Summary:

All articles in Senate section

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
(Senate - March 18, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2898-S2919] EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the matter of the order governing the amendment of the Senator from Texas be set aside so that I may offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 80 (Purpose: To defer section 8 assistance for expiring contracts until October 1, 1999) Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment numbered 80. Inset on page 43, after line 15: ``PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING ``HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND ``(DEFERRAL) ``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public Law 105-276 for use in connection with expiring or terminating section 8 contracts, $350,000,000 shall not become available until October 1, 1999.''. On page 42, strike beginning with line 10 through the end of line 21. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with the provision in the bill that was reported from the committee that deferred spending from the temporary assistance to needy families account. This will defer, instead, monies from the section 8 fund of HUD. There is approximately $1.2 billion in that account. This will defer for 1 year the use of $350 million in that account. It replaces the TANF amendment in the bill. Under that amendment, we deferred until 2001 the availability of funds which are transferred to the States. Because of the misunderstanding about that fund, I want to explain why we use that fund in the first place. I am once again alarmed over the misinformation that has been spread by some people in that entity, that agency, to try and make it look like somehow or other we took monies away from States or any specific State. In the first place, these grant awards are made quarterly. Actual cash outlays are made, but they are not transferred to the States until the States make expenditures in their TANF programs, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. In other words, the States first make the payments, and we pay it back. Some people, in the House in particular, have said this a way that the States can use this money for a piggy bank. In no way can they take this money and put it into another bank account and draw interest on it if they comply with the law. That is one report I have heard--that we are preventing States from taking the money to put it into their own accounts. We checked and we found that there was between $3 billion and $3.5 billion at the close of fiscal year 1998 in this fund. There are two quarters that have not even been distributed yet of this fiscal year 1999. And it is clear that the States have spent some money, and there is plenty of money to meet the States' expenditures and their requests for reimbursement of those expenditures. But this is not a fund that the States can come to willy-nilly and transfer the funds to their accounts. Secondly, Mr. President, we deferred this money from obligation in this fiscal year--really until 2001, October 1, 2001. The States would not--the bill that was reported from the committee-- lose any of their funds. We, pursuant to the entitlement that was authorized, agreed that Federal funds, taxpayers' funds, in the amount of $16.5 billion, from 1997 through 2002, would be placed in this account, to be available to reimburse States for the expenditures they made for Assistance to Needy Families. Nothing in what the Appropriations Committee did harmed that program at all. But because by October 1 another $16.5 billion would have been added to $3 billion to $3.5 billion in that account--and there has never been a drawdown at the rate that would make those funds needed within that period of time. This is not a rainy day fund. We have been told that some people have said that States take these monies and put them in a rainy day fund to use at a later date. But the law says they can only get them to reimburse expenditures. If the administration is allowing this fund to be used as a rainy day account or a piggy bank account, it is wrong. We have had so many calls from so many States, including my own. And I see the Senator from New York is here, and I know that they have been besieged because of their population base. Of course, they are eligible for more money from this account, more than anyone other than California. But it depends on how much they spend before they can get it back. We made the decision to offset this bill. This is the first time we have offset totally a supplemental emergency bill. I have said to our committee, we ought to offset emergency funds with prior appropriated emergency funds and nonemergency funds with nonemergency prior appropriated funds. I think we are going to have a little discussion about that here on the floor. But clearly what we have done, Mr. President, is we have used this bill to reprogram prior appropriated funds. These funds that were appropriated to the TANF account are sitting there waiting for the States to spend money and then come and ask for it to be repaid. The process is so rapid that the administration has not paid the first two quarters of this year yet. So this is not something we have interfered with by deferring money until the second fiscal year. Because, as I said, this account would get $16.5 billion credited to it on October 1. What we have done is, in order to avoid this controversy--and we do not need a controversy on this bill. We need to get it done. This bill, in my opinion, is a very important bill. It will provide money for assistance because of a great natural disaster in a neighboring country in this hemisphere. The President asked us to declare that an emergency. We have taken the declaration of emergency through as far as the outlay categories are concerned, because it is very difficult to score under the budget process outlays that come from emergency accounts. We have not taken an emergency declaration through on those things that we believe are nonemergency in terms of the authorization process. So by that I mean, I fail to understand how we should extend the concept of emergency appropriations to natural disasters off our shores. We should be able to find the money, if we want to be good humanitarian members of this hemisphere, to assist our neighbors. I believe we should assist them. But I do not believe we should use the laws that were intended to demand taxpayers' funds immediately to meet natural disasters or declared emergencies by the President of the United States within the boundaries of our United States. So Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the spirit of compromise, to try and take away this battle that I saw coming over the use of TANF funds. No one supports the concepts of this Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. We all know it replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the AFDC program, that assisted so many States, including mine for so many years. But this now is a block grant program that works in conjunction with the welfare-to-work concepts, and that is very vital for the States. We know that. And I think the fear that was engendered in those States that somehow or other we might not keep the commitment that was made, that if they make those expenditures we would repay them according to the formula under the law that was passed in 1996, the Welfare Reform Act, is unfortunate and wrong. I hope that someone in the administration is listening. One of these days I will find some way to tweak the nose of the people who keep doing this, because they did it in the terms of border guards last week, and now they are doing it in terms of the States themselves in terms of the comments that have been made that somehow or other we were taking money that the States were entitled to; we were deferring money that they were entitled to, [[Page S2899]] which they would never get under the process of the law anyway until the time we deferred the expenditures. As a matter of fact, some people on this side of the aisle have argued with me to say this is not a full offset because I know that I am offsetting the expenditures under this bill against a fund that would never be expended this year. That is partially true. That is why we have declared an emergency, as far as the outlays, and we have admitted that, and we have said that is the only way we can do it. But we need to do it. I hope, in particular, my new friend from New York will understand that we are doing this to meet his objections and others, and we do so in the spirit of compromise. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York. Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to, on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself, thank Chairman Stevens, as well as Senator Byrd, for their assistance in removing the $350 million offset from the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, account, which would have deferred the funds until 2002. Mr. President, I and many others in New York feared that this offset set us off on the wrong course, that it would run counter to the intention of the welfare reform bill which allowed States to set aside TANF funds for use at a later date when welfare rolls would rise, such as during a future recession. My State, as the chairman knows, was particularly affected. The State was the source of nearly a quarter, about $80 million, of the $350 million that was offset. So I am pleased that the alternative offset would shift some HUD funds from one fiscal year to the next, funds that never would have been used. We have checked with both the administration as well as our side on Housing and on Banking and on Appropriations, and they agree with that. I say to the chairman that I appreciate very much the spirit of compromise in which this was offered. I understand his view and I will bring that message back to our State. The people of New York will now be breathing a sigh of relief that this has been replaced. I also thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, who worked with me on this. He found his State in a similar position as ours. At least for my first foray into the Senate legislative process, it has been a bipartisan and productive effort. For that, I very much thank the chairman for his understanding of our needs and yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to ask for adoption of the amendment but I will not move to reconsider because there may be some who want to discuss this, too. I will make a motion to reconsider this later today. May I reserve the right to make that later today? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion can be made today or any of the next 2 following days. Mr. STEVENS. I shall make it this afternoon, and I ask for the adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 80) was agreed to. Amendment No. 81 (Purpose: To set forth restrictions on deployment of United States Armed Forces in Kosovo) Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an amendment numbered 81. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: On page 58, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following: TITLE ____ RESTRICTIONS ON DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN KOSOVO SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``____________ Act of 1999''. SEC. ____02. DEFINITION. In this title, the term ``Yugoslavia'' means the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). SEC. ____03. FUNDING LIMITATION. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense, including funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and prior fiscal years, may be obligated or expended for any deployment of ground forces of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo unless and until-- (1) the parties to the conflict in Kosovo have signed an agreement for the establishment of peace in Kosovo; (2) the President has transmitted to Congress the report provided for under section 8115 of Public Law 105-262 (112 Stat. 2327); and (3) the President has transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report containing-- (A) a certification-- (i) that deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the United States; (ii) that-- (I) the President will submit to Congress an amended budget for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 not later than 60 days after the commencement of the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo that includes an amount sufficient for such deployment; and (II) such amended budget will provide for an increase in the total amount for the major functional budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) for fiscal year 2000 by at least the total amount proposed for the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo (as compared to the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 for major functional budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) in the budget that the President submitted to Congress February 1, 1999); and (iii) that-- (I) not later than 120 days after the commencement of the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo, forces of the Armed Forces of the United States will be withdrawn from on-going military operations in locations where maintaining the current level of the Armed Forces of the United States (as of the date of certification) is no longer considered vital to the national security interests of the United States; and (II) each such withdrawal will be undertaken only after consultation with the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; (B) an explanation of the reasons why the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the United States; (C) the total number of the United States military personnel that are to be deployed in Kosovo and the number of personnel to be committed to the direct support of the international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo, including ground troops, air support, logistics support, and intelligence support; (D) the percentage that the total number of personnel of the United States Armed Forces specified in subparagraph (C) bears to the total number of the military personnel of all NATO nations participating in the international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo; (E) a description of the responsibilities of the United States military force participating in the international peacekeeping operation to enforce any provision of the Kosovo peace agreement; and (F) a clear identification of the benchmarks for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo, together with a description of those benchmarks and the estimated dates by which those benchmarks can and will be achieved. (b) Consultation.-- (1) In general.--Prior to the conduct of any air operations by the Armed Forces of the United States against Yugoslavia, the President shall consult with the joint congressional leadership and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to those operations. (2) Definitions.--In this subsection: (A) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (i) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. (B) Joint congressional leadership.--The term ``joint congressional leadership'' means-- (i) the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate. SEC. ____04. REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING BENCHMARKS. Thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a detailed report on the benchmarks that are established to measure progress and determine the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo. Each report shall include-- [[Page S2900]] (1) a detailed description of the benchmarks for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Kosovo; (2) the objective criteria for evaluating successful achievement of the benchmarks; (3) an analysis of the progress made in achieving the benchmarks; (4) a comparison of the current status on achieving the benchmarks with the progress described in the last report submitted under this section; (5) the specific responsibilities assigned to the implementation force in assisting in the achievement of the benchmarks; (6) the estimated timetable for achieving the benchmarks; and (7) the status of plans and preparations for withdrawal of the implementing force once the objective criteria for achieving the benchmarks have been met. SEC. ____05. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this title restricts the authority of the President to protect the lives of United States citizens. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment now be laid aside and no call for regular order, except one made by myself or the mover of the amendment, the Senator from Texas, serve to bring back the pending amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendments Nos. 82 Through 88, En Bloc Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a package of amendments that have been cleared and I would like to say for the record what they are. They are: An amendment by Senator McCain to extend the Aviation Insurance Program through May 31, 1999. An amendment by Senator Grassley providing $1.4 million to expedite adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Health and Human Services Appeal Board. It also provides for an offset for that amount of $1.4 million. We have Senator Shelby's amendment which makes a technical correction to title IV. We have an amendment by Senator Byrd making a technical correction to the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program in the bill. An amendment by Senator Frist and Senator Thompson providing $3.2 million for repairs to Jackson, TN, Army aviation facility damaged by a tornado in January. It also provides for an offset in the same amount. An amendment by myself for a technical correction to the current year, 1999's Commerce-Justice-State bill, and provides for rules on the taking of Beluga whales. I send these amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Frist and Mr. Thompson, proposes amendments numbered 82 through 88, en bloc, as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 82 (Purpose: To extend the aviation insurance program through May 31, 1999) At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. 17. EXTENSION OF AVIATION INSURANCE PROGRAM. Section 44310 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 31, 1999.'' and inserting ``May 31, 1999.''. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 83 (Purpose: Expediting adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Department of Health and Human Services Appeals Board) On page 29, insert after line 10: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary General Departmental Management For an additional amount for `'general departmental management'', $1,400,000, to reduce the backlog of pending nursing home appeals before the Departmental Appeals Board. On page 42, line 8, strike $3,116,076,000 and insert $3,114,676,000 On page 42, line 9, strike $164,933,000 and insert $163,533,000. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to speed up adjudication, by the appeals board of the Department of Health and Human Services, of appeals from nursing facilities of civil monetary penalties levied by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for violations of standards established pursuant to the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. Currently, there is a substantial backlog of some 701 such cases. Delay in final adjudication of such cases subverts the purpose and effect of civil monetary penalties, delaying corrective action, and improvements in the quality of care offered by nursing facilities. Delays in adjudication of these cases also burdens nursing facilities through additional legal fees and the perpetuation of uncertainty caused by unresolved disputes. The number of such cases filed each year by nursing facilities has increased each year since 1995, the year when regulations for the Nursing Home Reform Act's enforcement standards went into effect. Currently, as I noted earlier in my statement, there are 701 such cases pending. Mr. President, the steady increase in appeals of civil monetary penalties since 1995 shows the effect of increased use, by the States and HCFA, of the enforcement regulations which went into effect in 1995. Nevertheless, in hearings I held in the Special Committee on Aging last July, the General Accounting Office reported that nursing facilities providing poor quality of care regularly escaped sanctions which could cause care to be improved. The pattern seemed to be that a facility would be sanctioned for poor quality of care, be required to attest in writing through a plan of correction that steps had been taken to improve care, and then be found deficient on the next visit from State officials. This pattern often continued for long periods of time. And when sanctions such as civil monetary penalties were levied by HCFA, the sanctioned facilities would appeal, causing lengthy delays in final resolution of the case. One week before my July hearings, President Clinton launched a variety of new initiatives designed to improve the quality of care in nursing facilities. Among those new initiatives was one designed to eliminate paper compliance with quality standards and to proceed more quickly to sanctions for those homes with a history of poor care. The upshot of oversight by the Special Committee on Aging and the Presidential initiatives is that there has been a substantial increase thus far in 1999 of appeals of civil monetary penalties by nursing facilities. Certainly, facilities have the right to appeal sanctions levied by HCFA. But it is also important that appeals be heard and resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Delay subverts improvement in the quality of care in nursing facilities as real deficiencies go uncorrected. Delay also slows the development of precedents which would clarify outstanding issues. Slow development of such precedents encourages facilities and their legal representatives to file appeals because guidance as to the worthiness of an appeal is lacking. And, as the body of precedents becomes more complete, adjudication of cases becomes speedier. The root problem has been that the departmental appeals board does not have sufficient resources to keep up with the increase in new cases, to say nothing of working off the current backlog of cases. I am given to understand that, at the present time about 25 new cases are filed with the appeals board each week. As will be clear from the table I am attaching to my statement, the number of cases decided each year has averaged around 23 for the last 3 years. Clearly, the board is swamped and needs help. The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes $2.8 million for the board. Were the Congress to provide those funds, it will certainly take time for the appeals board to gear up and begin to speed up adjudication of appeals.We can't wait to begin addressing this problem, Mr. President. The amendment I offer would provide $1.4 million to be made available through the supplemental appropriation we are now considering. I have not proposed to provide the full $2.8 million the President's budget proposes for the next fiscal year because the appeals board could not effectively spend that amount in what remains of the fiscal year. Therefore, I have essentially prorated that amount over the time remaining in this fiscal year. amendment no. 84 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: [[Page S2901]] Sec. . Title 49 Recodification Correction.--Effective December 31, 1998, section 4(k) of the Act of July 5, 1994 (Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 1370), as amended by section 7(a)(3)(D) of the Act of October 31, 1994 (Public Law 103- 429, 108 Stat. 4329), is repealed. amendment no. 85 (Purpose: To make a technical correction) On page 16, strike beginning with line 12 through page 23, line 8, and insert the following: Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. (a) Short Title.