Summary:

All articles in House section

1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
(House of Representatives - March 31, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1797-H1824] 1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 402 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3579. {time} 1348 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3579) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. [[Page H1798]] Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), each will control 30 minutes of debate confined to the bill; and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and a Member opposed, each will control 15 minutes of debate confined to title III. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rule here to be structured, there will be 60 minutes debate on the present bill and then the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will be debating for 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the first 30 minutes be debated on the underlying measure, the middle 30 minutes to be shared equally, 15 minutes by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), 15 minutes by myself leading in opposition, with the remaining 30 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have just had a rule passed which denied the minority an opportunity to offer any significant amendment whatsoever. It is a rule that I strenuously opposed and asked the House to turn down. Now I understand that the gentleman is asking unanimous consent that some other arrangement be agreed to other than that in the rule. I, for the life of me, do not understand why we ought to do that. If Members did not like the rule, then I wish they would have followed my request and voted against it as I did. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the only reason I asked for this is to make sure that the debate is structured. If we are going to take the 90 minutes and have it commingled with the measure of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), it would be lost in the debate. Not only for the Members, but also for the American people to understand this important measure with regard to tying the hands of the Presidency, we should be able to debate for clarity. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, but with all due respect, we wanted the debate structured, too. We wanted to have a structured debate on offsets. We wanted to have a structured debate on the fact that this rule does not allow 75 percent of the President's request. We wanted a structured rule, too. We were not given that. Under those circumstances, I do not see why I should accommodate this request when we were turned down on every single request that we made to structure the rule. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this is our opportunity to structure a debate so that there will be clarity and understanding. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, our opportunity was by voting down the rule and coming back with a new rule. That is the way the House is supposed to operate under regular order. If the gentleman was not satisfied with the rule, he should have voted against it. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have is an ambiguity in the way the rule deals with this 30 minutes allocated to this particular issue. I would assume the Chair has discretion, given that ambiguity, to deal with it as seems reasonable. I had understood the gentleman from Wisconsin in particular, through his staff, to be concerned that we not have this 30-minute debate follow the general debate on the bill. I think that is what informs the gentleman from Indiana. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. On the assumption that the gentleman from Wisconsin yields for the purpose, the gentleman will state it. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have pending a reservation on my unanimous consent request. My parliamentary inquiry is, is it within the prerogative of the Chair to designate time if there is 60 minutes debate on the underlying measure, and in the rule it states 30 minutes on the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), whether the first 60 minutes would in fact be on Mr. Livingston's bill, and the remainder on the Skaggs provision, would it be within the Chair's prerogative to designate the time? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair intends at this moment to accommodate the preference of the chairman of the committee, as the rule is structured, by starting with the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have stated, since we were given no consideration whatsoever in our desire to offer even a single amendment to this amendment, I object to the unanimous consent request. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is recognized for 30 minutes. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to bring this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to the floor today. This bill provides important funding to sustain our troops in Bosnia and in Iraq in the amount of $1.8 billion. It also provides $575 million in assistance to those suffering from natural disasters throughout the country. Since this last fall, there have been typhoons, ice storms, excessive rains causing flooding and mud slides, beach erosion, late spring hard freezes and tornadoes. Because of these extreme weather conditions, there has been significant widespread damage to crops, livestock, natural resources and the country's infrastructure. The funding in this bill provides assistance to farmers, ranchers and dairymen. It funds repairs to highways, railroads, harbors and flood control facilities, national parks, forests and wildlife refuges and agricultural flood prevention facilities. In addition to providing direct support to the troops in Bosnia and Iraq, the bill also funds repairs to military facilities caused by typhoons, ice storms and the El Nino-related extreme weather. The funding in this bill is fully offset with an equal amount of rescissions. This is consistent with the policy adopted by the Republican majority when we took control of the Congress in January of 1995. The struggle to offset emergency supplemental bills gets harder every year. With lean regular appropriations bills and half the year already over, it is even more difficult. The leadership, and I agree that we should not go deeper into the defense function to pay for peacekeeping missions. And, in fact, I think one can make a very good case that the nondeployed forces would be unfairly robbed to keep the deployed forces going. After a very tight regular defense appropriations bill and a continued proliferation of unbudgeted peacekeeping missions, we are simply not able to find the defense programs and activities that we could reduce that are removed from the direct support of the peacekeeping missions, which would also not hurt overall national security. Cutting them would only result in a weakening of one element of national security to help another. It makes no sense to hobble national security in this manner. Therefore, the offsets included in the bill are all in the nondefense area. The funds proposed for rescission are generally in excess to those that would be needed this fiscal year. They have no impact during this fiscal year for the most part. You will hear a lot of worried talk today about the impact of those rescissions and their impact will not be felt if their restoration is accomplished later on. But they are excess funds right now, and we need offsets, and that is why we have chosen them. We will be able to consider restoring them at the appropriate time later on. We need to pass this bill today to move the process forward, making emergency supplemental [[Page H1799]] appropriations a real possibility. I urge support of this fiscally responsible bill. At this point in the Record, I would like to insert a detailed table reflecting the status of this bill since adoption of the rule governing its consideration. [[Page H1800]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.001 [[Page H1801]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.002 [[Page H1802]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.003 [[Page H1803]] Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this disaster relief and Bosnia-Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Act. I strongly support the provisions in this legislation that help Americans who have been involved in disasters around the country. I strongly support the activity of our military in Bosnia and Iraq. And I hope that we can get to a piece of legislation as quickly as possible that will support all of those efforts. I know full well how important those efforts are. We had a big flood in my district in 1993 and in 1995. I stood on this floor and pleaded with the House to give timely help to my constituents, and the House did. So I have a very deep feeling about the need for this legislation. But the Republican leadership, just as they did a year ago, has refused to act responsibly and in a straightforward manner to provide these funds that have been requested by the administration. {time} 1400 They have insisted wrongly, in my view, on offsets which can be done under our budget act but which are not required under our budget act. In fact, we have provisions in our budget act that say that expenses like this which are truly emergencies do not need to be offset. But, again, the Republican leadership has decided to put in offsets; and, in my view, these offsets are very damaging in many, many areas of life in our country. Let me just mention some. It will hurt children who need help so that they can learn English. It will undermine the ability of our airports to construct needed runway enhancements and install new security equipment, as we are trying to do in St. Louis, Missouri. It would effectively end the Americorps program and could lead to more than a 100,000 of our elderly citizens losing their housing. I do not think these are the trade-offs that we should be considering when we are considering emergency legislation. These are emergency items. That is why we put that into the budget. These were things that were unforeseen when the budget was put together. If they had been foreseen, we would have found room in the budget. And we may find room in next year's budget. But to now come at the 11th hour and wipe out these domestic programs so that we can take care of bona fide emergencies makes no sense. If Members want an alternative approach, we will have a motion to recommit that I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for that would simply take out the offsets and say that this should be treated as we believe it should be, as an emergency. But let me go further on why I think this bill is ill-advised. The Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to consider all the supplemental requests the President has forwarded. They left out the International Monetary Fund request. We have countries in Asia going into bankruptcy. The only thing that is keeping many of them afloat so that we do not lose more exports and have more unneeded imports in this country is the IMF request. If it sits for another 5, 6, 8 weeks, what will happen to the IMF and the countries that need help? Finally, there is the matter of United Nations dues. Here we are today, the leader of the world, the leader of the United Nations, and we cannot find a way to bring ourselves to pay our dues. We have the unseemly situation where the Secretary General has gone and made a peace in Iraq, which is good for the entire world, and he cannot get the leader of the world to pay our debts, our dues to the United Nations. The President wanted that in this bill, and it is not. It is being separated out. And all of this is being made subject to an untimely and unneeded request on the part of the Republicans again to put a family planning issue which has no place in any of this legislation as part of that legislation. My colleagues, this is the wrong bill. It has been constructed in the wrong way. It has the wrong offsets. I am for the disaster relief, and I am for giving the money for our troops in Iraq and Bosnia, but not in this form, not with these offsets. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote for the motion to recommit to fund these programs properly. If that fails, vote against this legislation. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished member of the Committee on National Security, after which I will yield to him for a colloquy. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security for this piece of legislation. I think we need to get to the heart of the issue here and what is at stake. Why do we need this supplemental and why do we need to not further degradate the dollars to support our military? Mr. Chairman, if we look at the facts, in the past 6 years we have seen our troops deployed 25 times at home and around the world. Now if we compare that to the previous 40 years, they were deployed 10 times. Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that none of those 25 deployments were budgeted for; none of those 25 deployments were paid for. In the case of Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, by the end of the next fiscal year we will have spent $9.4 billion on Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if we look at the previous 7 years, we have spent $15 billion on contingencies around the world. Now, the problem in the Congress is not that we oppose going into Bosnia. That is not the issue. The problem in Bosnia is why was America asked to put in 36,000 troops while the Germans, right next door, put in 4,000 troops? Why are we paying the costs for the troops, the housing and food for the Bangladesh military in Haiti? The problem is that this administration has not done enough to get our allies to kick in their fair share of the cost of these deployments. Look at Desert Storm. The Desert Storm operation cost us $52 billion. We were reimbursed $54 billion. But that has not been the case for the past 6 and 7 years. We have seen time and again money taken away from readiness, from modernization, from R, from those programs that we agreed to within a 5-year balanced budget context to be used to pay for deployments, none of which were budgeted for. Therefore, we need to restore this money because the quality of life for our troops is at stake, because the modernization of our systems is at stake, and because we have robbed the military to the core, to the bone. Talk to our troops in the field, Mr. Chairman. Listen to those young kids in Somalia who are on their second and third straight deployments. Listen to their stories of being away from home because of the cuts that we have made. We need to understand these monies are desperately necessary to replenish funds that have been taken away from the military to pay for deployments that were never considered priorities by this administration when our troops were committed in the first place. I ask my colleagues to support this appropriation measure, to oppose any measure to change it, to support the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) because what they are doing is right for our troops, it is right for America, and it is right for our role in the world today. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the purposes of colloquy only. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental appropriations measure before the House today goes a long way to support the needs of our troops, supporting the added cost of Bosnia and Iraqi enforcement operations while ensuring that we are not further eroding a defense budget that is already stretched too thin. As we move the bill forward, we must consider the many remaining needs of our troops around the globe. Of particular concern to our military commanders stationed abroad are the increasing range of missile threats, particularly those that could emerge this [[Page H1804]] year as a result of Russian technology transfers. Last night, the House unanimously adopted an authorization bill, H.R. 2786, designed to enhance our missile defense systems against that very threat. Unfortunately, due to the timing of that action, we were unable to include those funds in this supplemental. However, it is my understanding that the administration supports execution of the actions in H.R. 2786 in fiscal year 1998. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct. Not only are we in complete agreement with the need to ensure effective missile defenses for our troops abroad, but we agree that these actions should remain a funding priority for fiscal year 1998. Although the administration limited the Bosnia supplemental to paying for the cost of that operation in the Persian Gulf, they are now supporting execution of theater missile defense enhancements this year. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Senate approved funding for the theater missile defense enhancements in its supplemental bill. Given the tight constraints we are working under here today, I will not offer an amendment, but ask the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee to ensure that this funding remains in the supplemental conference report. Mr. LIVINGSTON. I share the interest of the gentleman in moving the theater missile defense initiative forward, and I assure my colleague that I will do my very best to preserve necessary funds in the supplemental conference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci). Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time to talk about the manager's amendment. I rise to issue my strong support for it. The ice storm of 1998 devastated 4 States in the Northeast. The damage was unlike anything ever experienced, and it was severe. This amendment will provide funding through community development block grants. It will address needs not met through other disaster relief programs, either the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Small Business Administration. It will give States the flexibility to meet the critical needs of residents still recovering from the storm. And, most importantly, it will ease the economic burden of citizens least able to bear it. I ask my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full committee; the entire Committee on Appropriations members and staff; and particularly my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for their very effective work on this bill. As we have heard here today, Mr. Chairman, this is an initiative to try to redress a good many problems that are in this land today. People are struggling with the challenges of dealing with natural disasters, and I think by that very reason alone it deserves all of our unqualified support. I just want to talk a moment about one particular portion, and that is the assistance that is provided for the dairy farmers of this Nation. I know that some of this funding, particularly as it relates to the compensation for diminished milk production, is unprecedented and that some Members are concerned about this fact. But let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, the losses in northern New York and, in fact, throughout the entire Northeast represent a very unique situation. The assistance we are providing in this bill represents a small but a vitally important step on their road to recovery. The loss of electric power in this region had enormous repercussions beyond just inconvenience, although certainly inconvenient it was. New York is the Nation's third largest dairy producer; and, without power, dairy farmers were unable to milk their herd. Those few with generators who could milk frequently had to dump their milk because the roads were impassable. And those who were rarely, on occasion, able to get to the milk trucks were unable to get to plants that were in operation. So the losses were absolutely devastating. The inability to milk has caused, as I said, unique problems. No milking on normal schedule means sick animals, animals that contract mastitis, an illness which if not treated properly can kill the animal. As I said, I thank the chairman for his assistance and urge the support of this initiative. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), the distinguished ranking member of the most effective HUD subcommittee. Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. I reluctantly rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I say ``reluctantly'' because I very much favor the emergency supplemental appropriations that the bill contains. However, the construction of this bill forces me to oppose it. The biggest problem with the bill is the domestic rescissions that the bill contains, none of which are required by the budget rules and all of which do great damage to important programs. By far the largest portion of these cuts, about three-quarters of the total, fall on section 8 housing assistance. This program helps people with very low incomes afford one of the basic necessities of life, a place to live. Of the 2.8 million households receiving section 8 housing assistance, 32 percent are elderly, another 11 percent are disabled, 50 percent are families with children. Their median income is just over $7,500 per year. The funds being rescinded are reserves that are urgently needed to help meet the cost of renewing section 8 housing assistance contracts expiring next year. If this rescission is allowed to stand and the funds are not replaced, contracts for 410,000 units of section 8 housing would not be renewed and the elderly and disabled people and young families living in these apartments would face the choice of paying large increases in rent, which they cannot afford, or losing their place to live. We have more than 5 million low-income families with worst-case housing needs receiving no Federal housing assistance at all. Waiting lists for housing programs are years long in many areas. The number of families helped by Federal housing programs is going down. In light of all this, we must stop using section 8 and other housing programs as the piggy bank every time someone wants to find some money to pay for something else. We ought to defeat this bill and bring back a clean supplemental appropriations bill that takes care of the urgent emergency needs without further devastating housing and other vital domestic programs. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about those piggy banks. The gentleman from Missouri and his statements, I would like to speak directly to those. First of all, for 30 years, Democrats controlled this Congress; and the debt has soared, where we pay over a billion dollars a day on just the interest. That is before law enforcement. That is before education. That is before anything that we want to pay for. The liberal Democrat leadership was against a balanced budget because that limits their ability to spend. They were against a tax relief for working families. {time} 1415 They were against welfare reform. They just wanted to spend more money for it. Who has to pay all of those extra costs for not having a balanced budget, for not having tax relief? They increase taxes and they put increase on Social Security tax. They cut veterans and military COLAs. They increase the tax on working families. So the record is very clear. But who is going to pay for that? We had a D.C. [[Page H1805]] bill where we would waive Davis-Bacon to pay for 60-year-old schools. The word ``children'' was mentioned, but do we think the leadership would waive Davis-Bacon that saves 35 percent to build schools in Washington, D.C.? No, because they are tied to their union brothers. It is 35 percent savings. Again, who has to pay for that 35 percent? Working families and senior citizens. Alan Greenspan has told us that we cannot bust these budget caps because the interest rates right now are between 2 and 8 percent lower. Now, what does that mean to working families? That they have more money for education, for their children. They have more money to buy a car, or even a double egg, double cheese, double fry burger if they want. But it is more money in their pocket instead of having to pay for the debt or come back in Washington, D.C. They want to pay for IMF, $18 billion, when the economists debate on the value of that. It is $18 billion, but yet we are having to find offsets. Yet, the gentleman from Missouri wants to pay. The United Nations, we pay 30 percent of all peacekeeping. The President has put us in Somalia without Congress. They put us in Haiti without Congress. They have kept us in Bosnia without Congress. Yet, we have to pay for it. Yet, our European nations have not paid for their share. They say, why can we not pay our bills? Well, who pays for that $18 billion? Who pays for the billions of dollars that go to the U.N.? The working families. That is what I am saying. There is a big difference between our plan and what the Democrats want to do, which is just spend more money without offsetting it and continue with the 30 years of tax-and-spend big government, liberal government. We are not going to allow that to happen. Now, it is legitimate. They feel that big government can do everything. We do not. There is a difference in the choice, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, as every American knows, this Congress was a snake pit of confrontation. There was one fight after another between the Congress and the White House, which led to a sustained government shutdown. It took a long time for the reputation of this Congress to recover from that obstreperousness. Last year, in contrast, I felt we had a pretty good year in the appropriations process. Most of the time the appropriations bills were dealt with on a bipartisan basis. I think that that made people in the country feel better about their government. I think it made us feel a whole lot better about it. I think it made us feel a whole lot better about each other, because we were able to work out differences after we had defined those differences. We were able to find a common solution to many of those questions. This year, unfortunately, we now seem to be walking right back into the confrontation mode. There have been numerous stories in the press reporting that those in the majority party caucus with the more militant attitude on political matters simply want the Congress to take the President on, on a whole range of issues. So as a result, this bill, which ought to be an emergency appropriation which goes through rather quickly, this bill is going to take a long time to get out of the Congress, out of conference. When it gets to the President, it is going to be vetoed in its present form. That makes no sense, because we have a great deal of work to do. We have a very few days left in the legislative schedule to do it. Let us take a look at the points of controversy in this bill. First of all, this bill refuses to appropriate 75 percent of the disaster assistance requested by the President. Now, the President does not ask for that money because he likes to ask for money. He asks for it because we have had a series of natural disasters around the country. Unless we are not going to help communities recover, we need to provide this money. The President has asked for more money than we have in this bill because he understands that with the funding of the disasters that we have already had, if we have any significant storm activity in the summer, we will not have the money in the till to help the communities who need help on the dime, immediately. Yet, despite the fact that on a bipartisan basis the Senate committee, under the leadership of the chairman of that committee, Senator Stevens, despite the fact that the Senate added the full amount of the President's request, the majority party in this House refuses to provide that same funding. Then in a second effort to establish confrontation with the President, the House majority party insists that to the President's request it add large cuts in housing, which will cut 20 percent of the funds that are needed next year to sign the contracts to sustain the living quarters for low-income Americans and senior citizens who are now living in subsidized housing around the country. One-third of the persons who will be forced out of those homes, if this action occurs, are elderly. That is a great Easter gift for this Congress to give those folks before we go home on 20 days recess. Then it says we are going to cut $75 million for bilingual education. I did not used to care about that issue as much as I do now. But now I have had a huge influx of H'Mong population into my hometown and other communities. The H'Mong are the folks who did our dirty work during the war in Laos. They did the CIA's undercover dirty work. So the Federal Government made a decision to allow them to come into this country. But now the Federal Government is bugging out on its responsibility to help train them and educate them. They do not even have a written language, so they are very hard to teach English. Yet, one of the programs that would help us do that is being shrunk by a very large amount by this action. Then we come to the IMF. Nobody likes to come in here and ask for money for the International Monetary Fund. But the fact is we live in the real world, and if we do not defend ourselves in that real world, we are going to suffer the consequences. Japan has been running an irresponsible fiscal policy for years. That and other actions finally led to a currency collapse in Asia. There is a huge overproductive capacity in this world in certain industries, a lot of it in Asia. Because of that currency collapse, a lot of very cheap goods which are artificially underpriced because of that currency collapse are going to shortly be under way to the United States to undercut American goods. We are going to see plants close. We are going to see American workers go out of work. We are going to see the largest trade deficit in the history of the world. Yet, this Congress is choosing to do nothing whatsoever about it by holding the IMF hostage to a nongermane proposal. Then what we find is that the Speaker of the House is reported in a number of press accounts to have threatened majority party Members of the Committee on Appropriations with the loss of their committee assignments if they do not follow the leadership's so-called strategy on this issue. I do not understand why anyone thinks that it is for the good of America that we resurrect a confrontational attitude rather than a cooperative attitude in this Congress. I do not understand even how politically people think that that is going to win votes in an election year. I do not think it is. So I regretfully and respectfully ask the House to turn this bill down. I know that the pragmatists on the majority side of the aisle did not want to see this confrontation occur, but they have been overruled. I regret that. Until such time as reason prevails, we have no choice but to ask Members to vote against this proposal. That is what I am asking Members to do. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his statement and associate myself with it, especially the issue concerning housing cuts. We have a $23 billion commitment over the next two years. Last year we cut $3.6 billion out of housing. We promised to make it up. We have not done it. This year we are taking more out. This is going to put people in the street. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the supplemental emergency assistance measures. I very much regret and strongly oppose [[Page H1806]] the ``offset'' provisions of these proposals which has ensured a collision course with the President's emergency request for additional fiscal 1998 funding for disaster aid and military action in Bosnia and Iraq as well as standing U.S. commitments to the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This IMF Funding means that our 183 nation member program is running on empty, the only tool that we have to prevent the global economic catastrophe, that could devastate our domestic economy. This measure, in fact, only provides 25% of the Presidents total request for funding of disaster assistance. After dragging this bill out for months on the eve of a Easter recess period, apparently the GOP assumes that the House can be forced to accept a deficient product. If we oppose them, they will lay the blame on others. Frankly, the blame and the shame is the GOP leadership. As the adage states: lead, follow--or get out of the way so that we can get the job done. Our GOP colleagues insistence on including offsetting cuts in solely domestic programs illustrates their reluctance to provide basic programs that form the foundation of trust and the tools that American families need to care for themselves and one another. The GOP's package of cuts produces a number of offsets that would slash $2.9 billion in peoples priorities, and programs. These offsets jeopardize low-income housing programs for 100,000 people (many of whom are elderly 32% and disabled 11%), much needed airport improvements, terminating the AmeriCorps national service program for 1998, and major cuts in this years bilingual education. These programs are vital to the real needs of the most vulnerable in our society. While natural disaster needs would be met, this action would create a new disaster for those impacted by the offset cuts. These harmful rescissions are unnecessary under the budget rules, which designate that true emergency funding may proceed without offsets. Nonetheless, the Republican Majority in this House has chosen to cut key domestic spending initiatives to offset defense and natural disaster emergencies; breaching the ``firewalls'' between the two categories of defense and domestic expenditures and the 1998 budget enacted into law last year. These offsets are strongly opposed by the President and many Members of Congress. The Senate included no such offsets in its version of the bill, and there are no indications that they would do so. This clearly is a partisan effort to inject this new and divisive issue into the supplemental emergency assistance measures that will complicate the passage of this legislation. This raises questions as to the motives involved. The Republican Majority shut down the government with unrelated policy for several months in 1996. They denied much needed disaster help in 1997 because of an unrelated rider. Here we go again in 1998. The Republicans are holding hostage the emergency funding for the Department of Defense and disaster assistance, in an attempt, to force feed their unpopular and unfair agenda on the American people. This agenda gives new meaning to women, children, the disabled, and the elderly first. It is time to call a halt to the GOP political games and get on with the peoples business, not a GOP partisan policy agenda. The next two fiscal years the committed renewal of section 8 housing units existing contracts serving existing low income families with children, the elderly and disabled will demand over $23 billion. The 1997 emergency supplemental did the same as this in removing $3.6 billion of the housing reserve funds and pledged to make it up, but they have not replaced the fund, but take more--this is not a honey pot and it hurts real people. Mr. Chairman, the much-needed assistance for natural disasters and peacekeeping missions are sound and urgently needed. However, we must not permit this offset package to become our final action. This bill is a step backward, not forward. We should reject it. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, just to assure the Members that the sky is not falling, I just want to make a few points. First of all, if it is confrontation that we have opposing views on how to treat the supplemental appropriations bill, then yes, it is confrontation. But I think it is not angry confrontation, it is simply a matter of differing philosophies. For the last 60 years of this century, the now minority party, which used to be the majority party, guided the affairs of the country with the idea that we continue to spend and never worry about whether the money was there. All we are saying on the supplementals is that, sure, we can continue to spend, but it has to be within the budget. For the last 4 years, we have in effect said that we will pay for the supplemental spending. We are coming up with $2.29 billion in extra spending for defense. We are coming up with $575 million for disaster relief. But we are going to offset. That is all we are saying. The Senate has not said that, and we are going to meet them head on. But for our purposes in the House, we are going to offset this extra spending. I dare say we have succeeded. We have got all these cries that the cuts in other existing unobligated funds are going to cause a disaster and the people are going to go homeless. The fact is that is not going to happen. These are unobligated funds, and they are not needed this year, this fiscal year. If they are needed later on, we will address that. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has said that a militant majority is demonstrating that we should do something so awful as pay as we go. We happen to think that is fiscal responsibility. It is not militant. It is just common sense. He says that we have not adequately provided for the disaster relief that is needed. In effect, he is right, because the President, the day after we reported this bill out of the full committee, the President finally sent over an additional request of $1.6 billion for disaster relief that we have not had time to address, and we will address before this bill gets through its normal processes. He says that he is concerned that we have attacked bilingual education. Look, the H'Mong have been here for 20 years. If they have no written language, we have got a good one. It is called English. Well, if they have not been here for 20 years, then they have been here for 10 or 15; I do not know how long. Anyway, we have got English. We have got English, and it is a perfectly good language. We would like to teach them how to assimilate themselves into the United States, just like we would like to teach people of all ethnic backgrounds to assimilate themselves in the United States and teach their kids how to be productive American citizens. Just from day one, that is what we have done in America. That is why we are the melting pot. That is why we have succeeded in bringing cultures of all sorts together and have succeeded in becoming the most dynamic free Nation on earth. {time} 1430 The fact is, look, I adopted a little girl with my wife, a little girl from Taiwan. She came here at almost 7 years old. She could not speak English. She spoke Chinese. But we put her in an ``English as a second language'' course, and within 3 months she was speaking fluent English. She is a productive American citizen. I hope that others will likewise become productive American citizens. Mr. Chairman, if I were to take a kid to Spain, I would not expect that child to only speak English and to be taught English in the schools. I would expect that child to be taught Spanish in the schools so that that child would live in Spain and become a productive Spanish citizen, if my colleagues will. The point is, bilingual education in and of itself has been a failed program. It ought to be abolished. English as a second language is a successful program, and should be encouraged and hopefully will be because of the steps that we take here today. These are good changes. This is a good bill. The offsets are simply common sense. I urge the adoption of this bill, the rejection of the motion to recommit, and hopefully we will get a conference soon, right after we come back from the break, and we will get this disaster relief to the people who need it. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to associate myself with the remarks the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made earlier. I regret that I come to this floor to oppose this bill. Instead of coalescing funding to continue our peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and ensure a strong and forceful presence in the Gulf, we are being asked to undercut important domestic programs included in last year's budget agreement to finance our national security interests. [[Page H1807]] It is not enough that the budget agreement of 1985 provides for emergency spending without offsets during domestic or international crisis. It is not enough that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), it is not enough that Mr. Livingston fought hard to prevent making unwise and devastating cuts in domestic programs, notwithstanding the fact that he just said something a little different. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it apparently is not enough that the United States Senate, with the support of the President of the United States, passed this emergency spending without gutting domestic programs by voice vote. No, Mr. Chairman, instead today this body is being asked to gut the Section 8 low income housing program which could leave 800,000 Americans without housing next year. We are being asked to effectively shut down the AmeriCorps program through a 60 percent cut, and perhaps in one of the most outrageous affronts contained in this bill, the leadership is advocating a cut of $75 million in bilingual and immigrant education. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman, as to the importance of the emergency funding the President is seeking. Continuing the U.S. presence in Bosnia is critical. Progress is being made in the implementation of the Dayton Accords, and this progress has only been possible because of U.S. participation in the NATO-led stabilization force. There is not one of us that has visited that force, that has not been proud of our men and women and the effect that they have had. Apparently the majority party did not learn the lessons of the 1995 disaster relief supplemental. The chairman learned them; I think most of the chairmen of our subcommittees learned them. But their caucus did not learn them. There are very serious issues to be debated in this Chamber. However, we should not hold emergency funding hostage when on its surface we all support the need for a strong presence in Iraq and a need to respond to the ravages of El Nino. I urge my colleagues to vote down the latest sham of the Republican leadership and release this funding from the daily game of politics in which we have been embroiled. Vote ``no.'' Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water. (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to my distinguished friend from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for purposes of a colloquy only. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, Guam suffered extensive damages due to Typhoon Paka last December. Due to Typhoon Paka the commercial port, which is the principal lifeline for all the residents of Guam, needs to be restored to its economic vitality. I understand that the bill before us today provides $84.5 million for the Corps of Engineers for emergency repairs due to flooding and other natural disasters. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's statement is accurate. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand further that the $84.5 million is not project-specific and that there may be an opportunity to review Guam's request for port projects. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, may I say to the gentleman that the committee did not earmark disaster relief funds provided to the Corps of Engineers. The additional funding in the operation and maintenance account will be used to address high priority needs resulting from recent natural disasters at Corps-operated or Corps-maintained projects. The Corps of Engineers should consider Guam's request in conjunction with other projects eligible for emergency assistance consistent with current law and authorities. I want to assure the gentleman that we will examine this issue as the process proceeds to conference with the Senate, and we will do our best. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the distinguished chairman. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on National Security. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify the issue before us today. We are not here to correct the overdeployment of our military troops or the underfunding of our military troops. The issue before us today is whether this is an emergency as prescribed by the budget law or whether it is one that is not and calls for an offset. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could rise in support of this bill, the emergency supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, the bill in its current configuration falls short in terms of timing, process and interpretation. First there is a matter of timing. Once again this body has reacted slowly to an emergency situation, with consequences that will affect our fellow citizens both here at home and overseas. And yet, while the other body has essentially passed a bill to deal with these measures, we are still debating the matter in this body, and the result is that by the time we begin our 2-week spring recess we will not have completed this important work. Second, there is a matter of process. Though 80 percent of the bill's appropriations are for military programs, all of the measure's offsets are in domestic programs. This is a sure invitation for a presidential veto, and I am sure that the President will accept that invitation. As many know, the other body has not offset, I will repeat, has not offset its version of the supplemental with spending cuts. It has accepted the emergency designation for the supplemental, as it should have. I can envision a scenario where the other body would offer to accept offsets, but with a condition that those offsets come from the military appropriation accounts. What a disaster that would be. Third, there is a matter of interpretation. I voted for last year's Balanced Budget Act. I believe we made great progress in the past 8 years to get our Nation's finances in order. The 1993 bill which I supported; last year, the Balanced Budget Act which I supported; and this year we see a surplus possibly of $8 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the first surplus since 1969. While provisions under the Budget Act will allow us to fund genuine emergencies, the other body has chosen to use those provisions. That is what we should do. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen wrote earlier this month that if the Department of Defense were required to provide offsets from within the DOD budget, the effect on DOD programs would prove calamitous. I have seen the same thing for the domestic side. That has been well thought out. It is a matter of accepting what is reality. A rose by any other name is still a rose; an emergency by any other name is still an emergency. I think that in this present form it is very difficult for us to support, and I will not support this bill. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today. First I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for sticking to our core principles, that 3 years ago we made a commitment that we were going to stop spending our children's money, and I would like to commend the chairman for sticking to those principles in this bill and sticking to the offsets. We understand the other body, the Senate, has not proposed offsets yet, and I would also like to express my appreciation for accepting the Neumann-McIntosh amendment that puts this body on record when we pass this bill, saying that when it goes to conference it should come back with the offsets intact. I would also like to do, as I made it my custom to do over the last 3 years, to report to my colleagues what the actual numbers are in this spending bill. The total new spending, the total, quote, emergency spending in this bill, is $2.865 billion in outlays and budget authority, and in fact the offsets amount to 1 million more than what the proposed new spending is as it relates to budget authority. In outlays, the outlays are $350 million short, but I would add that it is [[Page H1808]] the closest that we have come of any of the supplemental appropriation bills that have passed through this body since we came here in 1995. It is the closest we have come to offsetting it in outlays as well as budget authority, and again in budget authority, to my colleagues, it is not only offset but there is actually $1 million extra in it. Again, I would like to address the concerns of the other side. I heard the statement that 800,000 Americans will be without housing if this bill is passed. Well, first let me say that that is absolutely not true. But second, let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side that if in fact they genuinely believe that is true, then they have a moral and an ethical responsibility to bring something forward that allows these offsets to come from some other part of this budget. Look, what we are asking for is to stop spending our children's money. We are asking to find offsets, that is, wasteful government spending that amounts to $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending. Let me say that once more, so we understand just exactly what this debate is all about. What we are saying is that, I want to make sure that this debate is very, very clear when we talk about finding these offsets or reductions in wasteful Washington spending to counter the new spending, we are looking for a grand total of $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending. Now is there anyone in the entire United States of America that believes there is not $2.8 billion of wasteful Washington spending that can be eliminated so that we do not go and tack this new spending onto the legacy that we are going to give our children? I would like to conclude by again commending our chairman for sticking to his guns and demanding that these offsets be included in this bill, because for years that was not the practice, and that is in fact how we got to the $5.5 trillion debt that we currently have staring us in the face. I would conclude with the memory it is $2.8 billion in offsets. We are open to other suggestions; $2.8 out of $1700 is what we are looking for in terms of offsetting the bill. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that under the rule no amendments are allowed, no alternatives can be proposed? Am I correct on that? It is a closed rule; am I correct? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment. Mr. HOYER. One amendment made in order. No other amendments other than an amendment allowed by the Committee on Rules can be made, no alternatives can be proposed for other offsets; am I correct, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment that was made in order under the rule. Mr. HOYER. But no amendments can be offered; am I correct, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment to be offered in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. HOYER. I understand that. Can any additional amendments be offered, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There can be an amendment offered as a recommittal in the House. {time} 1445 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about wasteful Washington spending. I do not consider enabling senior citizens to have housing in my hometown or anybody else's hometown in the countryside to be wasteful Washington spending. I consider those to be necessary mercy initiatives so good and decent low-income Americans and retired senior citizens can live in decent housing. I do not consider providing funding to persons who are willing to give of their time to assist with finding volunteers to deal with our kids after school so that they are in a safe place and are not committing crime is wasteful Washington spending. I call that good community activity. I would point out that the rule the gentleman just voted for precluded us from attacking real wasteful spending. It precluded me from offering the amendment which would have reduced by 5 percent the Pentagon account that allows the Pentagon to pay $76 for a 57-cent set screw, and allows the Pentagon to pay $38,000 for aircraft springs that they previously paid $1,500 for. That is true wasteful Washington spending, I would submit to the gentleman from Wisconsin, and it is the kind of wasteful spending the gentleman protected with his vote for the rule. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to determine when the Skaggs provision will be up for debate. I understand that 30 minutes are allotted for that as well. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair could entertain that debate at any time during general debate. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I need to go up to the Committee on Rules. I would ask that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) be allowed to control my time. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland will control the time for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) while he goes to the Committee on Rules. There was no objection. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Guam, (Mr. Underwood). Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). In the disaster relief section of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, the committee accepted report language that makes mention of the ongoing discussion between the Government of Guam and the Navy over the repair responsibility for the repair of typhoon BRAC damaged properties on Guam. I have been assured by several civilian naval officials that the U.S. Navy, at a minimum, will be flexible if it is decided that the U.S. Navy is, indeed, responsible for said repairs. Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that if this action so occurs, the committee will entertain a request for funds in the regular fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is true. If the matter is settled between the Guam Government and the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Navy will accept the responsibility for the repair of certain typhoon damaged BRAC properties on Guam, our committee will consider such a request for funds in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for this clarification. We will work on the issue. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, here is the problem that I see as we go forward with this process. Normally, when we pass a bill, we have a good idea that we will be able to continue the process in the Senate. It is not so late in the year, and if it is, we will pass a bill very similar to the Senate bill. Now, this bill is so different than the Senate bill, we have a bill here which has a lot less money in it. We have a bill here which, in my estimation, when it is offset from domestic policy, will either assure a veto or, in the end, the Senate will not recognize it. I just do not see any possibility of this kind of a bill being the end product when it goes to conference. Now, if we do not accept the amendment that I am going to offer, the recommittal motion I am going to offer, then we have a situation where the Defense Department will not be able to go forward because it will not be assured of a bill happening. One of the things that has happened in the past, when they are assured of a conference, they can work different departments, they can get money, they can hold back money, and they can work out something to get them through. But here, they are not going to be able to do that, because they cannot be assured of a bill. Now, why do I say they cannot be assured of a bill? [[Page H1809]] Let us say that we pass this bill with offsets. Well, in the first place, the White House is against that. We go over to the Senate, we sit down, the Senate adds IMF, the Senate adds UN, and the Senate adds Mexico City. Now, in my estimation, there is no way that they can come back to the House with a bill the size it is, with no offsets, and pass it in the House, and yet, on the other hand, there is no way we can go to the Senate with all offsets and pass it in the Senate. So we have got a real problem, which leads me to believe that past history shows that the Defense Department cannot predict that they are going to have a bill. They only have 4 months left in the fiscal year, and the problem we are going to have when you only have 4 months, the Defense Department has to make a decision, how do I find the money to get us through the rest of the year. All right, we cut back on training, we layoff civilian employees, substantial numbers of civilian employees for 10 or 15 days. We shut down the Defense Department. There are all kinds of options the Defense Department is investigating right now, looking at what we can do in case a bill, which is absolutely the opposite of the bill that is pending in the Senate, it has not passed yet, but it is pending. We always in the past have been able to work these things out. This is an entirely different situation, which worries me. I am concerned, all of us have been through the committee process, if we pass a bill that is offset with domestic policy, the additional thing we do, we set domestic policy against defense policy, and when that happens we lose. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to support my motion to recommit when it comes up. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr.

