 
operation that is questionable at best.
  Even the money that we originally voted for in this House that was 
supposed to be aimed at improving the overall plight of America's 
military we now find has been reduced to $4.5 billion, which includes 
projects that have nothing to do with our national security or 
improving the lot of our troops and their families.
  Military plus-up dollars will be spent, among other things, on naval 
bases in Portugal, barracks and tank washes in Germany, and base 
improvements throughout Europe. In other words, it is being spent to 
keep us mired in Europe's problems and paying for Europe's defense.
  We have been suckered in again. For decades we have provided Europe's 
defense and got little thanks for it. Now that the Cold War is over, 
they insist that we spend tens of billions of dollars more for their 
stability and that we must reaffirm our commitment, a very expensive 
commitment to their security for decades to come.
  We have done our part for NATO. We have done our part for Europe. Let 
us have the Europeans step forward and carry their own load rather than 
taking it out of the hide of the American people.
  I have no doubt that the Serbs are committing the crimes against the 
people of Kosovo that are claimed. Long ago we should have armed 
freedom-loving and democracy-loving Kosovars so they can defend 
themselves as Ronald Reagan did with the Afghans.
  Instead of giving into the demands of our European buddies, we are 
now carrying the full load. We have given into the demands of our 
European friends, and we end up carrying the full load, leading the 
fight, emptying our Treasury, and recklessly putting our own forces in 
other parts of the world in jeopardy.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues not to associate themselves with 
this irrational and risky strategy, this expensive strategy that is 
draining our Treasury. Do not be blackmailed into supporting this 
poorly conceived Balkan operation, this undeclared war.
  The issues of plussing up our military should be separate from this 
wasting of even more of limited defense dollars on such an adventure as 
we see down in the Balkans.
  Vote against this emergency supplemental. Send a message to our 
European allies. We have carried their burden for too long. Yes, they 
deserve to be applauded for their emotional pleas that something must 
be done, but let them do it.
  Why is it up to the United States to always lead the charge, to empty 
our Treasury, to put our people at risk? This is not a case of a 
dichotomy of either doing nothing and watching the Kosovars go under or 
sending our troops in and spending $50 billion.
  No, we could have helped the Kosovars, or the other option is let the 
Europeans take care of the problem in their own backyard. This is the 
responsible position. It is irresponsible for us to continue spending 
limited defense dollars, stretching our troops out to the point that 
they are vulnerable everywhere, and just taking it out of the hide of 
the American people. I ask for this emergency supplemental to be 
defeated.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, no bill is perfect, as we all know, but 
this bill is less than perfect. This House passed a much cleaner bill. 
Our colleagues in the Senate, although the Speaker and the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee chairman worked 
very hard to take out some of the pork and some of the riders, they did 
not.

                              {time}  1730

  And the facts are we have some environmental riders in this bill that 
are almost beyond our imagination that they are in the bill. There are 
three environmental riders, and I think it is important for our 
colleagues to know that they are in the bill.
  One repeals the Mining Act of 1872 and effectively lets open-pit 
mines take their waste and put it on our Federal land. So we are 
talking about several hundred acres of pristine Federal land with toxic 
waste from open-pit mines. It is incredible, it is almost beyond the 
straight-face test that that is in fact what this legislation does. But 
that is exactly what this legislation does.
  Another thing that it does is it stops hard mining regulations which 
would have required bonding for open-pit mines, so that when they do 
not clean up their mess, it cannot get cleaned up.
  The third environmental rider deals with oil royalties. All of us 
know that this is going on. On Federal land there is a 12-percent 
royalty that is supposed to be paid. And what is being done is there is 
a gaming of the system, that companies are charging their subsidiaries 
a price one-tenth of the actual price, eliminating 90 percent of the 
tax. In effect, we will be saving a hundred million dollars of their 
money but costing us a hundred million dollars of our money.
  These riders ought to be taken out of the bill. We will have that 
opportunity in a motion to recommit later on this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the State of 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, there are some things wrong with this bill, 
but there are other things that are rotten about this bill. What are 
rotten about this bill is, under the cover of darkness, conferees, 
folks from the other chamber, are attempting to shove down our throats 
measures that would never pass the laugh test, the straight-face test, 
on the floor of this House.
  Individuals have a thing called the gag reflex: When they put 
something down our throats, we can gag on it. And the House of 
Representatives ought to stand up and gag on these last-minute 
subterfuges to try to go backwards on the environment. And we will have 
our chance to do that.
  I just wanted to alert other Members, this afternoon we will have a 
motion to recommit, to strip this bill of the environmental degradation 
that would go on with it, to make sure we can pass a clean bill. And we 
are going to do that

[[Page 9926]]

