[House Report 105-469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     105-469
_______________________________________________________________________


 
MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 
               SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

 March 27, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Livingston, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3579]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making emergency 
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.

                            BILL HIGHLIGHTS

    The bill recommended by the Committee includes 
$2,865,628,000 of emergency supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal year 1998. In the National Security area $2,288,252,000 
is included for peacekeeping operations in Southwest Asia, for 
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, for recovery at military 
installations from Typhoon Paka in Guam, and for recovery at 
other military installations from El Nino and other natural 
disasters. The bill also includes $575,376,000 in domestic 
assistance for recovery from natural disasters for highway and 
railroad repairs, agriculture losses, flood control facility 
repairs, National Park repairs, wildlife refuge restoration, 
and reforestation.

                              BILL SUMMARY                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Activity                              Amount      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic:                                                               
    Emergency Agriculture Disaster Loans...........         $21,000,000 
    Emergency Conservation Program.................          20,000,000 
    Tree Assistance Program........................           4,700,000 
    Livestock Disaster Assistance..................           4,000,000 
    Dairy Production Disaster Assistance...........           6,800,000 
    Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations......          65,000,000 
    Corps of Engineers Operations and Maintenance..          84,457,000 
    Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related                             
     resources.....................................           4,520,000 
    Fish and Wildlife Service Construction.........          28,938,000 
    National Park Service Construction.............           8,500,000 
    US Geological Society Surveys..................           1,000,000 
    National Forest Service System.................          10,461,000 
    State and Private Forestry.....................          48,000,000 
    Federal-aid Highways Emergency Relief Program..         259,000,000 
    Emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair...           9,000,000 
                                                    --------------------
      Subtotal Domestic............................        (570,115,000)
National Security:                                                      
    Military Personnel.............................         226,400,000 
    Operation and Maintenance......................       1,971,465,000 
    Revolving and Management Funds.................          31,467,000 
    Defense Health Program.........................           1,900,000 
    Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program..          37,000,000 
    Family Housing.................................          19,000,000 
    Base Realignment and Closure Account...........           1,020,000 
                                                    --------------------
      Subtotal National Security...................      (2,288,252,000)
      Grand total..................................       2,858,367,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the appropriations included in the bill are greater 
than the amounts requested by the President. This is because 
the estimates for the recovery from natural disasters is 
continuously being refined and additional disasters have 
occurred since the President submitted his request.
    The emergency spending in the bill is offset with 
$2,865,000,000 of rescissions. They are $1,930,000,000 of 
excess Section 8 Housing Program reserves, $335,000,000 of 
excess contract authority for the Airport Grants-In-Aid 
Program, $275,000,000 of reduced obligation limits for the 
Airport Grants-In-Aid Program, $250,000,000 for the Corporation 
for National Service (Americorps), and $75,000,000 for 
Bilingual Education.

             TITLE I--EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency

                     emergency conservation program

    The Committee provides $20,000,000 for the Emergency 
Conservation Program. This would provide cost-sharing 
assistance to farmers and ranchers whose lands were damaged by 
ice storms in the Northeastern United States, tornadoes in 
Florida, El Nino driven rains in California, and other recent 
natural disasters. Under the Emergency Conservation Program's 
flood authority provisions, funds can be used for cleaning 
debris, mending fences, land shaping and grading, and restoring 
conservation structures (including some cover crops). These 
funds would also be used to address any subsequent spring 
flooding, after the heavy winter snowpack melts.

                        tree assistance program

    The Committee provides $4,700,000 for the emergency tree 
assistance program. Similar assistance was authorized and 
provided through the tree assistance program in the Disaster 
Assistance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-387), the Disaster Assistance 
Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-82), and by authorizations in the 101st 
and 102nd Congresses.
    The Committee expects the Department to administer the 
program with provisions enacted in past disaster assistance 
acts. This program should not duplicate payments that may be 
received under this authority and the forestry incentives 
program, environmental quality incentives program, or other 
Federal programs.

           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

    The Committee provides an $87,000,000 in additional 
emergency loans. These funds will assist family farmers who 
have sustained financial losses because of ice storms in the 
upper Northeastern United States, tornadoes in Florida, and 
flooding in California and other states. These funds would 
allow the Farm Service Agency to provide low-interest loans to 
farmers who would be unable to obtain credit elsewhere for 
repair of farm structures damaged by natural disasters and for 
farm operating expenses.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

                 livestock disaster assistance program

    The Committee provides $4,000,000 for Livestock Disaster 
Assistance. These funds would provide financial assistance to 
farmers and ranchers whose livestock (including ratities) were 
lost as a result of the ice storms in the Northeastern United 
States, tornadoes in Florida, El Nino-driven rains and 
mudslides in California, heavy snows in the southwest and other 
natural disasters that occurred between November 27, 1997, and 
the enactment of this emergency supplemental request.
    This program should be operated on the same terms and 
conditions as P.L. 105-18. However, the Department applied a 
gross income cap of $2,500,000 for producers of livestock with 
losses. Due to the differing size of livestock and dairy 
operations across the country, the limitation has caused 
inequities in eligibility for disaster assistance. The use of 
the $2,500,000 income cap is administrative and arbitrary. The 
Committee expects the Department to review the use of the cap 
and adjust accordingly.
    The Committee is aware of severe flooding in the State of 
Florida and the damage caused to the state's livestock 
population, particularly in the cattle grazing lands from 
Suwanee County to Highlands County in the southern region of 
the state. The Committee expects the Secretary to provide all 
appropriate assistance to Florida ranchers affected by storm 
and flood damage.

             dairy production indemnity assistance program

    The Committee recommends $6,800,000 for a dairy loss 
indemnity program. The recent disasters affecting the country 
have caused severe losses to dairy farmers. The losses seem to 
be unprecedented. The Committee provides for partial loss 
adjustment to compensate producers for losses of milk that has 
been produced but not marketed or for diminished production 
(including diminished future production due to mastitis) that 
was caused as a result of natural disasters.
    The program should be operated in the same terms and 
conditions as P.L. 105-18 for the livestock indemnity program. 
However, the Department applied a gross income cap of 
$2,500,000 for producers of livestock with losses. Due to the 
differing size of dairy operations across the country, the 
limitation would cause inequities in eligibility for disaster 
assistance. The use of the $2,500,000 income cap is 
administrative and arbitrary. The Committee expects the 
Department to review the use of the cap and adjust accordingly.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

               watershed and flood prevention operations

    The Committee provides $65,000,000 for emergency Watershed 
and Flood Prevention Operations to repair damage to waterways 
and watersheds. These funds would provide disaster assistance 
to communities to reduce hazards to life and property in 
watersheds damaged by ice storms in the Northeastern United 
States, tornadoes in Florida, and El Nino-driven rains and 
mudslides in California, heavy snows in the southwest and other 
natural disasters that occurred between November 27, 1997, and 
the enactment of this emergency supplemental request. Emergency 
work would include opening dangerously restricted channels and 
waterways, repairing diversions and levees, and erosion control 
on denuded, steep slopes. Funds may also be used to purchase 
flood plain easements. Easements may be offered to landowners 
where the cost of cropland restoration and levee repair are 
greater than the value of the land; lands selected must offer 
important environmental benefits and high flood mitigation 
value for the surrounding area.

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                         Supplemental Requests

    The President requested supplemental fiscal year 1998 
appropriations for the Department of Defense under the 
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on National Security totaling 
$2,004,047,000. This includes $1,848,300,000 in emergency 
supplemental appropriations to finance unbudgeted personnel, 
operations, and equipment drawdown costs associated with 
contingency operations in Bosnia and Southwest Asia. The 
President also requested $155,747,000 for the repair of defense 
facilities damaged by natural disasters: of this amount, 
$105,747,000 was requested as emergency supplemental 
appropriations, and $50,000,000 was requested as contingent 
emergency appropriations (to be made available upon the 
President's submission of a subsequent budget request 
designating the entire amount as an emergency requirement).
    Concurrent with transmittal of these requests, the 
President also forwarded to the Congress his request for fiscal 
year 1999 budget amendments, providing for $1,858,600,000 in 
emergency appropriations for the estimated fiscal year 1999 
costs of U.S. military operations in support of the NATO-led 
peacekeeping operation in Bosnia. The Committee defers action 
on the proposed fiscal year 1999 budget amendments until its 
consideration of the fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations 
bill.