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
(House of Representatives - March 31, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1797-H1824] 1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 402 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3579. {time} 1348 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3579) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. [[Page H1798]] Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), each will control 30 minutes of debate confined to the bill; and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and a Member opposed, each will control 15 minutes of debate confined to title III. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rule here to be structured, there will be 60 minutes debate on the present bill and then the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will be debating for 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the first 30 minutes be debated on the underlying measure, the middle 30 minutes to be shared equally, 15 minutes by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), 15 minutes by myself leading in opposition, with the remaining 30 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have just had a rule passed which denied the minority an opportunity to offer any significant amendment whatsoever. It is a rule that I strenuously opposed and asked the House to turn down. Now I understand that the gentleman is asking unanimous consent that some other arrangement be agreed to other than that in the rule. I, for the life of me, do not understand why we ought to do that. If Members did not like the rule, then I wish they would have followed my request and voted against it as I did. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the only reason I asked for this is to make sure that the debate is structured. If we are going to take the 90 minutes and have it commingled with the measure of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), it would be lost in the debate. Not only for the Members, but also for the American people to understand this important measure with regard to tying the hands of the Presidency, we should be able to debate for clarity. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, but with all due respect, we wanted the debate structured, too. We wanted to have a structured debate on offsets. We wanted to have a structured debate on the fact that this rule does not allow 75 percent of the President's request. We wanted a structured rule, too. We were not given that. Under those circumstances, I do not see why I should accommodate this request when we were turned down on every single request that we made to structure the rule. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this is our opportunity to structure a debate so that there will be clarity and understanding. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, our opportunity was by voting down the rule and coming back with a new rule. That is the way the House is supposed to operate under regular order. If the gentleman was not satisfied with the rule, he should have voted against it. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have is an ambiguity in the way the rule deals with this 30 minutes allocated to this particular issue. I would assume the Chair has discretion, given that ambiguity, to deal with it as seems reasonable. I had understood the gentleman from Wisconsin in particular, through his staff, to be concerned that we not have this 30-minute debate follow the general debate on the bill. I think that is what informs the gentleman from Indiana. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. On the assumption that the gentleman from Wisconsin yields for the purpose, the gentleman will state it. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have pending a reservation on my unanimous consent request. My parliamentary inquiry is, is it within the prerogative of the Chair to designate time if there is 60 minutes debate on the underlying measure, and in the rule it states 30 minutes on the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), whether the first 60 minutes would in fact be on Mr. Livingston's bill, and the remainder on the Skaggs provision, would it be within the Chair's prerogative to designate the time? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair intends at this moment to accommodate the preference of the chairman of the committee, as the rule is structured, by starting with the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have stated, since we were given no consideration whatsoever in our desire to offer even a single amendment to this amendment, I object to the unanimous consent request. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is recognized for 30 minutes. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to bring this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to the floor today. This bill provides important funding to sustain our troops in Bosnia and in Iraq in the amount of $1.8 billion. It also provides $575 million in assistance to those suffering from natural disasters throughout the country. Since this last fall, there have been typhoons, ice storms, excessive rains causing flooding and mud slides, beach erosion, late spring hard freezes and tornadoes. Because of these extreme weather conditions, there has been significant widespread damage to crops, livestock, natural resources and the country's infrastructure. The funding in this bill provides assistance to farmers, ranchers and dairymen. It funds repairs to highways, railroads, harbors and flood control facilities, national parks, forests and wildlife refuges and agricultural flood prevention facilities. In addition to providing direct support to the troops in Bosnia and Iraq, the bill also funds repairs to military facilities caused by typhoons, ice storms and the El Nino-related extreme weather. The funding in this bill is fully offset with an equal amount of rescissions. This is consistent with the policy adopted by the Republican majority when we took control of the Congress in January of 1995. The struggle to offset emergency supplemental bills gets harder every year. With lean regular appropriations bills and half the year already over, it is even more difficult. The leadership, and I agree that we should not go deeper into the defense function to pay for peacekeeping missions. And, in fact, I think one can make a very good case that the nondeployed forces would be unfairly robbed to keep the deployed forces going. After a very tight regular defense appropriations bill and a continued proliferation of unbudgeted peacekeeping missions, we are simply not able to find the defense programs and activities that we could reduce that are removed from the direct support of the peacekeeping missions, which would also not hurt overall national security. Cutting them would only result in a weakening of one element of national security to help another. It makes no sense to hobble national security in this manner. Therefore, the offsets included in the bill are all in the nondefense area. The funds proposed for rescission are generally in excess to those that would be needed this fiscal year. They have no impact during this fiscal year for the most part. You will hear a lot of worried talk today about the impact of those rescissions and their impact will not be felt if their restoration is accomplished later on. But they are excess funds right now, and we need offsets, and that is why we have chosen them. We will be able to consider restoring them at the appropriate time later on. We need to pass this bill today to move the process forward, making emergency supplemental [[Page H1799]] appropriations a real possibility. I urge support of this fiscally responsible bill. At this point in the Record, I would like to insert a detailed table reflecting the status of this bill since adoption of the rule governing its consideration. [[Page H1800]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.001 [[Page H1801]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.002 [[Page H1802]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.003 [[Page H1803]] Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this disaster relief and Bosnia-Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Act. I strongly support the provisions in this legislation that help Americans who have been involved in disasters around the country. I strongly support the activity of our military in Bosnia and Iraq. And I hope that we can get to a piece of legislation as quickly as possible that will support all of those efforts. I know full well how important those efforts are. We had a big flood in my district in 1993 and in 1995. I stood on this floor and pleaded with the House to give timely help to my constituents, and the House did. So I have a very deep feeling about the need for this legislation. But the Republican leadership, just as they did a year ago, has refused to act responsibly and in a straightforward manner to provide these funds that have been requested by the administration. {time} 1400 They have insisted wrongly, in my view, on offsets which can be done under our budget act but which are not required under our budget act. In fact, we have provisions in our budget act that say that expenses like this which are truly emergencies do not need to be offset. But, again, the Republican leadership has decided to put in offsets; and, in my view, these offsets are very damaging in many, many areas of life in our country. Let me just mention some. It will hurt children who need help so that they can learn English. It will undermine the ability of our airports to construct needed runway enhancements and install new security equipment, as we are trying to do in St. Louis, Missouri. It would effectively end the Americorps program and could lead to more than a 100,000 of our elderly citizens losing their housing. I do not think these are the trade-offs that we should be considering when we are considering emergency legislation. These are emergency items. That is why we put that into the budget. These were things that were unforeseen when the budget was put together. If they had been foreseen, we would have found room in the budget. And we may find room in next year's budget. But to now come at the 11th hour and wipe out these domestic programs so that we can take care of bona fide emergencies makes no sense. If Members want an alternative approach, we will have a motion to recommit that I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for that would simply take out the offsets and say that this should be treated as we believe it should be, as an emergency. But let me go further on why I think this bill is ill-advised. The Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to consider all the supplemental requests the President has forwarded. They left out the International Monetary Fund request. We have countries in Asia going into bankruptcy. The only thing that is keeping many of them afloat so that we do not lose more exports and have more unneeded imports in this country is the IMF request. If it sits for another 5, 6, 8 weeks, what will happen to the IMF and the countries that need help? Finally, there is the matter of United Nations dues. Here we are today, the leader of the world, the leader of the United Nations, and we cannot find a way to bring ourselves to pay our dues. We have the unseemly situation where the Secretary General has gone and made a peace in Iraq, which is good for the entire world, and he cannot get the leader of the world to pay our debts, our dues to the United Nations. The President wanted that in this bill, and it is not. It is being separated out. And all of this is being made subject to an untimely and unneeded request on the part of the Republicans again to put a family planning issue which has no place in any of this legislation as part of that legislation. My colleagues, this is the wrong bill. It has been constructed in the wrong way. It has the wrong offsets. I am for the disaster relief, and I am for giving the money for our troops in Iraq and Bosnia, but not in this form, not with these offsets. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote for the motion to recommit to fund these programs properly. If that fails, vote against this legislation. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished member of the Committee on National Security, after which I will yield to him for a colloquy. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security for this piece of legislation. I think we need to get to the heart of the issue here and what is at stake. Why do we need this supplemental and why do we need to not further degradate the dollars to support our military? Mr. Chairman, if we look at the facts, in the past 6 years we have seen our troops deployed 25 times at home and around the world. Now if we compare that to the previous 40 years, they were deployed 10 times. Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that none of those 25 deployments were budgeted for; none of those 25 deployments were paid for. In the case of Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, by the end of the next fiscal year we will have spent $9.4 billion on Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if we look at the previous 7 years, we have spent $15 billion on contingencies around the world. Now, the problem in the Congress is not that we oppose going into Bosnia. That is not the issue. The problem in Bosnia is why was America asked to put in 36,000 troops while the Germans, right next door, put in 4,000 troops? Why are we paying the costs for the troops, the housing and food for the Bangladesh military in Haiti? The problem is that this administration has not done enough to get our allies to kick in their fair share of the cost of these deployments. Look at Desert Storm. The Desert Storm operation cost us $52 billion. We were reimbursed $54 billion. But that has not been the case for the past 6 and 7 years. We have seen time and again money taken away from readiness, from modernization, from R, from those programs that we agreed to within a 5-year balanced budget context to be used to pay for deployments, none of which were budgeted for. Therefore, we need to restore this money because the quality of life for our troops is at stake, because the modernization of our systems is at stake, and because we have robbed the military to the core, to the bone. Talk to our troops in the field, Mr. Chairman. Listen to those young kids in Somalia who are on their second and third straight deployments. Listen to their stories of being away from home because of the cuts that we have made. We need to understand these monies are desperately necessary to replenish funds that have been taken away from the military to pay for deployments that were never considered priorities by this administration when our troops were committed in the first place. I ask my colleagues to support this appropriation measure, to oppose any measure to change it, to support the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) because what they are doing is right for our troops, it is right for America, and it is right for our role in the world today. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the purposes of colloquy only. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental appropriations measure before the House today goes a long way to support the needs of our troops, supporting the added cost of Bosnia and Iraqi enforcement operations while ensuring that we are not further eroding a defense budget that is already stretched too thin. As we move the bill forward, we must consider the many remaining needs of our troops around the globe. Of particular concern to our military commanders stationed abroad are the increasing range of missile threats, particularly those that could emerge this [[Page H1804]] year as a result of Russian technology transfers. Last night, the House unanimously adopted an authorization bill, H.R. 2786, designed to enhance our missile defense systems against that very threat. Unfortunately, due to the timing of that action, we were unable to include those funds in this supplemental. However, it is my understanding that the administration supports execution of the actions in H.R. 2786 in fiscal year 1998. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct. Not only are we in complete agreement with the need to ensure effective missile defenses for our troops abroad, but we agree that these actions should remain a funding priority for fiscal year 1998. Although the administration limited the Bosnia supplemental to paying for the cost of that operation in the Persian Gulf, they are now supporting execution of theater missile defense enhancements this year. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Senate approved funding for the theater missile defense enhancements in its supplemental bill. Given the tight constraints we are working under here today, I will not offer an amendment, but ask the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee to ensure that this funding remains in the supplemental conference report. Mr. LIVINGSTON. I share the interest of the gentleman in moving the theater missile defense initiative forward, and I assure my colleague that I will do my very best to preserve necessary funds in the supplemental conference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci). Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time to talk about the manager's amendment. I rise to issue my strong support for it. The ice storm of 1998 devastated 4 States in the Northeast. The damage was unlike anything ever experienced, and it was severe. This amendment will provide funding through community development block grants. It will address needs not met through other disaster relief programs, either the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Small Business Administration. It will give States the flexibility to meet the critical needs of residents still recovering from the storm. And, most importantly, it will ease the economic burden of citizens least able to bear it. I ask my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full committee; the entire Committee on Appropriations members and staff; and particularly my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for their very effective work on this bill. As we have heard here today, Mr. Chairman, this is an initiative to try to redress a good many problems that are in this land today. People are struggling with the challenges of dealing with natural disasters, and I think by that very reason alone it deserves all of our unqualified support. I just want to talk a moment about one particular portion, and that is the assistance that is provided for the dairy farmers of this Nation. I know that some of this funding, particularly as it relates to the compensation for diminished milk production, is unprecedented and that some Members are concerned about this fact. But let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, the losses in northern New York and, in fact, throughout the entire Northeast represent a very unique situation. The assistance we are providing in this bill represents a small but a vitally important step on their road to recovery. The loss of electric power in this region had enormous repercussions beyond just inconvenience, although certainly inconvenient it was. New York is the Nation's third largest dairy producer; and, without power, dairy farmers were unable to milk their herd. Those few with generators who could milk frequently had to dump their milk because the roads were impassable. And those who were rarely, on occasion, able to get to the milk trucks were unable to get to plants that were in operation. So the losses were absolutely devastating. The inability to milk has caused, as I said, unique problems. No milking on normal schedule means sick animals, animals that contract mastitis, an illness which if not treated properly can kill the animal. As I said, I thank the chairman for his assistance and urge the support of this initiative. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), the distinguished ranking member of the most effective HUD subcommittee. Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. I reluctantly rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I say ``reluctantly'' because I very much favor the emergency supplemental appropriations that the bill contains. However, the construction of this bill forces me to oppose it. The biggest problem with the bill is the domestic rescissions that the bill contains, none of which are required by the budget rules and all of which do great damage to important programs. By far the largest portion of these cuts, about three-quarters of the total, fall on section 8 housing assistance. This program helps people with very low incomes afford one of the basic necessities of life, a place to live. Of the 2.8 million households receiving section 8 housing assistance, 32 percent are elderly, another 11 percent are disabled, 50 percent are families with children. Their median income is just over $7,500 per year. The funds being rescinded are reserves that are urgently needed to help meet the cost of renewing section 8 housing assistance contracts expiring next year. If this rescission is allowed to stand and the funds are not replaced, contracts for 410,000 units of section 8 housing would not be renewed and the elderly and disabled people and young families living in these apartments would face the choice of paying large increases in rent, which they cannot afford, or losing their place to live. We have more than 5 million low-income families with worst-case housing needs receiving no Federal housing assistance at all. Waiting lists for housing programs are years long in many areas. The number of families helped by Federal housing programs is going down. In light of all this, we must stop using section 8 and other housing programs as the piggy bank every time someone wants to find some money to pay for something else. We ought to defeat this bill and bring back a clean supplemental appropriations bill that takes care of the urgent emergency needs without further devastating housing and other vital domestic programs. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about those piggy banks. The gentleman from Missouri and his statements, I would like to speak directly to those. First of all, for 30 years, Democrats controlled this Congress; and the debt has soared, where we pay over a billion dollars a day on just the interest. That is before law enforcement. That is before education. That is before anything that we want to pay for. The liberal Democrat leadership was against a balanced budget because that limits their ability to spend. They were against a tax relief for working families. {time} 1415 They were against welfare reform. They just wanted to spend more money for it. Who has to pay all of those extra costs for not having a balanced budget, for not having tax relief? They increase taxes and they put increase on Social Security tax. They cut veterans and military COLAs. They increase the tax on working families. So the record is very clear. But who is going to pay for that? We had a D.C. [[Page H1805]] bill where we would waive Davis-Bacon to pay for 60-year-old schools. The word ``children'' was mentioned, but do we think the leadership would waive Davis-Bacon that saves 35 percent to build schools in Washington, D.C.? No, because they are tied to their union brothers. It is 35 percent savings. Again, who has to pay for that 35 percent? Working families and senior citizens. Alan Greenspan has told us that we cannot bust these budget caps because the interest rates right now are between 2 and 8 percent lower. Now, what does that mean to working families? That they have more money for education, for their children. They have more money to buy a car, or even a double egg, double cheese, double fry burger if they want. But it is more money in their pocket instead of having to pay for the debt or come back in Washington, D.C. They want to pay for IMF, $18 billion, when the economists debate on the value of that. It is $18 billion, but yet we are having to find offsets. Yet, the gentleman from Missouri wants to pay. The United Nations, we pay 30 percent of all peacekeeping. The President has put us in Somalia without Congress. They put us in Haiti without Congress. They have kept us in Bosnia without Congress. Yet, we have to pay for it. Yet, our European nations have not paid for their share. They say, why can we not pay our bills? Well, who pays for that $18 billion? Who pays for the billions of dollars that go to the U.N.? The working families. That is what I am saying. There is a big difference between our plan and what the Democrats want to do, which is just spend more money without offsetting it and continue with the 30 years of tax-and-spend big government, liberal government. We are not going to allow that to happen. Now, it is legitimate. They feel that big government can do everything. We do not. There is a difference in the choice, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, as every American knows, this Congress was a snake pit of confrontation. There was one fight after another between the Congress and the White House, which led to a sustained government shutdown. It took a long time for the reputation of this Congress to recover from that obstreperousness. Last year, in contrast, I felt we had a pretty good year in the appropriations process. Most of the time the appropriations bills were dealt with on a bipartisan basis. I think that that made people in the country feel better about their government. I think it made us feel a whole lot better about it. I think it made us feel a whole lot better about each other, because we were able to work out differences after we had defined those differences. We were able to find a common solution to many of those questions. This year, unfortunately, we now seem to be walking right back into the confrontation mode. There have been numerous stories in the press reporting that those in the majority party caucus with the more militant attitude on political matters simply want the Congress to take the President on, on a whole range of issues. So as a result, this bill, which ought to be an emergency appropriation which goes through rather quickly, this bill is going to take a long time to get out of the Congress, out of conference. When it gets to the President, it is going to be vetoed in its present form. That makes no sense, because we have a great deal of work to do. We have a very few days left in the legislative schedule to do it. Let us take a look at the points of controversy in this bill. First of all, this bill refuses to appropriate 75 percent of the disaster assistance requested by the President. Now, the President does not ask for that money because he likes to ask for money. He asks for it because we have had a series of natural disasters around the country. Unless we are not going to help communities recover, we need to provide this money. The President has asked for more money than we have in this bill because he understands that with the funding of the disasters that we have already had, if we have any significant storm activity in the summer, we will not have the money in the till to help the communities who need help on the dime, immediately. Yet, despite the fact that on a bipartisan basis the Senate committee, under the leadership of the chairman of that committee, Senator Stevens, despite the fact that the Senate added the full amount of the President's request, the majority party in this House refuses to provide that same funding. Then in a second effort to establish confrontation with the President, the House majority party insists that to the President's request it add large cuts in housing, which will cut 20 percent of the funds that are needed next year to sign the contracts to sustain the living quarters for low-income Americans and senior citizens who are now living in subsidized housing around the country. One-third of the persons who will be forced out of those homes, if this action occurs, are elderly. That is a great Easter gift for this Congress to give those folks before we go home on 20 days recess. Then it says we are going to cut $75 million for bilingual education. I did not used to care about that issue as much as I do now. But now I have had a huge influx of H'Mong population into my hometown and other communities. The H'Mong are the folks who did our dirty work during the war in Laos. They did the CIA's undercover dirty work. So the Federal Government made a decision to allow them to come into this country. But now the Federal Government is bugging out on its responsibility to help train them and educate them. They do not even have a written language, so they are very hard to teach English. Yet, one of the programs that would help us do that is being shrunk by a very large amount by this action. Then we come to the IMF. Nobody likes to come in here and ask for money for the International Monetary Fund. But the fact is we live in the real world, and if we do not defend ourselves in that real world, we are going to suffer the consequences. Japan has been running an irresponsible fiscal policy for years. That and other actions finally led to a currency collapse in Asia. There is a huge overproductive capacity in this world in certain industries, a lot of it in Asia. Because of that currency collapse, a lot of very cheap goods which are artificially underpriced because of that currency collapse are going to shortly be under way to the United States to undercut American goods. We are going to see plants close. We are going to see American workers go out of work. We are going to see the largest trade deficit in the history of the world. Yet, this Congress is choosing to do nothing whatsoever about it by holding the IMF hostage to a nongermane proposal. Then what we find is that the Speaker of the House is reported in a number of press accounts to have threatened majority party Members of the Committee on Appropriations with the loss of their committee assignments if they do not follow the leadership's so-called strategy on this issue. I do not understand why anyone thinks that it is for the good of America that we resurrect a confrontational attitude rather than a cooperative attitude in this Congress. I do not understand even how politically people think that that is going to win votes in an election year. I do not think it is. So I regretfully and respectfully ask the House to turn this bill down. I know that the pragmatists on the majority side of the aisle did not want to see this confrontation occur, but they have been overruled. I regret that. Until such time as reason prevails, we have no choice but to ask Members to vote against this proposal. That is what I am asking Members to do. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his statement and associate myself with it, especially the issue concerning housing cuts. We have a $23 billion commitment over the next two years. Last year we cut $3.6 billion out of housing. We promised to make it up. We have not done it. This year we are taking more out. This is going to put people in the street. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the supplemental emergency assistance measures. I very much regret and strongly oppose [[Page H1806]] the ``offset'' provisions of these proposals which has ensured a collision course with the President's emergency request for additional fiscal 1998 funding for disaster aid and military action in Bosnia and Iraq as well as standing U.S. commitments to the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This IMF Funding means that our 183 nation member program is running on empty, the only tool that we have to prevent the global economic catastrophe, that could devastate our domestic economy. This measure, in fact, only provides 25% of the Presidents total request for funding of disaster assistance. After dragging this bill out for months on the eve of a Easter recess period, apparently the GOP assumes that the House can be forced to accept a deficient product. If we oppose them, they will lay the blame on others. Frankly, the blame and the shame is the GOP leadership. As the adage states: lead, follow--or get out of the way so that we can get the job done. Our GOP colleagues insistence on including offsetting cuts in solely domestic programs illustrates their reluctance to provide basic programs that form the foundation of trust and the tools that American families need to care for themselves and one another. The GOP's package of cuts produces a number of offsets that would slash $2.9 billion in peoples priorities, and programs. These offsets jeopardize low-income housing programs for 100,000 people (many of whom are elderly 32% and disabled 11%), much needed airport improvements, terminating the AmeriCorps national service program for 1998, and major cuts in this years bilingual education. These programs are vital to the real needs of the most vulnerable in our society. While natural disaster needs would be met, this action would create a new disaster for those impacted by the offset cuts. These harmful rescissions are unnecessary under the budget rules, which designate that true emergency funding may proceed without offsets. Nonetheless, the Republican Majority in this House has chosen to cut key domestic spending initiatives to offset defense and natural disaster emergencies; breaching the ``firewalls'' between the two categories of defense and domestic expenditures and the 1998 budget enacted into law last year. These offsets are strongly opposed by the President and many Members of Congress. The Senate included no such offsets in its version of the bill, and there are no indications that they would do so. This clearly is a partisan effort to inject this new and divisive issue into the supplemental emergency assistance measures that will complicate the passage of this legislation. This raises questions as to the motives involved. The Republican Majority shut down the government with unrelated policy for several months in 1996. They denied much needed disaster help in 1997 because of an unrelated rider. Here we go again in 1998. The Republicans are holding hostage the emergency funding for the Department of Defense and disaster assistance, in an attempt, to force feed their unpopular and unfair agenda on the American people. This agenda gives new meaning to women, children, the disabled, and the elderly first. It is time to call a halt to the GOP political games and get on with the peoples business, not a GOP partisan policy agenda. The next two fiscal years the committed renewal of section 8 housing units existing contracts serving existing low income families with children, the elderly and disabled will demand over $23 billion. The 1997 emergency supplemental did the same as this in removing $3.6 billion of the housing reserve funds and pledged to make it up, but they have not replaced the fund, but take more--this is not a honey pot and it hurts real people. Mr. Chairman, the much-needed assistance for natural disasters and peacekeeping missions are sound and urgently needed. However, we must not permit this offset package to become our final action. This bill is a step backward, not forward. We should reject it. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, just to assure the Members that the sky is not falling, I just want to make a few points. First of all, if it is confrontation that we have opposing views on how to treat the supplemental appropriations bill, then yes, it is confrontation. But I think it is not angry confrontation, it is simply a matter of differing philosophies. For the last 60 years of this century, the now minority party, which used to be the majority party, guided the affairs of the country with the idea that we continue to spend and never worry about whether the money was there. All we are saying on the supplementals is that, sure, we can continue to spend, but it has to be within the budget. For the last 4 years, we have in effect said that we will pay for the supplemental spending. We are coming up with $2.29 billion in extra spending for defense. We are coming up with $575 million for disaster relief. But we are going to offset. That is all we are saying. The Senate has not said that, and we are going to meet them head on. But for our purposes in the House, we are going to offset this extra spending. I dare say we have succeeded. We have got all these cries that the cuts in other existing unobligated funds are going to cause a disaster and the people are going to go homeless. The fact is that is not going to happen. These are unobligated funds, and they are not needed this year, this fiscal year. If they are needed later on, we will address that. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has said that a militant majority is demonstrating that we should do something so awful as pay as we go. We happen to think that is fiscal responsibility. It is not militant. It is just common sense. He says that we have not adequately provided for the disaster relief that is needed. In effect, he is right, because the President, the day after we reported this bill out of the full committee, the President finally sent over an additional request of $1.6 billion for disaster relief that we have not had time to address, and we will address before this bill gets through its normal processes. He says that he is concerned that we have attacked bilingual education. Look, the H'Mong have been here for 20 years. If they have no written language, we have got a good one. It is called English. Well, if they have not been here for 20 years, then they have been here for 10 or 15; I do not know how long. Anyway, we have got English. We have got English, and it is a perfectly good language. We would like to teach them how to assimilate themselves into the United States, just like we would like to teach people of all ethnic backgrounds to assimilate themselves in the United States and teach their kids how to be productive American citizens. Just from day one, that is what we have done in America. That is why we are the melting pot. That is why we have succeeded in bringing cultures of all sorts together and have succeeded in becoming the most dynamic free Nation on earth. {time} 1430 The fact is, look, I adopted a little girl with my wife, a little girl from Taiwan. She came here at almost 7 years old. She could not speak English. She spoke Chinese. But we put her in an ``English as a second language'' course, and within 3 months she was speaking fluent English. She is a productive American citizen. I hope that others will likewise become productive American citizens. Mr. Chairman, if I were to take a kid to Spain, I would not expect that child to only speak English and to be taught English in the schools. I would expect that child to be taught Spanish in the schools so that that child would live in Spain and become a productive Spanish citizen, if my colleagues will. The point is, bilingual education in and of itself has been a failed program. It ought to be abolished. English as a second language is a successful program, and should be encouraged and hopefully will be because of the steps that we take here today. These are good changes. This is a good bill. The offsets are simply common sense. I urge the adoption of this bill, the rejection of the motion to recommit, and hopefully we will get a conference soon, right after we come back from the break, and we will get this disaster relief to the people who need it. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to associate myself with the remarks the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made earlier. I regret that I come to this floor to oppose this bill. Instead of coalescing funding to continue our peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and ensure a strong and forceful presence in the Gulf, we are being asked to undercut important domestic programs included in last year's budget agreement to finance our national security interests. [[Page H1807]] It is not enough that the budget agreement of 1985 provides for emergency spending without offsets during domestic or international crisis. It is not enough that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), it is not enough that Mr. Livingston fought hard to prevent making unwise and devastating cuts in domestic programs, notwithstanding the fact that he just said something a little different. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it apparently is not enough that the United States Senate, with the support of the President of the United States, passed this emergency spending without gutting domestic programs by voice vote. No, Mr. Chairman, instead today this body is being asked to gut the Section 8 low income housing program which could leave 800,000 Americans without housing next year. We are being asked to effectively shut down the AmeriCorps program through a 60 percent cut, and perhaps in one of the most outrageous affronts contained in this bill, the leadership is advocating a cut of $75 million in bilingual and immigrant education. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman, as to the importance of the emergency funding the President is seeking. Continuing the U.S. presence in Bosnia is critical. Progress is being made in the implementation of the Dayton Accords, and this progress has only been possible because of U.S. participation in the NATO-led stabilization force. There is not one of us that has visited that force, that has not been proud of our men and women and the effect that they have had. Apparently the majority party did not learn the lessons of the 1995 disaster relief supplemental. The chairman learned them; I think most of the chairmen of our subcommittees learned them. But their caucus did not learn them. There are very serious issues to be debated in this Chamber. However, we should not hold emergency funding hostage when on its surface we all support the need for a strong presence in Iraq and a need to respond to the ravages of El Nino. I urge my colleagues to vote down the latest sham of the Republican leadership and release this funding from the daily game of politics in which we have been embroiled. Vote ``no.'' Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water. (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to my distinguished friend from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for purposes of a colloquy only. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, Guam suffered extensive damages due to Typhoon Paka last December. Due to Typhoon Paka the commercial port, which is the principal lifeline for all the residents of Guam, needs to be restored to its economic vitality. I understand that the bill before us today provides $84.5 million for the Corps of Engineers for emergency repairs due to flooding and other natural disasters. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's statement is accurate. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand further that the $84.5 million is not project-specific and that there may be an opportunity to review Guam's request for port projects. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, may I say to the gentleman that the committee did not earmark disaster relief funds provided to the Corps of Engineers. The additional funding in the operation and maintenance account will be used to address high priority needs resulting from recent natural disasters at Corps-operated or Corps-maintained projects. The Corps of Engineers should consider Guam's request in conjunction with other projects eligible for emergency assistance consistent with current law and authorities. I want to assure the gentleman that we will examine this issue as the process proceeds to conference with the Senate, and we will do our best. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the distinguished chairman. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on National Security. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify the issue before us today. We are not here to correct the overdeployment of our military troops or the underfunding of our military troops. The issue before us today is whether this is an emergency as prescribed by the budget law or whether it is one that is not and calls for an offset. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could rise in support of this bill, the emergency supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, the bill in its current configuration falls short in terms of timing, process and interpretation. First there is a matter of timing. Once again this body has reacted slowly to an emergency situation, with consequences that will affect our fellow citizens both here at home and overseas. And yet, while the other body has essentially passed a bill to deal with these measures, we are still debating the matter in this body, and the result is that by the time we begin our 2-week spring recess we will not have completed this important work. Second, there is a matter of process. Though 80 percent of the bill's appropriations are for military programs, all of the measure's offsets are in domestic programs. This is a sure invitation for a presidential veto, and I am sure that the President will accept that invitation. As many know, the other body has not offset, I will repeat, has not offset its version of the supplemental with spending cuts. It has accepted the emergency designation for the supplemental, as it should have. I can envision a scenario where the other body would offer to accept offsets, but with a condition that those offsets come from the military appropriation accounts. What a disaster that would be. Third, there is a matter of interpretation. I voted for last year's Balanced Budget Act. I believe we made great progress in the past 8 years to get our Nation's finances in order. The 1993 bill which I supported; last year, the Balanced Budget Act which I supported; and this year we see a surplus possibly of $8 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the first surplus since 1969. While provisions under the Budget Act will allow us to fund genuine emergencies, the other body has chosen to use those provisions. That is what we should do. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen wrote earlier this month that if the Department of Defense were required to provide offsets from within the DOD budget, the effect on DOD programs would prove calamitous. I have seen the same thing for the domestic side. That has been well thought out. It is a matter of accepting what is reality. A rose by any other name is still a rose; an emergency by any other name is still an emergency. I think that in this present form it is very difficult for us to support, and I will not support this bill. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today. First I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for sticking to our core principles, that 3 years ago we made a commitment that we were going to stop spending our children's money, and I would like to commend the chairman for sticking to those principles in this bill and sticking to the offsets. We understand the other body, the Senate, has not proposed offsets yet, and I would also like to express my appreciation for accepting the Neumann-McIntosh amendment that puts this body on record when we pass this bill, saying that when it goes to conference it should come back with the offsets intact. I would also like to do, as I made it my custom to do over the last 3 years, to report to my colleagues what the actual numbers are in this spending bill. The total new spending, the total, quote, emergency spending in this bill, is $2.865 billion in outlays and budget authority, and in fact the offsets amount to 1 million more than what the proposed new spending is as it relates to budget authority. In outlays, the outlays are $350 million short, but I would add that it is [[Page H1808]] the closest that we have come of any of the supplemental appropriation bills that have passed through this body since we came here in 1995. It is the closest we have come to offsetting it in outlays as well as budget authority, and again in budget authority, to my colleagues, it is not only offset but there is actually $1 million extra in it. Again, I would like to address the concerns of the other side. I heard the statement that 800,000 Americans will be without housing if this bill is passed. Well, first let me say that that is absolutely not true. But second, let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side that if in fact they genuinely believe that is true, then they have a moral and an ethical responsibility to bring something forward that allows these offsets to come from some other part of this budget. Look, what we are asking for is to stop spending our children's money. We are asking to find offsets, that is, wasteful government spending that amounts to $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending. Let me say that once more, so we understand just exactly what this debate is all about. What we are saying is that, I want to make sure that this debate is very, very clear when we talk about finding these offsets or reductions in wasteful Washington spending to counter the new spending, we are looking for a grand total of $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending. Now is there anyone in the entire United States of America that believes there is not $2.8 billion of wasteful Washington spending that can be eliminated so that we do not go and tack this new spending onto the legacy that we are going to give our children? I would like to conclude by again commending our chairman for sticking to his guns and demanding that these offsets be included in this bill, because for years that was not the practice, and that is in fact how we got to the $5.5 trillion debt that we currently have staring us in the face. I would conclude with the memory it is $2.8 billion in offsets. We are open to other suggestions; $2.8 out of $1700 is what we are looking for in terms of offsetting the bill. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that under the rule no amendments are allowed, no alternatives can be proposed? Am I correct on that? It is a closed rule; am I correct? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment. Mr. HOYER. One amendment made in order. No other amendments other than an amendment allowed by the Committee on Rules can be made, no alternatives can be proposed for other offsets; am I correct, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment that was made in order under the rule. Mr. HOYER. But no amendments can be offered; am I correct, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment to be offered in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. HOYER. I understand that. Can any additional amendments be offered, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There can be an amendment offered as a recommittal in the House. {time} 1445 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about wasteful Washington spending. I do not consider enabling senior citizens to have housing in my hometown or anybody else's hometown in the countryside to be wasteful Washington spending. I consider those to be necessary mercy initiatives so good and decent low-income Americans and retired senior citizens can live in decent housing. I do not consider providing funding to persons who are willing to give of their time to assist with finding volunteers to deal with our kids after school so that they are in a safe place and are not committing crime is wasteful Washington spending. I call that good community activity. I would point out that the rule the gentleman just voted for precluded us from attacking real wasteful spending. It precluded me from offering the amendment which would have reduced by 5 percent the Pentagon account that allows the Pentagon to pay $76 for a 57-cent set screw, and allows the Pentagon to pay $38,000 for aircraft springs that they previously paid $1,500 for. That is true wasteful Washington spending, I would submit to the gentleman from Wisconsin, and it is the kind of wasteful spending the gentleman protected with his vote for the rule. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to determine when the Skaggs provision will be up for debate. I understand that 30 minutes are allotted for that as well. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair could entertain that debate at any time during general debate. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I need to go up to the Committee on Rules. I would ask that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) be allowed to control my time. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland will control the time for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) while he goes to the Committee on Rules. There was no objection. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Guam, (Mr. Underwood). Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). In the disaster relief section of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, the committee accepted report language that makes mention of the ongoing discussion between the Government of Guam and the Navy over the repair responsibility for the repair of typhoon BRAC damaged properties on Guam. I have been assured by several civilian naval officials that the U.S. Navy, at a minimum, will be flexible if it is decided that the U.S. Navy is, indeed, responsible for said repairs. Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that if this action so occurs, the committee will entertain a request for funds in the regular fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is true. If the matter is settled between the Guam Government and the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Navy will accept the responsibility for the repair of certain typhoon damaged BRAC properties on Guam, our committee will consider such a request for funds in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for this clarification. We will work on the issue. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, here is the problem that I see as we go forward with this process. Normally, when we pass a bill, we have a good idea that we will be able to continue the process in the Senate. It is not so late in the year, and if it is, we will pass a bill very similar to the Senate bill. Now, this bill is so different than the Senate bill, we have a bill here which has a lot less money in it. We have a bill here which, in my estimation, when it is offset from domestic policy, will either assure a veto or, in the end, the Senate will not recognize it. I just do not see any possibility of this kind of a bill being the end product when it goes to conference. Now, if we do not accept the amendment that I am going to offer, the recommittal motion I am going to offer, then we have a situation where the Defense Department will not be able to go forward because it will not be assured of a bill happening. One of the things that has happened in the past, when they are assured of a conference, they can work different departments, they can get money, they can hold back money, and they can work out something to get them through. But here, they are not going to be able to do that, because they cannot be assured of a bill. Now, why do I say they cannot be assured of a bill? [[Page H1809]] Let us say that we pass this bill with offsets. Well, in the first place, the White House is against that. We go over to the Senate, we sit down, the Senate adds IMF, the Senate adds UN, and the Senate adds Mexico City. Now, in my estimation, there is no way that they can come back to the House with a bill the size it is, with no offsets, and pass it in the House, and yet, on the other hand, there is no way we can go to the Senate with all offsets and pass it in the Senate. So we have got a real problem, which leads me to believe that past history shows that the Defense Department cannot predict that they are going to have a bill. They only have 4 months left in the fiscal year, and the problem we are going to have when you only have 4 months, the Defense Department has to make a decision, how do I find the money to get us through the rest of the year. All right, we cut back on training, we layoff civilian employees, substantial numbers of civilian employees for 10 or 15 days. We shut down the Defense Department. There are all kinds of options the Defense Department is investigating right now, looking at what we can do in case a bill, which is absolutely the opposite of the bill that is pending in the Senate, it has not passed yet, but it is pending. We always in the past have been able to work these things out. This is an entirely different situation, which worries me. I am concerned, all of us have been through the committee process, if we pass a bill that is offset with domestic policy, the additional thing we do, we set domestic policy against defense policy, and when that happens we lose. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to support my motion to recommit when it comes up. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remar

Summary:

All articles in House section

1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
(House of Representatives - March 31, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1797-H1824] 1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 402 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3579. {time} 1348 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3579) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. [[Page H1798]] Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), each will control 30 minutes of debate confined to the bill; and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and a Member opposed, each will control 15 minutes of debate confined to title III. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rule here to be structured, there will be 60 minutes debate on the present bill and then the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will be debating for 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the first 30 minutes be debated on the underlying measure, the middle 30 minutes to be shared equally, 15 minutes by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), 15 minutes by myself leading in opposition, with the remaining 30 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have just had a rule passed which denied the minority an opportunity to offer any significant amendment whatsoever. It is a rule that I strenuously opposed and asked the House to turn down. Now I understand that the gentleman is asking unanimous consent that some other arrangement be agreed to other than that in the rule. I, for the life of me, do not understand why we ought to do that. If Members did not like the rule, then I wish they would have followed my request and voted against it as I did. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the only reason I asked for this is to make sure that the debate is structured. If we are going to take the 90 minutes and have it commingled with the measure of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), it would be lost in the debate. Not only for the Members, but also for the American people to understand this important measure with regard to tying the hands of the Presidency, we should be able to debate for clarity. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, but with all due respect, we wanted the debate structured, too. We wanted to have a structured debate on offsets. We wanted to have a structured debate on the fact that this rule does not allow 75 percent of the President's request. We wanted a structured rule, too. We were not given that. Under those circumstances, I do not see why I should accommodate this request when we were turned down on every single request that we made to structure the rule. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this is our opportunity to structure a debate so that there will be clarity and understanding. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, our opportunity was by voting down the rule and coming back with a new rule. That is the way the House is supposed to operate under regular order. If the gentleman was not satisfied with the rule, he should have voted against it. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have is an ambiguity in the way the rule deals with this 30 minutes allocated to this particular issue. I would assume the Chair has discretion, given that ambiguity, to deal with it as seems reasonable. I had understood the gentleman from Wisconsin in particular, through his staff, to be concerned that we not have this 30-minute debate follow the general debate on the bill. I think that is what informs the gentleman from Indiana. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. On the assumption that the gentleman from Wisconsin yields for the purpose, the gentleman will state it. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have pending a reservation on my unanimous consent request. My parliamentary inquiry is, is it within the prerogative of the Chair to designate time if there is 60 minutes debate on the underlying measure, and in the rule it states 30 minutes on the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), whether the first 60 minutes would in fact be on Mr. Livingston's bill, and the remainder on the Skaggs provision, would it be within the Chair's prerogative to designate the time? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair intends at this moment to accommodate the preference of the chairman of the committee, as the rule is structured, by starting with the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have stated, since we were given no consideration whatsoever in our desire to offer even a single amendment to this amendment, I object to the unanimous consent request. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is recognized for 30 minutes. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to bring this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to the floor today. This bill provides important funding to sustain our troops in Bosnia and in Iraq in the amount of $1.8 billion. It also provides $575 million in assistance to those suffering from natural disasters throughout the country. Since this last fall, there have been typhoons, ice storms, excessive rains causing flooding and mud slides, beach erosion, late spring hard freezes and tornadoes. Because of these extreme weather conditions, there has been significant widespread damage to crops, livestock, natural resources and the country's infrastructure. The funding in this bill provides assistance to farmers, ranchers and dairymen. It funds repairs to highways, railroads, harbors and flood control facilities, national parks, forests and wildlife refuges and agricultural flood prevention facilities. In addition to providing direct support to the troops in Bosnia and Iraq, the bill also funds repairs to military facilities caused by typhoons, ice storms and the El Nino-related extreme weather. The funding in this bill is fully offset with an equal amount of rescissions. This is consistent with the policy adopted by the Republican majority when we took control of the Congress in January of 1995. The struggle to offset emergency supplemental bills gets harder every year. With lean regular appropriations bills and half the year already over, it is even more difficult. The leadership, and I agree that we should not go deeper into the defense function to pay for peacekeeping missions. And, in fact, I think one can make a very good case that the nondeployed forces would be unfairly robbed to keep the deployed forces going. After a very tight regular defense appropriations bill and a continued proliferation of unbudgeted peacekeeping missions, we are simply not able to find the defense programs and activities that we could reduce that are removed from the direct support of the peacekeeping missions, which would also not hurt overall national security. Cutting them would only result in a weakening of one element of national security to help another. It makes no sense to hobble national security in this manner. Therefore, the offsets included in the bill are all in the nondefense area. The funds proposed for rescission are generally in excess to those that would be needed this fiscal year. They have no impact during this fiscal year for the most part. You will hear a lot of worried talk today about the impact of those rescissions and their impact will not be felt if their restoration is accomplished later on. But they are excess funds right now, and we need offsets, and that is why we have chosen them. We will be able to consider restoring them at the appropriate time later on. We need to pass this bill today to move the process forward, making emergency supplemental [[Page H1799]] appropriations a real possibility. I urge support of this fiscally responsible bill. At this point in the Record, I would like to insert a detailed table reflecting the status of this bill since adoption of the rule governing its consideration. [[Page H1800]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.001 [[Page H1801]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.002 [[Page H1802]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.003 [[Page H1803]] Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this disaster relief and Bosnia-Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Act. I strongly support the provisions in this legislation that help Americans who have been involved in disasters around the country. I strongly support the activity of our military in Bosnia and Iraq. And I hope that we can get to a piece of legislation as quickly as possible that will support all of those efforts. I know full well how important those efforts are. We had a big flood in my district in 1993 and in 1995. I stood on this floor and pleaded with the House to give timely help to my constituents, and the House did. So I have a very deep feeling about the need for this legislation. But the Republican leadership, just as they did a year ago, has refused to act responsibly and in a straightforward manner to provide these funds that have been requested by the administration. {time} 1400 They have insisted wrongly, in my view, on offsets which can be done under our budget act but which are not required under our budget act. In fact, we have provisions in our budget act that say that expenses like this which are truly emergencies do not need to be offset. But, again, the Republican leadership has decided to put in offsets; and, in my view, these offsets are very damaging in many, many areas of life in our country. Let me just mention some. It will hurt children who need help so that they can learn English. It will undermine the ability of our airports to construct needed runway enhancements and install new security equipment, as we are trying to do in St. Louis, Missouri. It would effectively end the Americorps program and could lead to more than a 100,000 of our elderly citizens losing their housing. I do not think these are the trade-offs that we should be considering when we are considering emergency legislation. These are emergency items. That is why we put that into the budget. These were things that were unforeseen when the budget was put together. If they had been foreseen, we would have found room in the budget. And we may find room in next year's budget. But to now come at the 11th hour and wipe out these domestic programs so that we can take care of bona fide emergencies makes no sense. If Members want an alternative approach, we will have a motion to recommit that I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for that would simply take out the offsets and say that this should be treated as we believe it should be, as an emergency. But let me go further on why I think this bill is ill-advised. The Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to consider all the supplemental requests the President has forwarded. They left out the International Monetary Fund request. We have countries in Asia going into bankruptcy. The only thing that is keeping many of them afloat so that we do not lose more exports and have more unneeded imports in this country is the IMF request. If it sits for another 5, 6, 8 weeks, what will happen to the IMF and the countries that need help? Finally, there is the matter of United Nations dues. Here we are today, the leader of the world, the leader of the United Nations, and we cannot find a way to bring ourselves to pay our dues. We have the unseemly situation where the Secretary General has gone and made a peace in Iraq, which is good for the entire world, and he cannot get the leader of the world to pay our debts, our dues to the United Nations. The President wanted that in this bill, and it is not. It is being separated out. And all of this is being made subject to an untimely and unneeded request on the part of the Republicans again to put a family planning issue which has no place in any of this legislation as part of that legislation. My colleagues, this is the wrong bill. It has been constructed in the wrong way. It has the wrong offsets. I am for the disaster relief, and I am for giving the money for our troops in Iraq and Bosnia, but not in this form, not with these offsets. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote for the motion to recommit to fund these programs properly. If that fails, vote against this legislation. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished member of the Committee on National Security, after which I will yield to him for a colloquy. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security for this piece of legislation. I think we need to get to the heart of the issue here and what is at stake. Why do we need this supplemental and why do we need to not further degradate the dollars to support our military? Mr. Chairman, if we look at the facts, in the past 6 years we have seen our troops deployed 25 times at home and around the world. Now if we compare that to the previous 40 years, they were deployed 10 times. Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that none of those 25 deployments were budgeted for; none of those 25 deployments were paid for. In the case of Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, by the end of the next fiscal year we will have spent $9.4 billion on Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if we look at the previous 7 years, we have spent $15 billion on contingencies around the world. Now, the problem in the Congress is not that we oppose going into Bosnia. That is not the issue. The problem in Bosnia is why was America asked to put in 36,000 troops while the Germans, right next door, put in 4,000 troops? Why are we paying the costs for the troops, the housing and food for the Bangladesh military in Haiti? The problem is that this administration has not done enough to get our allies to kick in their fair share of the cost of these deployments. Look at Desert Storm. The Desert Storm operation cost us $52 billion. We were reimbursed $54 billion. But that has not been the case for the past 6 and 7 years. We have seen time and again money taken away from readiness, from modernization, from R, from those programs that we agreed to within a 5-year balanced budget context to be used to pay for deployments, none of which were budgeted for. Therefore, we need to restore this money because the quality of life for our troops is at stake, because the modernization of our systems is at stake, and because we have robbed the military to the core, to the bone. Talk to our troops in the field, Mr. Chairman. Listen to those young kids in Somalia who are on their second and third straight deployments. Listen to their stories of being away from home because of the cuts that we have made. We need to understand these monies are desperately necessary to replenish funds that have been taken away from the military to pay for deployments that were never considered priorities by this administration when our troops were committed in the first place. I ask my colleagues to support this appropriation measure, to oppose any measure to change it, to support the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) because what they are doing is right for our troops, it is right for America, and it is right for our role in the world today. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the purposes of colloquy only. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental appropriations measure before the House today goes a long way to support the needs of our troops, supporting the added cost of Bosnia and Iraqi enforcement operations while ensuring that we are not further eroding a defense budget that is already stretched too thin. As we move the bill forward, we must consider the many remaining needs of our troops around the globe. Of particular concern to our military commanders stationed abroad are the increasing range of missile threats, particularly those that could emerge this [[Page H1804]] year as a result of Russian technology transfers. Last night, the House unanimously adopted an authorization bill, H.R. 2786, designed to enhance our missile defense systems against that very threat. Unfortunately, due to the timing of that action, we were unable to include those funds in this supplemental. However, it is my understanding that the administration supports execution of the actions in H.R. 2786 in fiscal year 1998. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct. Not only are we in complete agreement with the need to ensure effective missile defenses for our troops abroad, but we agree that these actions should remain a funding priority for fiscal year 1998. Although the administration limited the Bosnia supplemental to paying for the cost of that operation in the Persian Gulf, they are now supporting execution of theater missile defense enhancements this year. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Senate approved funding for the theater missile defense enhancements in its supplemental bill. Given the tight constraints we are working under here today, I will not offer an amendment, but ask the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee to ensure that this funding remains in the supplemental conference report. Mr. LIVINGSTON. I share the interest of the gentleman in moving the theater missile defense initiative forward, and I assure my colleague that I will do my very best to preserve necessary funds in the supplemental conference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci). Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time to talk about the manager's amendment. I rise to issue my strong support for it. The ice storm of 1998 devastated 4 States in the Northeast. The damage was unlike anything ever experienced, and it was severe. This amendment will provide funding through community development block grants. It will address needs not met through other disaster relief programs, either the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Small Business Administration. It will give States the flexibility to meet the critical needs of residents still recovering from the storm. And, most importantly, it will ease the economic burden of citizens least able to bear it. I ask my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full committee; the entire Committee on Appropriations members and staff; and particularly my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for their very effective work on this bill. As we have heard here today, Mr. Chairman, this is an initiative to try to redress a good many problems that are in this land today. People are struggling with the challenges of dealing with natural disasters, and I think by that very reason alone it deserves all of our unqualified support. I just want to talk a moment about one particular portion, and that is the assistance that is provided for the dairy farmers of this Nation. I know that some of this funding, particularly as it relates to the compensation for diminished milk production, is unprecedented and that some Members are concerned about this fact. But let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, the losses in northern New York and, in fact, throughout the entire Northeast represent a very unique situation. The assistance we are providing in this bill represents a small but a vitally important step on their road to recovery. The loss of electric power in this region had enormous repercussions beyond just inconvenience, although certainly inconvenient it was. New York is the Nation's third largest dairy producer; and, without power, dairy farmers were unable to milk their herd. Those few with generators who could milk frequently had to dump their milk because the roads were impassable. And those who were rarely, on occasion, able to get to the milk trucks were unable to get to plants that were in operation. So the losses were absolutely devastating. The inability to milk has caused, as I said, unique problems. No milking on normal schedule means sick animals, animals that contract mastitis, an illness which if not treated properly can kill the animal. As I said, I thank the chairman for his assistance and urge the support of this initiative. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), the distinguished ranking member of the most effective HUD subcommittee. Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. I reluctantly rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I say ``reluctantly'' because I very much favor the emergency supplemental appropriations that the bill contains. However, the construction of this bill forces me to oppose it. The biggest problem with the bill is the domestic rescissions that the bill contains, none of which are required by the budget rules and all of which do great damage to important programs. By far the largest portion of these cuts, about three-quarters of the total, fall on section 8 housing assistance. This program helps people with very low incomes afford one of the basic necessities of life, a place to live. Of the 2.8 million households receiving section 8 housing assistance, 32 percent are elderly, another 11 percent are disabled, 50 percent are families with children. Their median income is just over $7,500 per year. The funds being rescinded are reserves that are urgently needed to help meet the cost of renewing section 8 housing assistance contracts expiring next year. If this rescission is allowed to stand and the funds are not replaced, contracts for 410,000 units of section 8 housing would not be renewed and the elderly and disabled people and young families living in these apartments would face the choice of paying large increases in rent, which they cannot afford, or losing their place to live. We have more than 5 million low-income families with worst-case housing needs receiving no Federal housing assistance at all. Waiting lists for housing programs are years long in many areas. The number of families helped by Federal housing programs is going down. In light of all this, we must stop using section 8 and other housing programs as the piggy bank every time someone wants to find some money to pay for something else. We ought to defeat this bill and bring back a clean supplemental appropriations bill that takes care of the urgent emergency needs without further devastating housing and other vital domestic programs. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about those piggy banks. The gentleman from Missouri and his statements, I would like to speak directly to those. First of all, for 30 years, Democrats controlled this Congress; and the debt has soared, where we pay over a billion dollars a day on just the interest. That is before law enforcement. That is before education. That is before anything that we want to pay for. The liberal Democrat leadership was against a balanced budget because that limits their ability to spend. They were against a tax relief for working families. {time} 1415 They were against welfare reform. They just wanted to spend more money for it. Who has to pay all of those extra costs for not having a balanced budget, for not having tax relief? They increase taxes and they put increase on Social Security tax. They cut veterans and military COLAs. They increase the tax on working families. So the record is very clear. But who is going to pay for that? We had a D.C. [[Page H1805]] bill where we would waive Davis-Bacon to pay for 60-year-old schools. The word ``children'' was mentioned, but do we think the leadership would waive Davis-Bacon that saves 35 percent to build schools in Washington, D.C.? No, because they are tied to their union brothers. It is 35 percent savings. Again, who has to pay for that 35 percent? Working families and senior citizens. Alan Greenspan has told us that we cannot bust these budget caps because the interest rates right now are between 2 and 8 percent lower. Now, what does that mean to working families? That they have more money for education, for their children. They have more money to buy a car, or even a double egg, double cheese, double fry burger if they want. But it is more money in their pocket instead of having to pay for the debt or come back in Washington, D.C. They want to pay for IMF, $18 billion, when the economists debate on the value of that. It is $18 billion, but yet we are having to find offsets. Yet, the gentleman from Missouri wants to pay. The United Nations, we pay 30 percent of all peacekeeping. The President has put us in Somalia without Congress. They put us in Haiti without Congress. They have kept us in Bosnia without Congress. Yet, we have to pay for it. Yet, our European nations have not paid for their share. They say, why can we not pay our bills? Well, who pays for that $18 billion? Who pays for the billions of dollars that go to the U.N.? The working families. That is what I am saying. There is a big difference between our plan and what the Democrats want to do, which is just spend more money without offsetting it and continue with the 30 years of tax-and-spend big government, liberal government. We are not going to allow that to happen. Now, it is legitimate. They feel that big government can do everything. We do not. There is a difference in the choice, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, as every American knows, this Congress was a snake pit of confrontation. There was one fight after another between the Congress and the White House, which led to a sustained government shutdown. It took a long time for the reputation of this Congress to recover from that obstreperousness. Last year, in contrast, I felt we had a pretty good year in the appropriations process. Most of the time the appropriations bills were dealt with on a bipartisan basis. I think that that made people in the country feel better about their government. I think it made us feel a whole lot better about it. I think it made us feel a whole lot better about each other, because we were able to work out differences after we had defined those differences. We were able to find a common solution to many of those questions. This year, unfortunately, we now seem to be walking right back into the confrontation mode. There have been numerous stories in the press reporting that those in the majority party caucus with the more militant attitude on political matters simply want the Congress to take the President on, on a whole range of issues. So as a result, this bill, which ought to be an emergency appropriation which goes through rather quickly, this bill is going to take a long time to get out of the Congress, out of conference. When it gets to the President, it is going to be vetoed in its present form. That makes no sense, because we have a great deal of work to do. We have a very few days left in the legislative schedule to do it. Let us take a look at the points of controversy in this bill. First of all, this bill refuses to appropriate 75 percent of the disaster assistance requested by the President. Now, the President does not ask for that money because he likes to ask for money. He asks for it because we have had a series of natural disasters around the country. Unless we are not going to help communities recover, we need to provide this money. The President has asked for more money than we have in this bill because he understands that with the funding of the disasters that we have already had, if we have any significant storm activity in the summer, we will not have the money in the till to help the communities who need help on the dime, immediately. Yet, despite the fact that on a bipartisan basis the Senate committee, under the leadership of the chairman of that committee, Senator Stevens, despite the fact that the Senate added the full amount of the President's request, the majority party in this House refuses to provide that same funding. Then in a second effort to establish confrontation with the President, the House majority party insists that to the President's request it add large cuts in housing, which will cut 20 percent of the funds that are needed next year to sign the contracts to sustain the living quarters for low-income Americans and senior citizens who are now living in subsidized housing around the country. One-third of the persons who will be forced out of those homes, if this action occurs, are elderly. That is a great Easter gift for this Congress to give those folks before we go home on 20 days recess. Then it says we are going to cut $75 million for bilingual education. I did not used to care about that issue as much as I do now. But now I have had a huge influx of H'Mong population into my hometown and other communities. The H'Mong are the folks who did our dirty work during the war in Laos. They did the CIA's undercover dirty work. So the Federal Government made a decision to allow them to come into this country. But now the Federal Government is bugging out on its responsibility to help train them and educate them. They do not even have a written language, so they are very hard to teach English. Yet, one of the programs that would help us do that is being shrunk by a very large amount by this action. Then we come to the IMF. Nobody likes to come in here and ask for money for the International Monetary Fund. But the fact is we live in the real world, and if we do not defend ourselves in that real world, we are going to suffer the consequences. Japan has been running an irresponsible fiscal policy for years. That and other actions finally led to a currency collapse in Asia. There is a huge overproductive capacity in this world in certain industries, a lot of it in Asia. Because of that currency collapse, a lot of very cheap goods which are artificially underpriced because of that currency collapse are going to shortly be under way to the United States to undercut American goods. We are going to see plants close. We are going to see American workers go out of work. We are going to see the largest trade deficit in the history of the world. Yet, this Congress is choosing to do nothing whatsoever about it by holding the IMF hostage to a nongermane proposal. Then what we find is that the Speaker of the House is reported in a number of press accounts to have threatened majority party Members of the Committee on Appropriations with the loss of their committee assignments if they do not follow the leadership's so-called strategy on this issue. I do not understand why anyone thinks that it is for the good of America that we resurrect a confrontational attitude rather than a cooperative attitude in this Congress. I do not understand even how politically people think that that is going to win votes in an election year. I do not think it is. So I regretfully and respectfully ask the House to turn this bill down. I know that the pragmatists on the majority side of the aisle did not want to see this confrontation occur, but they have been overruled. I regret that. Until such time as reason prevails, we have no choice but to ask Members to vote against this proposal. That is what I am asking Members to do. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his statement and associate myself with it, especially the issue concerning housing cuts. We have a $23 billion commitment over the next two years. Last year we cut $3.6 billion out of housing. We promised to make it up. We have not done it. This year we are taking more out. This is going to put people in the street. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the supplemental emergency assistance measures. I very much regret and strongly oppose [[Page H1806]] the ``offset'' provisions of these proposals which has ensured a collision course with the President's emergency request for additional fiscal 1998 funding for disaster aid and military action in Bosnia and Iraq as well as standing U.S. commitments to the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This IMF Funding means that our 183 nation member program is running on empty, the only tool that we have to prevent the global economic catastrophe, that could devastate our domestic economy. This measure, in fact, only provides 25% of the Presidents total request for funding of disaster assistance. After dragging this bill out for months on the eve of a Easter recess period, apparently the GOP assumes that the House can be forced to accept a deficient product. If we oppose them, they will lay the blame on others. Frankly, the blame and the shame is the GOP leadership. As the adage states: lead, follow--or get out of the way so that we can get the job done. Our GOP colleagues insistence on including offsetting cuts in solely domestic programs illustrates their reluctance to provide basic programs that form the foundation of trust and the tools that American families need to care for themselves and one another. The GOP's package of cuts produces a number of offsets that would slash $2.9 billion in peoples priorities, and programs. These offsets jeopardize low-income housing programs for 100,000 people (many of whom are elderly 32% and disabled 11%), much needed airport improvements, terminating the AmeriCorps national service program for 1998, and major cuts in this years bilingual education. These programs are vital to the real needs of the most vulnerable in our society. While natural disaster needs would be met, this action would create a new disaster for those impacted by the offset cuts. These harmful rescissions are unnecessary under the budget rules, which designate that true emergency funding may proceed without offsets. Nonetheless, the Republican Majority in this House has chosen to cut key domestic spending initiatives to offset defense and natural disaster emergencies; breaching the ``firewalls'' between the two categories of defense and domestic expenditures and the 1998 budget enacted into law last year. These offsets are strongly opposed by the President and many Members of Congress. The Senate included no such offsets in its version of the bill, and there are no indications that they would do so. This clearly is a partisan effort to inject this new and divisive issue into the supplemental emergency assistance measures that will complicate the passage of this legislation. This raises questions as to the motives involved. The Republican Majority shut down the government with unrelated policy for several months in 1996. They denied much needed disaster help in 1997 because of an unrelated rider. Here we go again in 1998. The Republicans are holding hostage the emergency funding for the Department of Defense and disaster assistance, in an attempt, to force feed their unpopular and unfair agenda on the American people. This agenda gives new meaning to women, children, the disabled, and the elderly first. It is time to call a halt to the GOP political games and get on with the peoples business, not a GOP partisan policy agenda. The next two fiscal years the committed renewal of section 8 housing units existing contracts serving existing low income families with children, the elderly and disabled will demand over $23 billion. The 1997 emergency supplemental did the same as this in removing $3.6 billion of the housing reserve funds and pledged to make it up, but they have not replaced the fund, but take more--this is not a honey pot and it hurts real people. Mr. Chairman, the much-needed assistance for natural disasters and peacekeeping missions are sound and urgently needed. However, we must not permit this offset package to become our final action. This bill is a step backward, not forward. We should reject it. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, just to assure the Members that the sky is not falling, I just want to make a few points. First of all, if it is confrontation that we have opposing views on how to treat the supplemental appropriations bill, then yes, it is confrontation. But I think it is not angry confrontation, it is simply a matter of differing philosophies. For the last 60 years of this century, the now minority party, which used to be the majority party, guided the affairs of the country with the idea that we continue to spend and never worry about whether the money was there. All we are saying on the supplementals is that, sure, we can continue to spend, but it has to be within the budget. For the last 4 years, we have in effect said that we will pay for the supplemental spending. We are coming up with $2.29 billion in extra spending for defense. We are coming up with $575 million for disaster relief. But we are going to offset. That is all we are saying. The Senate has not said that, and we are going to meet them head on. But for our purposes in the House, we are going to offset this extra spending. I dare say we have succeeded. We have got all these cries that the cuts in other existing unobligated funds are going to cause a disaster and the people are going to go homeless. The fact is that is not going to happen. These are unobligated funds, and they are not needed this year, this fiscal year. If they are needed later on, we will address that. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has said that a militant majority is demonstrating that we should do something so awful as pay as we go. We happen to think that is fiscal responsibility. It is not militant. It is just common sense. He says that we have not adequately provided for the disaster relief that is needed. In effect, he is right, because the President, the day after we reported this bill out of the full committee, the President finally sent over an additional request of $1.6 billion for disaster relief that we have not had time to address, and we will address before this bill gets through its normal processes. He says that he is concerned that we have attacked bilingual education. Look, the H'Mong have been here for 20 years. If they have no written language, we have got a good one. It is called English. Well, if they have not been here for 20 years, then they have been here for 10 or 15; I do not know how long. Anyway, we have got English. We have got English, and it is a perfectly good language. We would like to teach them how to assimilate themselves into the United States, just like we would like to teach people of all ethnic backgrounds to assimilate themselves in the United States and teach their kids how to be productive American citizens. Just from day one, that is what we have done in America. That is why we are the melting pot. That is why we have succeeded in bringing cultures of all sorts together and have succeeded in becoming the most dynamic free Nation on earth. {time} 1430 The fact is, look, I adopted a little girl with my wife, a little girl from Taiwan. She came here at almost 7 years old. She could not speak English. She spoke Chinese. But we put her in an ``English as a second language'' course, and within 3 months she was speaking fluent English. She is a productive American citizen. I hope that others will likewise become productive American citizens. Mr. Chairman, if I were to take a kid to Spain, I would not expect that child to only speak English and to be taught English in the schools. I would expect that child to be taught Spanish in the schools so that that child would live in Spain and become a productive Spanish citizen, if my colleagues will. The point is, bilingual education in and of itself has been a failed program. It ought to be abolished. English as a second language is a successful program, and should be encouraged and hopefully will be because of the steps that we take here today. These are good changes. This is a good bill. The offsets are simply common sense. I urge the adoption of this bill, the rejection of the motion to recommit, and hopefully we will get a conference soon, right after we come back from the break, and we will get this disaster relief to the people who need it. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to associate myself with the remarks the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made earlier. I regret that I come to this floor to oppose this bill. Instead of coalescing funding to continue our peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and ensure a strong and forceful presence in the Gulf, we are being asked to undercut important domestic programs included in last year's budget agreement to finance our national security interests. [[Page H1807]] It is not enough that the budget agreement of 1985 provides for emergency spending without offsets during domestic or international crisis. It is not enough that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), it is not enough that Mr. Livingston fought hard to prevent making unwise and devastating cuts in domestic programs, notwithstanding the fact that he just said something a little different. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it apparently is not enough that the United States Senate, with the support of the President of the United States, passed this emergency spending without gutting domestic programs by voice vote. No, Mr. Chairman, instead today this body is being asked to gut the Section 8 low income housing program which could leave 800,000 Americans without housing next year. We are being asked to effectively shut down the AmeriCorps program through a 60 percent cut, and perhaps in one of the most outrageous affronts contained in this bill, the leadership is advocating a cut of $75 million in bilingual and immigrant education. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman, as to the importance of the emergency funding the President is seeking. Continuing the U.S. presence in Bosnia is critical. Progress is being made in the implementation of the Dayton Accords, and this progress has only been possible because of U.S. participation in the NATO-led stabilization force. There is not one of us that has visited that force, that has not been proud of our men and women and the effect that they have had. Apparently the majority party did not learn the lessons of the 1995 disaster relief supplemental. The chairman learned them; I think most of the chairmen of our subcommittees learned them. But their caucus did not learn them. There are very serious issues to be debated in this Chamber. However, we should not hold emergency funding hostage when on its surface we all support the need for a strong presence in Iraq and a need to respond to the ravages of El Nino. I urge my colleagues to vote down the latest sham of the Republican leadership and release this funding from the daily game of politics in which we have been embroiled. Vote ``no.'' Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water. (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to my distinguished friend from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for purposes of a colloquy only. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, Guam suffered extensive damages due to Typhoon Paka last December. Due to Typhoon Paka the commercial port, which is the principal lifeline for all the residents of Guam, needs to be restored to its economic vitality. I understand that the bill before us today provides $84.5 million for the Corps of Engineers for emergency repairs due to flooding and other natural disasters. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's statement is accurate. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand further that the $84.5 million is not project-specific and that there may be an opportunity to review Guam's request for port projects. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, may I say to the gentleman that the committee did not earmark disaster relief funds provided to the Corps of Engineers. The additional funding in the operation and maintenance account will be used to address high priority needs resulting from recent natural disasters at Corps-operated or Corps-maintained projects. The Corps of Engineers should consider Guam's request in conjunction with other projects eligible for emergency assistance consistent with current law and authorities. I want to assure the gentleman that we will examine this issue as the process proceeds to conference with the Senate, and we will do our best. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the distinguished chairman. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on National Security. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify the issue before us today. We are not here to correct the overdeployment of our military troops or the underfunding of our military troops. The issue before us today is whether this is an emergency as prescribed by the budget law or whether it is one that is not and calls for an offset. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could rise in support of this bill, the emergency supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, the bill in its current configuration falls short in terms of timing, process and interpretation. First there is a matter of timing. Once again this body has reacted slowly to an emergency situation, with consequences that will affect our fellow citizens both here at home and overseas. And yet, while the other body has essentially passed a bill to deal with these measures, we are still debating the matter in this body, and the result is that by the time we begin our 2-week spring recess we will not have completed this important work. Second, there is a matter of process. Though 80 percent of the bill's appropriations are for military programs, all of the measure's offsets are in domestic programs. This is a sure invitation for a presidential veto, and I am sure that the President will accept that invitation. As many know, the other body has not offset, I will repeat, has not offset its version of the supplemental with spending cuts. It has accepted the emergency designation for the supplemental, as it should have. I can envision a scenario where the other body would offer to accept offsets, but with a condition that those offsets come from the military appropriation accounts. What a disaster that would be. Third, there is a matter of interpretation. I voted for last year's Balanced Budget Act. I believe we made great progress in the past 8 years to get our Nation's finances in order. The 1993 bill which I supported; last year, the Balanced Budget Act which I supported; and this year we see a surplus possibly of $8 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the first surplus since 1969. While provisions under the Budget Act will allow us to fund genuine emergencies, the other body has chosen to use those provisions. That is what we should do. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen wrote earlier this month that if the Department of Defense were required to provide offsets from within the DOD budget, the effect on DOD programs would prove calamitous. I have seen the same thing for the domestic side. That has been well thought out. It is a matter of accepting what is reality. A rose by any other name is still a rose; an emergency by any other name is still an emergency. I think that in this present form it is very difficult for us to support, and I will not support this bill. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today. First I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for sticking to our core principles, that 3 years ago we made a commitment that we were going to stop spending our children's money, and I would like to commend the chairman for sticking to those principles in this bill and sticking to the offsets. We understand the other body, the Senate, has not proposed offsets yet, and I would also like to express my appreciation for accepting the Neumann-McIntosh amendment that puts this body on record when we pass this bill, saying that when it goes to conference it should come back with the offsets intact. I would also like to do, as I made it my custom to do over the last 3 years, to report to my colleagues what the actual numbers are in this spending bill. The total new spending, the total, quote, emergency spending in this bill, is $2.865 billion in outlays and budget authority, and in fact the offsets amount to 1 million more than what the proposed new spending is as it relates to budget authority. In outlays, the outlays are $350 million short, but I would add that it is [[Page H1808]] the closest that we have come of any of the supplemental appropriation bills that have passed through this body since we came here in 1995. It is the closest we have come to offsetting it in outlays as well as budget authority, and again in budget authority, to my colleagues, it is not only offset but there is actually $1 million extra in it. Again, I would like to address the concerns of the other side. I heard the statement that 800,000 Americans will be without housing if this bill is passed. Well, first let me say that that is absolutely not true. But second, let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side that if in fact they genuinely believe that is true, then they have a moral and an ethical responsibility to bring something forward that allows these offsets to come from some other part of this budget. Look, what we are asking for is to stop spending our children's money. We are asking to find offsets, that is, wasteful government spending that amounts to $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending. Let me say that once more, so we understand just exactly what this debate is all about. What we are saying is that, I want to make sure that this debate is very, very clear when we talk about finding these offsets or reductions in wasteful Washington spending to counter the new spending, we are looking for a grand total of $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending. Now is there anyone in the entire United States of America that believes there is not $2.8 billion of wasteful Washington spending that can be eliminated so that we do not go and tack this new spending onto the legacy that we are going to give our children? I would like to conclude by again commending our chairman for sticking to his guns and demanding that these offsets be included in this bill, because for years that was not the practice, and that is in fact how we got to the $5.5 trillion debt that we currently have staring us in the face. I would conclude with the memory it is $2.8 billion in offsets. We are open to other suggestions; $2.8 out of $1700 is what we are looking for in terms of offsetting the bill. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that under the rule no amendments are allowed, no alternatives can be proposed? Am I correct on that? It is a closed rule; am I correct? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment. Mr. HOYER. One amendment made in order. No other amendments other than an amendment allowed by the Committee on Rules can be made, no alternatives can be proposed for other offsets; am I correct, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment that was made in order under the rule. Mr. HOYER. But no amendments can be offered; am I correct, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment to be offered in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. HOYER. I understand that. Can any additional amendments be offered, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There can be an amendment offered as a recommittal in the House. {time} 1445 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about wasteful Washington spending. I do not consider enabling senior citizens to have housing in my hometown or anybody else's hometown in the countryside to be wasteful Washington spending. I consider those to be necessary mercy initiatives so good and decent low-income Americans and retired senior citizens can live in decent housing. I do not consider providing funding to persons who are willing to give of their time to assist with finding volunteers to deal with our kids after school so that they are in a safe place and are not committing crime is wasteful Washington spending. I call that good community activity. I would point out that the rule the gentleman just voted for precluded us from attacking real wasteful spending. It precluded me from offering the amendment which would have reduced by 5 percent the Pentagon account that allows the Pentagon to pay $76 for a 57-cent set screw, and allows the Pentagon to pay $38,000 for aircraft springs that they previously paid $1,500 for. That is true wasteful Washington spending, I would submit to the gentleman from Wisconsin, and it is the kind of wasteful spending the gentleman protected with his vote for the rule. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to determine when the Skaggs provision will be up for debate. I understand that 30 minutes are allotted for that as well. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair could entertain that debate at any time during general debate. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I need to go up to the Committee on Rules. I would ask that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) be allowed to control my time. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland will control the time for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) while he goes to the Committee on Rules. There was no objection. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Guam, (Mr. Underwood). Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). In the disaster relief section of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, the committee accepted report language that makes mention of the ongoing discussion between the Government of Guam and the Navy over the repair responsibility for the repair of typhoon BRAC damaged properties on Guam. I have been assured by several civilian naval officials that the U.S. Navy, at a minimum, will be flexible if it is decided that the U.S. Navy is, indeed, responsible for said repairs. Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that if this action so occurs, the committee will entertain a request for funds in the regular fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is true. If the matter is settled between the Guam Government and the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Navy will accept the responsibility for the repair of certain typhoon damaged BRAC properties on Guam, our committee will consider such a request for funds in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for this clarification. We will work on the issue. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, here is the problem that I see as we go forward with this process. Normally, when we pass a bill, we have a good idea that we will be able to continue the process in the Senate. It is not so late in the year, and if it is, we will pass a bill very similar to the Senate bill. Now, this bill is so different than the Senate bill, we have a bill here which has a lot less money in it. We have a bill here which, in my estimation, when it is offset from domestic policy, will either assure a veto or, in the end, the Senate will not recognize it. I just do not see any possibility of this kind of a bill being the end product when it goes to conference. Now, if we do not accept the amendment that I am going to offer, the recommittal motion I am going to offer, then we have a situation where the Defense Department will not be able to go forward because it will not be assured of a bill happening. One of the things that has happened in the past, when they are assured of a conference, they can work different departments, they can get money, they can hold back money, and they can work out something to get them through. But here, they are not going to be able to do that, because they cannot be assured of a bill. Now, why do I say they cannot be assured of a bill? [[Page H1809]] Let us say that we pass this bill with offsets. Well, in the first place, the White House is against that. We go over to the Senate, we sit down, the Senate adds IMF, the Senate adds UN, and the Senate adds Mexico City. Now, in my estimation, there is no way that they can come back to the House with a bill the size it is, with no offsets, and pass it in the House, and yet, on the other hand, there is no way we can go to the Senate with all offsets and pass it in the Senate. So we have got a real problem, which leads me to believe that past history shows that the Defense Department cannot predict that they are going to have a bill. They only have 4 months left in the fiscal year, and the problem we are going to have when you only have 4 months, the Defense Department has to make a decision, how do I find the money to get us through the rest of the year. All right, we cut back on training, we layoff civilian employees, substantial numbers of civilian employees for 10 or 15 days. We shut down the Defense Department. There are all kinds of options the Defense Department is investigating right now, looking at what we can do in case a bill, which is absolutely the opposite of the bill that is pending in the Senate, it has not passed yet, but it is pending. We always in the past have been able to work these things out. This is an entirely different situation, which worries me. I am concerned, all of us have been through the committee process, if we pass a bill that is offset with domestic policy, the additional thing we do, we set domestic policy against defense policy, and when that happens we lose. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to support my motion to recommit when it comes up. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr.