24 hours later after we pass this motion to recommit.
  I want to say, if my colleagues go out and talk to their constituents 
about mining, and when they ask them do they think we should go forward 
on mining reform or backward, they will certainly say we should not go 
backward, we should go forward.
  And on hard rock mining? On the Mining Act of 1872, these provisions 
do not take a small step backward, they take a giant leap backward. 
That is why we ought to recommit and pass a clean bill. I want to 
reiterate, this chamber and the other chamber can do that very quickly.
  It would be a travesty for people, in their zeal to hand out special-
interest favors against the environment, to take camouflage behind our 
troops in the field to try to pass this. That would indeed be a sad day 
in the House of Representatives.
  Let us go forward on the environment, not backward. Let us go forward 
on mining reform, not backward. Let us stand up for people and the 
troops. Pass our motion to recommit, and then pass the clean bill 24 
hours later.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in strong opposition 
to the supplemental appropriation.
  The President came to us and asked us to fund the NATO war, asked for 
$7.9 billion, but we in the conservative Congress have decided that not 
only would we give it to him, but we would bump that up to $15 billion, 
which does not make a whole lot of sense, especially if Congress has 
spoken out on what they think of the war.
  And Congress has. We have had several votes already. We have voted 
and said that we did not think that ground troops should be sent in. 
And most military people tell us that the only way we are going to win 
the war is with ground troops. So we have taken a strong position. We 
have had a chance to vote on declaration of war and make a decision one 
way or the other. We have strongly said we are not going to declare 
war.
  We have spoken out on the air war. We did not even endorse the air 
war. And the President has spent a lot of money. They are hoping to get 
a lot of this money back from the European nations, but all that makes 
us are professional mercenaries fighting wars for other people, which I 
do not agree with.
  But here we are getting ready to fund Europe, fund a war that is 
undeclared. It does not make any sense. We are giving more money to the 
President than he asked for in a war that cannot be won and a war that 
we are not even determined to fight. It just does not make any sense. 
So in order to get enough votes to pass the bill, of course we put a 
little bit of extras on there to satisfy some special interests in 
order to get some more votes.
  But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or 
not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not 
follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of 
the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here 
we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This 
does not make any sense.
  We have to finally say, ``enough is enough.'' This is how we get into 
trouble. This is how we make mistakes. And every day we hear of another 
mistake and apologies being made, innocent people dying. We should not 
vote for this supplemental funding.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  It is a sad day when, regardless of our feelings about the tragedy in 
Latin America and the continuing carnage in the Balkans, that the price 
that we have to pay on the floor of this House is to inflict damage on 
the American taxpayer and the landscape.
  There has been certain reference to the mining law of 1872, which has 
been an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. Since that law was enacted, 
the United States Government has given away almost $250 billion in 
mineral reserves.
  In addition to robbing the Treasury, poorly managed mining operations 
have severely and permanently damaged public land. It is estimated the 
cost of cleaning up these polluted mines in the United States is 
between $32 billion and $72 billion, costs that will not be paid by 
those who profited from the mining operations.
  Finally, the Department of the Interior, not the Members of Congress, 
are attempting to correct some of the flaws in the mining policy, as 
Interior recently has denied an application for mining operations in 
the State of Washington which sought to dump tons of toxic waste on 
public land. This denial relied on a previously unused section of the 
1872 mining law and could be applied to mining operations across this 
country.
  In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has been attempting for 
the past 3 years to promulgate new mining regulations that would 
address modern mining practices, impose meaningful environmental 
standards, and help protect taxpayers from the cost of cleaning up 
abandoned mines.
  I am appalled that the legislation before us today to deal with 
disaster relief contains environmental riders which would prevent us 
from cleaning up mining in the United States. The first rider would 
permit the unsound mining practices to go forward not just in the State 
of Washington but allows similar practices throughout the United States 
until the end of the year. And for the third time in 3 years are riders 
included which delays implementation of the Bureau of Land Management's 
new mining regulations.
  I strongly urge that we oppose this legislation and move to support 
the motion to recommit.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in ambivalence toward the rule but 
in strong opposition to the supplemental itself.
  Because my dad used to have a saying, and that was that ``the road to 
hell is paved with good intentions.'' And I think that that fairly well 
sums up this supplemental, because it may have the best of intentions 
in a whole lot of different areas within the government, but it is most 
certainly the road to hell in saving Social Security.
  I mean, last fall we spent $20 billion on an ``emergency basis.'' Now 
we find ourselves about to spend another $13 billion on this 
``emergency basis.'' That is $33 billion sucked out of my kids' Social 
Security account. So I think we really are on the road to hell with 
these ``emergency bills'' because they are coming out of one pot and 
that is the Social Security pot.
  Now, leaving aside the fact that it has got a lot of strange stuff in 
it, whether it is $2.2 million for a sewer for the winter Olympics, $3 
million to redo dormitories, $100,000 for a YMCA down in Southern 
California, $330,000 for the minority leader and the majority whip, 
$25,000 for the chief deputy whips to the Republican and Democrat 
parties, a lot of stuff that is by no means emergency.
  What I think we need to take from this thing is a lesson; and that 
is, if this same $33 billion was in individual accounts across this 
country, in individual Social Security accounts across this country, 
then Washington came up short for the YMCA down in Southern California, 
or who knows what, and wanted to take that money out of that account, I 
think people would go berserk.
  I think we have really got to look at creating some kind of real 
firewall between people's Social Security money and political forces in 
D.C. Because, if not, we are going to continue to go the way these 
supplemental bills are going.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly there are many sorry provisions 
in this conference report. It is hard to really concentrate on just one 
or two of them. But it seems to me the one that has gotten attention 
from several