                         Committee Observations

    For the fourth consecutive year, the Committee finds itself 
confronted with a sizable request for supplemental 
appropriations for the Department of Defense. The requirement 
for supplemental funds this year is due to the substantial 
movement of forces to the Persian Gulf region from November 
1997-March 1998 (in response to Iraq's refusal to comply with 
United Nations' mandates regarding arms inspections); the 
President's decision to extend U.S. participation in the NATO-
led peacekeeping effort in Bosnia beyond the previously-planned 
end date of June 1998; and severe storm damage incurred over 
the past six months at a number of DoD installations.
    The Committee applauds the professionalism and courage of 
the men and women of our armed forces who are skillfully 
carrying out operations in Southwest Asia and Bosnia. These 
missions have been conducted while the overall size and 
resources of the U.S. military continue to decline, and they 
have contributed in no small degree to the continued high pace 
of U.S. military operational and personnel tempo which are at 
the highest peacetime levels in re- 
cent history. These operations, and the performance of American 
forces, provide vivid testament that the post-Cold War era 
remains a volatile and dangerous period in which a well-trained 
and equipped U.S. military is essential.
    In order to finance these deployments, the Department of 
Defense has been forced to use fiscal year 1998 funds 
originally intended for military pay and benefits, readiness 
training, facilities and equipment maintenance, and day-to-day 
base operations. If these funds are not replenished as proposed 
in the supplemental request, there will be an immediate 
detrimental impact on U.S. forces due to the shortage of funds 
for payrolls, personnel moves, training and other readiness 
related activities in the remaining months of this fiscal year.
    In recent testimony before the Committee, the Secretary of 
Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
described in graphic terms the difficulties which will ensue 
should supplemental appropriations not be provided. Planned 
exercises and training, equipment maintenance and spare parts 
replenishment for non-forward deployed units will be sharply 
reduced, with many units forced into ``C-3'' or ``C-4'' 
readiness status. The Committee believes it is imperative this 
be avoided, and therefore approves the majority of the 
supplemental request.

                  Summary of Committee Recommendations

    The following describes the Committee's recommendations by 
category.
    Bosnia.--The Committee recommends $486,900,000 for 
supporting operations in Bosnia, the requested amount, which 
will fund the deployment of U.S. forces past the previously 
scheduled withdrawal date of June 30, 1998, through the end of 
fiscal year 1998.
    Southwest Asia.--The Committee recommends $1,312,400,000 
for operations in Southwest Asia. This recommendation fully 
funds the supplemental request, with the exception of 
$50,000,000 requested for drawdown costs, which the Committee 
denies due to its belief these funds are not required given the 
current pace of operations in Southwest Asia.
    Natural Disasters.--The Committee recommends a total of 
$174,932,000. This includes $105,747,000, as requested, for 
damage incurred by Typhoon Paka on Guam and from ice storms in 
the northeast United States. The Committee also recommends 
$69,185,000, as contingent emergency appropriations, for 
additional storm and flood damages dueprincipally to the 
effects of El Nino storms. This differs from the supplemental request, 
which proposed $50,000,000 on a contingent emergency basis for a 
transfer account, from which funds would then be transferred to the 
military services as expenses from El Nino and other natural disasters 
were determined. The Committee notes the services have already 
documented expenses in excess of the amount requested, and sees no need 
to use an administrative mechanism, such as the transfer account, which 
would delay getting funds to those who need them. The Committee, 
therefore, recommends providing the full requirement of $69,185,000 
directly into the appropriate service accounts.
    Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund.--The Committee 
recommends $37,000,000 in order to fully finance the remaining 
ob- 
ligations of the Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund. 
This program was established by Congress in fiscal year 1996 to 
help mitigate economic losses for Reservists when they are 
involuntarily called to active duty. However, from its 
inception numerous problems arose which risked the solvency of 
the fund, and in the fiscal year 1998 National Defense 
Authorization Act this program was terminated. Nonetheless, 
there are still outstanding financial obligations owed to 
Reservists who have been involuntarily called up in response to 
the operation in Bosnia, and the Committee's recommendation 
will permit payment of known outstanding requirements.
    Classified Programs.--Recommended adjustments by the 
Committee to classified activities requested by the 
Administration are contained in a classified annex to this 
report.
    The following table provides details of the supplemental 
appropriations in title I, chapter 2 of the bill, by relevant 
category and appropriations account:

           FISCAL YEAR 1998 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPLEMENTAL          
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee  
                                          Budget request  recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingency Operations:                                                 
    Military Personnel:                                                 
        Army............................          $184.0          $184.0
        Navy............................            22.3            22.3
        Marine Corps....................             5.1             5.1
        Air Force.......................            10.9            10.9
        Navy Reserve....................             4.1             4.1
                                         -------------------------------
          Total.........................           226.4           226.4
                                         ===============================
    Operation and maintenance:                                          
        Overseas Contingency Operations                                 
         Transfer Fund..................         1,621.9         1,829.9
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, Contingency Operations.         1,848.3         2,056.3
                                         ===============================
Natural Disasters:                                                      
    Operation and maintenance:                                          
        Defense-Wide (contingent                                        
         disaster fund).................            50.0             0.0
        Army............................             1.9             2.6
        Navy............................            48.1            53.8
        Marine Corps....................             0.0            26.8
        Air Force.......................            27.4            49.2
        Defense-Wide....................             1.4             1.4
        Army Reserve....................             0.7             0.7
        Air Force Reserve...............             0.2             0.2
        Army National Guard.............             0.2             5.9
        Air National Guard..............             0.0             1.0
                                         -------------------------------
          Total.........................           129.8           141.6
                                         ===============================
    Working Capital Funds:                                              
        Navy Working Capital Fund.......            23.0            30.5
        Defense-Wide Working Capital                                    
         Fund...........................             1.0             1.0
                                         -------------------------------
          Total.........................            24.0            31.5
                                         ===============================
        Defense Health Program..........             1.9             1.9
                                         -------------------------------
          Total, Natural Disasters......           155.7           174.9
                                         ===============================
Other Supplemental Appropriations:                                      
    Reserve Mobilization Income                                         
     Insurance..........................             0.0            37.0
                                         -------------------------------
      Grand Total.......................         2,004.0         2,268.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Persian Gulf Burdensharing

    Since the successful conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991, 
the United States has been in the forefront of efforts to 
implement the terms of the Gulf War cease fire. The presence of 
U.S. forces in the Gulf has added to the stability and security 
of all countries in the region, as they confront the threat of 
aggressive intentions by Iraq coupled with its attempts to 
acquire weapons of mass destruction. The Committee firmly 
believes in the validity of the mission of these forces 
presently in the Gulf, as well as their continued deployment 
until such time that Iraq complies with the United Nations 
agreement regarding its weapons of mass destruction program.
    This deployment, however, has been undertaken at a 
substantial cost, stretching both the capabilities of available 
U.S. forces and financial resources. The Committee is concerned 
that this strain will continue indefinitely unless measures are 
taken to increase support for our troops in the region. The 
Committee expects the Administration to undertake vigorous 
diplomatic initiatives to seek financial, in-kind, and other 
contributions from Gulf State allies, as well as other members 
of the world community, to share more fully in the costs of 
U.S. deployments in the Gulf region. The Committee acknowledges 
the existing contributions made by our allies, but also notes 
that the recent heightened operations demand a greater 
assumption of the financial burden by our partners. Therefore, 
the Committee recommends that the Administration undertake a 
comprehensive review of its burdensharing arrangements for 
operations in Southwest Asia. The Secretaries of State and 
Defense shall jointly submit a report to Congress not later 
than 60 days following enactment of this bill, describingthe 
actions taken and the results of its efforts to more equitably share 
the burden of the common defense against the threat of weapons of mass 
destruction in the Gulf region.

                      Bosnia Withdrawal Benchmarks

    In his certification to Congress that the continued 
presence of U.S. armed forces in Bosnia is required after June 
1998, the President identified ``concrete and achievable'' 
benchmarks which, once accomplished, would establish the 
conditions under which implementation of the Dayton Accords 
could continue without the support of a NATO military force. 
The Committee wishes to be informed on a regular basis as to 
the progress made in achieving these benchmarks, and directs 
the Department of Defense, on be- 
half of the executive branch, to submit a quarterly report to 
the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 
detailing the progress made in each of the benchmark areas as 
defined in the President's report to Congress in response to 
Section 8132 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1998. The first submission of this report is to 
occur no later than June 30, 1998, and every quarter 
thereafter, until the NATO force mission in Bosnia is complete.

                       Bosnian National Elections

    The national elections to be held in the Republic of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina in September 1998 will be a key indicator of 
the prospects for stable government in Bosnia and a self-
sustaining peace in the region. Democratic elections held at 
all levels are crucial to establishing an environment for 
continued progress.
    The Committee directs the Administration to submit a report 
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate not 
later than 30 days after the completion of national elections 
in Bosnia, detailing: (a) the results of the elections; (b) any 
evidence that the elections were conducted by means not in 
accordance with democratic norms; and (c) impediments faced in 
installing duly elected officials, if any.

                        Future Force Deployments

    The Committee is concerned about recent events in the 
Serbian province of Kosovo and the potential for future 
involvement of U.S. forces in that area. Recent statements by 
Administration officials raise the possibility that U.S. troops 
could be employed in Kosovo and U.S. force levels increased in 
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This suggests that 
policy options regarding the future commitment and deployment 
of U.S. forces are being weighed without the participation of 
Congress. While the recent violence in Kosovo is clearly a 
serious matter, the Committee expects any decisions altering 
the present deployment of the U.S. force in the Balkan region 
or in any other contingency operation will be made in full 
consultation with the Congress. It is not acceptable that these 
decisions, and the attendant financial implications which are 
the ultimate responsibility of Congress, occur without 
appropriate notification to and consultation with the Congress.

