[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9939-9969]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1141, 1999 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
                           APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 173, 
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1141) making 
emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 173, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
May 14, 1999 at page H3175.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1141, and that 
I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the exciting debate that took place as we 
considered the rule. During that exciting debate, one comment struck me 
that I thought I really should comment on. It was the comment about 
having made these decisions in the dark of the night.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did work in the dark of the night, because we 
worked for 3 full days and 3 long nights, one night going to as late as 
1:30 in the morning, and the final night we went to approximately 
10:30. So yes, we did, we worked all day, and we worked all night to 
resolve the many differences that existed between the House and Senate.
  But in the conference room, it was very bright. It was very bright 
because the television cameras were in that room to record every word 
that was said in a live telecast. So the truth of the matter is, while 
it might have been dark on the clock, anybody that wanted to watch the 
television was able to see everything said and done. That was a first, 
the first time we had done that, when we did the conference committee 
in front of live TV.
  I want to pay a special tribute to every one of the conferees on the 
House side. We had some differences, Mr. Speaker, but we worked them 
out as Members of Congress in a very logical and very respectful way.
  I want to especially compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the leader of the minority party in the conference. Again, we 
had differences, but the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) helped to 
make this procedure work. He believes in the institution, as do I, and 
as do most of our Members in this House.
  We did come up with a conference report that I would be willing to 
stand here and make a speech against, just like other Members have done 
during consideration of the rule, because there are things in this bill 
that I did not want to be here.
  But when we go to conference, for any Member who has ever gone to 
conference with the Senate, we understand that there is give and take. 
We got basically what the House asked for in the two supplementals that 
we sent to conference. The Senate added a lot of riders. We took off 
most of those riders, and the ones that were left, we watered down. 
They are not nearly as bad as some of the speakers would have us 
believe they are.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to emphasize what is good about this bill. The 
question was raised, how did we get to this number of $15 billion of 
spending. We got to this number, Mr. Speaker, because we added two 
supplementals together. Together, those two supplementals, as they 
passed the House with overwhelming numbers, were over $14 billion.
  The truth of the matter is, we did add some additional money to this 
bill in conference. However, some of those items that were added that 
were nonemergency, that came from the other body, and were offset. They 
were not new money. They were not emergency money. They are offset.
  What does this bill do? Whether we declared a war or not, whether 
Members approve of what is happening in the Balkans or not, the truth 
of the matter is that American forces are fighting a war in and over 
Kosovo and Serbia, and that war is very expensive. The President has 
asked us to provide money not only to replace the munitions that are 
being used, to replace the spare parts that are necessary to keep our 
airplanes flying, but the truth of the matter is it is a great expense 
to fight this war.
  Mr. Speaker, our forces are stretched very thin in order to fight 
this war. This bill provides a lot of the money that is needed to 
recover the wearing down of our forces, the wearing down of our troops, 
the wearing down of our equipment.
  The first supplemental we passed was an emergency to deal with 
Hurricane Mitch disaster in Central America. We funded all of that at 
the request of the President. Also, the President had asked for $152 
million for agricultural emergencies in our own country. We not only 
did what the President asked for but we increased it by $422 million, 
at the request of those who have responsibility for agriculture 
programs in this Congress.
  After we passed the bills in the House and went to conference, there 
was a terrible tragedy in Oklahoma. We added additional money to FEMA 
to take care of tragedies like in Oklahoma and other tragedies in the 
United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a good bill here. It is not a clean as the bills 
that were passed in the House originally, but we had to go to 
conference. We had to deal with the other body. So the bill is not as 
clean as we would like, but it is a good bill. It deserves our support. 
It addresses the real emergencies that exist today that Americans have 
a great interest in.
  As I said, those items that are not emergencies are offset. I will 
say that again: Those matters included in this bill that are not 
emergencies are offset.
  Mr. Speaker, the House passed this bill and the Kosovo bill in clean 
forms that included $14.303 billion in spending including $1.855 in 
advance appropriations. The conference report that we have brought back 
has $15.144 billion in spending including $1.91 in advance 
appropriations. The major increases are: $900 million for FEMA, $422 
million additional for aid to American farmers, $71 for additional 
migration and refugee assistance, $70 million for the U.S. Emergency 
Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, $149 million additional for food 
aid, $45 million for Assistance to Eastern Europe and the Balkan 
States, $45 million for

[[Page 9940]]

the census, and $100 million for temporary resettlement of displace 
Kosovo Albanians. Major reductions to the House passed versions include 
$1.044 billion for defense and $596 million for military construction.
  While the House passed versions included offsets of $1.121 billion, 
the conference agreement includes offsets of $1.995 billion. This means 
the level of net spending in this conference agreement is $17 million 
less than the House passed bills.
  There has been some concern about the Food Stamp and Section 8 
Assisted Housing offsets. While significant amounts are being taken 
from these accounts there will not be any impact on these programs for 
the remainder of this fiscal year. The funds are excess to projected 
needs. I would hope we would not make judgments on offsets on the 
importance of individual accounts, but rather on whether the funds are 
needed. This is a critical distinction. The Administration supports 
these offsets.
  As I stated earlier, the house passed versions of these bills were 
clean. The Senate version included many riders. We were able to delete 
many of these, especially the most contentious ones.
  Mr. Speaker, the pentagon will be out of money in some critical 
accounts by the end of May. In addition to solving this problem, this 
conference agreement will begin to restore our Nation's defenses. It 
addresses all known needs in the areas of natural disasters, 
agriculture, defense and humanitarian assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, we started H.R. 1141 over two months ago. We had a 
protracted conference with the Senate for over three long days and late 
nights last week. It has been a tough bill, but it is a good bill. It 
deserves broad support, and it needs to pass now.
  At this point in the Record I would like to insert a table showing 
the details of this conference agreement.

[[Page 9941]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.000



[[Page 9942]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.001



[[Page 9943]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.002



[[Page 9944]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.003



[[Page 9945]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.004



[[Page 9946]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.005



[[Page 9947]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.006



[[Page 9948]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.007



[[Page 9949]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.008



[[Page 9950]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.009



[[Page 9951]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.010



[[Page 9952]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18MY99.011



[[Page 9953]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to compliment my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida, the distinguished chairman of the committee. I 
do not think much of the product that the committee brought forth, but 
I do want to say that it was obvious to everyone in that conference 
that he, as chairman of the conference, handled it extremely well. He 
was absolutely, totally fair with everyone, and sometimes that took a 
lot of patience. I think that he did the House proud and the committee 
proud in the way he conducted that operation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is a lot that is good in this bill. It is 
far from the worst bill that the House has ever produced. But I am 
going to vote no, and I want to tell the Members why.
  Some of the good things in it, it finally, after a considerable 
delay, is providing much needed help to our American farmers who 
suffered crop damage as well as collapsing prices. It is finally 
producing action to help recover from the horrible hemispheric weather 
that we had in Hurricane Mitch.
  We no longer have the threats to the IFIs, the international 
financial institutions, that were represented by the original offsets 
in this bill, and this bill no longer threatens our ability to conclude 
a negotiation with Russia on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium, a 
provision which unwisely was included in the original House bill.
  It also eliminated a number of riders that should have not been in 
this bill in the first place. I am pleased about that. But there are a 
number of things in this bill still that should not be here.
  As I said in the conference, my main problem with this bill is that 
it is a symbol of the mendacity that dominates the Federal budget 
process. We have a two-tier system for determining budgets in the 
Congress. In the spring we adopt a budget resolution produced by the 
Committee on the Budget. That establishes overall spending levels, and 
it is largely political in nature. As a result, in my view, those 
numbers are highly unrealistic, and have been for years.
  Then we have a second level that has to take over in the process, 
represented by the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 
Appropriations. Those committees are then asked to produce real pieces 
of legislation under the guidelines set by the Committee on the Budget.
  The problem is that because the first set of numbers are not real, we 
are then, for the remainder of the year in the appropriations process, 
forced to engage in accounting tricks in order to find the votes to 
pass various appropriation bills.
  Last year, for instance, in October, after going through a year-long 
charade, we wound up adding $22 billion to spending above the amounts 
allowed in the budget resolution, and now this bill adds more than $14 
billion to that. That means that we have a total of $37 billion that 
will be spent in this fiscal year above the level that would be allowed 
by those so-called budget caps.
  Example: We have $5 billion in military spending above and beyond the 
amount needed to pursue the war in Kosovo. Why do we have that? I will 
tell the Members why. In conference, the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget from the other body revealed the game plan. He told the 
conference that we had to pour as many dollars as possible into this 
bill because it will be labeled an emergency and will not count against 
the spending limits, or else, he said, the spending caps, which his own 
committee imposed on this House just a month ago, would not work, in 
his words, not mine.
  Members will be told that there is no military pork in this bill. 
That is largely true. It is not fully true, but it is largely true. But 
the real point is that on the military side, this bill shovels a lot of 
regular items into a so-called emergency bill. That means that it frees 
up, in essence, about $5 billion worth of room for pork in the defense 
appropriation bill which will shortly follow. That is the problem.
  Secondly, and perhaps the worst and most expensive provision in this 
bill, is an amendment to the Medicaid law, which is not even in the 
Committee on Appropriations' jurisdiction, which will allow State 
governments over the course of the next 25 years to keep $150 billion 
in Federal funds with no requirement whatsoever that those funds be 
used for health.
  Under existing law, the Federal Government pays more than half of the 
cost of State Medicaid programs. In return, that law requires the 
States to act as the principal agent for both themselves and the 
Federal Government in recovering overpayments and collecting payments 
from third parties when they are liable for care that has been paid for 
by the Medicaid system.
  But this emergency bill rewrites that longstanding provision of law. 
Federal funds that have been recovered by States in recent tobacco 
legislation can be retained totally by States and used for whatever 
purposes the various Governors and legislatures deem appropriate, even 
though those funds were recovered for health reasons, and in my view 
should be used by the States if they keep the money in order to deal 
with health problems.
  The Federal funds involved would be sufficient to expand health care 
coverage to millions of Americans who are presently not under Medicaid 
and have no form of insurance, but this conference report precludes 
that.
  I think it is a further outrage that this crucial decision is being 
made on an emergency appropriation, brought to the floor primarily for 
a military action in Europe and hurricane relief in Central America. 
There were no hearings or the normal opportunities to debate this 
issue. The Committee on Commerce that has jurisdiction over this 
entitlement spending was not even involved in the decision.
  In addition, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) has pointed 
out, there are three anti-environmental riders contained in this bill. 
One, the crown jewel, is a mine provision. One blocks new rules on 
determining the value of crude oil which is extracted from taxpayer-
owned public lands. That provision costs taxpayers $75 million. And we 
also have a provision in this bill which prevents the updating of 
ancient rules on hardrock mining, something which this committee in my 
view had no business doing, as well.
  Lastly, it adds, again, to the mendacity of the process as a sop to 
some of the budget hawks in this House because it pretends to pay for 
some of the costs associated with this bill, such as the hurricane in 
this hemisphere, by cutting $1.2 billion out of food stamps.

                              {time}  1900

  The fact is those cuts save not $1, because that money would never 
have been spent, even if the committee had not touched it. So despite 
those cuts, because the food stamps are required by law to be paid at 
whatever level that the demand requires, if in fact there is additional 
demand for that program, the Federal Government will have to pay out 
additional money. So there is no saving whatsoever to be had by that 
offset. I think it adds further to the general disingenuousness which 
generally accompanies the overall budget process.
  So as I said earlier, we have passed worse bills. This one bothers me 
more than most because war is being used as an excuse to, on a number 
of occasions in this bill, rip off the taxpaying public. It is also 
being used as a vehicle by which we will ignore the health care needs 
of millions of Americans. It adds to the phoniness of the budget 
process overall.
  I think we can do better; and until we do, I will vote no. I 
recognize that there will not be very many no votes cast against this 
provision. But I think in defense of the integrity of the budget 
process, what little there is left of it, I am at least going to vote 
no.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following article for the Record:

                [From the Washington Post, May 18, 1999]

                  Medical Outcasts: Does Anyone Care?

                          (By David S. Broder)

       It is quite a trick for something to grow larger and at the 
     same time become more invisible. But that is what's happening 
     to the health care problem in the United States.