[[Page 9927]]

speakers because of its very adverse environmental consequences, the 
crown jewel open-pit gold mine, is appropriately placed in this bill.
  The problem is that those who are supporting this conference report 
view the Social Security surplus as the crown jewel open-pit gold mine 
to fund whatever it is they want to fund. This bill has very little to 
do with busting Belgrade and a great deal to do with bursting the 
budget.
  Keep in mind that well over $10 billion in this proposal is paid for 
directly out of the Social Security surplus. This is the same surplus 
which the Republican leadership was planning to come to the floor this 
week and lock up in a lockbox. Well, they were ashamed to come out the 
same week that they are turning on the spigot on the Social Security 
surplus, because that is just exactly what is happening here when we 
drain out for short-term, allegedly emergency purposes the Social 
Security surplus to pay for things that ought not to be paid for by the 
next generation.
  In this particular proposal that we are considering, the Republican 
Congressional Budget Office only within the last month told us what it 
would take to fund this war. They said $600 million in the initial 
phase and about a billion dollars per month to sustain an air campaign. 
Supposedly in this emergency appropriation we would fund those 
appropriations necessary to carry us to September 30, when the regular 
appropriations bill would come into play.
  How did that amount of money get blown into almost $15 billion of 
money? In the way this Congress seems to operate, too often Republicans 
said that they did not like this war, they were proud to vote against 
the President on this war. Well, I have to tell my colleagues, if these 
generous folks give this much to a war that they do not like, heaven 
protect the taxpayer from one that they do like.
  I think that we do need to provide reasonable humanitarian relief, we 
need to provide our young men and women in the Balkans with whatever 
they need to protect themselves and to carry out their mission, 
whatever that may be. But let us be very clear that the billions of 
dollars that are the price tag of this bill do not have anything to do 
with securing our military position in Yugoslavia. They may have 
something to do with securing the position of some of the Members of 
this Congress.
  Under the Republican leadership, this Congress in the last 4 years 
has voted to provide the Pentagon with $27 billion more than it 
requested, and yet only 14 percent of those unrequested monies went for 
readiness rather than for pork. And so if there has been any emergency 
created here on readiness, it has been by the priorities of a Congress 
led by Republicans for the last 4 years.
  I do not believe that the money provided to the military in this bill 
could be spent for purposes in Yugoslavia between now and September 30 
if they were dropping it out in bails over Belgrade each night.