                       Low Level Flight Training

    The Committee notes with concern the tragic accident near 
Aviano, Italy, which according to preliminary findings appears 
to have been the result of U.S. military personnel conducting 
flight operations in violation of established low level flight 
training procedures. The Committee is concerned that military 
flight crews may not be fully aware of the proper low level 
flight training procedures. The Committee directs that the 
Department of Defense take immediate action to advise all 
flight crews of proper low level flight training procedures, 
and strictly enforce compliance with these procedures.

                            Civil Air Patrol

    The Committee understands that the Air Force has initiated 
an effort to substantially revise the policies and procedures 
for funding the Civil Air Patrol. The Committee is concerned 
about the objectives of this effort as well as the possible 
consequences of such a revision. The Committee is further aware 
that this is a matter of some urgency since the Department of 
Defense program review, which is now underway, may be affected 
by the proposed changes. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Air Force to discontinue efforts to implement changes to 
funding policies and procedures for the Civil Air Patrol. 
Concerns involving Civil Air Patrol accountability for, and use 
of, appropriated funds should be resolved under the 1991 Air 
Force-Civil Air Patrol Memorandum of Understanding.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

    Section 201 of the General Provisions has been included 
which limits the availability of funds provided in this chapter 
to the current fiscal year unless otherwise specified.
    Section 202 of the General Provisions has been included 
providing technical language regarding obligation of funds in 
this bill for intelligence-related programs.
     Section 203 of the General Provisions has been included 
which appropriates funds for the Reserve Mobilization Income 
Insurance Fund for additional personnel costs.
     Section 204 of the General Provisions has been included 
which establishes an independent panel to evaluate the quality 
of health care initiatives begun by the Department of Defense.

           Military Health Care Quality Assurance Commission

    A high quality military health care delivery system is 
critically important to maintaining a fit, capable military 
force that is ready to fight and has high morale. Improving 
this system is a major challenge in the face of declining 
budgets, higher medical costs, and the transformation that has 
occurred within the entire U.S. health care industry. Recently, 
several system weaknesses have been brought to the Committee's 
attention calling into question the quality of care being 
provided by the Military Health Services System. In response, 
the Department acknowledged many of the alleged shortcomings 
and has undertaken a 13-point corrective program known as the 
Access and Quality Improvement Initiative. The Committee 
believes the issues that have been raised are significant and 
must be addressed fully and completely in order to retain the 
full confidence and trust in the military health care system.
    The Committee has included Section 204 in the General 
Provisions, requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish an 
independent panel of experts to assess the corrective measures 
taken by the Department and make any recommendations it deems 
appropriate. This panel shall be composed of nine members 
appointed by the Secretary. Five members shall be persons of 
national reputation in the medical community who have no 
current affiliation with the Department of Defense and who 
possess experience in setting health care standards. The 
remaining members shall be users of the Military Health 
Services System representing each of the military services. The 
Committee urges the Secretary to ensure that the viewpoints of 
enlisted personnel are fully represented in the appointments of 
the panel. The Committee bill provides $5,000,000 for the 
Defense Health Program, to be derived by transfer from the 
fiscal year 1998 Navy research, development, test and 
evaluation account (Surface Combatant Combat System 
Engineering, TBMD/UYQ-70), to cover administrative expenses of 
the panel and to finance upgrades or improvements identified by 
the panel and concurred in by the Secretary.

                               CHAPTER 3

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                   Operation and Maintenance, General

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation to date............................    $1,740,025,000
1998 supplemental estimate............................        30,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................        84,457,000
                                                                        

    The recommendation includes funds for emergency needs 
identified subsequent to submission of the 1998 supplemental 
request by the Administration.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                         BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

                      Water and Related Resources

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
1998 appropriation to date............................      $694,348,000
1998 supplemental estimate............................         2,340,000
Committee recommendation..............................         4,520,000
                                                                        

    The recommendation includes funds for emergency needs 
identified subsequent to submission of the 1998 supplemental 
request by the Administration.

                               CHAPTER 4

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                              Construction

    The Committee recommends $28,938,000 for construction 
instead of $28,688,000 as proposed by the Administration, of 
which $3,938,000 is to repair damages to the property and 
structures of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge resulting from 
Typhoon Paka; and $25,000,000, contingent on the Presidential 
declaration of an emergency, is to repair damage to National 
Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries and other Fish and 
Wildlife Service properties and structures caused by the 
January 1998 ice storms in the northeastern United States, El 
Nino-related storms in California, tornadoes in Florida and 
other natural disasters. The funds are needed for debris 
cleanup, recreation facility restoration, demolition of unsafe 
buildings, habitat restoration and road repair. The additional 
$250,000 above the Administration's request recommended by the 
Committee is for the Guam NWR.

                         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

                              Construction

    The Committee recommends $8,500,000 for construction, 
contingent on the Presidential declaration of an emergency, to 
repair damages to National Park property and structures caused 
by the January 1998 ice storms in the northeastern United 
States, El Nino-related storms in California, tornadoes in 
Florida and other natural disasters. The funds are needed for 
debris cleanup, recreation facility restoration, demolition of 
unsafe buildings, habitat restoration and road repair.

                    UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

                 Surveys, Investigations, and Research

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for surveys, 
investigations, and research, contingent on the Presidential 
declaration of an emergency, to repair damages to United States 
Geological Survey facilities and monitoring equipment, and for 
other emergency activities related to the January 1998 ice 
storms in the northeastern United States, El Nino-related 
storms in California, tornadoes in Florida and other natural 
disasters.

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service

                       State and Private Forestry

    The Committee recommends $48,000,000 for State and private 
forestry, of which $28,000,000 is contingent on the 
Presidential declaration of an emergency, to repair damages 
caused by the January 1998 ice storms in the northeastern 
United States. The funds are needed for assisting with disaster 
relief efforts for forest resources on State, local government 
and private lands including cleanup and replacement of trees, 
trail and road clearing, maple sugar operation assistance, and 
technical assistance to assess damage and develop recovery and 
stewardship plans.

                         National Forest System

    The Committee recommends $10,461,000 for the National 
forest system, of which $5,461,000 is contingent on the 
Presidential declaration of an emergency, to repair damages 
caused by the January 1998 ice storms in the northeastern 
United States, and by extreme winds in October 1997 which 
damaged about 20,000 acres of timber and recreation areas, 
mostly within the Mount Zirkle wilderness area of the Routt 
National Forest in Colorado.
    In addition, the Committee notes the severe damage incurred 
by the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky as a result of 
a devastating February snow storm. Over 1,100 miles of trails 
and roads, recreation and wildlife areas require critical 
cleanup funds, and the Committee expects $461,000 provided in 
this section to be used for these purposes.

                               CHAPTER 5

              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

    The Committee recommends appropriations totaling 
$20,020,000 in new budget authority solely to cover costs 
arising from El Nino and Typhoon Paka related damage, as 
follows:

             Base Realignment and Closure Account, Part III

    The Committee recommends $1,020,000 for repairs to the on-
going project to provide an Aircraft Parking Apron at Camp 
Pendleton Marine Corps Air Station, California, for replacement 
of a protective berm surrounding the fuel farm facility, which 
was damaged as a result of El Nino. This funding was requested 
under ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide'', as a 
contingent emergency.
    Guam.--The Committee understands that the Government of 
Guam contends that the costs of repairs to certain typhoon-
damaged BRACC properties are the responsibility of the U.S. 
Navy, but that the U.S. Navy does not concur. Accordingly the 
Committee is not providing funding for this purpose. If, based 
on further discussions, the U.S. Navy and the Government of 
Guam agree that certain of these expenses are appropriate U.S. 
Navy expenses, the Committee would entertain a request for 
funds in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill.

                 Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps

    The Committee recommends $15,600,000, as requested, for 
repair of family housing units, fences, damaged landscaping, 
and debris removal at Naval Station Marianas, Guam, as a result 
of Typhoon Paka. In addition, the Committee recommends 
$1,000,000 for repair of foundation slabs, pipes, erosion, and 
family housing units in California, associated with damages 
from El Nino. This funding was requested under ``Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide'', as a contingent emergency.

                       Family Housing, Air Force

    The Committee recommends $1,500,000, as requested, for the 
repair of family housing units, debris removal, and replacement 
of furnishings at Andersen AFB, Guam, as a result of Typhoon 
Paka. In addition, the Committee recommends $900,000 for repair 
of family housing units at Vandenberg AFB, California, 
associated with damages from El Nino. This funding was 
requested under ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide'', as 
a contingent emergency.