[[Page 9954]]

     The greater the number of people without medical insurance, 
     the less the politicians want to talk about it--let alone 
     deal with it.
       In 1992, when the plight of the uninsured became a major 
     issue in the presidential campaign, there were 38 million 
     non-covered Americans below Medicare age. Five years later, 
     according to a report released last week, the number has 
     grown by 5 million. And the rate of increase is accelerating, 
     from an average of half a million annually in the first two 
     years to an average of 1.2 million annually in the three most 
     recent years.
       But last week, when the National Coalition on Health Care, 
     a bipartisan group headed by former presidents Bush, Carter 
     and Ford, put out its latest report on ``The Erosion of 
     Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,'' it barely 
     made a ripple. Monica Lewinsky's appearance on ``Saturday 
     Night Live'' drew more coverage than the fact that in the 
     most recent year cited by the report, 1.7 million Americans 
     were added to the ranks of the uninsured.
       Why is this happening? The report's authors, Steven Findlay 
     and Joel Miller--who had the assistance of Tulane 
     University's Kenneth Thorpe, probably the country's leading 
     authority on this question--say the legions of the uninsured 
     are rising because of fundamental economic and demographic 
     forces, which, by themselves, are certain to make the problem 
     worse. The authors say that ``even if the rosy economic 
     conditions prevalent since 1992 prevail for another decade, a 
     projected 52 million to 54 million non-elderly Americans--one 
     in five--will be uninsured in 2009.'' If a recession occurs, 
     that number likely will jump to 61 million--one in four.
       Most of the uninsured have jobs, but increasingly, they 
     work in small businesses or in service sectors that either do 
     not cover employees or require them to pay so much for health 
     insurance that they cannot afford it. The growing numbers of 
     self-employed, part-timers and contract workers swell the 
     totals.
       It is a double whammy. Between 1996 and 1998, the 
     percentage of small firms (with fewer than 200 employees) 
     offering health insurance dropped from 59 percent to 54 
     percent. On average, their employees were required to pay 
     almost half (44 percent) of the policy premiums for 
     themselves and their families. Faced with those costs, more 
     workers are declining health insurance.
       The economic changes are exacerbated by demographics. 
     Minorities--who have higher unemployment rates and tend to 
     work in lower-wage jobs--are twice as likely to be uninsured 
     as whites; as the minority's percentage of the population 
     increases, so will this problem.
       Even government policy is adding to the crisis. The welfare 
     reform bill of 1996 supposedly provided a Medicaid cushion 
     for women making the transition from welfare to work. But, as 
     the authors report, ``there are strong early signs that many 
     former welfare recipients are not gaining coverage at new 
     jobs and that those dropping off the welfare rolls are losing 
     Medicaid coverage.'' In New York State, for example, the 
     number of Medicaid enrollees dropped by 300,000 between 1995 
     and 1998, but in the same three years the number of uninsured 
     rose by 450,000.
       The study also notes that it is increasingly difficult for 
     the uninsured to get health care. In one survey of more than 
     10,000 doctors, those receiving no income from managed care 
     companies reported spending about 10 hours a month treating 
     indigents. But those who get the bulk of their income from 
     these companies gave up only half as much of their time to 
     charity. As cost-containment pressures increase, the 
     uninsured face ever greater medical risks.
       In language that is remarkably calm, given the contents of 
     their report, the authors conclude, ``The accelerating 
     decline in health insurance coverage in the United States is 
     a serious problem, affecting the financial security and 
     health of millions of Americans every day. * * * Despite 
     strong economic growth and low unemployment, employer-
     sponsored health insurance coverage has continued to erode 
     throughout the past decade.''
       When more and more Americans cannot pay their own medical 
     bills, it threatens the quality of health care that those 
     with insurance receive. Cost, quality and access are linked 
     as inextricably today as they were when the Clintons took 
     their unsuccessful run at the problem six years ago.
       You'd think it would be an issue every presidential 
     candidate would address. Instead, what we hear is silence. 
     The last sentence in the report is: ``We continue to ignore 
     this problem at our peril.'' And yet, we continue to ignore 
     it.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield such time 
as he may consume to the very distinguished gentlemen from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, who was a solid, strong leader 
throughout this entire effort. I thank him very much for the strength 
that he had added to the process.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it. I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young) for his hard work on this good piece of 
legislation. I also want to congratulate the other chairmen of the 
subcommittees that had jurisdiction.
  I want to extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), who just spoke a minute ago. He certainly has his views on 
this bill; but if it was not for his work and cooperation, we would not 
have the bill today, so I thank him for that.
  This has been a rough road to travel. Many of the competing interests 
have struggled mightily to be included in this legislation. As the 
gentleman from Wisconsin just got done laying out the litany of some of 
them, we find that most of those had come from the Senate.
  So we worked hard to make sure that we could provide a bill that was 
focused on the issues at hand, true issues of emergency, and that we 
would get back in return a bill that would be focused on the true 
issues of emergency.
  But it is not the time to fight for special interests. It is the time 
for Congress to promote the national interests. This bill serves, in my 
opinion, the national interests.
  It provides resources to our servicemen and women who work so hard to 
defend this country who we ask to go to the far points of this Earth to 
defend American interests. It provides necessary relief to our farmers 
who have been devastated by an ailing farm economy. These farmers put 
food on the tables of American people, and they deserve the support of 
the American people.
  It helps our neighbors to the south who were devastated by Hurricane 
Mitch and our citizens in the Midwest who were devastated by vicious 
tornados.
  Mr. Speaker, we are elected to Congress to represent our 
constituents, but we are also elected to serve the American people. 
This legislation fulfills our constitutional duties to provide for the 
common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the 
blessings of liberty for the American people. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time and, as always, for his extraordinary leadership 
and now on this bill as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues would have all been very proud of 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) as he chaired 
the conference on this bill, for this emergency supplemental bill. He 
represented our House with great dignity and great humor and great 
patience, and we all commended him for that.
  Of course we are always proud of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) and his advocacy for his point of view, a point of view that many 
of us share.
  In saying the compliments that I have extended to the chairman, it 
makes me all the more reluctant to rise in opposition to this bill. 
Certainly it is about time for us to provide the emergency funding for 
the victims of the hurricanes in Central America. It is 7 months since 
those hurricanes struck, and they exacted the worst natural disaster in 
this century in this hemisphere. Here we are 7 months later finally 
coming to the floor, but, hallelujah, here we are.
  It does provide assistance to our farmers and FEMA for the 
devastation in our own Midwest and Oklahoma and Kansas. But I object to 
the fact that that emergency assistance must be offset.
  This is an emergency supplemental bill. Of its nature, it does not 
need to be offset. Part of my opposition to the bill springs from the 
fact that we are making the exception for these disasters in our own 
hemisphere while we are spending billions of dollars; and I

[[Page 9955]]

do not think that should be offset either, I fully support the spending 
that we are doing in Kosovo. How is it offset? By nearly $1 billion in 
cuts in food stamps and $350 million in section 8 housing.
  I take the word of my colleagues when we say that this will not have 
an impact on the delivery of food stamps and housing, nutrition and 
housing for the poor people in our country, and that this is excess 
funds appropriated, uncommitted funds that will not be spent this year. 
I understand that, and I respect that.
  But I do not understand why we have to go to that pot. Certainly 
there is other uncommitted appropriated funds. There are other 
appropriated uncommitted funds we can go to without sending a message 
that, not only do we take exception to offset funding for hurricane 
disasters in our own hemisphere and in Central America and offset it 
from the poorest of the poor account in our country, there should have 
been a better place for the offsets if we needed them in the first 
place.
  Then I support, of course, the substantial assistance to refugees. 
But, again, we are talking about spending so much more money that is 
not an emergency.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) did a great job on the riders, 
but not a complete job. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
supplemental.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I take this additional minute to respond to the comments 
of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) about Hurricane Mitch. 
Immediately upon the incident of that hurricane, America responded to 
Central America. We sent our military forces there quickly. They saved 
lives. They pulled people out of the swollen rivers, out of mud slides. 
They brought potable water so people could have something to drink or 
cook with. They provided sanitary conditions. So the United States 
responded immediately.
  The supplemental request did not come from the administration until 
much later following that disaster. Actually, there was some delay in 
getting to conference on the Hurricane Mitch bill, but we combined the 
two bills, the Mitch bill and the Kosovo bill, into one supplemental so 
that we were not spending all of our time dealing with supplementals 
every week. That is the reason for some delay.
  I would like to say to the gentlewoman that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) has been all over my case ever since we filed 
that first supplemental to get it done. So I say to the gentlewoman, it 
is completed. It is here today. Vote for it, and the money will begin 
to flow.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining 
on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 17 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to 
the very distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the 
gentleman from Florida yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise first to express my deep appreciation to both the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member. They have shepherded this 
bill through a very difficult process and I must say they reflected the 
will of the House in an especially effective manner as we dealt with 
the other body.
  As has been described here, this bill has been merged with the 
earlier emergency bill that passed the House. There has been a good 
deal of concern about additions placed on that original bill. I must 
say first and foremost that the chairman and the ranking member worked 
very hard to play a role in eliminating the most egregious of those 
problems from the other body.
  In the meantime, they provided a very important leadership role in 
making sure that our efforts, especially relative to Kosovo, remain 
very, very clean. As these items dealing with funding for national 
defense left the House, they return to the House--a clean product.
  This bill is committed to funding our effort in Kosovo. While it does 
not provide all the funding that I might have called for and as was 
reflected in the work of the initial bill that passed the House, it 
remained a clean bill; and it demonstrates our commitment to making 
sure that our men and women who are in harm's way are adequately 
supported in that effort.
  We do have within the Kosovo part of this package a total of almost 
$11 billion worth of funding for defense purposes, an amount that is in 
excess of that which the President requested, but an amount that is 
very apparent is needed by our military for our national defense.
  As we move into the months ahead, none of us can predict what the 
cost might be. But this bill is a reflection of the fact that the House 
wants to make sure that adequate funding is present no matter how long 
the war itself may extend itself.
  Beyond the President's request, there are a number of critical items 
that are necessary and that have been provided for in this bill. To 
illustrate that to some extent, above and beyond the President's basic 
requests, we have added $4.74 billion to address critical shortfalls in 
a number of areas that include items like munitions, where there is 
$250 million to replace munitions that have been used and are in short 
supply; rapid response procurements in the amounts of $300 million; and 
operation and maintenance funds in the amount of $2.35 billion. The O&M 
funding includes needed funds for spare parts and depot maintenance, 
items that are critical to our forces being able to carry out their 
mission.
  I must say, Mr. Speaker, one of the messages we are sending here to 
our troops that is especially important involves the advanced funding 
of pay adjustments for the troops. That essentially tells them in clear 
terms that the House is not only supporting their effort in Kosovo, but 
intends to continue to support their service for the country as long as 
it might continue in the months and the years ahead. That portion of 
the bill, Mr. Speaker, came to us with great support and cooperation of 
the authorizing committee, and I want to thank those members of the 
Armed Services Committee who also provided us with their assistance 
throughout this process. In closing, I strongly urge all members, on 
both sides of the aisle, to support this bipartisan, essential bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to the supplemental spending bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to vote on the Conference Report to 
provide spending for military aid and hurricane disaster relief, 
Members should be aware of a thus far successful effort by the mining 
industry and its supporters in the Other Body to include in the 
conference report yet another anti-environmental rider.
  This time, the rider would stop the Secretary of the Interior from 
properly carrying out his duties under the 1872 Mining Law by allowing 
mining companies to claim an unlimited number of acres of public land 
for waste disposal.
  The issue arose from a March 25, 1999, joint decision by the U.S. 
Departments of Interior and Agriculture denying a large open-pit, 
cyanide-leach gold mine in eastern Washington State which had illegally 
claimed hundreds of acres of public land as ``millsites.''
  Millsite claims were originally intended for structures to process 
the mined ore from the mineral claims; now they are usually used to 
dump waste rock and tailings (what's left after the mineral has been 
extracted).
  To be valid, millsites cannot contain a valuable mineral. The mining 
law holds that millsite claims are limited to 5 acres in size and 
allows only one 5-acre millsite claim per mineral claim. Before the 
March 25th decision mining companies were often permitted, albeit 
illegally, as many millsite claims as they needed, no matter how many 
mineral claims they had. And the modern mining industry generally

[[Page 9956]]

needs many more millsite claims than mineral claims. Since this 
decision to fully and consistently enforce the law, 5 acres of millsite 
claim waste disposal space is all that is available per mineral claim.
  The decision by the Department of the Interior is significant because 
of the precedent it sets--enforcing a provision of the 1872 Mining Law 
that limits the amount of public land, adjacent to mines, which can be 
used to dump waste from mining.
  With enforcement, the decision gives federal land managers the right 
to deny mine permits that propose to dump excessive amounts of mine 
wastes on valuable public lands and it may make economically marginal 
ore deposits unprofitable to develop.
  The space required to dump the massive waste rock piles produced at 
many of today's mines exceeds the legal limits under the 1872 Mining 
Law which Congress should have reformed years ago. Mine waste dumps 
pollute surface and groundwater resources with acid mine drainage and 
heavy metals such as arsenic.
  Permitting more such waste to be dumped on public lands is simply not 
an acceptable solution. That's what the industry wants and that's what 
this rider would do. It would legalize waste-dumping that is now 
illegal.
  The 1872 mining law has given away billions of dollars of the 
nation's mineral wealth while paying taxpayers, who own the minerals, 
not one cent in royalties. And the law has only minimal limited 
environmental safeguards.
  Polls show that a significant majority of Americans continue to 
support strong mining law reform. But instead of an open debate on the 
mining law, the industry wants an exemption from this part of the law 
that they've discovered is no longer to their liking.
  Instead of engaging in back-room politics, the mining industry should 
engage in an open public debate about reforming all of the mining law, 
not just the part it doesn't like. And Congress should not permit a 
last-second, stealth rider to be added to a non-germane bill with no 
public debate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the supplemental budget 
for Kosovo has so little to do with Serbia and Kosovo that it no longer 
makes any sense. Members are being asked to approve a cornucopia of 
projects much beyond the amount that President Clinton asked.
  There are so many outrages in this bill that it is kind of hard to 
pick one out, but let me pick one out. It is the antienvironmental 
rider, sponsored by the senior Senator from Washington State, and the 
well-financed mining lobby, which will trade American foreign policy, 
the safety of millions of Kosovars, and the welfare of hurricane 
victims in Central America for the right to strip-mine a sensitive and 
scenic area in north central Washington.
  This rider will grant a Texas company the right to operate a strip-
mine in Okanogan County. This mine will operate a cyanide leaching pit 
mine to spread its waste over hundreds of acres of public land, 
threaten the county's water supply, and threaten tribal lands.
  It orders the Interior Department not to enforce the 1872 mining law. 
There is no doubt that that mining law needs to be reformed. It is much 
too generous to the mining companies. However, the solution is 
comprehensive reform of the law. It is clearly wrong to suspend part of 
the law to allow more dumping of wastes, and the mechanism is hardly an 
emergency appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1915