-- This section may be cited as the ``Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999''. (b) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) the United States steel industry has been severely harmed by a record surge of more than 40,000,000 tons of steel imports into the United States in 1998, caused by the world financial crisis; (2) this surge in imports resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 steel worker jobs in 1998, and was the imminent cause of 3 bankruptcies by medium-sized steel companies, Acme Steel, Laclede Steel, and Geneva Steel; (3) the crisis also forced almost all United States steel companies into-- (A) reduced volume, lower prices, and financial losses; and (B) an inability to obtain credit for continued operations and reinvestment in facilities; (4) the crisis also has affected the willingness of private banks and investment institutions to make loans to the U.S. steel industry for continued operation and reinvestment in facilities; (5) these steel bankruptcies, job losses, and financial losses are also having serious negative effects on the tax base of cities, counties, and States, and on the essential health, education, and municipal services that these government entities provide to their citizens; and (6) a strong steel industry is necessary to the adequate defense preparedness of the United States in order to have sufficient steel available to build the ships, tanks, planes, and armaments necessary for the national defense. (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section-- (1) the term ``Board'' means the Loan Guarantee Board established under subsection (e); (2) the term ``Program'' means the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program established under subsection (d); and (3) the term ``qualified steel company'' means any company that-- (A) is incorporated under the laws of any State; (B) is engaged in the production and manufacture of a product defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a basic steel mill product, including ingots, slab and billets, plates, flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products, bars, rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod; and (C) has experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses since the beginning of the steel import crisis, after January 1, 1998. (d) Establishment of Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program.--There is established the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program, to be administered by the Board, the purpose of which is to provide loan guarantees to qualified steel companies in accordance with this section. (e) Loan Guarantee Board Membership.--There is established a Loan Guarantee Board, which shall be composed of-- (1) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall serve as Chairman of the Board; (2) the Secretary of Labor; and (3) the Secretary of the Treasury. (f) Loan Guarantee Program.-- (1) Authority.--The Program may guarantee loans provided to qualified steel companies by private banking and investment institutions in accordance with the procedures, rules, and regulations established by the Board. (2) Total guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans guaranteed and outstanding at any 1 time under this section may not exceed $1,000,000,000. (3) Individual guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans guaranteed under this section with respect to a single qualified steel company may not exceed $250,000,000. (4) Minimum guarantee amount.--No single loan in an amount that is less than $25,000,000 may be guaranteed under this section. (5) Timelines.--The Board shall approve or deny each application for a guarantee under this section as soon as possible after receipt of such application. (6) Additional costs.--For the additional cost of the loans guaranteed under this subsection, including the costs of modifying the loans as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a), there is appropriated $140,000,000 to remain available until expended. (g) Requirements for Loan Guarantees.--A loan guarantee may be issued under this section upon application to the Board by a qualified steel company pursuant to an agreement to provide a loan to that qualified steel company by a private bank or investment company, if the Board determines that-- (1) credit is not otherwise available to that company under reasonable terms or conditions sufficient to meet its financing needs, as reflected in the financial and business plans of that company; (2) the prospective earning power of that company, together with the character and value of the security pledged, furnish reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan to be guaranteed in accordance with its terms; (3) the loan to be guaranteed bears interest at a rate determined by the Board to be reasonable, taking into account the current average yield on outstanding obligations of the United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable to the maturity of such loan; and (4) the company has agreed to an audit by the General Accounting Office, prior to the issuance of the loan guarantee and annually while any such guaranteed loan is outstanding. (h) Terms and Conditions of Loan Guarantees.-- (1) Loan duration.--All loans guaranteed under this section shall be payable in full not later than December 31, 2005, and the terms and conditions of each such loan shall provide that the loan may not be amended, or any provision thereof waived, without the consent of the Board. (2) Loan security.--Any commitment to issue a loan guarantee under this section shall contain such affirmative and negative covenants and other protective provisions that the Board determines are appropriate. The Board shall require security for the loans to be guaranteed under this section at the time at which the commitment is made. (3) Fees.--A qualified steel company receiving a guarantee under this section shall pay a fee in an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal balance of the guaranteed loan to the Department of the Treasury. (i) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress annually, a full report of the activities of the Board under this section during fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and annually thereafter, during such period as any loan guaranteed under this section is outstanding. (j) Salaries and Administrative Expenses.--For necessary expenses to administer the Program, $5,000,000 is appropriated to the Department of Commerce, to remain available until expended, which may be transferred to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of the International Trade Administration. (k) Termination of Guarantee Authority.--The authority of the Board to make commitments to guarantee any loan under this section shall terminate on December 31, 2001. (l) Regulatory Action.--The Board shall issue such final procedures, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. (m) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made available to carry out this section-- (1) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)); and (2) shall be available only to the extent that an official budget request that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement (as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) is transmitted by the President to Congress. AMENDMENT NO. 86 (Purpose: To increase, with a rescission, the supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military construction for the Army National Guard) On page 30, line 1, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert ``$14,500,000''. On page 43, line 12, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert ``$14,500,000''. amendment no. 87 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the taking of a Cook Inlet beluga whale under the exemption provided in section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)) between the date of the enactment of this Act and October 1, 2000 shall be considered a violation of such Act unless such taking occurs pursuant to a cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission. amendment no. 88 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: Sec. . Funds provided in the Department of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, Division A, Section 101(b)) for the construction of correctional facility in Barrow, Alaska shall be made available to the North Slope Borough. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc. The amendments (Nos. 82 through 88) were agreed to. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, is here and he will offer an amendment. After he has presented his amendment, I state to the Senator it will be my intention to move to table his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on that motion to table and the vote on the motion to table the Harkin amendment occur at 2:30. [[Page S2902]] Mr. HARKIN. Torricelli. Mr. STEVENS. Torricelli/Harkin amendment occur at 2:30. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Amendment No. 89 (Purpose: To require prior congressional approval before the United States supports the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization) Mr. HUTCHINSON. I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an amendment numbered 89. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following new section: SEC. ____. PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR SUPPORTING ADMISSION OF CHINA INTO THE WTO. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States may not support the admission of the People's Republic of China as a member of the World Trade Organization unless a provision of law is passed by both Houses of Congress and enacted into law after the enactment of this Act that specifically allows the United States to support such admission. (b) Procedures for Congressional Approval of United States Support for Admission of China Into the WTO.-- (1) Notification of congress.--The President shall notify the Congress in writing if the President determines that the United States should support the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization. (2) Support of china's admission into the wto.--The United States may support the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization if a joint resolution is enacted into law under subsection (c) and the Congress adopts and transmits the joint resolution to the President before the end of the 90-day period (excluding any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974), beginning on the date on which the Congress receives the notification referred to in paragraph (1). (c) Joint Resolution.-- (1) Joint resolution.--For purposes of this section, the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the 2 Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That the Congress approves the support of the United States for the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization.''. (2) Procedures.-- (A) In general.--A joint resolution may be introduced at any time on or after the date on which the Congress receives the notification referred to in subsection (b)(1), and before the end of the 90-day period referred to in subsection (b)(2). A joint resolution may be introduced in either House of the Congress by any member of such House. (B) Application of section 152.--Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the provisions of subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(b), (d), (e), and (f)) apply to a joint resolution under this section to the same extent as such provisions apply to resolutions under section 152. (C) Discharge of committee.--If the committee of either House to which a joint resolution has been referred has not reported it by the close of the 45th day after its introduction (excluding any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974), such committee shall be automatically discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar. (D) Consideration by appropriate committee.--It is not in order for-- (i) the Senate to consider any joint resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on Finance or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C); or (ii) the House of Representatives to consider any joint resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on Ways and Means or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C). (E) Consideration in the house.--A motion in the House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a joint resolution may only be made on the second legislative day after the calendar day on which the Member making the motion announces to the House his or her intention to do so. (3) Consideration of second resolution not in order.--It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider a joint resolution (other than a joint resolution received from the other House), if that House has previously adopted a joint resolution under this section. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN. I am just trying to find out from the Senator, is there a time allotment or not? Mr. STEVENS. When the Senator finishes, I will make a motion to table. It should be about 1 o'clock. Mr. HARKIN. I just didn't know---- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have not asked for a time limitation on the Senator making his presentation, but he knows that as soon as he finishes, I will make a motion to table. Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is going to table both at 2:30? Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make a motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, and after the Senator from Iowa, I will make a motion, but I got unanimous consent that those votes occur at 2:30. Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has the floor? Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question--for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand the distinguished Senator from Alaska is saying he is going to move to table. I would like to speak on the amendment, but the Senator is moving to table as soon as the Senator is finished. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would be pleased if the Senator would agree to try to reach a time agreement on that, because we have other Senators wishing to offer amendments this afternoon also. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, first, that the Senator yield to me? I apologize. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman. Mr. STEVENS. How much time would the Senator like to have? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think for my presentation I probably only need 15 minutes. If there are those who speak against the amendment, I would like to yield proportionally then. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I still have the floor, how much time does the Senator from Montana seek? Mr. BAUCUS. I was thinking of 10, 15 minutes. Mr. STEVENS. Could we have an agreement that there be 30 minutes on this amendment? Is the Senator from Montana speaking against the amendment? Mr. BAUCUS. I am speaking against the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object---- Mr. STEVENS. I am seeking a limitation of 30 minutes on the amendment, that the time following that time to be--I will make a motion to table, only a motion to table be in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection---- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that Senators Roth and Moynihan wish to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be expanded to 40 minutes to be followed only by a motion to table offered by me. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object. Mr. STEVENS. Forty-five minutes. The Senator wants to close. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suspect the others the Senator mentioned are going to speak in opposition. There are some who might want to speak in favor. If we are going to extend the time afforded Senators who want to speak against, I think we might have trouble extending the time with that restriction. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do desire to limit the time if possible, so we can have a vote when the Senate comes back out of that conference. Could we agree to 30 minutes on a side? Is there objection to 30 minutes on a side? I renew my request---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. The agreement then is 1 hour equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. [[Page S2903]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. This is a very straightforward amendment that simply says that before China can be admitted to the World Trade Organization, there will have to be a joint resolution passed by the Congress supporting that accession of China to the World Trade Organization. It is very simple. It is simply saying we should have a voice in this. We should not have the administration arbitrarily and unilaterally making a very, very significant and major decision without the input of the U.S. Congress and this body. It does not prejudge what should happen. It does not say whether China should be in or not. There may be very compelling arguments that could be presented in such a debate. But it does say that before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization, every Senator in this body ought to have an opportunity to look at the evidence and have a say in the outcome of that debate. That is why we need this amendment, because Congress needs to, once again, assert its constitutional responsibility in the area of foreign commerce. I believe we must do it now for a couple of reasons. It is the only opportunity we are going to have before the recess, and our only opportunity before Zhu Rongji visits this Nation next month. He will come during our Easter recess. So, if Congress is going to have any kind of statement on this, if we are going to be able to take any kind of action on this, we must take it now. I know some of my colleagues will say this should have gone through committee. In an ideal world I would agree. It is very straightforward. I do not think it would require a great deal of debate, as to whether someone is for it or against it, but ideally that is where it should have gone. But, once again, the stream of negotiations that have taken place in recent weeks between our country and the Chinese Government, with our officials going to China--Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Secretary of State Albright, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky have all been making repeated trips to China-- negotiating, obviously; attempting to broker a deal on the World Trade Organization accession of China. If we wait for an announcement by the administration that a deal has been reached, an announcement by the administration that the outlines of an agreement have been reached, we will make China's membership in the WTO a fait accompli. Any effort to stop it after the fact, after the negotiations are completed and after an agreement has been announced, I think will be too late for this body to really make a difference. The amendment is, as I said, very straightforward. It would require a joint resolution to be passed before the United States could support admission of China into the WTO. Again, it does not preclude our support for China's entry. It simply sends a clear statement that Congress should be involved in the process of deciding U.S. support for China's accession into the WTO. The administration should not make any hasty deals with China. We must give careful consideration to the timing as well as to the consequences of Chinese accession. Congress must be thoroughly involved in that debate. We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the most populous nation in the world, and, as we hear so often, the largest market in the world, in a vacuum. There are certain facts that we must face; there is a political environment in which all of these negotiations are occurring. The Chinese have used espionage to obtain important nuclear secrets from the United States. That is a matter that must be fully investigated. I believe it will be. I believe the appropriate oversight committees are moving expeditiously to investigate. But it certainly is not going to happen before we go out on the Easter recess. We may have hearings next week, but we will not see the end of this, we will not have all the facts on the table, before the Easter recess and before Zhu Rongji visits this country. Another fact that faces us is our trade deficit with the Chinese is at an alarming all-time high of $56.9 billion for 1998. It is rising exponentially every year. That reality ought to cause us to pause before we see the administration rush into a WTO deal. The Chinese continue to keep many of their markets closed, particularly to our agricultural sector, our farmers, who are in such crisis. The Chinese have signed and blatantly disregarded the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have engaged in a widespread crackdown on prodemocracy activists in China, effectively silencing all political dissent. We cannot give WTO membership in a vacuum, ignoring all other realities that face us. The 1999 State Department report on China, released in the last few weeks, demonstrably proves China's ignoring of the very covenant on civil and political rights that they signed last year. If we cannot trust them to live up to a human rights covenant that they signed, how can we assume they are going to live according to the rules and the obligations of the World Trade Organization? There is an issue of trust. They have not justified the trust we would show in placing them in the World Trade Organization. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress express power over foreign commerce. There is no question but that this is our right. There is no question in this Senator's mind that it is our responsibility to step forward and say: WTO membership for China will not be granted without a debate in the House and Senate and a joint resolution. There are serious questions that the House and the Senate need to address. For us to sit back and go off on our Easter vacation, to go off on recess, to hold our town meetings or to take our trips around the world, and to have been silent on this issue, I think, at this time, will be indefensible. I suspect there will be some kind of announcement on the U.S. position on China's membership in the WTO while we are gone. Then we would never have had the opportunity to debate very important questions. I do not have all of the answers to these questions, but I know they are serious questions and I know the Senator from Montana, the Senator from Alabama, who was on the floor just a moment ago, and myself ought to have a right, before we have the United States taking a position on WTO membership, to debate that on the floor of the Senate, to thoroughly examine the questions that have not yet been answered. One question I would have is this: Are we lowering the WTO bar for China, to rush them into membership? Since 1995, four countries have completed negotiations on accession protocol: Ecuador, Mongolia, Bulgaria, and Panama. All four of these nations were required to eliminate, on the date of accession or with very short transitions, trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. That has been the standard. Since 1995 the four nations that have sought to enter the WTO have been required to eliminate their trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. But China has firmly and continuously and repeatedly said they want a different standard. They want a longer transition period. They do not want to meet those WTO rules at the time of or soon after their accession to the WTO. That is a question I believe this body deserves the opportunity to investigate and debate thoroughly before we announce a national position regarding China's admission. Another question I think is a serious question for debate: Are we allowing China into the WTO before they have made the kind of market reforms to bring them into conformity with WTO standards? The administration argues if we will just let China in, we will have greater influence on China's reform efforts than we do now while they are outside of the World Trade Organization. I suppose that is debatable. But we ought to have the opportunity to have that debate. In my estimation, our influence on China would be far greater before they are admitted to the World Trade Organization than afterwards. Our ability to influence the kind of reforms the World Trade Organization would desire will be far greater if we say you are going to accrue the benefits of trade under the WTO only after these market reforms have taken place, these trade barriers have been lowered. Reforms should first be enacted, changes should first occur, and then membership should be granted --not vice versa. [[Page S2904]] I think this question deserves debate: Can China be trusted on trade issues? When we look at our exploding trade deficit with China, can they be trusted on trade issues if admitted to the World Trade Organization, or will we admit them to the World Trade Organization and then find them cavalierly ignoring the standards and the rules of the World Trade Organization? Our administration's own Trade Representative Barshefsky stated in her testimony, a little over 2 years ago, in reference to China, that ``China imposes new import barriers to replace those it removed.'' In other words, there can be the appearance of reform taking place, but if there are new barriers that are being erected while the old ones are being brought down, you really have not achieved the reforms necessary for World Trade Organization membership. China has almost one-third of its industrial production controlled by the state. Almost two-thirds of urban workers are employed in state- owned enterprises. These state-owned enterprises are notorious for their ability to destroy wealth. Some economists estimate that it would be cheaper for China to close down their state-owned enterprises and keep paying the workers--close down the enterprises, go ahead and pay them their salaries, they would still come out ahead, than to keep operating. But because the state-owned enterprises would be vulnerable to foreign competition, the Chinese Government has a strong disincentive to the state-owned enterprises that are heavily subsidized through China's centralized and insolvent banking system. One of the pledges that