                              {time}  1745

  No, it funds things like libraries in Germany, a dormitory in the 
District of Columbia, a road in Bahrain, ATMs on ships, things that 
have nothing to do with the emergency situation we face in Yugoslavia, 
all designed to permit a raid on the Social Security surplus rather 
than to meet the legitimate needs of our military in the Balkans.
  I believe that it was a former member of the Committee on 
Appropriations who said, ``Every emergency is an opportunity.'' 
Certainly there are those who found great opportunity to deal with many 
other subjects here. But when all is said and done, it is the taxpayer 
who must pick up the tab, and in this case it is the Social Security 
surplus that must feel the pinch.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I support disaster relief for the people of 
Central America and the Caribbean. This assistance is long overdue. I 
support funding for our troops in Kosovo. I also support full funding 
for Census 2000. Nevertheless, I must oppose H.R. 1141, the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999. This supplemental 
bill includes a $1.25 billion cut in food stamp funding, a $350 million 
cut in the Section 8 affordable housing program, and a $22.4 million 
cut in unemployment insurance programs. These harmful cuts target the 
most vulnerable sections of our Nation's population. And they will 
cause tremendous suffering to numerous low-income Americans. The food 
stamp cut in this bill is unprecedented and immoral. Excess funds 
provided to the food stamp program have always been used for other 
nutrition programs. They have never been transferred to nonnutrition 
programs. The proposed cut in food stamp funding would take away food 
from hungry people and set a dangerous precedent for using nutritional 
assistance as a budgetary offset.
  I am also deeply concerned about the $350 million cut in the Section 
8 affordable housing program, which provides housing assistance to poor 
and elderly people, including many of our Nation's veterans. According 
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this rescission 
will result in a loss of subsidy for approximately 60,000 families and 
exacerbate the current waiting list problem on which many families must 
wait months or years to receive the housing assistance they so 
desperately need. The rescission could also disrupt the Section 8 
program and cause many landlords to opt out of the program altogether.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, the President asked for $7.2 billion 
for both of the supplementals. This is almost $15 billion. Members have 
thrown in everything but the kitchen sink. The American taxpayers are 
tired of this kind of programming, this kind of legislating. You ought 
to be ashamed of yourselves. We cannot move forward with this mess. It 
is outrageous and we should not want this on our records.
  Mr. Speaker, I support disaster relief for the people of Central 
America and the Caribbean; this assistance is long overdue. I support 
funding for our troops in Kosovo. I also support full funding for 
Census 2000. Nevertheless, I must oppose H.R. 1141, the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999.
  This supplemental bill includes a $1.25 billion cut in food stamp 
funding, a $350 million cut in the Section 8 affordable housing program 
and a $22.4 million cut in unemployment insurance programs. These 
harmful cuts target the most vulnerable segments of our nation's 
population, and they will cause tremendous suffering to numerous low-
income Americans.
  The food stamp cut in this bill is unprecedented and immoral. Excess 
funds provided to the food stamp program has always been used for other 
nutrition programs; they have never been transferred to non-nutrition 
programs. The proposed cut in food stamp funding would take food away 
from hungry people and set a dangerous precedent for using nutrition 
assistance as a budgetary offset.
  I am also deeply concerned about the $350 million cut in the Section 
8 affordable housing program, which provides housing assistance to poor 
and elderly people, including many of our nation's veterans. According 
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this rescission 
will result in a loss of subsidy for approximately 60,000 families and 
exacerbate the current waiting list problem, on which many families 
must wait months or years to receive the housing assistance they so 
desperately need. The rescission could also disrupt the Section 8 
program and cause many landlords to opt out of the program altogether.
  Supporters of these rescissions claim that the funds being cut from 
housing assistance, food stamps and unemployment insurance will 
probably not be used during this fiscal year. If this is the case, the 
money can be rescinded at the end of the fiscal year or used to fund 
housing, nutrition and unemployment programs for fiscal year 2000.
  We know there are unemployed, hungry and homeless people in America 
today who have been left behind despite recent economic growth. If the 
funds Congress has provided for these people are not reaching them, it 
stands to reason that we should improve the outreach of the programs, 
not cut their funding.
  H.R. 1141 is supposed to be an emergency spending bill. Emergency 
spending bills are not subject to budgetary spending caps and should 
not require any offsets at all.
  The Republicans have been blatantly inconsistent on the subject of 
offsets in emergency spending bills and they have needlessly 
politicized the appropriations process. First they included offsets in 
H.R. 1141, which was originally a bill to provide disaster relief to 
the victims of Hurricane Mitch in Central America

[[Page 9928]]