  The only opportunity that Members of this House will have to vote 
against this is to vote on the motion to recommit. And I urge all of 
them to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I just want to point out something that I find so ironic with the 
debate from the previous speaker and the debate on the rule. Here we 
are debating the bill that deals with our national defense, deals with 
our agriculture industry, and deals with aid to Central America, which 
I think is needed, otherwise this body would not take it up. And yet we 
hear the rhetoric from the other side and specific Members that we are 
decimating our environmental laws.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us put this into 
perspective, exactly what happened. Under existing law, a gold mine in 
Washington State opened up 11 years ago, invested $80 million under 
existing rules, jumped over every hoop, every barrier, went through 
every environmental hoop from the State, from the Federal Government, 
and they said proceed, until it got to Washington, D.C. and a solicitor 
took existing statute that had never been interpreted this way before, 
never been interpreted this way before, and said we are going to shut 
down this gold mine after an $80 million investment.
  This happened about 6 weeks ago. It had to be fixed in a timely 
manner because people have invested in this enterprise, pension funds; 
there is about 150 to 200 jobs at stake in north central Washington. So 
this fix had to be done in an emergency manner, and that is why this 
vehicle was fixed. It does not, I have to repeat, this does not 
decimate any environmental laws. It takes care of this one specific 
project and those projects that are in place right now.
  I urge support of this supplemental budget.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that one of 
the offsets being used in this bill is $350 million from the Section 8 
housing program. I understand that these are monies that are not 
expected to be spent this year. But the future use of these funds was 
considered when HUD calculated how much to request for fiscal 2000.
  It is my understanding that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
the chairman, plans to appropriate sufficient funds to renew all 
Section 8 contracts in the fiscal 2000 VA-HUD appropriations bill; and 
if I might, I would like to engage him in a colloquy at this point on 
that matter. My concern is that funding be sufficient to ensure that 
those currently using the Section 8 program will in fact have the 
necessary housing provided for them and their families.
  Is it the intention of the chairman to appropriate funds sufficient 
to renew all Section 8 contract renewals?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the gentleman. We 
also have concern with this important housing issue, and I agree that 
the Section 8 program is very important for ensuring that the poorest 
of the poor have adequate housing. Consequently, I fully intend to 
appropriate adequate funds for Section 8 renewal.
  And I would remind my good friend that no one has lost their housing 
vouchers, and I have no intention of letting that happen.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to 
say, Mr. Speaker, that I support the intention of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) to provide for all the Section 8 renewals even 
though, as we are all well aware, the budget resolution we are working 
under requires difficult choices in many of the appropriations bills, 
including the VA-HUD bill. I believe it will be up to the Members of 
the subcommittee to determine the best manner in which to allocate 
these funds.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
chairmen of both the full committee and the subcommittee. I agree with 
both of them that it is going to be a very difficult, very challenging 
process to fund those programs under our responsibilities.
  I am concerned that this rescission could make that more difficult 
for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and my colleagues to find 
the funds

[[Page 9957]]

necessarily adequately to fund both Section 8 and all the important 
programs we oversee.
  In conclusion, it is going to be difficult to find the funds to fund 
Section 8 fully, and all of these important programs we are overseeing. 
It is vitally important to do this, though; and I pledge my cooperation 
to getting it done.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I think we are losing sight of the fact that the purpose of this bill 
is to support our troops overseas. They did not ask to be sent there. 
But now that they are there, therefore I think we should get the 
necessary funds to provide the adequate equipment that they need and 
all the supplies so that they can be protected in performing their 
duty. And we are getting diverted in this debate.
  But let me also address one issue, and that is the Byrd provision 
which was in the Senate bill to establish a loan guarantee program. I 
think that amendment is important. It would deal with the question of 
steelworkers and their jobs.
  But I did not think we would want to lose this bill or have it 
delayed, since it is so vital to young American men and women in the 
military, by retaining this amendment. I believe that this should be 
addressed with a separate bill. That bill with the Byrd language has 
been introduced in the House by myself. The Speaker has agreed that 
there will be a vote on it. A similar action is being accomplished in 
the Senate, and there will be a vote there on the Byrd amendment.
  I would hope that the Senate will pass the quota bill, as it is the 
most effective solution to stopping dumping and job loss. It is a 
problem. Four steel companies have filed for bankruptcy protection 
since the steel import crisis began. We have 10,000 steelworkers out of 
their jobs, and that does not include people in the ancillary 
industries.
  We can deal with those problems with the quota bill, which would be 
far more effective in saving steelworker jobs. And I think it is 
important that we get on with passing this bill to make sure that our 
young men and women overseas and in the United States that have been 
called upon to protect their country, to serve their country, are 
adequately taken care of.
  I urge the Members to pass this bill promptly.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I first want to say how proud I am as a new member of the Committee 
on Appropriations of the work that our House did. If my colleagues 
notice, the conference committee, the leadership in that conference 
committee, was certainly on the House side, and I appreciate the work 
on it of both sides of the aisle.
  This is the first spending bill that we have voted off the House 
floor this year, and I think it reminds me of that old adage that is in 
a song that says, ``You can't always get what you want but sometimes 
you get what you need.'' There are a lot of political needs out there 
in this country and across the world, and Congress does not have always 
a good record of getting the money to the people.
  I have agreed with some of those who point out the wrongs in this 
bill. There are certainly some wrongs. And they have an option of 
voting to recommit. But the politics of compromise is that along with 
the bad comes the good, and we have to weigh our judgment on how we are 
going to vote. Is there more good in this bill than bad? And we have 
been hearing people emphasize what they think is the bad. Let me 
emphasize what I think is the good.
  Certainly, a long overdue pay raise for our military and the Coast 
Guard; $1.1 billion for Kosovo refugees; $900 million for U.S. tornado 
victims in the FEMA account; $687 million in Central America, and I 
visited there, for school building and road development and debt 
restructuring; and $10 million relief for the Colombians after that 
horrible earthquake that they had.
  There is also money in here for other great causes. There is $574 
million for U.S. farmers hit by low commodity prices. There is a lot in 
here to like even for nondomestic emergency funding.
  Credit Union Liquidity.
  Public Broadcasting: There is money in here for National Public 
Radio.
  Mortgage Insurance Limits: There is money in here for mortgage 
insurance limits.
  House Page Dormitory: For the pages' dormitories for these pages that 
serve us, so they can have a decent place to live.
  Japanese Reparations: There is money in here for Japanese 
reparations. The list goes on and on for good things to support.

       Postal Service.
       Indian Affairs.
       Russian Leaders: The agreement establishes a pilot program 
     within the Library of Congress to bring up to 3,000 emerging 
     Russian political leaders to the United States for up to 30 
     days each. The Senate is transferring $10 million of its own 
     funds to finance the program during 1999.
       Religious Freedom.
       Export Controls.
       Drug Trafficking.
       National Commission on Terrorism.
       Pan Am Trial.

  I urge my colleagues to make a sufficient vote, vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult and emotional time for the world 
community and me personally. We have found ourselves faced with 
unconscionable atrocities in Kosovo and no easy way to stop them. We 
all wish that we were not faced with the need to make choices such as 
those we face in Kosovo, we wish to options available were different. 
However, I believe we do not have the option of standing by and letting 
the genocide continue.
  My outlook on humanity has been shaped by my national service in 
Colombia with the Peace Corps. During my time in Colombia I gained an 
appreciation for other cultures and an understanding that, no matter 
what your nationality or ethnicity, we are all human. We all deserve 
the right to basic freedoms. We all deserve the right to be safe in our 
homes and not be fearful of our government. We all deserve the right to 
expect that we will not be forced out of our homes and country. We all 
deserve the right to live freely.
  The international community has been attempting to reach a diplomatic 
end to Slobodan Milosevic's terror of the non-Serbian population in 
Yugoslavia for years. The Rambouillet accords offered Mr. Milosevic one 
last opportunity to stop the genocide in Kosovo and avoid international 
conflict. With his refusal, the international community was faced with 
the awful decision of sitting by and allowing Milosevic to continue 
displacing, terrorizing, and murdering Kosovars, or take action to stop 
him. I have had many sleepless nights thinking about the situation in 
Kosovo, recalling what I saw first hand in Bosnia and imaging the 
plight of the Kosovars. I believe that chosing to act was the right 
decision.
  I do not feel the United States could have, or should have, stood 
idly by while people in Kosovo continue to lose their homes, their 
families and their lives. Whether or not you agree with my position, I 
want you to know that I don't take it lightly.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I love this place. It is so interesting to 
come and to see both sides of the aisle use demagoguery to talk about 
what is wrong with everything.
  If my colleagues want to find a reason to vote against this bill, it 
is very simple. Since the introduction of C-SPAN, we no longer debate 
issues, we use oneupmanship, hoping that someone back in our respective 
districts might be listening and they might be impressed.
  This glass is nine-tenths full. How many of my colleagues want to go 
home and say that they want to deny the refugee assistance that is in 
this bill for the refugees coming out of Kosovo? How many of my 
colleagues want to go home and say they do not want to help the people 
who are devastated by Hurricane Mitch? Not one of

[[Page 9958]]

them. How many of my colleagues will want to go home and tell their 
farmers that there was something wrong with this bill, that they 
disagreed with something the Senate put in there, therefore, they were 
against assistance to the farmers?
  We have got to look at the nine-tenths of the glass and recognize 
that we are doing humanitarian assistance, we are doing the right 
thing, we are improving the capabilities of our military.
  We can demagogue it all we want. We can say that we are 7 months 
behind in appropriating the money for Hurricane Mitch. But the 
President did not send the request over here for 4 months. So I can 
demagogue, too. But let us look at the fact that we have aid to 
farmers, we have aid to Latin America, $700 million, we have aid to 
Jordan.
  The King of Jordan is here this week. I have not heard one of my 
colleagues jump up and say this is not an emergency. No, because they 
do not want to demagogue it in that respect. They want to nitpick. They 
want to go in and say we are taking the money away from Section 8 
housing. We are not. But it sounds good, I realize, back home to their 
constituents.
  Say what they want, but when it comes down to the final vote on this 
bill, vote your conscience, vote for what is right. Vote for the 
refugees. Vote for the assistance to Latin America. Vote for the 
increased assistance to the military. And vote, as well, your 
conscience that will indeed make this a better world and have the 
United States of America more respected.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I say in response to the gentleman who just spoke that I 
believe that those supporting this bill are trying to have it both ways 
on the issue of offsets at the same time.
  First of all, they tell the conservative action group on the 
Republican side of the aisle, do not worry, we have offset a piece of 
this bill because we are cutting food stamps and cutting Section 8 and 
that is how we are going to offset the cost. Then when they get an 
argument from the other end and people say, gee, but if we cut those 
two programs, we are going to hurt people, they say, oh, but by the 
way, do not believe it because we are not actually going to cut a dime 
because this money would not be spent anyway.
  Now, that may either say something about the hypocrisy of those who 
offer the amendment, which I doubt, or it may say something about the 
hypocrisy of the process. Either way, I think people can be forgiven 
for being concerned that when they put a cut in the bill, they just 
might really mean it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1141, the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act Conference Report. Certainly, every Member should 
and can vote for this. If they support a clean supplemental, they will 
vote for this bill.
  This is the cleanest supplemental appropriation bill since I came to 
Congress 17 years ago. Is it perfect? Is it perfectly clean? I think 
the House bill was quite clean when it left, but it obviously is not 
completely clean now that it has come back as a conference report, but 
we did everything we could.
  And I give the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill Young) superb credit 
for holding firm in trying to keep this a clean bill. We stripped out 
virtually all of the pork that was laden in the Senate bill. We did not 
get it all out, of course, but we tried.