the Chinese Government made was that they would rapidly privatize the state-owned enterprises, shutting down those that they had to, privatizing others, allowing them to create capital by selling stock, but because of the recent economic downturn in China in which their robust growth rate has dropped appreciably, China now has backed off that pledge and has once again begun a round of bank loans to these very unprofitable, state-owned enterprises to subsidize them and to keep them in business. This is backpedaling already on the kinds of reforms that would be expected if China were in fact ready for admission to the World Trade Organization. Another question that this body needs to debate is, Should China be admitted as a developing country with far less stringent expectations and longer transition than allowed for other nations? That is what they desire. They say we are a developing Nation; therefore, we should be treated more leniently. They base their claim primarily upon their per capita gross domestic product. By every other measure, China is a major economic power in the world today and they want to be treated as such. They want to be recognized as a major economic power. China will argue that as a developing country, they are entitled to use subsidies. They are entitled to put limits on exports and other policies to promote development of certain key industries such as automobiles and telecommunications and heavy industrial equipment. China maintains that such programs are a part of China's industrial policy and not related to its application to the World Trade Organization. Many trade officials simply disagree with that assertion by the Chinese Government. That is a question and that is an issue the Senate should have the opportunity to debate, not after the fact but before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization and before the U.S. Government announces its position on Chinese accession. A WTO paper, prepared in response to a request from Chinese negotiators, suggested that industrial policies in China and other countries could violate the basic principles of nondiscrimination and national treatment and other WTO rules. They are not in compliance. They are not ready to join the WTO. Political considerations should not be the driving force in rushing China into the WTO before they have made necessary reforms. Another question I believe we should debate is this: Should China be given membership in WTO before Taiwan, which is simultaneously seeking membership? Will it be the position of the U.S. Government that we support the admission of People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization while not yet supporting Taiwan's admission? Which one should be admitted first? I think that is an important issue. I think that is one my colleagues in the Senate deserve to have the opportunity to discuss thoroughly. Many believe that once China is admitted, they will work feverishly to block Taiwan's entry, even though Taiwan is a much more developed Nation, has a much more developed economy, and an economy which is much more consistent with WTO rules. Yet without a vote of the Senate or a vote of the House, this administration is prepared to support the admission of China to the WTO before Taiwan's admission. I believe this question deserves debate as well: Will a premature entry by China into WTO hurt American business interests? I know that large corporate interests in this country support China's immediate accession to WTO, but many business people in this country have serious concerns as to how China's admission to WTO will impact them. U.S. business interests often want permanent MFN for China and would like to use an agreement on WTO, I believe, as a means to push for this goal, but many of these business interests are also concerned that China's WTO accession, without meeting market access and other requirements, would seriously limit U.S. business access to the Chinese market for a long time to come. The very access that American business wants so desperately, we would be locked out of that access permanently or for a long duration should they be admitted to the World Trade Organization before they have met market access rules. As a result, many U.S. interests are pushing U.S. negotiators to remain firm, to stand pat, and not concede on the conditions of China's entry into the World Trade Organization. I believe another question that this body needs to debate is, How will WTO admission for China affect jobs? Indeed, we should consider how it would affect our jobs here in the United States. I remind my colleagues, contained in this very supplemental appropriations bill, which we are soon prepared to vote on, is a measure to assist the U.S. steel industry and the jobs that go with it. Some of those jobs are in my home State of Arkansas, Mississippi County, Blytheville, AR, the No. 2 ranked county in the Nation in steel production. According to the Department of Commerce, last year alone the U.S.-China trade deficit in iron and steel was a $161 million loser for the United States. The year before that the U.S. realized a steel trade deficit of $141 million, and in 1996 the deficit was $140 million. Each year the deficit in iron and steel increases dramatically. My point is, this Congress should have a say in whether we allow an agreement to be made when our trade imbalance is what we experience, even without granting China World Trade Organization status. At the appropriate time, I would like to see China join the World Trade Organization and abide by its rules. I do not believe China is ready at this time to go beyond paying lip service to the fundamental changes necessary for accession, though I know some of my colleagues do believe that they are ready. However, I believe we can all agree that we ought not make this decision hastily. The consequences are too great and long lasting and, just as importantly, we ought not let the executive branch make this determination unilaterally. Article 1 of the Constitution gives to us, the Congress, the express power over foreign commerce. This decision is too important for us to cede that power, and this amendment is a means by which we can preserve our legitimate role in the legislative branch.

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
(Senate - March 18, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2898-S2919] EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the matter of the order governing the amendment of the Senator from Texas be set aside so that I may offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 80 (Purpose: To defer section 8 assistance for expiring contracts until October 1, 1999) Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment numbered 80. Inset on page 43, after line 15: ``PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING ``HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND ``(DEFERRAL) ``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public Law 105-276 for use in connection with expiring or terminating section 8 contracts, $350,000,000 shall not become available until October 1, 1999.''. On page 42, strike beginning with line 10 through the end of line 21. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with the provision in the bill that was reported from the committee that deferred spending from the temporary assistance to needy families account. This will defer, instead, monies from the section 8 fund of HUD. There is approximately $1.2 billion in that account. This will defer for 1 year the use of $350 million in that account. It replaces the TANF amendment in the bill. Under that amendment, we deferred until 2001 the availability of funds which are transferred to the States. Because of the misunderstanding about that fund, I want to explain why we use that fund in the first place. I am once again alarmed over the misinformation that has been spread by some people in that entity, that agency, to try and make it look like somehow or other we took monies away from States or any specific State. In the first place, these grant awards are made quarterly. Actual cash outlays are made, but they are not transferred to the States until the States make expenditures in their TANF programs, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. In other words, the States first make the payments, and we pay it back. Some people, in the House in particular, have said this a way that the States can use this money for a piggy bank. In no way can they take this money and put it into another bank account and draw interest on it if they comply with the law. That is one report I have heard--that we are preventing States from taking the money to put it into their own accounts. We checked and we found that there was between $3 billion and $3.5 billion at the close of fiscal year 1998 in this fund. There are two quarters that have not even been distributed yet of this fiscal year 1999. And it is clear that the States have spent some money, and there is plenty of money to meet the States' expenditures and their requests for reimbursement of those expenditures. But this is not a fund that the States can come to willy-nilly and transfer the funds to their accounts. Secondly, Mr. President, we deferred this money from obligation in this fiscal year--really until 2001, October 1, 2001. The States would not--the bill that was reported from the committee-- lose any of their funds. We, pursuant to the entitlement that was authorized, agreed that Federal funds, taxpayers' funds, in the amount of $16.5 billion, from 1997 through 2002, would be placed in this account, to be available to reimburse States for the expenditures they made for Assistance to Needy Families. Nothing in what the Appropriations Committee did harmed that program at all. But because by October 1 another $16.5 billion would have been added to $3 billion to $3.5 billion in that account--and there has never been a drawdown at the rate that would make those funds needed within that period of time. This is not a rainy day fund. We have been told that some people have said that States take these monies and put them in a rainy day fund to use at a later date. But the law says they can only get them to reimburse expenditures. If the administration is allowing this fund to be used as a rainy day account or a piggy bank account, it is wrong. We have had so many calls from so many States, including my own. And I see the Senator from New York is here, and I know that they have been besieged because of their population base. Of course, they are eligible for more money from this account, more than anyone other than California. But it depends on how much they spend before they can get it back. We made the decision to offset this bill. This is the first time we have offset totally a supplemental emergency bill. I have said to our committee, we ought to offset emergency funds with prior appropriated emergency funds and nonemergency funds with nonemergency prior appropriated funds. I think we are going to have a little discussion about that here on the floor. But clearly what we have done, Mr. President, is we have used this bill to reprogram prior appropriated funds. These funds that were appropriated to the TANF account are sitting there waiting for the States to spend money and then come and ask for it to be repaid. The process is so rapid that the administration has not paid the first two quarters of this year yet. So this is not something we have interfered with by deferring money until the second fiscal year. Because, as I said, this account would get $16.5 billion credited to it on October 1. What we have done is, in order to avoid this controversy--and we do not need a controversy on this bill. We need to get it done. This bill, in my opinion, is a very important bill. It will provide money for assistance because of a great natural disaster in a neighboring country in this hemisphere. The President asked us to declare that an emergency. We have taken the declaration of emergency through as far as the outlay categories are concerned, because it is very difficult to score under the budget process outlays that come from emergency accounts. We have not taken an emergency declaration through on those things that we believe are nonemergency in terms of the authorization process. So by that I mean, I fail to understand how we should extend the concept of emergency appropriations to natural disasters off our shores. We should be able to find the money, if we want to be good humanitarian members of this hemisphere, to assist our neighbors. I believe we should assist them. But I do not believe we should use the laws that were