and the Caribbean. Then they included billions of dollars in non-
emergency defense spending but no offsets in H.R. 1664, the Kosovo 
supplemental bill. Now they have combined these two contradictory 
approaches and included a whole new set of offsets at the expense of 
the poorest people in America. If the Republicans would stop loading 
emergency spending bills with non-emergency projects, they would not 
need to worry about offsets.
  I strongly support the extension of funding for the Commerce, State 
and Justice Departments and the federal court system through September 
30, 1999, which is contained in this supplemental appropriations bill. 
Without this extension, the Commerce, State and Justice Departments and 
the federal court system could be shut down completely for the 
remainder of the fiscal year. However, if the Republican majority had 
fulfilled its responsibility to appropriate the funds that were 
necessary to operate these departments last year, the Republicans would 
not have needed to include this extension in an emergency spending 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act and oppose the disastrous offsets, which could cause 
tremendous harm to poor, hungry and unemployed people throughout the 
United States.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Congress has failed to authorize the ongoing war in Kosovo but 
the House and Senate Republican leaders are happy enough to see the 
President's $7 billion request for emergency funding and raise him $8 
billion. That is right. $15 billion of so-called emergency funding, 
every penny of which will come from the Social Security trust funds. 
$15 billion in pork and special interest waivers under the guise of a 
military emergency in Kosovo. Something stinks. I guess that is why 
this bill includes $2.2 million for sewers in Salt Lake City for the 
Olympics. That is an emergency. And a mining giveaway in Washington 
State. Waiver of environmental laws. That is an emergency under this 
bill. Special breaks for oil and gas producers who just raised the 
price of gas 50 cents a gallon. That is an emergency. $3.7 million for 
the page dorm. $3 million for reindeer ranchers. $23 million for 
fishers in Alaska. Hundreds of thousands for Democratic and Republican 
leaders. These are not emergencies. Say no to this legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill, but I do so 
with great reluctance. I so very much wanted to vote for this emergency 
bill because just as it addresses an emergency situation in Kosovo and 
Central America, it also addresses an emergency situation for farmers 
all across this Nation. My reluctance is due to the fact that the bill 
contains vitally needed funding for domestic farm aid and I along with 
others from rural America have pleaded with Congress to provide these 
funds for months. This vitally needed farm aid is well overdue. The 
operating funds for the Farm Service Agency are vital and will help 
that agency to help farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, small farmers are having a difficult time, struggling to 
survive in America. Most are losing money and fighting to stay in the 
farming business. In North Carolina, hogs, the State's top farm 
commodity, have experienced a 50 percent drop. Wheat is down 42 
percent. Soybeans are down 36 percent. I can go on and on. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, there is no commodity that is making money for farmers in my 
State.
  The conference report includes language that prohibits the Federal 
Government from using the tax settlement. That is important to my 
State. So it is with great reluctance that I oppose this conference 
report. Yet in spite of my reluctance, I am firm in my opposition. I am 
firm in my opposition to this conference report because it contains 
undue and unnecessary offsets. The offsets are undue because the funds 
being taken away are critically needed. The offsets are unnecessary 
because this is an emergency supplemental seeking to address true 
emergencies. Therefore, no offset is required. The offset is 
particularly onerous because it takes $1.25 billion from food stamps. 
It takes food stamps. It takes funds from Section 8. You are taking 
from the poor to take care of the farmer. This is unnecessary. It is 
unworthy of us. I urge the defeat of this bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this bill, but I do so with great 
reluctance. I so very much wanted to vote for this emergency bill 
because just as it addresses an emergency situation in Kosovo and 
Central America, it also addresses an emergency situation with farmers 
all across this nation.
  My reluctance is due to the fact that the bill contains vitally 
needed funding for domestic farm aid and I along with others from rural 
America have pleaded with Congress to provide these funds for months.
  This vitally needed farm aid is well overdue.
  Included in the $574 million in emergency agricultural assistance is 
$109.6 million for FSA Loan Programs and $42.75 million for FSA 
salaries and expenses. These loan funds are critically important to 
farmers who need capital just to stay in business.
  And, the operating funds for the Farm Service Agency are vital and 
will help that Agency to help the farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, small farmers are having a difficult time, struggling to 
survive in America.
  Most are losing money and fighting to stay in the farming business.
  In North Carolina, hogs, the state's top farm commodity, have 
experienced a fifty percent drop in prices since 1996.
  Wheat is down forty-two percent; Soybeans down thirty-six percent; 
Corn--thirty-one percent; peanuts--twenty-eight percent.
  Turkey and cotton prices are down twenty-three percent, since 1996.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no commodity in North Carolina that 
makes money for farmers.
  The conference report also includes language that prohibits the 
Federal Government from recovering part of the tobacco settlement 
reached by the states.
  In addition, it includes language permitting the states to use this 
money, without restriction.
  Those are important provisions for my state.
  So, it is with great reluctance that I oppose this conference report.
  Yet, despite my reluctance, I am firm in my opposition.
  I am firm in my opposition because the conference report contains 
undue and unnecessary offsets.
  The offsets are undue because the funds being taken away as offsets 
are critically needed funds.
  The offsets are unnecessary because this is an Emergency 
Supplemental, seeking to address true emergencies, and therefore, no 
offset is required.
  The offsets are particularly onerous because they take $1.25 billion 
from the Food Stamp Program.
  By this deed, the report fails to recognize that hunger in America is 
more than just a word.
  Many of our citizens, including many children, still live without 
proper nutrition and sufficient food.
  The offsets also include $350 million from the Section 8 Housing 
Program. And, in what seems to be a contradiction, the offsets include 
$22.5 million from the Agricultural Research Service.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this conference 
report.
  We can respond to emergencies, especially those of our farmers, 
without creating emergencies among our children and the poor.
  We can provide food, shelter, hurricane and other aid to our friends 
abroad, as we should, without creating a storm here at home.
  We can help those in Kosovo and Central America, as we should, 
without requiring an offset, because this is a true emergency.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from the 
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. It has been intimated to 
the Members that the offsets in this bill are to take from the poor to 
give to, I presume, the rich. Let me just try to set the record 
straight here.
  First of all, the offsets on the food stamps, the $1.2 billion, was 
offered by the White House. So if Members have a problem with using the 
food stamps as an offset, they better call Mr. Lew down at the White 
House because they suggested these. By the way, these are surplus 
funds. On the issue of $350 million for Section 8 housing, I would 
remind my colleagues that no one, and I repeat, no one has ever lost 
their housing or their housing voucher because of