                              {time}  1930

  If Members support helping the victims of Hurricane Mitch, they will 
support this bill. If they support helping the American farmers who are 
devastated by a disastrous farm economy, then they will vote for this 
bill. If they believe we have systematically gutted our defense budget, 
if they believe it is time to increase manpower and rebuild our weapons 
stockpile to provide for spare parts to avoid cannibalism, then they 
will vote for this bill. If they support our troops in Kosovo even 
though they disagree with the President's deployment to Kosovo as I do, 
they will vote for this bill. Congress cannot abandon our troops just 
because the President deploys unwisely. If they support providing 
relief for the refugees in Kosovo, they will vote for this bill.
  They have more reason to vote for this bill by far than they have to 
vote against it. I support it. I hope my colleagues will, also.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 1141, 
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act Conference Report for 
1999.
  As a Conferee who helped craft this important legislation, I want to 
assure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that H.R. 1141 is a 
strong bill that every Member can and should support.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few Members more committed than I to cutting 
waste and saving taxpayer dollars. I know how important it was to bring 
to the House a conference agreement free of excess spending and I am 
proud of what we have accomplished. Despite much pressure, Chairman 
Young held firm and helped this Congress produce the best possible 
legislation to address the needs now facing our nation. The fact is, 
H.R. 1141 is as clean and as tight as possible largely because Chairman 
Young would accept nothing less. I am pleased to support this 
legislation and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
for its approval.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1141 provides necessary funding for our most 
pressing emergencies. American soldiers, America's farmers, storm 
victims, and Balkan refugees all will immediately benefit from passage 
of this legislation. Most importantly, H.R. 1141 supports America's 
troops, and regardless of whether you agree with the policies of this 
Administration, we can't afford to neglect the needs of those who must 
carry them out.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have made no secret of my opposition to 
this President's use of American military force in the Balkans. I 
continue to believe that Operation Allied Force lacks well-defined 
goals and a clear strategy to accomplish them. However, my differences 
with this President do not erase the fact that our troops in the field 
are dangerously low on both munitions and spare parts; or that we are 
currently unable to fully staff many of our naval vessels due to 
personnel shortages. Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot abandon our troops 
just because the President deploys them unwisely.
  The truth is, American service personnel are stretched farther around 
the world today than at any other time in history. Successive 
deployments in both the Middle East and the Baltics have revealed a 
true national emergency that must be addressed as soon as possible. We 
cannot continue to put American soldiers in harm's way without the 
tools and training necessary to bring them home safely.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our troops, our farmers 
and those devastated by recent storms by approving this critical 
legislation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this 
supplemental is for a good cause but the offsets are very bad, 
particularly the ones that are in housing. I do not think too many 
people have thought of the fact that you are just exacerbating the 
current waiting list which we have for vouchers. It takes families 
years and years to get this assistance. By your offsetting, using the 
money from vouchers and from housing, it is going to cause a terrible 
problem for the people I represent and the poor people of this country.
  I want Members to think about that even though we all know that it is 
a good cause. Think of the fact that it is going to have that kind of 
effect in the year 2000. There is going to be a shortfall in the year 
2000. There is already a shortfall because there are about 5 million 
families that are already underserved by HUD section 8. So in dealing 
with reality, no matter how you place this, it is going to have a 
devastating

[[Page 9959]]

effect on the poor people in this country who are already affected by 
housing. We need to think of that. We are going in the wrong direction 
by doing this. It will reverse the down payment Congress made last year 
on addressing the needs. We are just backtracking for the good things 
that we did last year.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Justice, State, and Judiciary.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty plain to most Americans 
that what is happening here is like what has been happening all year 
long. That side of the aisle is opposed to anything that this side of 
the aisle proposes. Look what they are opposing here. In this bill, 
there is aid for not only the military personnel of America in the 
Kosovo region, there is also aid to help protect our American diplomats 
working under extremely dangerous conditions all through the Kosovo 
region, all seven embassies in that region. This bill contains $70.5 
million to help protect Americans working in our embassies and 
consulates in that region, including in Tirana, where we need a brand 
new embassy to try to house the Americans working there.
  Regarding the census. In this bill, we lift the fence off the funding 
for the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Federal 
judiciary and all their other agencies covered by the Commerce-State-
Justice bill. Otherwise, those agencies will simply shut down on June 
15. In this bill we simply lift the fence, let the moneys be spent, 
keep the Justice Department operating, keep the courts operating, keep 
the Commerce Department operating, keep the Federal courts, including 
the Supreme Court and all the Federal courts across the country, in 
operation.
  Also the Immigration and Naturalization Service says unless they get 
an additional $80 million, they are going to have to release onto your 
streets the criminal illegal aliens now being held by the INS. They are 
out of money. Those criminals will be released on our streets and our 
roads and highways throughout this country. If Members want that to 
happen, vote ``no'' on this bill, because we put $80 million in this 
bill for the INS to continue to keep in jail the criminal aliens who 
would otherwise roam the streets of this country.
  And so I urge Members to support this bill. You can find any reason 
to oppose it. You can find every reason to be for it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I support our troops, our service men 
and women who serve this country. I support the people in Central 
America who were devastated by Hurricane Mitch. I support the American 
farmers who have made it possible for us to eat and to export and to 
feed the world. I also support FEMA and Oklahomans and all those who 
have been devastated by the recent tragedy. But I also support the 
millions and millions of Americans who need housing, who need the 
assistance from our community development block grant program, who need 
transit opportunities so they can get to their doctors, to buy their 
food and the like, people who need housing. This is a wonderful 
supplemental, but it leaves out too much of my district. I cannot 
support it. It is unfortunate that we have a $15 billion supplemental, 
$13 billion of which is not offset, and $2 billion which is offset. Too 
much pain for those in America who need it. Vote no.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of 
the Subcommittee on Defense.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, last week I took to the well and said 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I were friends and a 
reporter asked me off the floor, ``Are you and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin really friends?'' I said, ``Yes. We just disagree on some 
issues.'' But I would like to enlighten my friend on national security 
spending. I know he is aware of it. We may just disagree.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a national security budget. When we had an 
extension of Somalia, many of us opposed to it said that those that 
want to go into Somalia, you have to be ready to pay for it. The same 
thing with Haiti. We were opposed. We did not think there was any 
national security issue of going into Haiti. We got kicked out of 
Somalia. In Haiti we are still spending $20 million a year building 
roads and schools in Haiti, much money we would like to spend on 
section 8 housing and the rest of it. But if you take a look at Bosnia, 
Bosnia has cost us $16 billion. That does not even account for next 
year. Four times hitting Iraq. Now we have got Kosovo. And the Sudan. 
The President just agreed to a settlement of some $45 million to give 
the Sudanese because we bombed an aspirin plant. All of this money 
comes out of the national security account. We have emergency 
supplementals but it only covers about one in four dollars that we 
expend. Our national security, to give Members an idea, the Navy 
fighter weapons school had 12 of 23 airplanes down, 137 parts missing. 
Eight of those were for engines. The Air Force 414th was very similar. 
We are in a hollow force right now. The money that we want to expend 
for national security in this bill, I am very proud of what we did, 
like the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) said that what we passed 
in the House. I am not so proud of what is in this bill. But I look at 
the glass like the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) said, I think 
it is nine-tenths full. But we do need the national security dollars 
and there is a reason.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to bring attention to one provision in this 
conference report regarding education.
  Chapter Five of the Conference Report contains an appropriation of 
$56.377 million for the Department of Education, providing a sort of 
``hold-harmless'' to certain schools in the Title I Concentration 
Grants program. I want to state my objection to this legislative rider 
which was in neither the House nor the Senate bills. I understand that 
my own Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, John 
Porter, shares my opposition to this type of legislation which prevents 
Congress for targeting scarce funds to those with greatest need.
  I oppose this provision for three reasons.
  First, the appropriation is unjustified. Since 1994, local school 
districts have known that in the current fiscal year, FY 1999, the 
Title I Concentration Grants would be distributed to local school 
districts whose eligibility would be determined using census update 
estimates of school-age population and poverty. The provision was 
clearly written in the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994. In 
defense of the 1,400-some schools scheduled to lose Title I 
Concentration Grants eligibility except for this rider, the Department 
of Education has been tardy in assembling this important data. Some 
schools are asserting that they were caught off-guard, or by surprise. 
But the Department's lateness does not justify such funding or the 
rider itself; in fact, schools have had notice of this change for five 
years.
  Second ``hold-harmless'' legislative riders on appropriations bills 
have unintended consequences. They hurt other states and districts. 
They affect states unequally and unfairly. In this case, this 
particular hold-harmless counters Congress' clearly stated principle in 
the Title I authorization that the dollars should generally follow the 
children. Given scarce resources, money should be targeted to areas of 
greatest need. By contrast, this rider provides additional funding to 
schools that are otherwise not eligible for the Title I Concentration 
Grant money. That is wrong. The fact that ``100 percent special hold-
harmless'' legislative riders have been attached to omnibus and other 
appropriations conference reports in the past--riders that disadvantage 
children who are immigrants, minorities or poor based on their state of 
residence--does not make this rider right.
  And third, this is a midnight legislative rider. It was not in the 
House or Senate bills. It was not the subject of hearings. It was not 
raised in House debate on the supplemental appropriations bill. It was 
not raised in the hearings of the House Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee for the FY2000 budget, and as a Member of 
that Subcommittee I assure Members that plenty of opportunity for this 
was available. It was not raised in the authorizing committee, to my 
knowledge, where this type of issue truly belongs. I am assured, 
however, that this is the one and only time that this particular 
legislative rider will be sought.

[[Page 9960]]

  Mr. Speaker, this legislative rider, in the whole scheme of things, 
is relatively minor. But it sets a precedent that is problematic and 
unfair to all of those Members who work in good faith to authorize 
these programs. Members simply need to know that this is the case.
  I fully expect that when the FY2000 Labor-HHS-Education bill is 
written and then sent to conference with the Senate, there will be yet 
another attempt to apply a ``100 percent special hold-harmless'' to the 
Title I Basic State Grants program, which I understand is different 
from this Concentration Grants program issue. This other hold-harmless 
impacts every growing state, and every state with a growing number of 
disadvantaged children--often including immigrant and minority 
children. The House has, in the past, resisted such legislative riders 
on appropriations bills, and we should continue to do so.
  The legislative language of the H. Rept. 106-143 reads as follows:

        Department of Education; Education for the Disadvantaged

       For additional amounts to carry out subpart 2 of part A of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, $56,377,000, which shall be allocated, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, only to those local educational 
     agencies that received a Concentration Grant under the 
     Department of Education Appropriations Act, 1998, but are not 
     eligible to receive such a grant for fiscal year 1999: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Education shall use the funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph to provide each such local 
     educational agency an amount equal to the Concentration Grant 
     the agency received in fiscal year 1998, ratably reduced, if 
     necessary, to ensure that local educational agencies 
     receiving funds under this supplemental appropriation receive 
     no greater share of their hold-harmless amounts than is 
     received by other local educational agencies: Provided 
     further, That the funds appropriated under this paragraph 
     shall become available on October 1, 1999 and shall remain 
     available through September 30, 2000, for the academic year 
     1999-2000: Provided further, That the Secretary shall not 
     take into account the funds appropriated under this paragraph 
     in determining State allocations under any other program 
     administered by the Secretary in any fiscal year.

  And the provision from the report reads as follows:

       The conference agreement includes $56,377,000 for 
     Concentration grants under the Title I program as a fiscal 
     year 2000 advance appropriation to become available on 
     October 1, 1999 for academic year 1999-2000.
       The conferences understand that the Department of Education 
     has interpreted a `hold harmless' provision included in the 
     fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to apply only to school 
     districts that first qualify for Concentration grants on the 
     basis of the percentage or number of poor children within the 
     school district. Only after a school district meets the 
     eligibility criteria would the Department apply the hold 
     harmless and award the Concentration grant. Under the 
     Department's interpretation, over 1500 school districts would 
     lose their Title I Concentration grant in academic year 1999-
     2000.
       The conference agreement includes language that clarifies 
     the fiscal year 1999 appropriations law to direct the 
     Department of Education to hold harmless all school districts 
     that received Title I Concentration grants in fiscal year 
     1998. The conference agreement further clarifies that the 
     allocations made through applying this hold harmless will not 
     be taken into account in determining allocations under other 
     education programs that use the Title I formula as a basis 
     for funding distribution. Neither the House nor the Senate 
     bills contained these provisions.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman acts as though those of us on this side of the aisle 
are not for funding national security items. The amendment that I 
offered for national security purposes was $4 billion above the request 
by the White House. I know that that is pocket change for some people 
in this House, but from where I come from, that is still a lot of 
money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time. I rise before my colleagues to express my 
outrage today at what my colleagues and I are asked to vote on. First 
of all, the supplemental contains many proposals which I support, aid 
to the Kosovo refugees, aid to Americans, including our farmers who are 
victims of disasters, aid to Central American Hurricane Mitch victims 
and military personnel pay raises. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is 
sinister and it is cynical. The offsets in this bill are outrageous. In 
order to support the good proposals in this bill, we would be forced to 
create an emergency here at home. Cutting over $1.2 billion in the food 
stamp program forces many Americans to go hungry. $350 billion in 
section 8 housing programs forces huge numbers into shelters and onto 
already crowded streets. $230 million from community development block 
grant programs which our neighborhoods need badly would be cut. This 
bill is terribly sinister to force these massive cuts onto our own 
citizens in a budget which will fund a military operation in 
Yugoslavia. It is cynical. It forces us to choose between humanitarian 
and disaster assistance for those here and abroad. I ask for a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent).
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Let me focus the House's attention on a figure, $148 billion. The 
Joint Chiefs of Staff came before the Senate at the end of last 
September and said, we are $148 billion short of what we need over the 
next 6 years to maintain minimal standards of readiness in the armed 
services. Nobody disputes that figure. The Secretary of Defense agrees 
with it. He has testified that we either need more troops or fewer 
missions. Mr. Speaker, we have soldiers on food stamps. This bill is a 
modest down payment on doing our duty under the Constitution and the 
laws to the men and women who protect our families and our security.
  I have heard many arguments against the bill. They change. It funds 
Kosovo. It does not fund Kosovo. It has offsets. It does not have 
offsets. It is an emergency. It is not an emergency. And now it changes 
the rules regarding a gold mine in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, let me put this in perspective. I was talking the other 
day with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), who serves on the 
Committee on Armed Services with me. Her neighbor is the wife of a Navy 
flier. Her neighbor stopped the gentlewoman from Florida in the grocery 
store and said, ``My husband has to land his F-18 on an aircraft 
carrier at night on a pitching deck and he is not getting the training 
hours he needs because the budget has been cut. He might crash. What 
are you going to do to help my husband?''
  Mr. Speaker, the men and women in America's armed services count on 
us to protect them as they protect our families and our children and 
our Nation's security. This bill is the first time in 6 years that we 
are stepping up to our duty. Let us get rid of the politics, let us get 
rid of the excuses. The Committee on Appropriations held tough and 
stood fast in the conference committee. Let us vote for this bill and 
begin the road back to protecting America's security.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would simply say if our friends on the majority side of the aisle 
were so concerned about readiness, why is it that out of the $27 
billion that they have added to the President's defense budget the last 
4 years that only $3.5 billion of that went to readiness and the rest 
went for pork?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding me this time. I am reminded of a song that I 
think my colleagues on the other side are singing. I remember in 
earlier times when they would be very critical of the appropriations 
process, of the excesses that were sent in, of the long time it took. I 
think they have now decided to sing a song, anything we can do, they 
can do worse. We are told that we should fall to the hostage theory: 
``This has some good things in it; therefore, you should ignore the bad 
things.'' The gentleman from Alabama said that the glass was nine-
tenths full. One of my friends on the Committee on Appropriations said, 
``No. The trouble with this glass is that it's overflowing.'' We are 
told that if we are for aid to the hurricane victims, if we are for the 
troops, we have to vote for it and never mind all the bad stuff. I have