intended to demand taxpayers' funds immediately to meet natural disasters or declared emergencies by the President of the United States within the boundaries of our United States. So Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the spirit of compromise, to try and take away this battle that I saw coming over the use of TANF funds. No one supports the concepts of this Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. We all know it replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the AFDC program, that assisted so many States, including mine for so many years. But this now is a block grant program that works in conjunction with the welfare-to-work concepts, and that is very vital for the States. We know that. And I think the fear that was engendered in those States that somehow or other we might not keep the commitment that was made, that if they make those expenditures we would repay them according to the formula under the law that was passed in 1996, the Welfare Reform Act, is unfortunate and wrong. I hope that someone in the administration is listening. One of these days I will find some way to tweak the nose of the people who keep doing this, because they did it in the terms of border guards last week, and now they are doing it in terms of the States themselves in terms of the comments that have been made that somehow or other we were taking money that the States were entitled to; we were deferring money that they were entitled to, [[Page S2899]] which they would never get under the process of the law anyway until the time we deferred the expenditures. As a matter of fact, some people on this side of the aisle have argued with me to say this is not a full offset because I know that I am offsetting the expenditures under this bill against a fund that would never be expended this year. That is partially true. That is why we have declared an emergency, as far as the outlays, and we have admitted that, and we have said that is the only way we can do it. But we need to do it. I hope, in particular, my new friend from New York will understand that we are doing this to meet his objections and others, and we do so in the spirit of compromise. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York. Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to, on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself, thank Chairman Stevens, as well as Senator Byrd, for their assistance in removing the $350 million offset from the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, account, which would have deferred the funds until 2002. Mr. President, I and many others in New York feared that this offset set us off on the wrong course, that it would run counter to the intention of the welfare reform bill which allowed States to set aside TANF funds for use at a later date when welfare rolls would rise, such as during a future recession. My State, as the chairman knows, was particularly affected. The State was the source of nearly a quarter, about $80 million, of the $350 million that was offset. So I am pleased that the alternative offset would shift some HUD funds from one fiscal year to the next, funds that never would have been used. We have checked with both the administration as well as our side on Housing and on Banking and on Appropriations, and they agree with that. I say to the chairman that I appreciate very much the spirit of compromise in which this was offered. I understand his view and I will bring that message back to our State. The people of New York will now be breathing a sigh of relief that this has been replaced. I also thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, who worked with me on this. He found his State in a similar position as ours. At least for my first foray into the Senate legislative process, it has been a bipartisan and productive effort. For that, I very much thank the chairman for his understanding of our needs and yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to ask for adoption of the amendment but I will not move to reconsider because there may be some who want to discuss this, too. I will make a motion to reconsider this later today. May I reserve the right to make that later today? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion can be made today or any of the next 2 following days. Mr. STEVENS. I shall make it this afternoon, and I ask for the adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 80) was agreed to. Amendment No. 81 (Purpose: To set forth restrictions on deployment of United States Armed Forces in Kosovo) Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an amendment numbered 81. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: On page 58, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following: TITLE ____ RESTRICTIONS ON DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN KOSOVO SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``____________ Act of 1999''. SEC. ____02. DEFINITION. In this title, the term ``Yugoslavia'' means the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). SEC. ____03. FUNDING LIMITATION. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense, including funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and prior fiscal years, may be obligated or expended for any deployment of ground forces of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo unless and until-- (1) the parties to the conflict in Kosovo have signed an agreement for the establishment of peace in Kosovo; (2) the President has transmitted to Congress the report provided for under section 8115 of Public Law 105-262 (112 Stat. 2327); and (3) the President has transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report containing-- (A) a certification-- (i) that deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the United States; (ii) that-- (I) the President will submit to Congress an amended budget for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 not later than 60 days after the commencement of the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo that includes an amount sufficient for such deployment; and (II) such amended budget will provide for an increase in the total amount for the major functional budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) for fiscal year 2000 by at least the total amount proposed for the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo (as compared to the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 for major functional budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) in the budget that the President submitted to Congress February 1, 1999); and (iii) that-- (I) not later than 120 days after the commencement of the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo, forces of the Armed Forces of the United States will be withdrawn from on-going military operations in locations where maintaining the current level of the Armed Forces of the United States (as of the date of certification) is no longer considered vital to the national security interests of the United States; and (II) each such withdrawal will be undertaken only after consultation with the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; (B) an explanation of the reasons why the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the United States; (C) the total number of the United States military personnel that are to be deployed in Kosovo and the number of personnel to be committed to the direct support of the international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo, including ground troops, air support, logistics support, and intelligence support; (D) the percentage that the total number of personnel of the United States Armed Forces specified in subparagraph (C) bears to the total number of the military personnel of all NATO nations participating in the international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo; (E) a description of the responsibilities of the United States military force participating in the international peacekeeping operation to enforce any provision of the Kosovo peace agreement; and (F) a clear identification of the benchmarks for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo, together with a description of those benchmarks and the estimated dates by which those benchmarks can and will be achieved. (b) Consultation.-- (1) In general.--Prior to the conduct of any air operations by the Armed Forces of the United States against Yugoslavia, the President shall consult with the joint congressional leadership and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to those operations. (2) Definitions.--In this subsection: (A) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (i) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. (B) Joint congressional leadership.--The term ``joint congressional leadership'' means-- (i) the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate. SEC. ____04. REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING BENCHMARKS. Thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a detailed report on the benchmarks that are established to measure progress and determine the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo. Each report shall include-- [[Page S2900]] (1) a detailed description of the benchmarks for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Kosovo; (2) the objective criteria for evaluating successful achievement of the benchmarks; (3) an analysis of the progress made in achieving the benchmarks; (4) a comparison of the current status on achieving the benchmarks with the progress described in the last report submitted under this section; (5) the specific responsibilities assigned to the implementation force in assisting in the achievement of the benchmarks; (6) the estimated timetable for achieving the benchmarks; and (7) the status of plans and preparations for withdrawal of the implementing force once the objective criteria for achieving the benchmarks have been met. SEC. ____05. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this title restricts the authority of the President to protect the lives of United States citizens. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment now be laid aside and no call for regular order, except one made by myself or the mover of the amendment, the Senator from Texas, serve to bring back the pending amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendments Nos. 82 Through 88, En Bloc Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a package of amendments that have been cleared and I would like to say for the record what they are. They are: An amendment by Senator McCain to extend the Aviation Insurance Program through May 31, 1999. An amendment by Senator Grassley providing $1.4 million to expedite adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Health and Human Services Appeal Board. It also provides for an offset for that amount of $1.4 million. We have Senator Shelby's amendment which makes a technical correction to title IV. We have an amendment by Senator Byrd making a technical correction to the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program in the bill. An amendment by Senator Frist and Senator Thompson providing $3.2 million for repairs to Jackson, TN, Army aviation facility damaged by a tornado in January. It also provides for an offset in the same amount. An amendment by myself for a technical correction to the current year, 1999's Commerce-Justice-State bill, and provides for rules on the taking of Beluga whales. I send these amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Frist and Mr. Thompson, proposes amendments numbered 82 through 88, en bloc, as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 82 (Purpose: To extend the aviation insurance program through May 31, 1999) At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. 17. EXTENSION OF AVIATION INSURANCE PROGRAM. Section 44310 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 31, 1999.'' and inserting ``May 31, 1999.''. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 83 (Purpose: Expediting adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Department of Health and Human Services Appeals Board) On page 29, insert after line 10: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary General Departmental Management For an additional amount for `'general departmental management'', $1,400,000, to reduce the backlog of pending nursing home appeals before the Departmental Appeals Board. On page 42, line 8, strike $3,116,076,000 and insert $3,114,676,000 On page 42, line 9, strike $164,933,000 and insert $163,533,000. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to speed up adjudication, by the appeals board of the Department of Health and Human Services, of appeals from nursing facilities of civil monetary penalties levied by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for violations of standards established pursuant to the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. Currently, there is a substantial backlog of some 701 such cases. Delay in final adjudication of such cases subverts the purpose and effect of civil monetary penalties, delaying corrective action, and improvements in the quality of care offered by nursing facilities. Delays in adjudication of these cases also burdens nursing facilities through additional legal fees and the perpetuation of uncertainty caused by unresolved disputes. The number of such cases filed each year by nursing facilities has increased each year since 1995, the year when regulations for the Nursing Home Reform Act's enforcement standards went into effect. Currently, as I noted earlier in my statement, there are 701 such cases pending. Mr. President, the steady increase in appeals of civil monetary penalties since 1995 shows the effect of increased use, by the States and HCFA, of the enforcement regulations which went into effect in 1995. Nevertheless, in hearings I held in the Special Committee on Aging last July, the General Accounting Office reported that nursing facilities providing poor quality of care regularly escaped sanctions which could cause care to be improved. The pattern seemed to be that a facility would be sanctioned for poor quality of care, be required to attest in writing through a plan of correction that steps had been taken to improve care, and then be found deficient on the next visit from State officials. This pattern often continued for long periods of time. And when sanctions such as civil monetary penalties were levied by HCFA, the sanctioned facilities would appeal, causing lengthy delays in final resolution of the case. One week before my July hearings, President Clinton launched a variety of new initiatives designed to improve the quality of care in nursing facilities. Among those new initiatives was one designed to eliminate paper compliance with quality standards and to proceed more quickly to sanctions for those homes with a history of poor care. The upshot of oversight by the Special Committee on Aging and the Presidential initiatives is that there has been a substantial increase thus far in 1999 of appeals of civil monetary penalties by nursing facilities. Certainly, facilities have the right to appeal sanctions levied by HCFA. But it is also important that appeals be heard and resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Delay subverts improvement in the quality of care in nursing facilities as real deficiencies go uncorrected. Delay also slows the development of precedents which would clarify outstanding issues. Slow development of such precedents encourages facilities and their legal representatives to file appeals because guidance as to the worthiness of an appeal is lacking. And, as the body of precedents becomes more complete, adjudication of cases becomes speedier. The root problem has been that the departmental appeals board does not have sufficient resources to keep up with the increase in new cases, to say nothing of working off the current backlog of cases. I am given to understand that, at the present time about 25 new cases are filed with the appeals board each week. As will be clear from the table I am attaching to my statement, the number of cases decided each year has averaged around 23 for the last 3 years. Clearly, the board is swamped and needs help. The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes $2.8 million for the board. Were the Congress to provide those funds, it will certainly take time for the appeals board to gear up and begin to speed up adjudication of appeals.We can't wait to begin addressing this problem, Mr. President. The amendment I offer would provide $1.4 million to be made available through the supplemental appropriation we are now considering. I have not proposed to provide the full $2.8 million the President's budget proposes for the next fiscal year because the appeals board could not effectively spend that amount in what remains of the fiscal year. Therefore, I have essentially prorated that amount over the time remaining in this fiscal year. amendment no. 84 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: [[Page S2901]] Sec. . Title 49 Recodification Correction.--Effective December 31, 1998, section 4(k) of the Act of July 5, 1994 (Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 1370), as amended by section 7(a)(3)(D) of the Act of October 31, 1994 (Public Law 103- 429, 108 Stat. 4329), is repealed. amendment no. 85 (Purpose: To make a technical correction) On page 16, strike beginning with line 12 through page 23, line 8, and insert the following: Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. (a) Short Title.-- This section may be cited as the ``Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999''. (b) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) the United States steel industry has been severely harmed by a record surge of more than 40,000,000 tons of steel imports into the United States in 1998, caused by the world financial crisis; (2) this surge in imports resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 steel worker jobs in 1998, and was the imminent cause of 3 bankruptcies by medium-sized steel companies, Acme Steel, Laclede Steel, and Geneva Steel; (3) the crisis also forced almost all United States steel companies into-- (A) reduced volume, lower prices, and financial losses; and (B) an inability to obtain credit for continued operations and reinvestment in facilities; (4) the crisis also has affected the willingness of private banks and investment institutions to make loans to the U.S. steel industry for continued operation and reinvestment in facilities; (5) these steel bankruptcies, job losses, and financial losses are also having serious negative effects on the tax base of cities, counties, and States, and on the essential health, education, and municipal services that these government entities provide to their citizens; and (6) a strong steel industry is necessary to the adequate defense preparedness of the United States in order to have sufficient steel available to build the ships, tanks, planes, and armaments necessary for the national defense. (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section-- (1) the term ``Board'' means the Loan Guarantee Board established under subsection (e); (2) the term ``Program'' means the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program established under subsection (d); and (3) the term ``qualified steel company'' means any company that-- (A) is incorporated under the laws of any State; (B) is engaged in the production and manufacture of a product defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a basic steel mill product, including ingots, slab and billets, plates, flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products, bars, rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod; and (C) has experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses since the beginning of the steel import crisis, after January 1, 1998. (d) Establishment of Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program.--There is established the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program, to be administered by the Board, the purpose of which is to provide loan guarantees to qualified steel companies in accordance with this section. (e) Loan Guarantee Board Membership.--There is established a Loan Guarantee Board, which shall be composed of-- (1) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall serve as Chairman of the Board; (2) the Secretary of Labor; and (3) the Secretary of the Treasury. (f) Loan Guarantee Program.-- (1) Authority.--The Program may guarantee loans provided to qualified steel companies by private banking and investment institutions in accordance with the procedures, rules, and regulations established by the Board. (2) Total guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans guaranteed and outstanding at any 1 time under this section may not exceed $1,000,000,000. (3) Individual guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans guaranteed under this section with respect to a single qualified steel company may not exceed $250,000,000. (4) Minimum guarantee amount.--No single loan in an amount that is less than $25,000,000 may be guaranteed under this section. (5) Timelines.--The Board shall approve or deny each application for a guarantee under this section as soon as possible after receipt of such application. (6) Additional costs.--For the additional cost of the loans guaranteed under this subsection, including the costs of modifying the loans as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a), there is appropriated $140,000,000 to remain available until expended. (g) Requirements for Loan Guarantees.--A loan guarantee may be issued under this section upon application to the Board by a qualified steel company pursuant to an agreement to provide a loan to that qualified steel company by a private bank or investment company, if the Board determines that-- (1) credit is not otherwise available to that company under reasonable terms or conditions sufficient to meet its financing needs, as reflected in the financial and business plans of that company; (2) the prospective earning power of that company, together with the character and value of the security pledged, furnish reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan to be guaranteed in accordance with its terms; (3) the loan to be guaranteed bears interest at a rate determined by the Board to be reasonable, taking into account the current average yield on outstanding obligations of the United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable to the maturity of such loan; and (4) the company has agreed to an audit by the General Accounting Office, prior to the issuance of the loan guarantee and annually while any such guaranteed loan is outstanding. (h) Terms and Conditions of Loan Guarantees.-- (1) Loan duration.--All loans guaranteed under this section shall be payable in full not later than December 31, 2005, and the terms and conditions of each such loan shall provide that the loan may not be amended, or any provision thereof waived, without the consent of the Board. (2) Loan security.--Any commitment to issue a loan guarantee under this section shall contain such affirmative and negative covenants and other protective provisions that the Board determines are appropriate. The Board shall require security for the loans to be guaranteed under this section at the time at which the commitment is made. (3) Fees.--A qualified steel company receiving a guarantee under this section shall pay a fee in an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal balance of the guaranteed loan to the Department of the Treasury. (i) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress annually, a full report of the activities of the Board under this section during fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and annually thereafter, during such period as any loan guaranteed under this section is outstanding. (j) Salaries and Administrative Expenses.--For necessary expenses to administer the Program, $5,000,000 is appropriated to the Department of Commerce, to remain available until expended, which may be transferred to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of the International Trade Administration. (k) Termination of Guarantee Authority.--The authority of the Board to make commitments to guarantee any loan under this section shall terminate on December 31, 2001. (l) Regulatory Action.