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
(House of Representatives - March 31, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1797-H1824] 1998 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 402 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3579. {time} 1348 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3579) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. [[Page H1798]] Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), each will control 30 minutes of debate confined to the bill; and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and a Member opposed, each will control 15 minutes of debate confined to title III. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rule here to be structured, there will be 60 minutes debate on the present bill and then the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will be debating for 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the first 30 minutes be debated on the underlying measure, the middle 30 minutes to be shared equally, 15 minutes by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), 15 minutes by myself leading in opposition, with the remaining 30 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have just had a rule passed which denied the minority an opportunity to offer any significant amendment whatsoever. It is a rule that I strenuously opposed and asked the House to turn down. Now I understand that the gentleman is asking unanimous consent that some other arrangement be agreed to other than that in the rule. I, for the life of me, do not understand why we ought to do that. If Members did not like the rule, then I wish they would have followed my request and voted against it as I did. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the only reason I asked for this is to make sure that the debate is structured. If we are going to take the 90 minutes and have it commingled with the measure of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), it would be lost in the debate. Not only for the Members, but also for the American people to understand this important measure with regard to tying the hands of the Presidency, we should be able to debate for clarity. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, but with all due respect, we wanted the debate structured, too. We wanted to have a structured debate on offsets. We wanted to have a structured debate on the fact that this rule does not allow 75 percent of the President's request. We wanted a structured rule, too. We were not given that. Under those circumstances, I do not see why I should accommodate this request when we were turned down on every single request that we made to structure the rule. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, this is our opportunity to structure a debate so that there will be clarity and understanding. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, our opportunity was by voting down the rule and coming back with a new rule. That is the way the House is supposed to operate under regular order. If the gentleman was not satisfied with the rule, he should have voted against it. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have is an ambiguity in the way the rule deals with this 30 minutes allocated to this particular issue. I would assume the Chair has discretion, given that ambiguity, to deal with it as seems reasonable. I had understood the gentleman from Wisconsin in particular, through his staff, to be concerned that we not have this 30-minute debate follow the general debate on the bill. I think that is what informs the gentleman from Indiana. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. On the assumption that the gentleman from Wisconsin yields for the purpose, the gentleman will state it. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have pending a reservation on my unanimous consent request. My parliamentary inquiry is, is it within the prerogative of the Chair to designate time if there is 60 minutes debate on the underlying measure, and in the rule it states 30 minutes on the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), whether the first 60 minutes would in fact be on Mr. Livingston's bill, and the remainder on the Skaggs provision, would it be within the Chair's prerogative to designate the time? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair intends at this moment to accommodate the preference of the chairman of the committee, as the rule is structured, by starting with the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have stated, since we were given no consideration whatsoever in our desire to offer even a single amendment to this amendment, I object to the unanimous consent request. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) is recognized for 30 minutes. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to bring this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to the floor today. This bill provides important funding to sustain our troops in Bosnia and in Iraq in the amount of $1.8 billion. It also provides $575 million in assistance to those suffering from natural disasters throughout the country. Since this last fall, there have been typhoons, ice storms, excessive rains causing flooding and mud slides, beach erosion, late spring hard freezes and tornadoes. Because of these extreme weather conditions, there has been significant widespread damage to crops, livestock, natural resources and the country's infrastructure. The funding in this bill provides assistance to farmers, ranchers and dairymen. It funds repairs to highways, railroads, harbors and flood control facilities, national parks, forests and wildlife refuges and agricultural flood prevention facilities. In addition to providing direct support to the troops in Bosnia and Iraq, the bill also funds repairs to military facilities caused by typhoons, ice storms and the El Nino-related extreme weather. The funding in this bill is fully offset with an equal amount of rescissions. This is consistent with the policy adopted by the Republican majority when we took control of the Congress in January of 1995. The struggle to offset emergency supplemental bills gets harder every year. With lean regular appropriations bills and half the year already over, it is even more difficult. The leadership, and I agree that we should not go deeper into the defense function to pay for peacekeeping missions. And, in fact, I think one can make a very good case that the nondeployed forces would be unfairly robbed to keep the deployed forces going. After a very tight regular defense appropriations bill and a continued proliferation of unbudgeted peacekeeping missions, we are simply not able to find the defense programs and activities that we could reduce that are removed from the direct support of the peacekeeping missions, which would also not hurt overall national security. Cutting them would only result in a weakening of one element of national security to help another. It makes no sense to hobble national security in this manner. Therefore, the offsets included in the bill are all in the nondefense area. The funds proposed for rescission are generally in excess to those that would be needed this fiscal year. They have no impact during this fiscal year for the most part. You will hear a lot of worried talk today about the impact of those rescissions and their impact will not be felt if their restoration is accomplished later on. But they are excess funds right now, and we need offsets, and that is why we have chosen them. We will be able to consider restoring them at the appropriate time later on. We need to pass this bill today to move the process forward, making emergency supplemental [[Page H1799]] appropriations a real possibility. I urge support of this fiscally responsible bill. At this point in the Record, I would like to insert a detailed table reflecting the status of this bill since adoption of the rule governing its consideration. [[Page H1800]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.001 [[Page H1801]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.002 [[Page H1802]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MR98.003 [[Page H1803]] Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this disaster relief and Bosnia-Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Act. I strongly support the provisions in this legislation that help Americans who have been involved in disasters around the country. I strongly support the activity of our military in Bosnia and Iraq. And I hope that we can get to a piece of legislation as quickly as possible that will support all of those efforts. I know full well how important those efforts are. We had a big flood in my district in 1993 and in 1995. I stood on this floor and pleaded with the House to give timely help to my constituents, and the House did. So I have a very deep feeling about the need for this legislation. But the Republican leadership, just as they did a year ago, has refused to act responsibly and in a straightforward manner to provide these funds that have been requested by the administration. {time} 1400 They have insisted wrongly, in my view, on offsets which can be done under our budget act but which are not required under our budget act. In fact, we have provisions in our budget act that say that expenses like this which are truly emergencies do not need to be offset. But, again, the Republican leadership has decided to put in offsets; and, in my view, these offsets are very damaging in many, many areas of life in our country. Let me just mention some. It will hurt children who need help so that they can learn English. It will undermine the ability of our airports to construct needed runway enhancements and install new security equipment, as we are trying to do in St. Louis, Missouri. It would effectively end the Americorps program and could lead to more than a 100,000 of our elderly citizens losing their housing. I do not think these are the trade-offs that we should be considering when we are considering emergency legislation. These are emergency items. That is why we put that into the budget. These were things that were unforeseen when the budget was put together. If they had been foreseen, we would have found room in the budget. And we may find room in next year's budget. But to now come at the 11th hour and wipe out these domestic programs so that we can take care of bona fide emergencies makes no sense. If Members want an alternative approach, we will have a motion to recommit that I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote for that would simply take out the offsets and say that this should be treated as we believe it should be, as an emergency. But let me go further on why I think this bill is ill-advised. The Republican leadership has refused to allow the House to consider all the supplemental requests the President has forwarded. They left out the International Monetary Fund request. We have countries in Asia going into bankruptcy. The only thing that is keeping many of them afloat so that we do not lose more exports and have more unneeded imports in this country is the IMF request. If it sits for another 5, 6, 8 weeks, what will happen to the IMF and the countries that need help? Finally, there is the matter of United Nations dues. Here we are today, the leader of the world, the leader of the United Nations, and we cannot find a way to bring ourselves to pay our dues. We have the unseemly situation where the Secretary General has gone and made a peace in Iraq, which is good for the entire world, and he cannot get the leader of the world to pay our debts, our dues to the United Nations. The President wanted that in this bill, and it is not. It is being separated out. And all of this is being made subject to an untimely and unneeded request on the part of the Republicans again to put a family planning issue which has no place in any of this legislation as part of that legislation. My colleagues, this is the wrong bill. It has been constructed in the wrong way. It has the wrong offsets. I am for the disaster relief, and I am for giving the money for our troops in Iraq and Bosnia, but not in this form, not with these offsets. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote for the motion to recommit to fund these programs properly. If that fails, vote against this legislation. It is the wrong thing to do. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished member of the Committee on National Security, after which I will yield to him for a colloquy. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security for this piece of legislation. I think we need to get to the heart of the issue here and what is at stake. Why do we need this supplemental and why do we need to not further degradate the dollars to support our military? Mr. Chairman, if we look at the facts, in the past 6 years we have seen our troops deployed 25 times at home and around the world. Now if we compare that to the previous 40 years, they were deployed 10 times. Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that none of those 25 deployments were budgeted for; none of those 25 deployments were paid for. In the case of Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, by the end of the next fiscal year we will have spent $9.4 billion on Bosnia. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if we look at the previous 7 years, we have spent $15 billion on contingencies around the world. Now, the problem in the Congress is not that we oppose going into Bosnia. That is not the issue. The problem in Bosnia is why was America asked to put in 36,000 troops while the Germans, right next door, put in 4,000 troops? Why are we paying the costs for the troops, the housing and food for the Bangladesh military in Haiti? The problem is that this administration has not done enough to get our allies to kick in their fair share of the cost of these deployments. Look at Desert Storm. The Desert Storm operation cost us $52 billion. We were reimbursed $54 billion. But that has not been the case for the past 6 and 7 years. We have seen time and again money taken away from readiness, from modernization, from R, from those programs that we agreed to within a 5-year balanced budget context to be used to pay for deployments, none of which were budgeted for. Therefore, we need to restore this money because the quality of life for our troops is at stake, because the modernization of our systems is at stake, and because we have robbed the military to the core, to the bone. Talk to our troops in the field, Mr. Chairman. Listen to those young kids in Somalia who are on their second and third straight deployments. Listen to their stories of being away from home because of the cuts that we have made. We need to understand these monies are desperately necessary to replenish funds that have been taken away from the military to pay for deployments that were never considered priorities by this administration when our troops were committed in the first place. I ask my colleagues to support this appropriation measure, to oppose any measure to change it, to support the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) because what they are doing is right for our troops, it is right for America, and it is right for our role in the world today. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for the purposes of colloquy only. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the supplemental appropriations measure before the House today goes a long way to support the needs of our troops, supporting the added cost of Bosnia and Iraqi enforcement operations while ensuring that we are not further eroding a defense budget that is already stretched too thin. As we move the bill forward, we must consider the many remaining needs of our troops around the globe. Of particular concern to our military commanders stationed abroad are the increasing range of missile threats, particularly those that could emerge this [[Page H1804]] year as a result of Russian technology transfers. Last night, the House unanimously adopted an authorization bill, H.R. 2786, designed to enhance our missile defense systems against that very threat. Unfortunately, due to the timing of that action, we were unable to include those funds in this supplemental. However, it is my understanding that the administration supports execution of the actions in H.R. 2786 in fiscal year 1998. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct. Not only are we in complete agreement with the need to ensure effective missile defenses for our troops abroad, but we agree that these actions should remain a funding priority for fiscal year 1998. Although the administration limited the Bosnia supplemental to paying for the cost of that operation in the Persian Gulf, they are now supporting execution of theater missile defense enhancements this year. Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Senate approved funding for the theater missile defense enhancements in its supplemental bill. Given the tight constraints we are working under here today, I will not offer an amendment, but ask the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee to ensure that this funding remains in the supplemental conference report. Mr. LIVINGSTON. I share the interest of the gentleman in moving the theater missile defense initiative forward, and I assure my colleague that I will do my very best to preserve necessary funds in the supplemental conference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci). Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time to talk about the manager's amendment. I rise to issue my strong support for it. The ice storm of 1998 devastated 4 States in the Northeast. The damage was unlike anything ever experienced, and it was severe. This amendment will provide funding through community development block grants. It will address needs not met through other disaster relief programs, either the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Small Business Administration. It will give States the flexibility to meet the critical needs of residents still recovering from the storm. And, most importantly, it will ease the economic burden of citizens least able to bear it. I ask my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the full committee; the entire Committee on Appropriations members and staff; and particularly my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for their very effective work on this bill. As we have heard here today, Mr. Chairman, this is an initiative to try to redress a good many problems that are in this land today. People are struggling with the challenges of dealing with natural disasters, and I think by that very reason alone it deserves all of our unqualified support. I just want to talk a moment about one particular portion, and that is the assistance that is provided for the dairy farmers of this Nation. I know that some of this funding, particularly as it relates to the compensation for diminished milk production, is unprecedented and that some Members are concerned about this fact. But let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, the losses in northern New York and, in fact, throughout the entire Northeast represent a very unique situation. The assistance we are providing in this bill represents a small but a vitally important step on their road to recovery. The loss of electric power in this region had enormous repercussions beyond just inconvenience, although certainly inconvenient it was. New York is the Nation's third largest dairy producer; and, without power, dairy farmers were unable to milk their herd. Those few with generators who could milk frequently had to dump their milk because the roads were impassable. And those who were rarely, on occasion, able to get to the milk trucks were unable to get to plants that were in operation. So the losses were absolutely devastating. The inability to milk has caused, as I said, unique problems. No milking on normal schedule means sick animals, animals that contract mastitis, an illness which if not treated properly can kill the animal. As I said, I thank the chairman for his assistance and urge the support of this initiative. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), the distinguished ranking member of the most effective HUD subcommittee. Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. I reluctantly rise in strong opposition to this bill, and I say ``reluctantly'' because I very much favor the emergency supplemental appropriations that the bill contains. However, the construction of this bill forces me to oppose it. The biggest problem with the bill is the domestic rescissions that the bill contains, none of which are required by the budget rules and all of which do great damage to important programs. By far the largest portion of these cuts, about three-quarters of the total, fall on section 8 housing assistance. This program helps people with very low incomes afford one of the basic necessities of life, a place to live. Of the 2.8 million households receiving section 8 housing assistance, 32 percent are elderly, another 11 percent are disabled, 50 percent are families with children. Their median income is just over $7,500 per year. The funds being rescinded are reserves that are urgently needed to help meet the cost of renewing section 8 housing assistance contracts expiring next year. If this rescission is allowed to stand and the funds are not replaced, contracts for 410,000 units of section 8 housing would not be renewed and the elderly and disabled people and young families living in these apartments would face the choice of paying large increases in rent, which they cannot afford, or losing their place to live. We have more than 5 million low-income families with worst-case housing needs receiving no Federal housing assistance at all. Waiting lists for housing programs are years long in many areas. The number of families helped by Federal housing programs is going down. In light of all this, we must stop using section 8 and other housing programs as the piggy bank every time someone wants to find some money to pay for something else. We ought to defeat this bill and bring back a clean supplemental appropriations bill that takes care of the urgent emergency needs without further devastating housing and other vital domestic programs. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about those piggy banks. The gentleman from Missouri and his statements, I would like to speak directly to those. First of all, for 30 years, Democrats controlled this Congress; and the debt has soared, where we pay over a billion dollars a day on just the interest. That is before law enforcement. That is before education. That is before anything that we want to pay for. The liberal Democrat leadership was against a balanced budget because that limits their ability to spend. They were against a tax relief for working families. {time} 1415 They were against welfare reform. They just wanted to spend more money for it. Who has to pay all of those extra costs for not having a balanced budget, for not having tax relief? They increase taxes and they put increase on Social Security tax. They cut veterans and military COLAs. They increase the tax on working families. So the record is very clear. But who is going to pay for that? We had a D.C. [[Page H1805]] bill where we would waive Davis-Bacon to pay for 60-year-old schools. The word ``children'' was mentioned, but do we think the leadership would waive Davis-Bacon that saves 35 percent to build schools in Washington, D.C.? No, because they are tied to their union brothers. It is 35 percent savings. Again, who has to pay for that 35 percent? Working families and senior citizens. Alan Greenspan has told us that we cannot bust these budget caps because the interest rates right now are between 2 and 8 percent lower. Now, what does that mean to working families? That they have more money for education, for their children. They have more money to buy a car, or even a double egg, double cheese, double fry burger if they want. But it is more money in their pocket instead of having to pay for the debt or come back in Washington, D.C. They want to pay for IMF, $18 billion, when the economists debate on the value of that. It is $18 billion, but yet we are having to find offsets. Yet, the gentleman from Missouri wants to pay. The United Nations, we pay 30 percent of all peacekeeping. The President has put us in Somalia without Congress. They put us in Haiti without Congress. They have kept us in Bosnia without Congress. Yet, we have to pay for it. Yet, our European nations have not paid for their share. They say, why can we not pay our bills? Well, who pays for that $18 billion? Who pays for the billions of dollars that go to the U.N.? The working families. That is what I am saying. There is a big difference between our plan and what the Democrats want to do, which is just spend more money without offsetting it and continue with the 30 years of tax-and-spend big government, liberal government. We are not going to allow that to happen. Now, it is legitimate. They feel that big government can do everything. We do not. There is a difference in the choice, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago, as every American knows, this Congress was a snake pit of confrontation. There was one fight after another between the Congress and the White House, which led to a sustained government shutdown. It took a long time for the reputation of this Congress to recover from that obstreperousness. Last year, in contrast, I felt we had a pretty good year in the appropriations process. Most of the time the appropriations bills were dealt with on a bipartisan basis. I think that that made people in the country feel better about their government. I think it made us feel a whole lot better about it. I think it made us feel a whole lot better about each other, because we were able to work out differences after we had defined those differences. We were able to find a common solution to many of those questions. This year, unfortunately, we now seem to be walking right back into the confrontation mode. There have been numerous stories in the press reporting that those in the majority party caucus with the more militant attitude on political matters simply want the Congress to take the President on, on a whole range of issues. So as a result, this bill, which ought to be an emergency appropriation which goes through rather quickly, this bill is going to take a long time to get out of the Congress, out of conference. When it gets to the President, it is going to be vetoed in its present form. That makes no sense, because we have a great deal of work to do. We have a very few days left in the legislative schedule to do it. Let us take a look at the points of controversy in this bill. First of all, this bill refuses to appropriate 75 percent of the disaster assistance requested by the President. Now, the President does not ask for that money because he likes to ask for money. He asks for it because we have had a series of natural disasters around the country. Unless we are not going to help communities recover, we need to provide this money. The President has asked for more money than we have in this bill because he understands that with the funding of the disasters that we have already had, if we have any significant storm activity in the summer, we will not have the money in the till to help the communities who need help on the dime, immediately. Yet, despite the fact that on a bipartisan basis the Senate committee, under the leadership of the chairman of that committee, Senator Stevens, despite the fact that the Senate added the full amount of the President's request, the majority party in this House refuses to provide that same funding. Then in a second effort to establish confrontation with the President, the House majority party insists that to the President's request it add large cuts in housing, which will cut 20 percent of the funds that are needed next year to sign the contracts to sustain the living quarters for low-income Americans and senior citizens who are now living in subsidized housing around the country. One-third of the persons who will be forced out of those homes, if this action occurs, are elderly. That is a great Easter gift for this Congress to give those folks before we go home on 20 days recess. Then it says we are going to cut $75 million for bilingual education. I did not used to care about that issue as much as I do now. But now I have had a huge influx of H'Mong population into my hometown and other communities. The H'Mong are the folks who did our dirty work during the war in Laos. They did the CIA's undercover dirty work. So the Federal Government made a decision to allow them to come into this country. But now the Federal Government is bugging out on its responsibility to help train them and educate them. They do not even have a written language, so they are very hard to teach English. Yet, one of the programs that would help us do that is being shrunk by a very large amount by this action. Then we come to the IMF. Nobody likes to come in here and ask for money for the International Monetary Fund. But the fact is we live in the real world, and if we do not defend ourselves in that real world, we are going to suffer the consequences. Japan has been running an irresponsible fiscal policy for years. That and other actions finally led to a currency collapse in Asia. There is a huge overproductive capacity in this world in certain industries, a lot of it in Asia. Because of that currency collapse, a lot of very cheap goods which are artificially underpriced because of that currency collapse are going to shortly be under way to the United States to undercut American goods. We are going to see plants close. We are going to see American workers go out of work. We are going to see the largest trade deficit in the history of the world. Yet, this Congress is choosing to do nothing whatsoever about it by holding the IMF hostage to a nongermane proposal. Then what we find is that the Speaker of the House is reported in a number of press accounts to have threatened majority party Members of the Committee on Appropriations with the loss of their committee assignments if they do not follow the leadership's so-called strategy on this issue. I do not understand why anyone thinks that it is for the good of America that we resurrect a confrontational attitude rather than a cooperative attitude in this Congress. I do not understand even how politically people think that that is going to win votes in an election year. I do not think it is. So I regretfully and respectfully ask the House to turn this bill down. I know that the pragmatists on the majority side of the aisle did not want to see this confrontation occur, but they have been overruled. I regret that. Until such time as reason prevails, we have no choice but to ask Members to vote against this proposal. That is what I am asking Members to do. Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his statement and associate myself with it, especially the issue concerning housing cuts. We have a $23 billion commitment over the next two years. Last year we cut $3.6 billion out of housing. We promised to make it up. We have not done it. This year we are taking more out. This is going to put people in the street. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the supplemental emergency assistance measures. I very much regret and strongly oppose [[Page H1806]] the ``offset'' provisions of these proposals which has ensured a collision course with the President's emergency request for additional fiscal 1998 funding for disaster aid and military action in Bosnia and Iraq as well as standing U.S. commitments to the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This IMF Funding means that our 183 nation member program is running on empty, the only tool that we have to prevent the global economic catastrophe, that could devastate our domestic economy. This measure, in fact, only provides 25% of the Presidents total request for funding of disaster assistance. After dragging this bill out for months on the eve of a Easter recess period, apparently the GOP assumes that the House can be forced to accept a deficient product. If we oppose them, they will lay the blame on others. Frankly, the blame and the shame is the GOP leadership. As the adage states: lead, follow--or get out of the way so that we can get the job done. Our GOP colleagues insistence on including offsetting cuts in solely domestic programs illustrates their reluctance to provide basic programs that form the foundation of trust and the tools that American families need to care for themselves and one another. The GOP's package of cuts produces a number of offsets that would slash $2.9 billion in peoples priorities, and programs. These offsets jeopardize low-income housing programs for 100,000 people (many of whom are elderly 32% and disabled 11%), much needed airport improvements, terminating the AmeriCorps national service program for 1998, and major cuts in this years bilingual education. These programs are vital to the real needs of the most vulnerable in our society. While natural disaster needs would be met, this action would create a new disaster for those impacted by the offset cuts. These harmful rescissions are unnecessary under the budget rules, which designate that true emergency funding may proceed without offsets. Nonetheless, the Republican Majority in this House has chosen to cut key domestic spending initiatives to offset defense and natural disaster emergencies; breaching the ``firewalls'' between the two categories of defense and domestic expenditures and the 1998 budget enacted into law last year. These offsets are strongly opposed by the President and many Members of Congress. The Senate included no such offsets in its version of the bill, and there are no indications that they would do so. This clearly is a partisan effort to inject this new and divisive issue into the supplemental emergency assistance measures that will complicate the passage of this legislation. This raises questions as to the motives involved. The Republican Majority shut down the government with unrelated policy for several months in 1996. They denied much needed disaster help in 1997 because of an unrelated rider. Here we go again in 1998. The Republicans are holding hostage the emergency funding for the Department of Defense and disaster assistance, in an attempt, to force feed their unpopular and unfair agenda on the American people. This agenda gives new meaning to women, children, the disabled, and the elderly first. It is time to call a halt to the GOP political games and get on with the peoples business, not a GOP partisan policy agenda. The next two fiscal years the committed renewal of section 8 housing units existing contracts serving existing low income families with children, the elderly and disabled will demand over $23 billion. The 1997 emergency supplemental did the same as this in removing $3.6 billion of the housing reserve funds and pledged to make it up, but they have not replaced the fund, but take more--this is not a honey pot and it hurts real people. Mr. Chairman, the much-needed assistance for natural disasters and peacekeeping missions are sound and urgently needed. However, we must not permit this offset package to become our final action. This bill is a step backward, not forward. We should reject it. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, just to assure the Members that the sky is not falling, I just want to make a few points. First of all, if it is confrontation that we have opposing views on how to treat the supplemental appropriations bill, then yes, it is confrontation. But I think it is not angry confrontation, it is simply a matter of differing philosophies. For the last 60 years of this century, the now minority party, which used to be the majority party, guided the affairs of the country with the idea that we continue to spend and never worry about whether the money was there. All we are saying on the supplementals is that, sure, we can continue to spend, but it has to be within the budget. For the last 4 years, we have in effect said that we will pay for the supplemental spending. We are coming up with $2.29 billion in extra spending for defense. We are coming up with $575 million for disaster relief. But we are going to offset. That is all we are saying. The Senate has not said that, and we are going to meet them head on. But for our purposes in the House, we are going to offset this extra spending. I dare say we have succeeded. We have got all these cries that the cuts in other existing unobligated funds are going to cause a disaster and the people are going to go homeless. The fact is that is not going to happen. These are unobligated funds, and they are not needed this year, this fiscal year. If they are needed later on, we will address that. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has said that a militant majority is demonstrating that we should do something so awful as pay as we go. We happen to think that is fiscal responsibility. It is not militant. It is just common sense. He says that we have not adequately provided for the disaster relief that is needed. In effect, he is right, because the President, the day after we reported this bill out of the full committee, the President finally sent over an additional request of $1.6 billion for disaster relief that we have not had time to address, and we will address before this bill gets through its normal processes. He says that he is concerned that we have attacked bilingual education. Look, the H'Mong have been here for 20 years. If they have no written language, we have got a good one. It is called English. Well, if they have not been here for 20 years, then they have been here for 10 or 15; I do not know how long. Anyway, we have got English. We have got English, and it is a perfectly good language. We would like to teach them how to assimilate themselves into the United States, just like we would like to teach people of all ethnic backgrounds to assimilate themselves in the United States and teach their kids how to be productive American citizens. Just from day one, that is what we have done in America. That is why we are the melting pot. That is why we have succeeded in bringing cultures of all sorts together and have succeeded in becoming the most dynamic free Nation on earth. {time} 1430 The fact is, look, I adopted a little girl with my wife, a little girl from Taiwan. She came here at almost 7 years old. She could not speak English. She spoke Chinese. But we put her in an ``English as a second language'' course, and within 3 months she was speaking fluent English. She is a productive American citizen. I hope that others will likewise become productive American citizens. Mr. Chairman, if I were to take a kid to Spain, I would not expect that child to only speak English and to be taught English in the schools. I would expect that child to be taught Spanish in the schools so that that child would live in Spain and become a productive Spanish citizen, if my colleagues will. The point is, bilingual education in and of itself has been a failed program. It ought to be abolished. English as a second language is a successful program, and should be encouraged and hopefully will be because of the steps that we take here today. These are good changes. This is a good bill. The offsets are simply common sense. I urge the adoption of this bill, the rejection of the motion to recommit, and hopefully we will get a conference soon, right after we come back from the break, and we will get this disaster relief to the people who need it. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to associate myself with the remarks the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) made earlier. I regret that I come to this floor to oppose this bill. Instead of coalescing funding to continue our peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and ensure a strong and forceful presence in the Gulf, we are being asked to undercut important domestic programs included in last year's budget agreement to finance our national security interests. [[Page H1807]] It is not enough that the budget agreement of 1985 provides for emergency spending without offsets during domestic or international crisis. It is not enough that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), it is not enough that Mr. Livingston fought hard to prevent making unwise and devastating cuts in domestic programs, notwithstanding the fact that he just said something a little different. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it apparently is not enough that the United States Senate, with the support of the President of the United States, passed this emergency spending without gutting domestic programs by voice vote. No, Mr. Chairman, instead today this body is being asked to gut the Section 8 low income housing program which could leave 800,000 Americans without housing next year. We are being asked to effectively shut down the AmeriCorps program through a 60 percent cut, and perhaps in one of the most outrageous affronts contained in this bill, the leadership is advocating a cut of $75 million in bilingual and immigrant education. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chairman, as to the importance of the emergency funding the President is seeking. Continuing the U.S. presence in Bosnia is critical. Progress is being made in the implementation of the Dayton Accords, and this progress has only been possible because of U.S. participation in the NATO-led stabilization force. There is not one of us that has visited that force, that has not been proud of our men and women and the effect that they have had. Apparently the majority party did not learn the lessons of the 1995 disaster relief supplemental. The chairman learned them; I think most of the chairmen of our subcommittees learned them. But their caucus did not learn them. There are very serious issues to be debated in this Chamber. However, we should not hold emergency funding hostage when on its surface we all support the need for a strong presence in Iraq and a need to respond to the ravages of El Nino. I urge my colleagues to vote down the latest sham of the Republican leadership and release this funding from the daily game of politics in which we have been embroiled. Vote ``no.'' Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water. (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to my distinguished friend from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for purposes of a colloquy only. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, Guam suffered extensive damages due to Typhoon Paka last December. Due to Typhoon Paka the commercial port, which is the principal lifeline for all the residents of Guam, needs to be restored to its economic vitality. I understand that the bill before us today provides $84.5 million for the Corps of Engineers for emergency repairs due to flooding and other natural disasters. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's statement is accurate. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I understand further that the $84.5 million is not project-specific and that there may be an opportunity to review Guam's request for port projects. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, may I say to the gentleman that the committee did not earmark disaster relief funds provided to the Corps of Engineers. The additional funding in the operation and maintenance account will be used to address high priority needs resulting from recent natural disasters at Corps-operated or Corps-maintained projects. The Corps of Engineers should consider Guam's request in conjunction with other projects eligible for emergency assistance consistent with current law and authorities. I want to assure the gentleman that we will examine this issue as the process proceeds to conference with the Senate, and we will do our best. Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank the distinguished chairman. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on National Security. Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let us clarify the issue before us today. We are not here to correct the overdeployment of our military troops or the underfunding of our military troops. The issue before us today is whether this is an emergency as prescribed by the budget law or whether it is one that is not and calls for an offset. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could rise in support of this bill, the emergency supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998. Unfortunately, the bill in its current configuration falls short in terms of timing, process and interpretation. First there is a matter of timing. Once again this body has reacted slowly to an emergency situation, with consequences that will affect our fellow citizens both here at home and overseas. And yet, while the other body has essentially passed a bill to deal with these measures, we are still debating the matter in this body, and the result is that by the time we begin our 2-week spring recess we will not have completed this important work. Second, there is a matter of process. Though 80 percent of the bill's appropriations are for military programs, all of the measure's offsets are in domestic programs. This is a sure invitation for a presidential veto, and I am sure that the President will accept that invitation. As many know, the other body has not offset, I will repeat, has not offset its version of the supplemental with spending cuts. It has accepted the emergency designation for the supplemental, as it should have. I can envision a scenario where the other body would offer to accept offsets, but with a condition that those offsets come from the military appropriation accounts. What a disaster that would be. Third, there is a matter of interpretation. I voted for last year's Balanced Budget Act. I believe we made great progress in the past 8 years to get our Nation's finances in order. The 1993 bill which I supported; last year, the Balanced Budget Act which I supported; and this year we see a surplus possibly of $8 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the first surplus since 1969. While provisions under the Budget Act will allow us to fund genuine emergencies, the other body has chosen to use those provisions. That is what we should do. Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen wrote earlier this month that if the Department of Defense were required to provide offsets from within the DOD budget, the effect on DOD programs would prove calamitous. I have seen the same thing for the domestic side. That has been well thought out. It is a matter of accepting what is reality. A rose by any other name is still a rose; an emergency by any other name is still an emergency. I think that in this present form it is very difficult for us to support, and I will not support this bill. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today. First I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for sticking to our core principles, that 3 years ago we made a commitment that we were going to stop spending our children's money, and I would like to commend the chairman for sticking to those principles in this bill and sticking to the offsets. We understand the other body, the Senate, has not proposed offsets yet, and I would also like to express my appreciation for accepting the Neumann-McIntosh amendment that puts this body on record when we pass this bill, saying that when it goes to conference it should come back with the offsets intact. I would also like to do, as I made it my custom to do over the last 3 years, to report to my colleagues what the actual numbers are in this spending bill. The total new spending, the total, quote, emergency spending in this bill, is $2.865 billion in outlays and budget authority, and in fact the offsets amount to 1 million more than what the proposed new spending is as it relates to budget authority. In outlays, the outlays are $350 million short, but I would add that it is [[Page H1808]] the closest that we have come of any of the supplemental appropriation bills that have passed through this body since we came here in 1995. It is the closest we have come to offsetting it in outlays as well as budget authority, and again in budget authority, to my colleagues, it is not only offset but there is actually $1 million extra in it. Again, I would like to address the concerns of the other side. I heard the statement that 800,000 Americans will be without housing if this bill is passed. Well, first let me say that that is absolutely not true. But second, let me suggest to my colleagues on the other side that if in fact they genuinely believe that is true, then they have a moral and an ethical responsibility to bring something forward that allows these offsets to come from some other part of this budget. Look, what we are asking for is to stop spending our children's money. We are asking to find offsets, that is, wasteful government spending that amounts to $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending. Let me say that once more, so we understand just exactly what this debate is all about. What we are saying is that, I want to make sure that this debate is very, very clear when we talk about finding these offsets or reductions in wasteful Washington spending to counter the new spending, we are looking for a grand total of $2.8 billion out of $1700 billion of government spending. Now is there anyone in the entire United States of America that believes there is not $2.8 billion of wasteful Washington spending that can be eliminated so that we do not go and tack this new spending onto the legacy that we are going to give our children? I would like to conclude by again commending our chairman for sticking to his guns and demanding that these offsets be included in this bill, because for years that was not the practice, and that is in fact how we got to the $5.5 trillion debt that we currently have staring us in the face. I would conclude with the memory it is $2.8 billion in offsets. We are open to other suggestions; $2.8 out of $1700 is what we are looking for in terms of offsetting the bill. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that under the rule no amendments are allowed, no alternatives can be proposed? Am I correct on that? It is a closed rule; am I correct? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment. Mr. HOYER. One amendment made in order. No other amendments other than an amendment allowed by the Committee on Rules can be made, no alternatives can be proposed for other offsets; am I correct, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment that was made in order under the rule. Mr. HOYER. But no amendments can be offered; am I correct, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There is one amendment to be offered in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. HOYER. I understand that. Can any additional amendments be offered, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There can be an amendment offered as a recommittal in the House. {time} 1445 Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker talked about wasteful Washington spending. I do not consider enabling senior citizens to have housing in my hometown or anybody else's hometown in the countryside to be wasteful Washington spending. I consider those to be necessary mercy initiatives so good and decent low-income Americans and retired senior citizens can live in decent housing. I do not consider providing funding to persons who are willing to give of their time to assist with finding volunteers to deal with our kids after school so that they are in a safe place and are not committing crime is wasteful Washington spending. I call that good community activity. I would point out that the rule the gentleman just voted for precluded us from attacking real wasteful spending. It precluded me from offering the amendment which would have reduced by 5 percent the Pentagon account that allows the Pentagon to pay $76 for a 57-cent set screw, and allows the Pentagon to pay $38,000 for aircraft springs that they previously paid $1,500 for. That is true wasteful Washington spending, I would submit to the gentleman from Wisconsin, and it is the kind of wasteful spending the gentleman protected with his vote for the rule. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to determine when the Skaggs provision will be up for debate. I understand that 30 minutes are allotted for that as well. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair could entertain that debate at any time during general debate. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I need to go up to the Committee on Rules. I would ask that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) be allowed to control my time. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland will control the time for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) while he goes to the Committee on Rules. There was no objection. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Guam, (Mr. Underwood). Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). In the disaster relief section of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, the committee accepted report language that makes mention of the ongoing discussion between the Government of Guam and the Navy over the repair responsibility for the repair of typhoon BRAC damaged properties on Guam. I have been assured by several civilian naval officials that the U.S. Navy, at a minimum, will be flexible if it is decided that the U.S. Navy is, indeed, responsible for said repairs. Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that if this action so occurs, the committee will entertain a request for funds in the regular fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is true. If the matter is settled between the Guam Government and the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Navy will accept the responsibility for the repair of certain typhoon damaged BRAC properties on Guam, our committee will consider such a request for funds in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for this clarification. We will work on the issue. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, here is the problem that I see as we go forward with this process. Normally, when we pass a bill, we have a good idea that we will be able to continue the process in the Senate. It is not so late in the year, and if it is, we will pass a bill very similar to the Senate bill. Now, this bill is so different than the Senate bill, we have a bill here which has a lot less money in it. We have a bill here which, in my estimation, when it is offset from domestic policy, will either assure a veto or, in the end, the Senate will not recognize it. I just do not see any possibility of this kind of a bill being the end product when it goes to conference. Now, if we do not accept the amendment that I am going to offer, the recommittal motion I am going to offer, then we have a situation where the Defense Department will not be able to go forward because it will not be assured of a bill happening. One of the things that has happened in the past, when they are assured of a conference, they can work different departments, they can get money, they can hold back money, and they can work out something to get them through. But here, they are not going to be able to do that, because they cannot be assured of a bill. Now, why do I say they cannot be assured of a bill? [[Page H1809]] Let us say that we pass this bill with offsets. Well, in the first place, the White House is against that. We go over to the Senate, we sit down, the Senate adds IMF, the Senate adds UN, and the Senate adds Mexico City. Now, in my estimation, there is no way that they can come back to the House with a bill the size it is, with no offsets, and pass it in the House, and yet, on the other hand, there is no way we can go to the Senate with all offsets and pass it in the Senate. So we have got a real problem, which leads me to believe that past history shows that the Defense Department cannot predict that they are going to have a bill. They only have 4 months left in the fiscal year, and the problem we are going to have when you only have 4 months, the Defense Department has to make a decision, how do I find the money to get us through the rest of the year. All right, we cut back on training, we layoff civilian employees, substantial numbers of civilian employees for 10 or 15 days. We shut down the Defense Department. There are all kinds of options the Defense Department is investigating right now, looking at what we can do in case a bill, which is absolutely the opposite of the bill that is pending in the Senate, it has not passed yet, but it is pending. We always in the past have been able to work these things out. This is an entirely different situation, which worries me. I am concerned, all of us have been through the committee process, if we pass a bill that is offset with domestic policy, the additional thing we do, we set domestic policy against defense policy, and when that happens we lose. Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to support my motion to recommit when it comes up. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remar