[[Page 9961]]

heard that before. I thought it was one of the things they were going 
to change.
  So this notion that because there are some good things in a bill that 
has fewer bad things than it used to have, we have to vote for it makes 
no sense. As for people who tell me we are in a real rush to do these 
things, I think I remember voting for some of these things several 
weeks ago. I was not holding it up. Yes, I would vote for a clean bill 
very soon. But what is even worse is the offsets. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin correctly pointed out, the offsets either are very powerful 
reductions in spending when they are trying to sell the bill to the 
conservatives, or they are nothing when they talk about their real 
impact. Well, unfortunately they are not nothing. I wish they were. 
Yes, it is true, and I thank the gentleman from New York and the 
appropriations subcommittee and others, we will be protecting the 
people who now live in housing with section 8s. But any Member of this 
House who has told a constituent, ``Gee, I'm sorry you don't get a 
section 8, I'm going to try and get you one,'' anyone here who has 
looked at an elderly constituent and said, ``Gee, ma'am, I really feel 
for you, I'm going to do what I can,'' who then votes for this 
cancellation of $350 million of section 8 vouchers that could otherwise 
go to new people is guilty of the worst kind of inaccuracy.

                              {time}  1945

  My colleagues can vote to cancel $350 million of Section 8 if they 
want to, but they should not then go back to their districts and lament 
and weep for those who are not adequately housed because actions do 
have consequences. Yes, it will keep existing people in housing, but 
all of my colleagues who have talked to people on the waiting lists, 
who have talked to others and said, ``Gee, I would love to help you,'' 
it is like the old reverse Houdini.
  Mr. Speaker, Houdini used to get tied up in knots, and his trick was 
to get himself out of the knots. This bill ties ourselves in knots, and 
then we tell people we cannot help them because we are all tied up in 
knots.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, we really have a good opportunity here in a 
few moments jointly on a bipartisan basis, and that is to pass a motion 
to recommit which will take a scalpel out and remove some of the warts 
from this bill, and I speak of one wart or three in the anti-
environmental riders; my colleagues may have others.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and I will not be allowed to 
offer our motion to recommit, and that is just fine. We have no pride 
of authorship here. But we do have outrage, and I have outrage as a new 
Member of this Chamber, to say that we are going to allow this type of 
chicanery to go on in this House, Mr. Speaker.
  As my colleagues know, for folks to argue on these environmental 
riders that they are really not environmental, they think Americans 
sort of fell out of the back of the rutabaga truck. Do we think that 
our pilots in the F-18s want to come home and have us reduce their 
environmental protections? I do not think that is what we are asking us 
to do. Do we want the sailors on those ships, are they sending us E-
mail asking us to reduce environmental protection? I do not think they 
want that. If my colleagues believe that environmental riders are 
wrong, they should vote for this motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, there are problems in the supplemental 
appropriation bill. As a member of the Committee on International 
Relations, I have been actively involved in working to secure funding 
for earthquake relief in Columbia and military and humanitarian aid for 
Operation Allied Force. I represent one of the largest Columbian-
American constituencies in the United States, and I adjoin an area in 
the Bronx which has the largest concentration of Albanian-Americans in 
the U.S. I spoke in favor of this resolution when it first came to the 
House floor. Unfortunately though this bill has changed considerably 
when it went to the conference with the Senate. The Senate had added 
anti-environmental riders along with a host of individual projects 
which have no business in this bill. I support the funding for 
hurricane relief in Central America and earthquake relief in Columbia, 
I support the 6 billion in funding for our military involvement in 
Yugoslavia and humanitarian relief for the front line countries 
effected by the flow of refugees escaping Kosovo, and I support the 
$100 million to Jordan to help implement the Wye Peace Agreement. But 
unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to support this 
legislation because of the anti-environment and what it does to the 
poor of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, there are problems in this supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  As a member of the International Relations Committee, I have been 
actively involved in working to secure funding for earthquake relief in 
Colombia and military and humanitarian aid for Operation Allied Force. 
I represent one of the largest Colombian-American communities in the 
United States, and I adjoin an area in the Bronx which has the largest 
concentration of Albanian-Americans in the United States.
  I spoke in favor of this resolution when it first came to the House 
Floor. Unfortunately though, this bill has changed considerably when it 
went to Conference with the Senate.
  The Senate has added anti-environmental riders along with a host of 
individual projects, which have no business in a bill, designated 
``emergency spending''
  I support the funding for Hurricane Relief in Central America and 
earthquake relief for Colombia. I support the $6 billion in funding for 
our military involvement in Yugoslavia and humanitarian relief for the 
front line countries affected by the flow of refugees escaping Kosovo. 
And I support the $100 million to Jordan to help implement the Wye 
Peace agreement. And I support our United States Military who deserve a 
pay raise for the hard work they do to protect our freedom at home and 
abroad.
  These are a few of the good things, now let's talk about the bad 
things: $9.2 million for car washes in Germany and bachelor quarter 
housing in Southwest Area, three anti-environmental riders which 
provide sweetheart deals to mining companies and cheat American 
taxpayers, $1.2 billion cuts from Food Stamps, $350 million cuts from 
Section-8 housing and a variety of spending that was not even included 
in the Pentagon's 5-year budget plan.
  Mr. Speaker, because of these offsets and the budget busting 
spending, I will have to vote to oppose this supplemental bill and 
encourage my colleagues to defeat this bill, go back to conference and 
produce a better bill that will gain the support of all of our members.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in opposition 
to the emergency supplemental appropriation conference report.
  This bill is loaded with nonemergency spending that undermines the 
budget appropriation process but satisfies the special interests. While 
I strongly support the emergency funding for our military in Kosovo and 
for a pay raise for our troops and for disaster relief efforts, I 
strongly object to the unnecessary spending disguised as emergency 
spending for such things as 3.8 million for the House Page Dormitory, 
establishing a pilot program within the Library of Congress to bring up 
3,000 emerging Russian political leaders to the United States, 475 
million in unrequested funds for overseas military construction, 3 
million for the United States Commission on International Religious 
Freedoms.
  While these in and of themselves are not bad, they are not 
emergencies.
  What is equally troubling is that the vital programs that poor and 
elderly people rely on have been cut dramatically to pay for this bill, 
1.2 billion in food stamp programs, 350 million in Section 8 and 22 
million for the labor and health.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to do what Americans 
expect us to do: Vote no.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply take this time to notify the House I will be 
offering a straight motion to recommit.
  If my colleagues believe that we should not be unnecessarily abusing

[[Page 9962]]

the environment, if they believe that we should not be unnecessarily 
hurting our ability to help people who desperately need health care, if 
they believe that we should not abuse the emergency designation in the 
budget process, then I would invite them to vote yes for the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to compliment the Chair for having 
kept and maintained order throughout this debate. I would like to 
compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the members of 
the minority party for the responsible way in which they have conducted 
themselves in this debate and certainly my colleagues on the Republican 
side for having stood strong for the legislation that we were able to 
put together over a lengthy process of conference, and I would also 
like to thank, Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the majority staff and the minority staff, and I can 
tell my colleagues they worked. The Members thought they worked long, 
hard hours, and the staff worked longer and harder hours because when 
we made the decisions, staff had to put them on paper and get them 
ready to present to the House. I want to thank the Committee on Rules 
for being willing to wait for us late Thursday night and being willing 
to come in yesterday when there was no business in the House in order 
to actually meet and grant a rule for this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the President of the United States 
because he supports this bill, and I would also like to thank the 
President of the United States for not only supporting the offsets that 
have become somewhat controversial here this evening, but having 
recommended the one major offset that has received so much attention, 
and that is the food stamp offset. America's economy is good. The 
demand for food stamps has been reduced. There is a substantial amount 
of funds for fiscal year 1999 in the food stamp program that will not 
be spent, and so we have agreement with the administration to use that 
as the basis for our offsets, and I would point out that the 
nonemergency sections of this bill are offset.
  Now many have stood here and said they would vote against the bill, 
but they refer the farmers, they refer the soldiers and the sailors. Do 
not vote against them. If colleagues are for them, do not vote against 
them. A no vote on this conference report is going to be a vote against 
America's farmers who need help and who need it today, and this bill 
addresses that aggressively. A no vote will be a vote against the 
victims of disasters not only here at home in the United States, but at 
our friends and neighbors in Central America. A no vote will be sending 
a message to Milosevic that we are not really serious about bringing 
him to heal. He does not need to get that message, he has got enough 
problems already. A no vote will be against those soldiers and sailors 
and airmen and marines and coastguardsmen who are involved in this 
conflagration, or war, or call it what you will in the Balkans, and, 
yes, the Coast Guard is involved. When America goes to war, the Coast 
Guard goes to war, and there are two Coast Guard ships tonight steaming 
toward the Balkans to join other Coast Guard vessels that are already 
there dealing with the Bosnian issues. And a no vote would be against 
reinvesting some of our resources to start to rebuild our national 
defense capabilities that have been stretched so thin that, if one of 
the other MRCs in the Korea region or Iraqi region were to happen 
tonight or tomorrow, we would be in trouble.
  So, if colleagues are for all of these things, they cannot vote 
against the bill.
  So I would hope that everyone will seriously explore their conscience 
and understand that the things they disagree with are minor compared to 
the good things that this bill provides. America needs this bill. Our 
soldiers, and sailors, and airmen, and marines and coastguardmen need 
this bill.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support this 
legislation, because I am in favor of its original goal of providing 
assistance to three important and deserving groups: our troops abroad 
and at home, our farmers who have endured brutal economic conditions, 
and hurricane victims in Central America and the Caribbean. Ultimately, 
I believe these true emergencies still deserve our support, and I will 
not vote against them. I will vote for the motion to recommit, because 
I know we can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is an example of Washington at its 
worst, of a spending mentality that still pervades, and highlights 
budget rules that must be amended. We have again seen the conference 
process lead to excess, with the result being a bill that has become 
the vehicle for too many pet projects. While many environmental riders 
were removed, three still remain: an extension of moratoriums on new 
oil and gas royalties regulations and new mining regulations, and a 
green light for operations to commence at the ``Crown Jewel'' mine in 
Washington state. The President requested a $6 billion dollar bill, and 
we will send him a $15 billion dollar bill that the majority readily 
admits is being used to dodge the budget caps for fiscal year 2000. In 
addition, this measure contains funding for numerous items that can 
with little credibility be defined as emergencies, that will sadly 
enough be paid for with Social Security surpluses. We must take Social 
Security off-budget and reform the procedures for emergency spending.
  Mr. Speaker, as disappointing as they are, these facts do not change 
the fact that our farmers are hurting, and that they have waited too 
long to get the relief this bill contains. There are people in the 
Midwest that are trying to repair their lives after devastating natural 
disasters, and I believe the federal government should do all it can to 
assist them. This country currently has young men and women engaged in 
military actions overseas, and we owe it to them to provide the 
necessary resources to keep them as safe as possible. At the same time, 
our troops have for too long lived on substandard wages and we must 
honor the commitment they made to this country with their service. 
While I have little good to say about the process that has brought us 
to this point, these are worthy efforts, and I will support them.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
The House should move quickly to approve the urgently needed funding to 
continue NATO's military operations against Slobodan Milosevic's forces 
in Kosovo. In addition, the conference report contains emergency funds 
to assist the Kosovar refugees who are the innocent victims of 
Milosevic's aggression. Finally, this legislation includes long overdue 
disaster relief for the Central American countries that were devastated 
last year by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges.
  Although I will vote for the bill, I want to state for the record 
that I strongly oppose the spending offsets contained in the conference 
report. It is my understanding that we have offset only about ten 
percent of this bill and of that ten percent, the lion's share will be 
financed on the backs of our nation's working poor.
  I am particularly concerned abut the $1.25 billion rescission in 
funding for the food stamp program. We have seen disturbing statistics 
in my state of Michigan and across the country that the food stamp case 
loads have been dropping at an alarming rate. Indeed, census data shows 
that food stamp case loads are dropping far faster than the rate of 
poverty.
  Studies show that one of the key reasons for the decline in the food 
stamp caseloads and the resulting unspent programmatic dollars is that 
states have done a poor job in letting people leaving the welfare rolls 
know that they are still eligible for food stamps, even though their 
wages leave their families in need and eligible for Food Stamps. A 
recently published Florida study showed that 58 percent of people 
leaving the TANF rolls did not know that they were eligible for food 
stamps.
  We are all acutely aware of the actual withholding of food stamps 
from eligible individuals in New York City. As those who are eligible 
for food stamps are kept from accessing the program, we are seeing a 
marked increase in the use of soup kitchens and food pantries. In 
Milwaukee, a full 50 percent of those people who are using these 
facilities for food are children. This is a disgrace.
  We have also been withholding food stamp eligibility for hard working 
legal immigrants. I have proposed legislation, ``The Fairness for Legal 
Immigrants Act'' to rectify this unfair treatment. These unspent 
dollars could be going to correct this injustice, rather than 
offsetting a bill that does not require offsets and is only 10 percent 
offset, anyway.
  Rather than revoking funds that should be spent on providing food to 
America's working