                               CHAPTER 6

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                     Federal Highway Administration

                          Federal-aid Highways

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

    The bill includes $259,000,000 in additional funds for the 
emergency relief program to repair highway damage resulting 
from recent floods in California and the northeastern United 
States and other natural disasters nationwide. Of the amount 
provided, $224,000,000 has been designated by the President as 
an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The bill 
provides that the remaining $35,000,000 is available only if 
designated by the President as an emergency requirement. The 
bill includes a provision that allows emergency relief 
obligations to be incurred after May 1, 1998. The bill also 
includes a provision that lifts the cap of $100,000,000 for the 
state of California as a result of flooding caused by El Nino 
between the fall of 1997 through the winter of 1998.

                    Federal Railroad Administration

              Emergency Railroad Rehabilitation and Repair

    The bill provides $9,000,000 for emergency expenses to 
repair and rebuild rail lines damaged as a result of floods in 
1997 through the winter of 1998. Of this total, not more than 
$2,650,000 shall be for damage incurred in the Northern Plains 
States in March and April 1997 and not more than $6,350,000 
shall be for damage incurred as a result of El Nino in the fall 
of 1997 through the winter of 1998. These funds should be 
awarded on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the 
Secretary of Transportation. The Committee believes, however, 
that to the extent practicable, the Secretary should give 
priority consideration to publicly-owned trackage and rights-
of-way.

                         TITLE II--RESCISSIONS

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                   Bilingual and Immigrant Education

                              (rescission)

    The bill includes a rescission of $75,000,000 for Bilingual 
Education programs authorized under title VII of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. Overall, the funding level for 
this account will increase from $261,700,000 in fiscal year 
1997 to $279,000,000 in fiscal year 1998 even if this 
rescission is adopted. Individual activities proposed for 
reduction are, as follows:

Instructional Services..................................     -18,350,000
Support Services........................................      -6,650,000
Professional Development................................     -20,000,000
Immigrant Education.....................................     -30,000,000

    The Committee is aware that the Department of Education 
plans to obligate funds for this activity in the next several 
weeks. The Committee directs the Department to withhold 
obligation of the funds proposed for rescission under the same 
rules and procedures that would be in effect if the President 
had proposed the rescission. It is essential that discretion of 
the Congress to make funding decisions must be preserved.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    Federal Aviation Administration

                       grants-in-aid for airports

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

    The bill rescinds $610,000,000 in unused contract authority 
for grants-in-aid for airports. These funds are in excess of 
the annual obligation limitations placed on the program by the 
fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, as amended by this Act, and are 
therefore not available for obligation for fiscal year 1998.

                       grants-in-aid for airports

                      (limitation on obligations)

    The bill reduces the fiscal year 1998 obligation limitation 
for grants-in-aid for airports by $275,000,000. This reduction 
will result in a final funding level for fiscal year 1998 of 
$1,425,000,000.

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Public and Indian Housing

                 section 8 reserve preservation account

                              (rescission)

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $1,930,000,000 in 
unobligated and unexpected section 8 reserves. These funds have 
become available as HUD has reviewed its financial systems. 
Furthermore, the funds are unnecessary to renew section 8 
certificates, vouchers or contracts during FY 1998.

                           INDEPENDENT AGENCY

             Corporation for National and Community Service

       national and community service programs operating expenses

                              (rescission)

    The bill rescinds $250,000,000 in funds made available in 
Public Law 105-65 for the Corporation for National and 
Community Service.

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section 3002 prohibits the use of funds in the bill for 
offensive operations against Iraq in order to obtain compliance 
with UN Security Council Resolutions relating to the inspection 
and destruction of weapons of mass destruction unless such 
operations are authorized by law.

               CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill 
which directly or indirectly change the application of existing 
law.
    Language has been included under title I, chapter 2, 
Department of Defense-Military, to include a number of 
provisions which makes portions of the appropriations subject 
to enactment upon receipt of an official budget request by the 
President to the Congress.
    Language has been included under title I, chapter 2, 
Department of Defense-Military, to add the Defense Health 
Program, Procurement, and Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation appropriations to the ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund''.
    Language has been included under title I, chapter 2, 
Department of Defense-Military, a new appropriations paragraph, 
``Navy Working Capital Fund'', which provides funds for 
hurricane and flood damages.
    Language has been included under title I, chapter 2, 
Department of Defense-Military, a new appropriations paragraph, 
``Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund'', which provides funds for 
hurricane damages.
    Language has been included (Section 201) under title I, 
chapter 2, Department of Defense-Military, which limits the 
availability of funds provided in this chapter to the current 
fiscal year unless otherwise specified.
    Language has been included (Section 202) under title I, 
chapter 2, Department of Defense-Military, concerning funds for 
intelligence-related programs.
    Language has been included (Section 203) under title I, 
chapter 2, Department of Defense-Military, which appropriates 
additional funds for the Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance 
Fund for personnel costs related to operations in Bosnia.
    Language has been included (Section 204) under title I, 
chapter 2, Department of Defense-Military, which establishes an 
independent panel to evaluate the quality of health care 
initiatives begun by the Department of Defense.
    Language has been included under Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal-aid highways that allows emergency 
relief obligations to be incurred after May 1, 1998.
    Language has been included that lifts the emergency relief 
cap of $100,000,000 for the State of California.
    Language has been included in Title III that would prohibit 
the use of funds in the bill for offensive operations against 
Iraq in order to obtain compliance with UN Security Council 
Resolutions relating to the inspection and destruction of 
weapons of mass destruction unless such operations are 
authorized by law.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law:

                       department of agriculture

    Tree Assistance Program
    Livestock Disaster Assistance Program
    Dairy Production Indemnity Assistance Program

                    department of defense--military

    Military Personnel, Army
    Military Personnel, Navy
    Military Personnel, Marine Corps
    Military Personnel, Air Force
    Military Personnel, Navy Reserve
    Operation and Maintenance, Army
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
    Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
    Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
    Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
    Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
    Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
    Navy Working Capital Fund
    Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund
    Defense Health Program
    General Provisions, Section 203

                      department of transportation

    Federal Railroad Administration, Emergency Railroad 
Rehabilitation and Repair

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the 
transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
    The following table shows the appropriations affected by 
the transfers:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Appropriations from which                   
   Appropriations to which transfer is made         Amount              transfer is made              Amount    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Defense--Military Defense Health      $5,000,000  Research, Development, Test and       $5,000,000
 Program.                                                        Evaluation, Navy.                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing 
the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

Rescissions recommended in the bill

        Department and activity       Amounts recommended for rescission
Department of Education: Bilingual and Immigrant 
    Education...........................................     $75,000,000
Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation 
    Administration, Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport 
    and Airways Trust Fund).............................     610,000,000
Department of Housing and Urban Development: Public and 
    Indian Housing, Section 8 Reserve Preservation 
    Account.............................................   1,930,000,000
Corporation for National and Community Service, National 
    and Community Service Programs Operating Expenses...     250,000,000

                 Comparison With the Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing 
new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that 
authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 
of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. All budget 
authority provided in the accompanying bill is designated 
emergency funding requirements under the procedures set forth 
in section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and are exempt from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. However, the bill 
includes rescissions in excess of the amount of emergency 
funding in the bill, so it is offset entirely in budget 
authority.

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority 
provided in the accompanying bill:

                             [In thousands]

Budget Authority..............................................        -1
Outlays:
    Fiscal year 1998..........................................       593
    Fiscal year 1999..........................................     1,388
    Fiscal year 2000..........................................    -1,636
    Fiscal year 2001..........................................        -4
    Fiscal year 2002 and future years.........................        -6

               Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the financial assistance to 
State and local governments is as follows:

                              [In millions]

New budget authority..........................................      -726
Fiscal year 1998 outlays resulting therefrom..................       -35

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that:

          Each report of a committee on a bill or joint 
        resolution of a public character, shall include a 
        statement citing the specific powers granted to the 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.