[[Page 9929]]

rescissions in Section 8. This is something that has happened each and 
every Congress. The money has always been restored. Are we going to 
have a problem? Is it going to be challenging? Absolutely. But we are 
committed to making sure that that Section 8 money is put back in. Let 
me just respond on this issue of the supplemental.
  There are a lot of things in this supplemental to hate, there is no 
question. I think quite frankly the House did a far better job than the 
Senate. The Senate wanted to throw everything in but the kitchen sink. 
I suppose if the kitchen sink came from Alaska, it would be in here. 
But the fact of the matter is, we held them back and tried to keep this 
money in check and keep the spending responsible and in terms of 
emergencies.
  I would conclude by saying if the President and the administration 
had taken care of the defense establishment of this country and funded 
each and every adventure that we are seeing around the globe over the 
past 6 or 7 years, we would not be at this point right now. Sure this 
is a supplemental and there are additional expenditures in here, but we 
tried very hard to keep this as small a dollar amount as we could, 
targeted at the war and at the other emergencies that we face.
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency gets some additional funds. 
That is what this supplemental was meant to provide. There was an issue 
that was also raised about Federal Emergency Management funding going 
to Central America. Some people support that. Some do not. But the fact 
of the matter is, FEMA funds were for American emergencies, not Central 
American emergencies. But many of us felt that since these were 
serious, that people were damaged and harmed by this, that we would 
reach out to them. But those funds had to be offset under our rules. So 
we had to go out and find additional offsets. The White House offered 
the food stamps offsets. The Section 8 offsets will be put back in. We 
are committed to that.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly compliment the dedication 
of the Committee on Appropriations in this body and the other to 
bringing forth legislation. But what troubles me is that this 
legislation has become a Trojan horse for many other unwarranted 
projects in an emergency spending bill. How can we justify the litany 
of projects that have been disclosed here this afternoon in an 
emergency bill, projects that ought to be funded in the normal 
appropriations process, projects which are essentially coming out of 
the Social Security trust fund. This is obscene. How do we explain to 
the seniors of this country or to the young people who are concerned 
about the Social Security program this abuse of the emergency 
supplemental process?
  I would also like to emphasize that part of what is happening here is 
we are busting the budget caps. We have paid lip service to our 
commitment to observe these caps and balance the budget. But, in fact, 
what we are doing is we are shoehorning into an emergency bill billions 
of dollars in spending that was otherwise expected to have to be 
calculated and fit into the normal process. This is an abuse of the 
budget process. This is Exhibit A of the need for budget reform in this 
Congress.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill today. Let 
us take a look at the emergencies this bill contains. Money for sewers. 
Money for dormitories. Money for fish in Alaska. Money for reindeer. I 
mean, is Santa in trouble? Is there some reindeer emergency that I am 
not aware of that requires millions of dollars? Or how about the extra 
money that goes to the minority leader and the majority whip? Is there 
some emergency going on in those offices that none of us are aware of 
that has not been reported in Roll Call?
  Mr. Speaker, we should provide for our service men and women the 
resources they need. But the Department of Defense requested $6 billion 
to fulfill its obligation. This bill doubles what the military experts 
said they needed. There is nearly $2 billion for a military pay raise. 
Mr. Speaker, we need to address that issue, but not in an emergency 
spending bill. Some say, ``Well, we offset this by $2 billion.'' Yes, 
billions of dollars from food stamps. We can forget about reducing the 
national debt if we keep spending down the Social Security surplus with 
this kind of uncontrolled emergency spending.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience vote for an emergency 
spending bill loaded up with nonemergency spending provisions and 
unrelated environmental policy decisions.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, there are good riders and there are bad riders, and of 
course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
  These appropriation bills more often than not contain riders which 
seek to overturn rulemakings which seek to protect overall public 
interests. Those are bad riders. In the case of the pending legislation 
there are two riders concerning hard rock mining on Western public 
lands.
  In the pending legislation there is, in effect, a provision which 
actually changes the operation of the Mining Law of 1872. This 
provision would waive mining law requirements as they relate to the 
amount of public land around mining claims that can be used to dispose 
of mining wastes. My colleagues from Florida and Washington have 
already spoken to this, and if they offer their motion to recommit, I 
will support it.
  I can certainly understand they need to provide jobs by mining 
employment in the Western lands. I have a similar concern in my area 
where coal mining prevails in southern West Virginia. But the rider on 
this bill is not limited to one particular mine. This is no small 
issue. We are talking about sizable quantities of public land. What is 
particularly galling is that after years and years of resistance to 
negotiating any reforms to Mining Law of 1872, we are faced with a 
rider that is stuck deep in the bowels of this emergency appropriation 
bill that favors one company.
  I urge recommittal.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the supplemental 
appropriations conference report and in support of the motion to 
recommit offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). The people of Oregon sent me 
2,500 miles away to be careful with both their budget and with the 
environment. This bill is bloated on the budgetary side and is just 
flat wrong in the process and the substance of the decisions made in 
its environmental riders.
  Mr. Speaker, substantive environmental legislation should not be 
passed in the dark of night. They deserve full review by this body and 
by the Senate, and, quite frankly, the substantive decision to open up 
mining in the Crown Jewel Mine is something that I do not believe my 
constituents or the people of America would support as an independent 
freestanding bill.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the motion to 
recommit submitted by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill. It certainly is a much 
better bill than passed this House last week by far. It supports our 
troops in a very important way, a vital way. It helps with hurricane 
relief in the Caribbean and Central America. It helps tornado victims 
in Oklahoma and Kansas. It helps the refugees in the Balkans and 
hurting people as a result of the tremendous amount of oppression and 
genocide that is going on there.