[[Page 9963]]

poor, we should be focusing on making certain that all children and 
families who are eligible and require food assistance have access to 
what they are entitled to.
  I also object to several of the legislative riders attached to this 
bill. Included among the many non-germane elements to the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, the provision related to the state-
tobacco settlement is one of the most perplexing. There is bipartisan 
support for letting the dollars won in these lawsuits to remain with 
the states, but what is disturbing is the exclusion of any guidelines 
on how states can spend these monies in the provision included in this 
bill. Logically, the tobacco money should be used to fund states' 
health care programs and related tobacco-prevention programs. This 
money should not be used to build highways or post offices.
  Despite the inclusion of such unwelcome legislative riders, I urge my 
colleagues to approve the conference report. Failure to act on this 
bill would have a severe and negative impact on our nation's efforts to 
stop Slobodan Milosevic's aggression in the Balkans and bring relief to 
Kosovar refugees.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Census 
Subcommittee, I am glad to see that this measure provides for the 
continuation of the Census beyond the June 15 deadline; I support our 
nation's efforts towards NATO's peacekeeping goals; and I support 
relief for those victims in Central America and the Caribbean. However, 
I cannot tell my constituents back home that I turned my back on some 
of our nation's most vulnerable, some of my district's most vulnerable. 
The poor who need food stamps or section-8 assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, when I grew up, I was taught that patience is a virtue, 
do unto others as you would have them do unto you and that a nation can 
only be as great as its weakest and most vulnerable because their 
voices often are not heard in the great decision and influence-making 
centers of our society. The attack on the nation's poor is alarming. 
These constituents don't have the money to hire a slick lobbyist to cut 
a deal for them in order to secure their interests. Public housing 
residents are easy targets. Oftentimes they are poor, uneducated, un-
employed, unskilled, un-organized, un-registered, under-fed, 
undernourished and physically segregated.
  Mr. Speaker, the 7th Congressional District of Illinois has more 
public housing residents than any other Congressional District in the 
nation, second to only one district in New York. Two-thirds of all 
public housing residents in Chicago, reside in the 7th Congressional 
District. If the people in public housing were a separate city in 
Illinois, it would be Illinois' second largest city. When the Section 8 
list opened in July of 1997, the Chicago Housing Authority Corporation 
(CHAC) received over 150,000 applicants; only 25,000 applicants were 
allowed to be placed on the list via lottery; of that 25,000 on the 
lottery list--only approximately 3,000 have received Section 8 
certificates, to date.
  What we don't know is how many women, children and families in the 
absence of Section 8 will have no other alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, in the name of fairness and justice; in the name of 
commitment to all Americans--rich or poor, black or white; and in the 
name of one nation--rather than 2--rather than a nation divided between 
the haves and the have-nots; I cannot support this attack on some of 
our nation's most poverty-stricken citizens. I cannot support this cut 
in section 8 housing and good stamps. Therefore, I cannot support this 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1141, 
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Conference Report. This bill 
contains a myriad of provisions of the worst sort--riders slipped in 
without ever being considered by the full House.
  One rider stands out among the rest as being particularly ill-
conceived and short-sighted: the provision to completely give up the 
federal share of the tobacco settlement without any commitment by the 
states to improve public health.
  Ten years from now, people will look back on this legislation and ask 
how Congress could give away nearly $140 billion federal health care 
dollars without guaranteeing that even a single penny would be spent on 
public health. They will ask how Congress could overturn thirty years 
of Medicaid law--without a single hearing so that members could 
understand the ramifications of the legislation and without any action 
by the full House so that Members could debate and vote on the issue.
  This provision has no business being on an emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill that provides disaster aid for Central America and 
funds for military operation and refugee relief in Kosovo.
  It is not an emergency appropriation issue in any sense. What it is, 
however, is one of the biggest giveaways of federal health care dollars 
I have seen in my entire congressional career.
  The size of this giveaway is breathtaking. Nearly $140 billion 
federal health care dollars are being given to the states to spend as 
they please. That is enough to pay for the existing out-of-pocket 
prescription drug costs for every single Medicare beneficiary who 
currently lacks prescription drug coverage. Yet these federal health 
care dollars are being relinquished with absolutely no commitment that 
the states spend the money on improving prevent youth smoking, 
improving public health, or increasing access to health care.
  Mr. Speaker, when history looks back on this legislation, it will be 
seen as a deal that served the tobacco interest, not the public health 
interest. I strongly believe that it is the height of irresponsibility 
for the Congress to give away billions of federal health care dollars 
for nothing. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1141.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I voted for both supplemental appropriation 
bills.
  I voted for the bill to assist Hurricane Mitch victims because this 
House made a good faith effort to offset the spending costs.
  I voted for the defense spending package because there is a war in 
Kosovo and we need to pay for it.
  But this Conference Report reflects the old, tired ways I thought we 
had put to an end when the Republican majority was elected in 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, 381 Members voted for the Upton Motion to 
Instruct Conferees to pass a clean emergency spending resolution.
  When I spoke on the floor during debate, I said that if we are sent a 
conference report that does not abide by what we were saying there, 
that we vote against it and defeat it.
  Today, the consistent vote for those 381 Members is for the Motion to 
Recommit this Conference Report because it clearly does not abide by 
what we said.
  In fact, it includes three egregious anti-environmental riders. None 
of which was included in the House-passed legislation, and one of which 
was not in either the House or the Senate bill.
  The most harmful rider allows the Crown Jewel mine in Washington 
State to proceed with a mining proposal despite the rejection for a 
permit by the Department of the Interior.
  This rider would allow the Crown Jewel mine to blast off the top of 
Buckhorn mountain to extract only a pickup truck worth of gold.
  Another one prevents the Bureau of Land Management from issuing its 
final hardrock mining regulations until well in 2000.
  Thus tacitly sidelining environmental protections for more than a 
year, giving companies carte blanche mining privileges on public land.
  And the last one also delays environmental protection regulations 
designed to close the loophole allowing big oil companies to continuing 
evading their responsibilities in paying off their share of off-shore 
oil drilling.
  Oil companies have been undervaluing oil royalties for years, and 
this rider bars the Mineral Management Service from promulgating 
regulations prohibiting this practice.
  I urge the rank and file members of this House to stand up and oppose 
this conference report.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks the House debated 
the current situation in Kosovo. Our discussion began with a debate on 
Congress' role in the foreign policy decision making process and 
concluded with funding proposals for the ongoing military operations in 
Kosovo.
  During the first week of debate, I opposed three resolutions that I 
believe sent the wrong message to our troops, allies, and enemies. The 
message was that the United States was not committed to ending the 
tragedy in Kosovo. Last week I voted in favor of the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill. I did so to show my continued support 
of our troops and because I believe it is important to provide them 
with the tools they need to complete their mission.
  However, I am disappointed that within that emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill there were substantial increases in defense 
spending, above what the President requested and outside of the normal 
process by which those items would be funded.
  This appropriations bill nearly doubled the amount the Department of 
Defense and the President requested for the Kosovo operation. Included 
in the bill were many programs and projects that are not, in my view, 
emergencies. I do not question the validity of these projects or 
programs, in fact I would likely support some of them. However I am 
opposed to highjacking the process by which the House normally 
considers such expenditures.
  We have many issues to address including social security, medicare, 
home health, educating our children, making our communities

[[Page 9964]]

more livable, preserving our national resources, and the list goes on. 
Whatever your particular view on these issues they should be debated 
and prioritized through the normal budget process. Using emergency 
appropriations bills to fund programs normally considered through the 
regular authorization/appropriations process means there will be fewer 
resources to address the issues of great national importance. In 
addition, the critical nature of future emergencies is diminished.
  The full House should have the opportunity to debate what our 
national priorities are and at what level to fund them. Corrupting the 
normal budget process by using emergency spending bills does not 
provide the House with the opportunity to sufficiently consider and 
prioritize many worthy programs.
  Again, I am voting in favor of the Kosovo supplemental appropriations 
bill because I believe it is absolutely necessary to provide our troops 
with the tools and support they need to complete their mission. I do 
not, however, support abusing this bill and the legislative process.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, the post World War II, culturally diverse 
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was comprised of a number of 
different ethnic groups living together under the rule of Josip Broz 
Tito. The death of Tito and the ensuing breakdown of the communist 
world led to the partitioning of the Yugoslav federation into semi-
autonomous states. The partitioning of the federation led to increased 
instability and animosity between the different ethnic groups.
  In 1987, Slobodan Milosevic came to power as Yugoslav president. The 
different provinces of Yugoslavia had been treated as equal entities, 
but in 1989 Milosevic abolished the semi-autonomous status of Kosovo, 
which is comprised of 90% ethnic Albanians. Although Albanians are the 
overwhelming majority, the Serbs consider Kosovo to be an historic 
landmark where their ancestors attempted to fend off the assault of the 
Ottoman Empire, and these conflicting interests have led to great 
controversy and fighting.
  In 1991, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia declared independence from 
Yugoslavia. Although Milosevic had sought to protect the Serb influence 
in those countries, the Serb populations were so small in Slovenia and 
Croatia that it was not feasible to fight for political control. 
Milosevic was, however, a major instigator of the all-out war for 
control of Bosnia, where there was a very large Serbian population. A 
peace agreement to end the Bosnian war was signed by the warring 
parties in late 1995.
  The conflict over Kosovo has continued to heighten. When Milosevic 
revoked its autonomy, many Kosovars said they would settle for nothing 
less than complete independence, and since 1995, the Kosovo Liberation 
Army (KLA) and Serb policemen have been fighting for political control. 
Milosevic's desire to maintain the integrity of the Yugoslavian 
territory and the historical value of Kosovo, coupled with the Kosovar 
Albanians' drive for independence has evolved into today's conflict.
  Aggression has continued to escalate, and after failed attempts at a 
diplomatic resolution, NATO air strikes began on March 24, 1999. The 
air strikes, however, have neither prevented nor hindered Milosevic's 
violent reign. Indications are, in fact, that violence has accelerated 
since the air strikes began.
  While humanitarian issues are of grave concern, the effectiveness of 
the NATO air strikes remains questionable. Having recently traveled to 
Tirana, Albania, and Skopje, Macedonia, I have witnessed first-hand the 
humanitarian crisis facing Europe. I have also participated in 
extensive briefings on the crisis by Supreme Allied Commander--Europe 
(SACEUR) General Wesley Clark. There is no question that the situation 
on the Balkan Peninsula is grim. The question that remains is what the 
United States and its European partners in NATO should do to end the 
violence and help rebuild the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kosovar 
Ablanians that have been driven from their homes.
  Slobodan Milosevic is a shrewd and experienced military commander who 
has used military power to expel the Kosovar Albanian rebels (the 
Kosovar Liberation Army or KLA) from Kosovo and to put extensive 
defenses in place in Kosovo, significantly enhancing his military 
position on the ground. President Clinton and the other 18 NATO leaders 
have, on the other hand, allowed political considerations to govern 
military decisions in the air campaign. In spite of the campaign, 
ethnic cleansing has accelerated and the FRY military has now fortified 
its southern defenses, presenting a greater threat to a potential 
invasion force today than was present when NATO bombing began.
  Because NATO air strikes have little chance of accomplishing their 
stated goals, and because the human and economic costs of launching a 
ground campaign far outstrip the potential benefits of such an action, 
I believe that the NATO air campaigns must stop immediately. It is time 
for NATO to seek a negotiated settlement that will allow the Kosovar 
Albanians to begin to rebuild their lives.
  I have represented the views of many of my constituents throughout 
this crisis and have exercised my conscience and judgment in doing 
everything possible to end the Balkan conflict. I voted against sending 
ground troops to the area. I voted against continuation of air strikes, 
I voted to withdraw our troops, and I voted to prohibit the President 
from sending ground troops without the express authorization of 
Congress. However, despite the clear messages of opposition form the 
U.S. House of Representatives, the war continues. Now only two people 
can stop it: President Clinton or Yugoslav President Slobodan 
Milosevic. Congress has no means of direct recourse against Milosevic, 
so we are left to deal with the other leader, our Commander in Chief, 
who has chosen to continue the engagement.
  I believe the President's actions are dangerous to this country. He 
has placed our men and women in harms way, yet continues to oppose 
providing the resources to support them. He has yet to recognize the 
ramifications of his drastic downsizing of our military. But his 
deployment in the Balkans has exposed the critical nature of the 
situation. The armed forces' ability to prevail in two major theaters 
of conflict in a reasonable amount of time and with minimum casualties 
has long been the acceptable level of defense. The President has 
created a third combat theater of contingency operations which the 
military is not prepared to handle.
  It has been reported:
  --The U.S. Army conducted 10 operational events from 1960-1991, 31 
years. Since 1991, the Army has conducted 26 operational events. At the 
same time, the President has drastically reduced our military 
capabilities.
  --Since 1987, active duty military personnel have been reduced by 
more than 800,000. In 1992, there were 18 Army divisions. Today there 
are 10. In 1992, there were 24 fighter wings. Today there are 13. In 
1992, there were 546 Navy ships. Today there are less than 330.
  --On recent inspection of one base, Lemoore Naval Air Station, in 
California, it was found that 43% of the Hornet strike fighters were 
``not flyable'' due to a lack of parts. The squadrons had 61% fewer jet 
engines than needed to keep all their aircraft flying.
  --In order to carry out operations in Kosovo, the President ordered a 
temporary suspension of enforcement in the Iraqi Northern no fly zone; 
removed a carrier battle group from the Western Pacific; called 33,102 
reservists; and committed nearly 7 of the American military's 20 combat 
air wings.
  --If there were another military flare-up somewhere else in the 
world, the U.S. would not have the military resources to respond.
  Over the past many months, I have joined other Members of the House 
and Senate in exercising my Constitutional duty to prevent Presidential 
actions detrimental to our country. This extended to voting to impeach. 
However, all efforts to curtail these actions have failed. I can assure 
you, however, I will not fail in my Constitutional duty to protect the 
security and freedom of this nation, and most importantly, to protect 
those who defend it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
conference report for several reasons. First and foremost, it is a 
runaway train of unauthorized spending that circumvents the regular 
appropriations process. There is additional spending in this bill I 
would support under the normal appropriations process such as the 
military pay raise. But there are many more proposals I would not 
support and I will not be railroaded into voting for them as part of a 
catchall spending bill.
  While I oppose our current intervention in Kosovo and I firmly 
believe we should stop the bombing right now and work towards peace, I 
understand and support the necessity of paying for our past 
commitments. But I do not support a blank check for unlimited defense 
spending, I do not support adding billions of dollars of pork barrel 
projects, and I certainly do not support trying to use this must-pass 
bill as a sneak attack on our environment.
  Yes, let's help the refugees and provide the limited funding 
originally requested by the President for the Kosovo crisis. Let's also 
provide the other emergency funding needed to pay for agriculture 
disasters and for the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch. And that's all 
we should be paying for.
  The fact that the majority is trying to use this bill to circumvent 
mining laws and line the pockets of oil companies is a perfect example 
of how this bill has gotten out of control. I for one will not stand 
for this assault on our environment. I call on the majority to take 
this bill