    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:

          No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
        consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:

                             rollcall no. 1

    Date: March 24, 1998.
    Measure: Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
Fiscal Year 1998.
    Motion by: Mr. Livingston.
    Description of Motion: To provide rescissions to fully 
offset the budget authority in the bill.
    Results: Adopted 33 yeas to 26 nays.
         Members Voting Yea           Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt                        Mr. Cramer
Mr. Bonilla                         Ms. DeLauro
Mr. Callahan                        Mr. Dicks
Mr. Cunningham                      Mr. Dixon
Mr. DeLay                           Mr. Edwards
Mr. Dickey                          Mr. Fazio
Mr. Forbes                          Mr. Hefner
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Hobson                          Miss Kaptur
Mr. Istook                          Mrs. Lowey
Mr. Knollenberg                     Mrs. Meek
Mr. Kolbe                           Mr. Mollohan
Mr. Latham                          Mr. Moran
Mr. Lewis                           Mr. Murtha
Mr. Livingston                      Mr. Obey
Mr. McDade                          Mr. Olver
Mr. Miller                          Mr. Pastor
Mr. Nethercutt                      Ms. Pelosi
Mr. Neumann                         Mr. Price
Mrs. Northup                        Mr. Sabo
Mr. Packard                         Mr. Serrano
Mr. Parker                          Mr. Skaggs
Mr. Porter                          Mr. Stokes
Mr. Regula                          Mr. Torres
Mr. Rogers                          Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Skeen                           Mr. Yates
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 2

    Date: March 24, 1998.
    Measure: Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
Fiscal year 1998.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of Motion: To include the text of the 1998 
Supplemental and Rescissions Bill in this bill.
    Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 31 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Hefner                          Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Forbes
Miss Kaptur                         Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Hobson
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Latham
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Lewis
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Livingston
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. McDade
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Miller
Mr. Price                           Mr. Neumann
Mr. Sabo                            Mrs. Northup
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Packard
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Parker
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Porter
Mr. Torres                          Mr. Regula
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Rogers
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 3

    Date: March 24, 1998.
    Measure: Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
Fiscal Year 1998.
    Motion by: Mr. Stokes.
    Description of Motion: To provide $1.632 billion for 
Disaster Relief administered by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency.
    Results: Rejected 22 yeas to 33 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Cramer                          Mr. Aderholt
Ms. DeLauro                         Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dixon                           Mr. Callahan
Mr. Edwards                         Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. DeLay
Mr. Hoyer                           Mr. Dickey
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Forbes
Mrs. Meek                           Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Hobson
Mr. Moran                           Mr. Istook
Mr. Murtha                          Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Olver                           Mr. Latham
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Livingston
Mr. Price                           Mr. McDade
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Miller
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Neumann
Mr. Stokes                          Mrs. Northup
Mr. Torres                          Mr. Packard
Mr. Visclosky                       Mr. Parker
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Taylor
                                    Mr. Tiahrt
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wamp
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young

                             rollcall no. 4

    Date: March 24, 1998.
    Measure: Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
Fiscal Year 1998.
    Motion by: Mr. Young.
    Description of Motion: That the bill be reported and the 
Chairman be authorized to move that the Committee agreed to a 
conference requested by the Senate.
    Results: Adopted 29 yeas to 21 nays.
        Members Voting Yea            Members Voting Nay
Mr. Aderholt                        Mr. Cramer
Mr. Bonilla                         Ms. DeLauro
Mr. Cunningham                      Mr. Dixon
Mr. DeLay                           Mr. Edwards
Mr. Dickey                          Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Forbes                          Miss Kaptur
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mrs. Lowey
Mr. Hobson                          Mrs. Meek
Mr. Istook                          Mr. Mollohan
Mr. Knollenberg                     Mr. Murtha
Mr. Kolbe                           Mr. Obey
Mr. Latham                          Mr. Olver
Mr. Lewis                           Mr. Pastor
Mr. Livingston                      Ms. Pelosi
Mr. Miller                          Mr. Price
Mr. Nethercutt                      Mr. Sabo
Mr. Neumann                         Mr. Serrano
Mrs. Northup                        Mr. Skaggs
Mr. Packard                         Mr. Stokes
Mr. Parker                          Mr. Torres
Mr. Porter                          Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young



                DISSENTING VIEWS OF THE HON. DAVID OBEY

    I strongly support the provisions of the bill providing 
emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance 
and for costs associated with the vital missions our armed 
forces are undertaking in Bosian and the Persian Gulf.
    However, I must vigorously dissent from the ``offset'' 
provisions of the bill; provisions which I understand were 
added at the last minutes on the orders of the Majority 
leadership against the best judgment of the leadership of the 
committee. These offsets jeopardize housing assistance for more 
than 800,000 people (many of whom are elderly or disabled), 
disrupt funding to state and local governments for badly needed 
airport improvements, virtually shut down the AmeriCorps 
national service program, and make major cuts in bilingual 
education.
    These harmful rescissions are unnecessary under the budget 
rules, which allow emergency appropriations to proceed without 
offsets. Further, the Majority relies entirely on cuts on 
domestic spending to offset defense as well as domestic 
emergencies--thereby breaching the ``firewalls'' between the 
two categories enacted into law last year.
    These offsets are strongly opposed by the President. The 
Senate included no such offsets in its version of the bill, and 
shows no sign of changing its mind on the subject. Therefore, 
the decision of the Republican leadership to inject this new 
and divisive issue into the emergency appropriations bill will 
only slow down the legislation and complicate its passage. The 
cost of appeasing the faction in the Republican party demanding 
more cuts in domestic priorities is to delay the funds our 
troops in the field need to operate and our citizens at home 
need to help recover from natural disasters.
    The bill is also deficient because it does not include the 
$1.6 billion requested by the President to replenish the 
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) disaster 
relief account. This money--which represents an acceleration of 
funds previously requested for FY 1999--is needed to make sure 
that FEMA has enough resources on hand to meet the needs caused 
by disasters that have already occurred and any further 
disasters that may still occur before the fiscal year is over. 
The supplemental appropriation is needed to make sure that FEMA 
does not find itself out of money before the end of FY 1998. 
There is no justification for the Majority's failure to include 
this item in the bill reported by the committee.
Jeopardizing section 8 housing assistance
    Fully two thirds of the proposed offsets come from 
rescinding $1.9 billion in reserves from the section 8 housing 
assistance program. This rescission, if allowed to stand, puts 
more than 800,000 people helped by that program in jeopardy of 
losing their homes.
    Section 8 is our largest rental assistance program. It 
helps make housing affordable for 2.8 million households, 
containing more than six million people. Under the program, 
residents generally pay 30 percent of their income for rent, 
and HUD provides a subsidy to the landlord to make up the 
difference between the resident's payment and the ``fair market 
rent''.
    Of the 2.8 million households assisted by section 8, almost 
one third are elderly, and another 11 percent are disabled. 
Most of the rest are families with children. The median 
household income of section 8 residents is just over $7,500 per 
year.
    The reserves being rescinded are designated in the HUD 
budget to help offset the cost of renewing section 8 assistance 
contracts that are coming due in FY 1999. Renewing these 
contracts will cost $10.8 billion in budget authority. This 
amount is needed just to keep the program level, not to 
increase the number of people assisted.
    The $1.9 billion rescission would take away close to 20 
percent of the amount needed to renew section 8 contracts next 
year. Unless this money can be found somewhere else, the 
rescission means contracts for almost 20 percent of the units 
coming up for renewal in 1999 cannot be renewed. That, in turn, 
means that more than 360,000 households with more than 800,000 
people lose their housing assistance. They will be faced with 
paying large rent increases to keep their homes.
    Supporters of this rescission tell us not to worry, that 
enough money will be found somewhere to renew all section 8 
contracts expiring in 1999. Where will that money come from? 
From elsewhere in the federal housing budget? That's truly a 
case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. What other housing and 
community development programs would be cut to keep section 8 
whole--homeless assistance, the community development block 
grant (CDBG), the HOME block grant, housing for the elderly and 
disabled? However, the money is reshuffled, its hard to see how 
this rescission can avoid harming people and communities with 
truly urgent needs for our assistance.
Cutting bilingual and immigrant education
    More than 3 million children with limited English 
proficiency in this country need some type of special 
instruction designed to teach them English and prepare them to 
enter all-English classrooms. These children come to our 
schools with different degrees of proficiency in English, at 
different ages, and with different levels of educational 
achievement. A single instructional model will not address all 
of their needs. The goal of federally-supported bilingual 
education programs is to help children to learn English and 
achieve to the same high standards as all other students, using 
a variety of approaches that are centered on the needs of 
children.
    Local governments should not be saddled with the financial 
consequences of the Federal Government's decision to allow 
immigrants and refugees to enter America. The Federal 
Government should not run from its responsibilities.
    Last year's Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill, and 
the Balanced Budget Agreement that designated Bilingual and 
Immigrant Education as a protected, priority program, 
recognized the additional financial burden faced by schools 
that have dispropor- 
tionate numbers of students with limited English proficiency. 
This bill breaks those bipartisan agreements reached less than 
a year ago by cutting fiscal year 1998 funds for Bilingual and 
Immigrant Education by $75 million or 21 percent.
    These cuts will hurt more than 400,000 children who need 
the special help that the Bilingual and Immigrant Education 
program provides, and they will disproportionately hurt schools 
in states that have large or significant increases in 
populations of limited English proficient students--including 
California, New York, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New 
Mexico, Oklahoma and Washington.
    The arguments advanced by the Majority that bilingual 
education programs are ineffective are simply not accurate. For 
example, the National Research Council just released a recent 
report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, that 
concluded that teaching limited English proficient students in 
their native languages is an effective instructional method to 
teach them to read. These programs are successful and are 
needed. We have only to look at a few examples to know that 
many schools are making good use of these funds:
    Project Mariposa at the Ysleta Independent School District 
in Texas has been so successful in its two-way bilingual 
education program, which develops proficiency in both English 
and Spanish, that the board of trustees and superintendent 
changed the district's vision statement to read, ``all students 
who enroll in our schools will graduate from high school fully 
bilingual and prepared to enter a four-year college or 
university.'' Ysleta has succeeded in boosting the passing 
rates for all students in the district on statewide reading and 
math exams from 26 percent to 55 percent over the past three 
years.
    Project Wolf at White Oak Public Schools in Oklahoma has 
produced dramatic gains in scores on the Iowa Test of Basic 
Skills. One class of third graders had ranked so low on these 
tests for two years that the state education agency was poised 
to intervene. However, the project succeeded in raising scores 
of these students to the 60th percentile on this nationally 
normed test, eliminating the need for intervention.
    Project Access at San Dieguito Union High School District 
in Encinitas, California serves 120 limited English proficient 
students in grades 7-12. Approximately 75 percent of the 
formerly limited English proficient students who graduated from 
high school will be attending college. Despite exceedingly high 
drop out rates for limited English proficient students 
nationally, the LEP drop out rate among such students at Torrey 
Pines was only 1 percent during the last two years.
    The cuts advanced by the Majority are not only unfair, but 
they are also untimely. They come just as the Department of 
Education is preparing to award grants to school districts 
across the country. More than 70 projects to enhance bilingual 
instructional programs will be canceled if these cuts become 
law. In addition, the amount of bilingual education funding 
that goes to every state education agency will be cut by 50 
percent, limiting the technical assistance that they can 
provide to schools. Over 5,000 educators will be affected by 
the proposed rescission of bilingual education professional 
development funds that are critical in addressing the shortage 
of appropriately trained bilingual educators. These cuts should 
be restored.