[[Page 9930]]

  The humanitarian aid has been increased 1 percent in this bill, 
mainly as a result of increases in food aid to the refugees for the 
next few months. It brings the total humanitarian package in this bill 
to 5 percent of the total package. This money is important and vital. I 
urge Members to support the conference committee.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula).
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, apparently there has been some discussion on 
the floor about environmental riders in this bill. We resisted some of 
those that were included in the Senate bill. We tried to have a 
balanced bill.
  On the case of the finalizing of hard rock mining regulations, the 
facts are that there is a National Academy of Sciences, which is an 
independent agency, doing a study to give us an analysis of the 
provisions that are being proposed in these regulations. This report is 
due out by July 31, and there is a 120-day comment period thereafter.
  So what we are really saying in this bill is give us time to get the 
report from the National Academy of Sciences, give the people, both 
sides, time to comment, which is also provided in that arrangement, and 
then we will decide what the national policy should be. And all this 
bill does is to put a moratorium on until such time as we get that 
information.
  On the Crown Jewel Mine issue, again this is retroactive. The Crown 
Jewel Mine is a mining company that has crossed every T, dotted every 
I, has had all the permits issued by the Federal and the State 
government. They are ready to go forward.
  It was pointed out in the debate on the supplemental that several 
State retirement systems and State governmental agencies had invested 
in this mine, and if it were not allowed to go forward, there would be 
a total loss of money to these retirement systems. So my colleagues are 
talking about taking money away from public retirement programs if they 
were to allow this Crown Jewel Mine to be shut down.
  Now it is not as if this was prospective. This mine has been okayed 
by everybody, had a NEPA statement filed, done everything required by 
the law of both the State of Washington as well as the Federal 
Government, and all we have said in this bill is they can go forward so 
that these large groups of investors, such as the retirement systems, 
do not suffer huge losses and because it is the right thing to do. They 
have done everything required by law.
  That is an issue that this Congress will have to address. Whether or 
not we choose to preclude mining in the United States in the future is 
a policy issue that will continue to be before this body in the future. 
But at least in fairness we should not legislate retroactively, and 
that is what has been attempted by the Solicitor's opinion. We are 
simply putting a stay on that so that those companies that have abided 
by the law in every way, have made huge investments, $80 million 
investments provided by funds from the groups that I mentioned, are 
allowed to continue operating.
  So I think these are responsible amendments. We did have some that 
were anti-environment, and we did not approve those. There were 
amendments from the other body that were denied in the conference 
because they were not constructive environmental actions.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it, and I appreciate the 
gentleman putting the best spin possible on these riders. But I would 
still, as my colleagues know, mention to the gentleman that the 
Solicitor's opinion would prevent these open pit mines from putting 
toxic waste on our lands, on Federal lands, and by the rider that we 
have put in the bill, which I am sure it was not at the gentleman's 
initiative that it was put in the bill, it would exactly do that. It 
would allow hundreds of acres of pristine Federal lands to be stacked 
up with waste product, toxic waste product. I mean it is beyond 
comprehension that we are allowing that to happen.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled as to why the Environmental 
Protection Agency of this administration would approve it under the 
circumstances the gentleman from Florida has just outlined.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
mean he is legislating. That overrides every other piece of legislation 
that exists that specifically allows that to occur.
  Mr. REGULA. Now wait a minute. The mining law provides for 
regulation. This is rather ironic. This administration has been opposed 
to the 1872 Mining Act, and yet they found an obscure provision in that 
particular act that the Solicitor used to make his opinion valid. He 
used the mining law to bring this about.
  But the point is that all the agencies of this administration had 
okayed it, and if we think it is wrong, we ought to change the law. We 
should not allow a company to invest $80 million of investors' money 
and then change the rules. They should not be required to suffer a huge 
loss because of this obscure provision that is being interpreted. A 
Solicitor's opinion is not law, and I think if we just tried to deal 
with this single issue problem, if it is wrong, we should have a bill 
put in here and amend the law.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. If the gentleman would continue to yield, again I think 
if our concern is the teachers' unions, there will be a lot better 
ways, and I think the teachers of America and the children of America 
and the American people would be a lot happier dealing with that 
investment a different way.
  I mean we are talking about hundreds of acres of land that you and I 
own as American citizens, pristine national forest areas.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I do not know, and I have not been out there 
so I have not looked at it, and I do not know all the nuances of the 
law. I just know that the agencies of this administration approved it, 
told them to go ahead and make the investment. They did everything 
required by the laws of the United States and the State of Washington, 
and what more can we ask of a company? And again, if we think this is 
wrong, we have a responsibility to deal with it in a policy decision in 
this body.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman for taking this action because let us put this into 
perspective. This was a mine in north central Washington that had 
invested some $80 million with the full expectation that, if they 
followed the rules as was laid out in current law, that they would be 
able to mine for this gold. They passed every hoop that the State of 
Washington put, every barrier the State of Washington put up, 
everything that the Federal Government put up, and they passed it until 
it got here and the Solicitor simply said, ``I'm sorry.''
  What happened was that the Solicitor said, ``I'm sorry, we're going 
to take a provision that had never been enforced, never been enforced 
in the 1872 Mining Law,'' and said for that reason we are going to 
completely shut down this mine, again, after it had gone through all 
the barriers that were required under current law.
  Now I might add it does have an effect, as the gentleman mentioned, 
on retirement funds, but also it has an impact on employment of about 
150 to 200 people in a county frankly that is crying for more 
employment. So in fairness is the real reason why this provision was 
put into law, because it deals with this specific mine and mines that 
are in existence already, that were playing by the rules that we 
thought they should be playing by when they started their endeavor and 
made that investment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the work he did on 
that because I think he did the right thing.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, if I have any time, I would just say that 
the provision that was put in by the other body was very sweeping. The 
House conferees narrowed it, and got it very narrow in its application.