[[Page 9965]]

back to the drawing board and remove these anti-environmental 
provisions as well as the extra billions of dollars in unrelated 
spending that they put in it. No to pork barrel projects, no to 
unlimited defense spending, and no to environmental riders.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this supplemental 
appropriations agreement.
  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 Congressman Deutsch and Congressman Inslee.
  This bill contains anti-environmental riders inserted in dark of the 
night.
  Mr. Speaker, I have only served in this House for four months, but I 
can tell you already that this is NOT how we should go about passing 
substantive legislation.
  The people of Oregon, three thousand miles away from this House 
today--have entrusted me with the responsibility to represent them--and 
to keep a watchful eye out for this kind of reckless activity.
  Mr. Speaker, none of these provisions--which are so damaging to our 
natural environment--passed either the House OR the Senate.
  We have a system of public scrutiny and accountability in America--
this bill attempts to sneak by those mechanisms.
  This attempt to sneak anti-environmental stealth riders under the 
noses of the American people is unacceptable. The three anti-
environmental riders that have been included in conference, have not 
had to face public scrutiny.
  One of the stealth riders inserted behind closed doors will effect my 
constituents who live along the Columbia River in Oregon.
  By reversing the Interior Solicitor's opinion to limit the size and 
number of waste sites associated with hardrock mining, river and 
groundwater sources will be jeopardized by acid mine drainage and heavy 
metals, such as arsenic.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to the American people to call 
this legislation for what it is--back-room--stealth destruction of our 
natural environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Deutsch-Inslee motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Conference Report because it is fiscally 
irresponsible. While I supported the supplemental bill that passed the 
House last week because it provided funding for our troops, I 
nevertheless hoped the Conferees would keep the emergency funding for 
emergency reasons only. I was hopeful that in matters of war and peace, 
life and death, this House would play it straight and work in a 
bipartisan fashion to support true emergency items. This bill, however, 
has become a back-door loophole to increase spending for non-emergency 
items.
  While I support legitimate emergency funding items--aid to disaster 
victims in Central America and tornado ravaged communities in the 
central United States, relief for struggling family farmers, and 
resources to support our troops in Kosovo--this body has unfortunately 
resorted to old-styled pork barrel politics. Members should not load up 
this emergency bill with their own pet projects.
  This bill contains over $5 billion in excess funding, anti-
environmental riders and cuts to important programs to offset a portion 
of the excess spending. The so-called ``emergency'' items in this 
Conference report include $1.3 million for a world trade conference in 
Seattle, over $3 million to refurbish the dorm for House pages, and a 
$700,000 increase for House leadership office budgets. These items may 
be necessary, and can be debated in the normal authorization and 
appropriations process, but they certainly are not emergency projects.
  It is fiscally irresponsible to fund non-emergency budget items using 
the Social Security surplus in an attempt to circumvent the budget 
caps. And it is just plain wrong to take advantage of our troops in the 
field and victims of real disasters to spend taxpayer dollars 
recklessly and carelessly. We should defeat this report and instead 
pass a true emergency funding bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1141, the 
Supplemental Appropriations Conference Report, which includes 
provisions to protect state tobacco settlement recoveries from seizure 
by the federal government. As Chairman of the Health and Environment 
Subcommittee, I have worked on a bipartisan basis to protect the 
settlement funds obtained by Florida and other states in their lawsuits 
against the tobacco industry.
  The language of the conference report is similar to H.R. 351, 
legislation I introduced in the House earlier this year. This proposal 
enjoys the bipartisan support of over 130 cosponsors. It has also been 
endorsed by the National Governors Association, the National Conference 
of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Attorneys 
General.
  The conference report provisions were originally adopted as an 
amendment in the other body, and they were retained by the conferees in 
the bill before us. These provisions prohibit the Department of Health 
and Human Services from treating funds recovered by the states from 
tobacco companies as an overpayment under the Medicaid program.
  As approved by the other body and incorporated in the conference 
report, this language does not restrict the use of state funds. The 
choice before us, then, is simple. Members can either support this 
measure and prevent a raid on state treasuries--or, they can oppose the 
bill and let the federal government seize over half of their states' 
hard-earned recoveries.
  As background, the Health Care Financing Administration first 
asserted a claim to states' settlement recoveries in a letter to state 
Medicaid directors in late 1997. The agency based its assertion on 
provisions of the federal Medicaid statute which allow recoupment of 
``overpayments.''
  In a subsequent hearing before my Health and Environment 
Subcommittee, the Administration agreed to withhold attempts to recover 
state settlement funds until Congress had an opportunity to address the 
subject in federal legislation. At that time, only three states--
Florida, Mississippi and Texas--had secured tobacco settlement 
agreements.
  Last year, 46 states and the District of Columbia negotiated a multi-
state agreement under which the industry will pay $206 billion over the 
next 25 years. Previous settlements by the states of Florida, Texas, 
Mississippi and Minnesota will total $40 billion over the same period.
  These funds are now in serious jeopardy, however, because the 
Department of Health and Human Services has renewed its plans to seize 
a large portion of the states' recoveries. The President's Fiscal Year 
2000 budget proposes to withhold almost $5 billion per year from 
federal Medicaid payments to states beginning in Fiscal Year 2001. This 
amount represents about half of what the states would receive under the 
multi-state settlement.
  This proposal to raid states' settlement funds is a thinly-veiled 
attempt at highway robbery. A number of states did not even assert 
Medicaid claims in their tobacco lawsuits. Other states' Medicaid 
claims were dismissed by the courts, and some states did not sue at 
all. In addition, states' lawsuits raised a variety of claims, 
including consumer protection, racketeering, antitrust, and civil 
penalties for violations of state laws.
  Ironically, the dispute regarding the status of these funds--and 
resulting budgetary uncertainty--has prevented states from moving 
forward with new initiatives to reduce teen tobacco use and improve 
public health. Many state legislatures are currently in session, and 
budget negotiations are reaching conclusion. Congressional action is 
needed to ensure that state legislatures can appropriate settlement 
funds with confidence.
  We should also recognize that state officials are just as accountable 
to the voters as federal representatives. States don't need to be told 
to fund public health programs--they are already doing it.
  In my own State of Florida, all settlement proceeds are dedicated to 
funding important public health initiatives, including an innovative 
advertising campaign targeted at reducing tobacco use by minors. 
Federal seizure of a portion of these funds would essentially ``de-
fund'' these critical programs.
  In addition, the Florida Legislature recently approved funding for 
the Lawton Chiles Endowment Fund proposed by Governor Jeb Bush. The 
endowment sets aside $1.7 billion of the state's tobacco recoveries to 
provide a perpetual source of funding for children's health programs, 
child welfare, community-based health and human services, and research.
  Other states are also directing significant resources to smoking 
cessation efforts. Many states have invested years in program design, 
modification, and evaluation to determine the best ways to prevent 
young people from using tobacco.
  However, states have not yet received any funds under the multi-state 
settlement. With no much money in question, not only is it unwise for 
states to obligate these funds, some states are constitutionally unable 
to appropriate them.
  For this reason, states are establishing trust funds, endowments, and 
foundations as mechanisms for receiving the settlement funds, many of 
which will be targeted to tobacco prevention and other health-related 
programs. Over a dozen states have already committed to creating a 
dedicated trust fund or devoting considerable settlement revenues to 
smoking cessation programs.

[[Page 9966]]