Taking back money for airport improvements

    Most Americans are well aware that our nation's airports 
are teeming with passengers and struggling to keep pace with 
the growing need for safety, security and capacity 
enhancements. All one needs to do is to step inside of an 
airport--as over 500 million leisure and business passengers 
will do this year--to see that now is not the time to cut 
federal spending for airport improvement projects, as the 
Majority would do in this bill.
    If enacted into law, this bill would rescind $610 million 
in contract authority for the Airport Improvement Program 
(AIP), and cut the fiscal year 1998 obligation limitation for 
AIP grants by $275 million--reducing it from $1.7 billion to 
$1.425 billion. This action would reduce annual spending for 
airport improvement grants to its lowest level since 1990 and 
negatively affect every major airport and smaller airports in 
every state.
    It is ironic that at a time when the Majority wants to 
increase spending on highways and roads by $25 billion in 
outlays over the amounts agreed to in last year's bipartisan 
budget agreement, the Majority would reverse course and cut 
spending on an equally important part of our nation's 
transportation infrastructure.
    The aviation sector is a critical component of our national 
and global economy. Like other transportation sectors, aviation 
has a broad impact on the U.S. economy. The nation's airlines, 
aerospace manufacturers, and airports drive significant local, 
regional and national economic activity. Aviation and related 
industries are 6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, employ 
nearly 9 million people who earn $230 billion in wages and 
salaries, and generate over $770 billion in economic activity.
    This economic activity is expected to become increasingly 
global in character. U.S. airlines already carry 50 percent of 
the world's air traffic and this share is expected to grow. The 
world's air travelers are expected to double from one billion 
to more than two billion over the next twenty years. The total 
economic impact of air transport on the world economy was $1.14 
trillion in 1994. This is expected to increase to $1.7 trillion 
by the year 2010.
    However, the National Civil Aviation Review Commission 
(NCARC) recently reported that our ``aviation system is headed 
toward financial and physical gridlock'', with underinvestment 
in our airport infrastructure certainly leading to further 
congestion in the aviation system.
    The AIP program is the cornerstone of the federal 
government's effort to help airports make the capital 
investments needed to keep the aviation system safe, secure, 
efficient, and growing. The General Accounting Office has 
estimated that up to $10 billion in total airport 
infrastructure investments are needed annually with financing 
from federal, state, local sources. The NCARC recommended a $2 
billion annual federal investment in AIP grants.
    However, if the cuts proposed by the Majority become law, 
critical airport runway construction, security installations, 
and noise-abatement projects will be deferred, delayed and 
deep-sixed, par- 
ticularly at smaller airports that rely more heavily on AIP 
grants. The ability of some primary airports to meet increased 
traffic and reduce congestion also will be undermined. 
According to preliminary estimates by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), the $275 million cut in AIP funding will 
have the following impacts:
          419 primary airports will lost $76 million in formula 
        and discretionary grants--a 9 percent cut;
          100 cargo airports will lost $8 million--a 19 percent 
        cut;
          900 general aviation airports will lost $60 million--
        a 19 percent cut;
          12 military airports will lose $11 million--a 43 
        percent cut; and
          Noise projects will lose $86 million--a 42 percent 
        cut.
Some airports and states may well have to return funds already 
obligated. Further, the following airports anticipating 1998 
Letters-Of-Intent for federal financing commitments from the 
FAA may not receive them:
          Anchorage International Airport, Alaska;
          Ft. Myers-Southwest Florida Regional Airport, 
        Florida;
          Orlando International Airport, Florida;
          Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, Missouri;
          Las Vagas-McCarran International Airport, Nevada;
          Las Vegas-Henderson Airport, Nevada;
          Salt Lake City International Airport, Utah;
          Newark International Airport, New Jersey;
          Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, 
        Minnesota; and
          St. Croix Airport, Virgin Islands.
    Because we are six months into the fiscal year, we believe 
that the AIP rescissions planned by the Majority are 
particularly ill-advised. Many airport managers are now 
concerned about whether they should bid construction contracts 
under the cloud of unanticipated cuts in AIP grants.
    They have reason to be even more alarmed because the FAA's 
authorizing statute expires on September 30, 1998. Under the 
Majority's action, every penny of the ``excess'' contract 
authority authorized for the AIP program would be rescinded. 
This $335 million in spending authority currently unavailable 
due to obligation limits becomes a vital lifeline for continued 
program operations in the next fiscal year in the absence of 
the enactment of new spending authority. Thus, the rescissions 
in this bill could actually cause airport construction projects 
to come to a halt this fall if Congress fails to enact a new 
authorization in a timely fashion by October 1. And, given the 
Majority's record in enacting a timely highway bill, we have 
little confidence that airport managers will suffer a better 
fate than those state highway managers whose highway 
construction programs have been disrupted or put on hold due to 
delays in reauthorizing ISTEA.
    Last fall, the Fiscal Year 1998 Department of 
Transportation Appropriations Act was approved by a strong vote 
of 401 to 21. The overwhelming majority of the House voted to 
support a $1.7 billion level for airport infrastructure 
investments that clearly are needed to accommodate one of the 
largest expansions in commercial aviation. There is no reason 
to reverse course now with a $275 million cut that is unfair 
and unwarranted.

Closing down AmeriCorps

    Concerning House Republican's treatment of the Corporation 
for National and Community Service--AmeriCorps--increasingly it 
can be said (as it was of the Bourbon kings of France) ``they 
have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.''
    The proposed rescission of $250 million in AmeriCorps 
funding represents 60 percent of total fiscal year 1998 funding 
and virtually all remaining unobligated money in the program. 
It is tantamount to killing the program. No other 
recommendation in this supplemental is as blatant a political 
slap in the face of the President.
    During the past three years, House conservatives have tried 
to accomplish the termination of AmeriCorps several times. Each 
time they have come up against a threatened Presidential veto 
and have had to back down. Possibly they think it will be 
different this time around, but the Administration has given no 
sign of wavering in its support of the program. AmeriCorps 
remains one of the President's top domestic priorities.
    While it is true some start-up difficulties were 
experienced, the Corporation is getting its financial house in 
order. The program is producing results and is popular with 
most state and local officials, regardless of party 
affiliation. This rescission especially cries out that the 
extreme segment of the Majority party that appears to be 
dictating legislative strategy in the House is more concerned 
with pushing their ideology than with meeting the pressing 
needs of the nation. It must be rejected.