[[Page 9931]]


  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before, some of us have our differences with 
this bill, including myself. As my colleagues know, the Senate added 
pork, no question, everything but the kitchen sink, and it is certainly 
not emergencies. But everyone needs to support this rule so we can have 
an open and honest debate on the floor during the general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and I 
think it is important for us to get back to the reason that we are here 
right now. We are going to be, once we pass this measure, discussing a 
$15 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill, which is 
absolutely necessary to offset the very significant costs of the Kosovo 
campaign, as well as to provide emergency aid to America's farmers, 
disaster victims here in the United States and Central America and to 
Balkan refugees.
  Now I would like to compliment the very distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
and specifically our great Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), who did a superb job facing much adversity, and I can say I 
was in on a number of these meetings over the past several weeks on 
this issue and it has been a challenging time but both the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
have done an absolutely superb job.
  As my friend, the gentlewoman from Charlotte, North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) just said, it is true our colleagues in the other body have 
clearly added many things to this measure which should not be there, 
but this conference report takes a very important first step towards 
reversing that very dangerous 10-year path that we have had of 
diminishing the capability of our Nation's defenses.
  With the ongoing missions that are taking place, both in Kosovo, 
Korea and Iraq, our forces are being asked to do much more with much 
less. The bill puts $2.65 billion directly into the pipeline for spare 
parts, readiness, depot maintenance and recruitment.
  Along with many others, many others in this House and around this 
country, I have had serious doubts as to the effectiveness of our air-
only campaign. Whatever the arguments for U.S. involvement in Kosovo 
were, it is now a very clear national interest that both the United 
States of America and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance 
prevail in this conflict. The price of NATO and American failure is 
simply too great at this point.
  Therefore, I urge support of both this rule, which is the standard 
rule waiving points of order against the conference report, and we will 
have a full hour of debate led by the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I think at the end of the day we should have 
a very strong bipartisan vote for this.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. 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 315, 
nays 109, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 131]

                               YEAS--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--109

     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Holt
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman

[[Page 9932]]


     Tierney
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Condit
     Gutierrez
     Quinn
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1837

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SCHAFFER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________