  In Maryland, for example, a fund was recently established to receive 
the state's share of the multi-state settlement. By law, the funds must 
be spent through the annual budget process, and the Governor must 
include either $100 million or 90 percent of the funds estimated to be 
available, whichever is less, in the proposed state budget.
  North Carolina, one of the largest tobacco-producing states, recently 
enacted a proposal that dedicates 25 percent of its settlement 
recoveries to benefit public health.
  The State of Utah, which has one of the lowest rates of tobacco usage 
in the nation, has spent millions of dollars to implement aggressive 
initiatives. A restricted account has been established for the use of 
tobacco settlement funds, with high priority given to funding tobacco 
prevention and cessation programs, particularly among teens.
  California also devotes considerable resources to programs to 
discourage smoking. In 1988, California took the lead in promoting 
tobacco-related health education by passing Proposition 99. Through the 
initiative, California spends nearly $370 million per year on health 
and tobacco-related education and research programs.
  Proposals to require states to dedicate a portion of their tobacco 
settlement funds to anti-smoking programs ignore the fact that states 
are already investing in tobacco control and other public health 
initiatives.
  Clearly, states have been leaders in the tobacco debate. Their 
landmark lawsuits against the tobacco industry were solely state 
efforts. States assumed the financial risk of legal action to pursue 
these claims, and their taxpayers are entitled to the reward.
  In fact, the federal government was invited to participate in these 
lawsuits, but it declined. In a letter to then-Florida Governor Chiles 
dated June 6, 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno stated: ``At my 
request, the Department's Civil Division has been monitoring the 
tobacco litigation. Thus far we have not been persuaded that 
participation would be advisable. We will continue to actively monitor 
these cases, however, and will reconsider this decision should 
circumstances persuade us otherwise.''
  The Department did not reconsider, and states were forced to bear all 
of the expense and risk of litigation. It is important to note that 
these were unprecedented lawsuits against a well-financed industry--
with a highly uncertain likelihood of success.
  States assumed the financial risk of lawsuits to recover tobacco-
related health care costs, and their taxpayers are entitled to the 
reward. The federal government should not be allowed to raid state 
tobacco settlement recoveries.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support 
passage of H.R. 1141, the Supplemental Appropriations Conference 
Report.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. This 
legislation rushes aid to people in need all over the world and here at 
home. It also provides badly needed funds to modernize and improve our 
military readiness and to support NATO so that we can bring the 
conflict in Kosovo to a speedy and successful conclusion.
  And while I routinely oppose legislative riders on appropriations 
bills, I also support the legislative language included in this bill to 
address the treatment of the State tobacco settlement funds under 
Medicaid. This language, identical to the bill introduced by the 
Chairman of the Health and Environment subcommittee, Mr. Bilirakis, 
amends the Medicaid statute to clarify that the States will be 
permitted to keep the tobacco settlement funds for the benefit of their 
own citizens. He deserves a great deal of credit for his hard work on 
this issue.
  All of us have heard from our governors, our State legislators, and 
attorneys general about how important this language is to our States 
and our constituents. They told us about their plans to reduce smoking 
among the youth, and to improve access to healthcare for children. They 
have argued that they were the ones who took the risk to recover these 
funds, and the Federal Government should leave the States alone. These 
are all excellent arguments, but the most important argument for why we 
must act now is the reality of the situation.
  Some States, like Florida, settled their suits against the tobacco 
companies before the States entered into the ``master settlement 
agreement'' and have already received their first payments from the 
tobacco companies. The other States expect their first installments by 
the year 2002. The States are trying to make budget decisions while the 
Administration has reversed course and is indicating that it will seek 
reimbursement for it's share of the Medicaid costs. The States disagree 
with the Administration's assessment, and have drawn a line in the 
sand.
  Without legislation, we face many years of protracted litigation 
between the States and the Federal Government. The first issue that 
would have to be resolved in any litigation would be whether the 
Federal Government has any claim to this money at all. While the 
Administration believes that this is an open and shut case, the States 
do not agree and would likely take this to the Supreme Court.
  And even assuming that the Administration would prevail, the next 
question would be even more complicated--determining what portion of 
the settlement award represents reimbursement for Medicaid expenses. In 
their lawsuits, the States brought many different causes of action, 
including state antitrust and consumer protection law violations. 
Courts would have to determine what portion of each State's settlement 
funds represent Medicaid expenses, and to what portion of the 
settlement the Federal Government is entitled. This question is even 
more complicated when considering States like Virginia, which never 
brought a suit but participate in the settlement, or the numerous other 
States which did bring suits but had their Medicaid claims tossed out 
of court.
  The end result is that the funds--which everyone agrees should be 
used in large part to reduce youth smoking and improve public health--
will sit in bank accounts doing nothing well into the next century. 
That is a result that none of us wants.
  I have every confidence that other States, if they are allowed to 
proceed with their plans, will follow the lead of my own State of 
Virginia. Virginia has already pledged most of these funds to reduce 
smoking among teens and young adults, to improve access to healthcare 
for children, and to assist tobacco farmers and workers in their 
transition to other industries. Many States have similar programs 
planned or underway, while others are waiting for Congress to resolve 
the question of who can lay claim to the money.
  Mr. Speaker, if Members believe that we need to do more to discourage 
youth smoking, they need to vote for this bill and support this 
language. They need to resist efforts to earmark a percentage of these 
funds to their favorite project. They need to trust the States to do 
the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to support 
this language, and to oppose efforts to strip out this language.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Conference Report before us today. I oppose 
this $15 million bill because it contains authorizations that do not 
belong in an emergency bill and it includes spending provisions for 
non-emergency purposes that should be debated in the normal 
appropriations process.
  The authorizations in this conference report should be contained in 
authorizing legislation, not in an emergency appropriations bill. These 
provisions include prohibiting the federal government from both 
recovering part of the $246 billion tobacco settlement and placing 
restrictions on how states could use such funds; removing the 
restriction on FY 1999 funding for the Census Bureau; extending an 
existing moratorium on revising the way crude oil from federal lands is 
valued in order to determine federal royalities from the leases; and 
exempting a proposed mine in Washington State from a recent Interior 
Department ruling that would have blocked the mine's development.
  The conference report also contains $268 million worth of non-
emergency spending provisions that--although offset by cuts in other 
programs--should not be considered as part of an emergency spending 
measure. Among these are $29 million for the Postal Service's 
subsidized mail program, $48 million to replace a public broadcasting 
satellite, $3.8 million to renovate the House Page dormitory here on 
Capitol Hill, and $1.3 million for the World Trade Organization 
Ministerial meeting in Seattle. These provisions and their offsets 
should be debated on their merits in the normal appropriations process, 
not when we are trying to provide funding for our forces in Yugoslavia 
and those who have been devastated by natural disasters.
  The legislative process through which this bill was crafted reminds 
me of the back-door deals and spending pile-ons that characterized the 
pork-laden Omnibus Appropriations bill last fall. At that time, then-
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee Bob Livingston said ``We on 
the Committee on Appropriations are not happy doing our business that 
way. We are prepared to work with anyone willing to restore the 
integrity of the process.'' Apparently that integrity has yet to be 
restored.
  Mr. Speaker, how quickly we have forgotten the lessons of last fall. 
I regret being put in a position of voting against poorly crafted 
legislation that includes some goals I support. I remind my colleagues 
that the Administration

[[Page 9967]]

originally requested $7.3 billion total for Kosovo and natural 
disasters. Today's legislation has been ballooned to $15 billion. I 
urge a vote against this bill. Let's support our troops and assist 
those victims of natural disasters who are truly in a state of 
emergency, but let's do it the right way.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the conference report for H.R. 1141, the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, contains good news for 
northeastern striped bass and blue fish fishermen. That's because 
important food sources for these species--herring and mackerel--have 
been protected by virtue of a provision in this bill.
  The provision would prohibit the National Marine Fisheries Service 
from issuing permits to allow large factory-type trawlers into the 
herring and mackerel fisheries without the expressed consent of the 
governing Fishery Management Council under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
Why is Congressional intervention in management of these two species 
needed? Herring and mackerel are two fisheries on the East Coast that 
have not been fished to the limit--YET, and these fish are a major food 
source for at least two near shore species, stripers and bluefish, that 
are favorites of recreational fishermen.
  Over the last several years, mackerel world market prices have 
increased substantially because Eastern European countries can no 
longer depend on government price supports, which kept prices 
artificially low for decades. This has created new fishing pressure. 
Herring populations have recently recovered from severely low numbers. 
The population collapsed in 1978 after years of over fishing, mostly by 
foreign factory trawlers. Now, largely because of the exclusion of 
foreign vessels under the original Magnuson Act and the lack of a major 
U.S. market for herring, the population appears to be healthy. However, 
four large factory trawlers are trying to enter the herring and 
mackerel fisheries. One of these vessels alone is capable of harvesting 
more herring than the entire existing fishery in the Gulf of Maine. 
Similarly, the vessel is capable of harvesting one-third of the 
estimated long-term sustainable catch for mackerel.
  During the herring recovery, New England fishermen had to find 
alternative fisheries to survive. They increasingly turned to cod and 
haddock at Georges Bank. Sadly, the story is too familiar--the 
populations of these fish in Georges Bank have since crashed. Now, 
herring are being targeted again.
  The Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries are facing a new 
disastrous threat because large fishing vessels are poised to enter 
these fisheries. High prices and the apparent abundance of these 
species have attracted the attention of fishermen and businessmen 
throughout the world, who have responded by investing in large fishing 
vessels to harvest this American resource for sale overseas. The 
capacity of each of these vessels exceeds 50 metric tons per year. 
Coincidentally, the total take in these fisheries, for the entire 
herring and mackerel fleet is just about 50 metric tons, IN TOTAL.
  It is therefore imperative that we establish safeguards to prevent 
another fishing disaster like those suffered by redfish, shark, striped 
bass, cod and haddock. I introduced legislation last Congress and again 
this year to close the herring and mackerel fisheries to new large 
vessels until a stock assessment could be completed, and until fishery 
management plans for the two species were in place that specifically 
allowed for large vessels. In the last Congress, that bill passed the 
House but was not acted on in the Senate. This year, the measure has 
been approved by my subcommittee, and it awaits full Resources 
Committee action.
  The moratorium on large fishing vessels is a good idea. This 
provision allows the councils, with concurrence of the Secretary, to 
decide when and how it is appropriate to let these large vessels into 
the fishery. The councils need the time to react to what could be a 
sudden, unsustainable increase in harvest. This bill gives them the 
time to develop fishery management plans. Sadly, the NMFS seems content 
to wait until the stocks crash before taking action to protect these 
fisheries. As someone who has witnessed the pain and economic suffering 
experienced by those fishermen in New England, I do not believe that we 
should fish now and pay later. We must end this cycle of destroying our 
resources without knowing how much fishing pressure they can endure. 
This provision will help to conserve our Atlantic herring and mackerel 
stocks, and preserve the food source for stripers and bluefish.
  I urge the adoption of this important measure.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern about the $350 
million rescission in Section 8 affordable housing reserves, contained 
in this supplemental spending bill.
  Just two weeks ago, HUD announced an affordable housing mark-up-to-
market initiative, designed to preserve our affordable housing stock 
for lower-income seniors, disabled, and families in expensive rental 
markets.
  This initiative had strong bi-partisan support, with a commitment 
from Republican leaders to work with HUD to develop long term funding 
to preserve affordable rental properties and to protect those tenants 
living in properties we are unable to preserve.
  So, just two weeks later, it is disconcerting to see the majority 
party cutting $350 million from the same Section 8 account that would 
be used to implement these housing preservation and tenant protection 
activities.
  This rescission is especially disturbing, in light of the draconian 
domestic discretionary cuts adopted in this year's budget resolution. A 
$350 million rescission of Section 8 reserves eliminates a source of 
funds that could be used to soften the blow of such spending cuts, and 
to fund critical initiatives.
  This rescission calls into question the commitment in last year's 
pubic hosing bill to add 100,000 incremental vouchers in Fiscal year 
2000, on top of the 50,000 incrementals funded last fiscal year. For 
example, the $350 million being rescinded today could fund 60,000 of 
these 100,000 vouchers.
  I hope that appropriators will find the resources to fund our 
commitment to affordable housing. If not, I fear we will look back at 
today's action as a major reason we ran out of money in the effort to 
meet this commitment.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on the supplemental 
moves us closer to providing funds to assist Maine's recovery from the 
ice storm that devastating the Northeast in January, 1998.
  The conferees agreed to transfer $230 million of funds appropriated 
last year for disaster assistance from the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This 
action leaves at HUD about $83.6 million in FY 1998 and FY 1999 
disaster funds.
  Distribution of this money has been delayed too long. HUD has already 
announced how it will allocate the remaining money. The conferees left 
this funding with HUD so that the allocations would be honored. They 
directed HUD to ``award the remaining funds in accordance with 
announcements made heretofore by the Secretary, including allocations 
made pursuant to the March 10, 1999, notice published in the Federal 
Register, as expeditiously as possible.''
  Announced allocations for the state of Maine include $2,118,000 in 
March 1999, and an additional $17,088,475 on May 4, 1999, pursuant to 
the March 10 notice in the Federal Register. I am including for the 
record a letter I received from the Department dated May 4, which 
states that these funds can be used to address the largest unmet need 
in my state--to provide relief to electric ratepayers from the costs of 
restoring essential services in the wake of the storm.
  We appreciate the work of the conferees in the effort. The next step 
is to ensure that these funds are made available without further delay 
to be used by the State for the unmet needs remaining from the disaster 
that hit Maine more than 16 months ago.

         Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 
           the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
           Development,
                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 1999.
     Hon. John P. Baldacci,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Baldacci: Thank you for your joint 
     letter of April 22, 1999, with Senators Snowe and Collins and 
     Representative Allen, regarding Maine's submission of 
     additional information for Community Development Block Grant 
     supplemental disaster funding. The deadline for submitting 
     such information was April 26, 1999.
       I am writing to inform you that the state of Maine would 
     receive an additional $17,088,475 in 1999 HUD Disaster 
     Recovery Initiative funds to address unmet disaster recovery 
     needs resulting from severe ice storms, rain and high winds 
     (FEMA-1198-DR). This is based on your state's submission of 
     additional information, under the March 10, 1999, Federal 
     Register notice. This amount is in addition to amounts of 
     $2,185,000 and $2,118,000, in 1998 HUD Disaster Recovery 
     Initiative funds previously allocated, making a total of 
     $21,391,475 for Maine. These funds could be used for utility 
     reimbursement as discussed.
       All amounts, except for the initial $2,185,000 allocation 
     are subject to Congressional action which may transfer $313.6 
     million in Community Development Block Grant supplemental 
     disaster appropriations from HUD. The Department has been 
     asked by Congress not to take further action until final 
     resolution of H.R. 1141, the 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act.

[[Page 9968]]

       With these HUD resources, I am committed to participating 
     in the efforts to help communities rebuild from the 
     devastation caused by major disasters.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Cardell Cooper,
                                              Assistant Secretary.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.


                 Motion To Recommit Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not for the 
reasons the gentleman indicated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report 
     accompanying the bill H.R. 1141 to the Committee of 
     Conference.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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 182, 
nays 243, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               YEAS--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Phelps
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--243

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Gephardt
     Lowey
     Pelosi
     Serrano
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  2014

  Mrs. MYRICK and Messrs. GANSKE, GOSS, BOEHLERT and BISHOP changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. OBERSTAR and Mr. SCARBOROUGH changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 269, 
nays 158, not voting 7,, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               YEAS--269

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes

[[Page 9969]]


     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Larson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--158

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Blumenauer
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Goode
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Portman
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Dunn
     Pelosi
     Serrano
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  2032

  Mr. HILLEARY and Mr. WEINER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. OLVER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________