We shouldn't cut domestic priorities to pay for defense

    The cuts in domestic programs don't just pay for the 
domestic emergency appropriations, which represent only one-
fifth of the total bill. Rather, they are also used to offset 
the much larger emergency appropriations for defense.
    This approach violates the budget rules adopted last year, 
which built a ``firewall'' between defense and domestic 
appropriations for this year and next, saying that cuts in one 
category would not be used to pay for extra spending in 
another. The bill reported by the committee turns these 
firewalls into one-way valves, allowing funds to flow from the 
domestic to the military side of the budget.
    But the bill doesn't just defy the budget rules. More 
important, it also defies common sense. If the Majority is 
going to insist on providing offsets--which it does not need to 
do and should not do--then it should not be looking to the 
domestic budget to provide offsets for increased defense 
spending.
    The Majority's decision to look only to the domestic side 
of the budget seems to be based on the far-fetched notion that 
the Defense Department is so well and efficiently managed that 
they can't even find a nickel of savings to be made in defense. 
That's preposterous. Just last week, the Defense Department 
Inspector General came out with the latest version of the 
``$600 toilet seats'' story that so dramatized defense waste in 
the 1980s. The Inspector General found that--
          DoD was paying $76 apiece for set screws that should 
        have cost 57 cents apiece;
          DoD was paying $714 apiece for electric helicopter 
        bells that should have cost only $47 apiece; and
          DoD paid $38,000 for aircraft springs worth $1,500.
    Just this limited audit by the Defense IG found that the 
Pentagon had bought $6.1 million worth of commercial spare 
parts for nearly three times the estimated ``fair and 
reasonable'' price they should have paid.
    In light of this and other voluminous information about 
waste at the Defense Department, it is absurd for the Majority 
to maintain that defense must be completely exempted from their 
search for offsets, and that the burden of their misguided 
quest for offsets must fall only on law-income families seeking 
housing assistance, local governments seeking help with airport 
improvements and bilingual education needs, and young people 
seeking to participate in President Clinton's national service 
initiative.

Rescissions are unnecessary under the budget rules

    The offsets contained in the bill are not just wrong-
headed, they're also unnecessary. The appropriations contained 
in this bill fully qualify as emergency spending that, under 
the applicable budget rules, does not require offsetting cuts. 
Indeed, the bill itself invokes this emergency exception for 
every single item of appropriations it contains. (It does this 
so that the defense appropriations do not count against the 
defense spending cap, which they would violate if they did 
count.)
    Special treatment for emergency spending has been contained 
in the budget rules ever since they were adopted in their 
current form back in 1990. The basic idea is that spending for 
emergency items such as disaster relief and military operations 
are not subject to the statutory limits on discretionary 
appropriations or to the allocations in the congressional 
budget resolution--as long as both the President and Congress 
agree that the items are truly emergency in nature. This rule 
has been used repeatedly since that time.
    One reason for the emergency spending rule is that finding 
offsets when an emergency occurs well into a fiscal year can be 
very disruptive to ongoing programs. This bill is a good 
example. This bill will not be enacted until the fiscal year is 
more than half over (and the way the House Majority leadership 
is handling the matter, we'll be lucky if its enacted by Labor 
Day). The cuts in this bill illustrate the disruption caused by 
sudden mid-year rescissions. They require pulling back money 
already allocated to and planned on by state and local 
governments for airport improvements, and virtually shutting 
down the AmeriCorps program in mid-year.
    A second reason to handle some spending on a emergency 
basis is to avoid appropriating extra money before its needed. 
The alternative of providing money in ``contingency funds'' or 
the like carries the risk that reasons will be found to spend 
that money, regardless of whether a real emergency situation 
arises. Therefore, while we do provide regular (non-emergency) 
appropriations every year for on-going disaster assistance 
programs such as those of FEMA, we generally do not make 
appropriations for other emergency needs such as overseas 
military operations before they occur.
    This practice of requesting supplemental appropriations for 
emergency or unanticipated costs is a longstanding one. For 
example, President Reagan requested supplemental defense 
appropriations in seven of his eight years in office.
    The situation with this supplemental appropriations bill 
provides a vivid illustration of the reasons for the budget 
rules allowing emergency spending. The funds it provides are 
urgently needed to protect vital national interests in the 
Persian Gulf, respond to a horrendous human rights situation in 
Bosnia, and help citizens facing natural disasters here at 
home. Our ability to do these things should not be held hostage 
to whether we can suddenly find a way to make mid-year cuts in 
other important federal programs.
    We spend a lot of money to maintain the most powerful and 
most effective armed forces in the world. We should be able to 
use these forces to respond to urgent situations that arise, 
without having to stop and debate whether to jeopardize housing 
assistance for the elderly and bilingual education for children 
in order to offset any unexpected cost.
    While some in the Majority now say that they disagree with 
the current emergency spending rules, the fact is that these 
rules were revised and re-enacted just last year, in 
legislation written by the Majority as part of the 1997 Budget 
Agreement. Perhaps they've changed their minds since then. But 
all that I am recommending is to follow the rules that the 
Majority wrote less than twelve months ago. Under these rules, 
CBO now tells us that we will have a surplus this year--a 
surplus which will occur regardless of whether we use the 
longstanding emergency exception to allow this supplemental 
appropriations bill to go forward without offsets.

Another North Dakota stalemate

    In summary, for all of these reasons, the bill forced out 
of committee by the Majority leadership is a very bad idea. The 
emergency supplemental appropriations are sound and urgently 
needed. But the offset package is a disaster by itself, and it 
will bring the bill to a disastrous end.
    I don't know why the leadership on the Majority side finds 
it irresistible to meddle with emergency supplemental 
appropriations bills, but they do. Last year, we delayed for 
weeks much needed emergency disaster relief for North Dakota 
and other states hard hit by floods, while the leadership on 
the other side tried to force the President to accept totally 
unrelated legislative riders dealing with how the census will 
be conducted in the year 2000.
    This Congress has much work to do. The bulk of its work 
will be focused on passing crucial appropriations bills for the 
coming fiscal year. We need to get on with that task. Before we 
can, we must finish action on this emergency appropriation. To 
do that requires a spirit of cooperation, not confrontation. 
Sadly, this bill gives us just the opposite.
    My fear is that the Majority leadership's tactics will lead 
into another stalemate on this supplemental. That is 
unfortunate for the people in the military who need these funds 
to sustain their missions in Bosnia and Iraq. A delay will put 
an unnecessary squeeze on the operations of the Defense 
Department, which will have to dramatically curtail important 
training and slow procurement and R&D efforts. And it will 
cause yet more hardship for people throughout the country--from 
Maine to Florida to California--who were unlucky enough to 
experience the weather-related disasters of the past several 
months.

           The House Leadership Intelligence Spending Add-On

    This bill includes a substantial amount of money for 
intelligence programs that was not requested by the 
Administration.
    Even though some details of this significant spending add-
on were reported by the press, the entire amount is classified 
thereby restricting public discussion of the specific projects 
and the total dollar amounts included in the bill.
    The process by which these funds found their way into this 
bill is not classified. It is one of the most unusual stories I 
have heard in my 28 years of serving on this Committee, and I 
think it deserves the attention and understanding of all 
Members.
The President's supplemental request
    On March 3, after a rigorous internal review, the 
Administration transmitted to Congress a budget request for 
emergency FY 1998 supplemental appropriations totaling $2.5 
billion. This included approximately $1.86 billion for 
unanticipated needs of the Department of Defense to support 
their deployments in Bosnia and Southwest Asia, and $640 
million (including $130 million for the Department of Defense) 
for emergency assistance to help people recover from recent 
flooding, ice storms, El Nino, tornadoes, typhoons, and other 
natural disasters. Of the total Presidential request of $2.5 
billion, about $1.97 billion is categorized as ``defense'' 
expenditures and $520 million is categorized as ``non-
defense''.
The Speaker's special ``request'' for more intelligence funding
    The reaction of the House Major leadership to the 
Administration's supplemental budget request was surprising.
    Instead of perhaps taking issue that the Administration's 
budget scrubbers too tough on emergency disaster aid to help 
the victims of El Nino floods and storms around the country 
(which they were), or complaining that the Administration had 
not proposed paying for this extra spending, the Speaker 
personally called the White House to demand that the 
Administration amend its budget proposal to add a very 
substantial amount of money for intelligence programs.
    This unusual intelligence funding demand wasn't linked to 
any specific unfunded emergency intelligence need for Bosnia, 
the Middle East or anywhere else. There was no demand for 
specific program increases, only to add funds in the abstract. 
And no demand was made to the Administration that this extra 
spending be paid for with cuts to other programs.
    The Administration answered the Speaker's special request 
by giving him an expensive list of additional intelligence 
items that can best be described as ``nice things to have.'' 
The Administration made it quite clear however that they were 
not asking these additional intelligence items be funded. It 
essentially provided them for information purposes directly to 
the Speaker, who promptly ordered the Committee to insert them 
in this bill.
    And these funds are indeed in this bill, to be paid for by 
additional cuts in domestic housing, airport, and education 
programs.
    After this list was transmitted, the CIA testified that 
much of this windfall spending add-on does not restore things 
the Majority cut out of last year's intelligence budget. 
Instead, it is for enhancement of other ongoing programs or 
projects.
The Republican leadership is embarrassed
    Why did the House Majority leadership go to such 
extraordinary and secretive measures to add this additional 
spending? I think there are several reasons.
    First and foremost, the House Majority leadership is 
quietly trying to repair a situation they have been very 
embarrassed about. They are embarrassed because their political 
rhetoric that they are stronger supporters of our intelligence 
programs than the Clinton administration is simply not true.
    The Majority's rhetoric is very strong. Just weeks ago the 
Speaker condemned the President's intelligence structure in the 
press as ``completely inadequate'', implying that the Clinton 
intelligence budget levels have been grossly insufficient.
    But the facts speak differently. Last year, this Congress 
actually cut back the intelligence budget below the 
Administration's request by a very substantial sum. Even after 
last year's Balanced Budget Agreement negotiated by President 
Clinton and the Congressional leadership added $2.6 billion to 
the President's original 1998 Defense spending request, this 
Congress still cut the intelligence program below the 
President's original FY 1998 budget request.
    So the Speaker knows that if the intelligence program is 
``completely inadequate'' as he claims it is very much the 
doing of his own party.
    The Chairman and other members of the National Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee should not be faulted for 
recommending these intelligence cuts. Leaders of both the House 
and Senate Appropriations Committees were put in very difficult 
positions due to the spending demands of their own leadership. 
They had to make some difficult choices. It is obvious that the 
Committee was forced to cut the intelligence budget to fit in 
all the congressional demands for extra money for the defense 
contractors--especially demands from the Republican 
congressional leadership.
Intelligence cuts seem tough but fair
    Despite all of this, the Majority's intelligence cuts were 
found to be tough but defensible to most people. Congress 
passed them. The President signed them into law. No objections 
were raised on the floor when the bill was finally passed. And 
the Administration did not see fit to propose a supplemental 
budget request to redress any these budget cuts.
Why Congress didn't have more intelligence money last year
    But the question still remains: Why did this Committee not 
have sufficient budget room to produce a spending bill hat was 
at least close to the President's intelligence budget request?
    There are two big reasons why intelligence programs had to 
be cut last year--the DDG-51 destroyer program supported by the 
Majority Leader of the Senate and the desire to buy many extra 
C-130 aircraft supported by the Speaker of the House.
    The Committee was essentially ordered to add these two 
parochial items to last year's Defense Appropriations Act 
costing a total of $1.25 BILLION in extra money above the 
budget request. Those funds weren't free, they had to come from 
somewhere and the money to pay this bill came out of the 
intelligence budget.
$720 million for extra destroyer
    Last year, the Congress added $720 million to the Navy 
budget to buy a fourth new DDG-51 destroyer instead of the 
three destroyers requested by the Navy. The facts surrounding 
how we wound up buying this extra destroyer are well known in 
the defense community and were the subject of several news 
articles.
    Essentially, the Senate majority leader expressed extreme 
dissatisfaction to the Navy for having awarded a major new 
multi-billion dollar shipbuilding contract for LPD-17 
amphibious assault ships to Avondale Shipyard, Louisiana 
instead of Ingalls Shipyard, Mississippi.
    According to news accounts, after the Navy awarded the 
lucrative LPD-17 contract to Avondale, the Senator is reported 
to have presented the Pentagon with a written list of demands 
for the Navy to shift other work to Ingalls Shipyard as 
recompense. Here's how one news account characterized this 
course of events: ``The Lott paper doesn't explicitly threaten 
to punish the Navy if it doesn't comply. However rumors on 
Capitol Hill describe the Senate majority leader as so angry 
with the sea service that he may seek to cut several of its 
major acquisition programs and hold up some future promotions 
requiring congressional approval.'' (Wall Street Journal, April 
23, 1997)
    It was also reported that this written list of demands sent 
to the Navy concluded with an underscored written statement: 
``How to make an unhappy man happy.'' (Wall Street Journal, 
April 23, 1997)
    Shortly after this list of demands was received, the Navy 
sent word that they would not oppose a congressional budget 
add-on of $720 million to build another destroyer at Ingalls, 
and if this destroyer were added, they would simply add it to 
heir overall inventory, and not cut out a destroyer in a future 
budget to offset it.
``Oinker Award''
    This sad saga in pork barrel politics earned an ``Oinker 
Award'' from the Citizens Against Government Waste as the 
leading example of pork barrel waste last year.
$500 million for extra C-130's
    But the House Majority leadership was not far behind. Over 
half a billion dollars was redirected in last year's defense 
bill to buy nine C-130 aircraft that the Department of Defense 
never asked for in their budget.
    According to press accounts, the C-130 manufacturer located 
in Marietta, Georgia, has a unique marketing strategy for these 
planes: ``Build it and they will come.'' The manufacturer is so 
confident the Congress will override the Pentagon's decision 
not to buy extra C-130 aircraft that they reportedly build the 
planes ahead of time with no buyers, and simply park them on he 
ramp until Congress comes through with the extra funds.
Topsy-turvy national security priorities
    In a world of unconstrained budgets and unlimited revenue, 
buying either of these expensive items--the DDG-51 destroyer or 
more C-130 aircraft--could be defended. I am confident the Navy 
and the various units receiving the C-130 aircraft will do 
their best to use this extra equipment effectively. The problem 
is that we don't have unlimited funds and that Congress must 
have the discipline to apply our resources to the country's top 
national security priorities. In this case, the intelligence 
budget was sacrificed to make room for much lower priority, but 
very expensive equipment.
No defense offsets?
    To add insult to injury, the House Republican leadership 
would squeeze elderly and low-income Americans by cutting 
critical domestic housing programs and make further cuts in 
education and airport development to pay for repairing their 
embarrassment about cutting the intelligence budget.
    To say that the quarter of a trillion dollars a year spent 
by our Defense Agencies is so efficiently and well spent that 
not so much as a nickel of savings can be found is patently 
absurd.
    If the Committee must have offsets to pay for these 
legitimate emergency costs, it could start looking for savings 
from the C-130 and DDG-51 programs.
    But if these programs are deemed unacceptable as sources, 
the Committee might Want to review recent audits of he 
Inspector General which found that, nearly a decade after the 
famous $600 toilet seat purchases, the Defense Department still 
does not use its buying power to purchase spare parts at the 
lowest cost. Most recently, the Inspector General uncovered 
$8.7 million in excess payments by the Pentagon including:
          Paying 76 dollars apiece for 57-cent setscrews;
          Paying $714 apiece for $47 electric helicopter bells; 
        or
          Paying $38,000 for $1,500 worth of aircraft springs.
and the IG reportedly testified that this represents the tip of 
a much bigger iceberg. So we still have ``$600 toilets seats'' 
galore in he Pentagon budget, yet this Congress is willing to 
close its eyes and look the or there way.

                     Explanation of Rollcall Votes

    Three amendments to this bill were decided by rollcall 
votes in full committee.
    Rollcall No. 1--Domestic Program Cuts To Pay For Defense 
Spending: The first amendment, offered by Mr. Livingston, 
provided $2.9 billion in domestic program rescissions to offset 
the emergency spending in the bill. About 80 percent of the 
spending in this bill ($2.3 billion out of $2.9 billion) is 
classified as defense spending.
    The amendment would cut funds available for Section 8 low 
income and elderly housing by $1.9 billion, reduce budget 
authority for airport improvements by $610 million, reduce the 
1998 spending levels for airport grants by $275 million, cut 
$250 million from the AmeriCorps program, and reduce funding 
for bilingual and immigrant education by $75 million.
    The immediate program effect of this amendment would be to 
take away almost 20% of the funds intended to be used for 
Section 8 housing assistance in FY 1999; cut the funds 
available for airport development programs in FY 1998 by 16%, 
reduce funds for bilingual and immigrant education for over 
400,000 children; and shut down the popular AmeriCorps program.
    The Livingston amendment was strongly opposed by the 
Administration on the grounds that it would break the procedure 
agreed to in Bipartisan Budget Agreement and could result in 
legislative gridlock in which disaster aid to US citizens is 
delayed similar to events that occurred last year.
    The amendment was adopted, 33 to 26.
    Rollcall No. 2--Merger of IMF/UN Supplemental bill with the 
Bosnia/Southwest Asia/Disaster Relief Supplemental bill: The 
second amendment, offered by Mr. Obey, would merge this 
emergency spending measure with the IMF/UN supplemental bill as 
reported by the Committee earlier in the day.
    Because this emergency spending bill is expected to be 
considered by the full House in the near future, this amendment 
would have the effect of bringing the IMF/UN supplemental 
before the House prior to the upcoming recess. Concern has been 
raised that plans of the Republican leadership to indefinitely 
delay consideration of the IMB/UN supplemental bill could lead 
to unnecessary instability in global markets and could serve to 
make trade deficits even worse, with significant negative 
effects on U.S. businesses and American jobs.
    Rollcall No. 3--Additional Disaster Relief Funds for FEMA: 
The third amendment was offered by Mr. Stokes, of Ohio. The 
amendment would have added to $1.6 billion in additional 
disaster relief funds that the President had recently requested 
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The funds were 
requested for FEMA emergency response and recovery efforts 
throughout the United States. These funds would be used for 
unmet requirements from previously declared disasters and 
anticipated requirements in the remaining months of the current 
fiscal year.
    The amendment was defeated, 22 to 33.

  Votes of individual Members on these amendments are listed in this 
report immediately preceding this section and the budget summary table.

                                                         Dave Obey.

                                    