--The Board shall issue such final procedures, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. (m) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made available to carry out this section-- (1) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)); and (2) shall be available only to the extent that an official budget request that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement (as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) is transmitted by the President to Congress. AMENDMENT NO. 86 (Purpose: To increase, with a rescission, the supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military construction for the Army National Guard) On page 30, line 1, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert ``$14,500,000''. On page 43, line 12, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert ``$14,500,000''. amendment no. 87 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the taking of a Cook Inlet beluga whale under the exemption provided in section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)) between the date of the enactment of this Act and October 1, 2000 shall be considered a violation of such Act unless such taking occurs pursuant to a cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission. amendment no. 88 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: Sec. . Funds provided in the Department of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, Division A, Section 101(b)) for the construction of correctional facility in Barrow, Alaska shall be made available to the North Slope Borough. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc. The amendments (Nos. 82 through 88) were agreed to. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, is here and he will offer an amendment. After he has presented his amendment, I state to the Senator it will be my intention to move to table his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on that motion to table and the vote on the motion to table the Harkin amendment occur at 2:30. [[Page S2902]] Mr. HARKIN. Torricelli. Mr. STEVENS. Torricelli/Harkin amendment occur at 2:30. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Amendment No. 89 (Purpose: To require prior congressional approval before the United States supports the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization) Mr. HUTCHINSON. I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an amendment numbered 89. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following new section: SEC. ____. PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR SUPPORTING ADMISSION OF CHINA INTO THE WTO. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States may not support the admission of the People's Republic of China as a member of the World Trade Organization unless a provision of law is passed by both Houses of Congress and enacted into law after the enactment of this Act that specifically allows the United States to support such admission. (b) Procedures for Congressional Approval of United States Support for Admission of China Into the WTO.-- (1) Notification of congress.--The President shall notify the Congress in writing if the President determines that the United States should support the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization. (2) Support of china's admission into the wto.--The United States may support the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization if a joint resolution is enacted into law under subsection (c) and the Congress adopts and transmits the joint resolution to the President before the end of the 90-day period (excluding any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974), beginning on the date on which the Congress receives the notification referred to in paragraph (1). (c) Joint Resolution.-- (1) Joint resolution.--For purposes of this section, the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the 2 Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That the Congress approves the support of the United States for the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization.''. (2) Procedures.-- (A) In general.--A joint resolution may be introduced at any time on or after the date on which the Congress receives the notification referred to in subsection (b)(1), and before the end of the 90-day period referred to in subsection (b)(2). A joint resolution may be introduced in either House of the Congress by any member of such House. (B) Application of section 152.--Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the provisions of subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(b), (d), (e), and (f)) apply to a joint resolution under this section to the same extent as such provisions apply to resolutions under section 152. (C) Discharge of committee.--If the committee of either House to which a joint resolution has been referred has not reported it by the close of the 45th day after its introduction (excluding any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974), such committee shall be automatically discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar. (D) Consideration by appropriate committee.--It is not in order for-- (i) the Senate to consider any joint resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on Finance or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C); or (ii) the House of Representatives to consider any joint resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on Ways and Means or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C). (E) Consideration in the house.--A motion in the House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a joint resolution may only be made on the second legislative day after the calendar day on which the Member making the motion announces to the House his or her intention to do so. (3) Consideration of second resolution not in order.--It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider a joint resolution (other than a joint resolution received from the other House), if that House has previously adopted a joint resolution under this section. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN. I am just trying to find out from the Senator, is there a time allotment or not? Mr. STEVENS. When the Senator finishes, I will make a motion to table. It should be about 1 o'clock. Mr. HARKIN. I just didn't know---- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have not asked for a time limitation on the Senator making his presentation, but he knows that as soon as he finishes, I will make a motion to table. Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is going to table both at 2:30? Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make a motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, and after the Senator from Iowa, I will make a motion, but I got unanimous consent that those votes occur at 2:30. Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has the floor? Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question--for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand the distinguished Senator from Alaska is saying he is going to move to table. I would like to speak on the amendment, but the Senator is moving to table as soon as the Senator is finished. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would be pleased if the Senator would agree to try to reach a time agreement on that, because we have other Senators wishing to offer amendments this afternoon also. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, first, that the Senator yield to me? I apologize. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman. Mr. STEVENS. How much time would the Senator like to have? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think for my presentation I probably only need 15 minutes. If there are those who speak against the amendment, I would like to yield proportionally then. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I still have the floor, how much time does the Senator from Montana seek? Mr. BAUCUS. I was thinking of 10, 15 minutes. Mr. STEVENS. Could we have an agreement that there be 30 minutes on this amendment? Is the Senator from Montana speaking against the amendment? Mr. BAUCUS. I am speaking against the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object---- Mr. STEVENS. I am seeking a limitation of 30 minutes on the amendment, that the time following that time to be--I will make a motion to table, only a motion to table be in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection---- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that Senators Roth and Moynihan wish to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be expanded to 40 minutes to be followed only by a motion to table offered by me. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object. Mr. STEVENS. Forty-five minutes. The Senator wants to close. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suspect the others the Senator mentioned are going to speak in opposition. There are some who might want to speak in favor. If we are going to extend the time afforded Senators who want to speak against, I think we might have trouble extending the time with that restriction. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do desire to limit the time if possible, so we can have a vote when the Senate comes back out of that conference. Could we agree to 30 minutes on a side? Is there objection to 30 minutes on a side? I renew my request---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. The agreement then is 1 hour equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. [[Page S2903]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. This is a very straightforward amendment that simply says that before China can be admitted to the World Trade Organization, there will have to be a joint resolution passed by the Congress supporting that accession of China to the World Trade Organization. It is very simple. It is simply saying we should have a voice in this. We should not have the administration arbitrarily and unilaterally making a very, very significant and major decision without the input of the U.S. Congress and this body. It does not prejudge what should happen. It does not say whether China should be in or not. There may be very compelling arguments that could be presented in such a debate. But it does say that before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization, every Senator in this body ought to have an opportunity to look at the evidence and have a say in the outcome of that debate. That is why we need this amendment, because Congress needs to, once again, assert its constitutional responsibility in the area of foreign commerce. I believe we must do it now for a couple of reasons. It is the only opportunity we are going to have before the recess, and our only opportunity before Zhu Rongji visits this Nation next month. He will come during our Easter recess. So, if Congress is going to have any kind of statement on this, if we are going to be able to take any kind of action on this, we must take it now. I know some of my colleagues will say this should have gone through committee. In an ideal world I would agree. It is very straightforward. I do not think it would require a great deal of debate, as to whether someone is for it or against it, but ideally that is where it should have gone. But, once again, the stream of negotiations that have taken place in recent weeks between our country and the Chinese Government, with our officials going to China--Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Secretary of State Albright, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky have all been making repeated trips to China-- negotiating, obviously; attempting to broker a deal on the World Trade Organization accession of China. If we wait for an announcement by the administration that a deal has been reached, an announcement by the administration that the outlines of an agreement have been reached, we will make China's membership in the WTO a fait accompli. Any effort to stop it after the fact, after the negotiations are completed and after an agreement has been announced, I think will be too late for this body to really make a difference. The amendment is, as I said, very straightforward. It would require a joint resolution to be passed before the United States could support admission of China into the WTO. Again, it does not preclude our support for China's entry. It simply sends a clear statement that Congress should be involved in the process of deciding U.S. support for China's accession into the WTO. The administration should not make any hasty deals with China. We must give careful consideration to the timing as well as to the consequences of Chinese accession. Congress must be thoroughly involved in that debate. We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the most populous nation in the world, and, as we hear so often, the largest market in the world, in a vacuum. There are certain facts that we must face; there is a political environment in which all of these negotiations are occurring. The Chinese have used espionage to obtain important nuclear secrets from the United States. That is a matter that must be fully investigated. I believe it will be. I believe the appropriate oversight committees are moving expeditiously to investigate. But it certainly is not going to happen before we go out on the Easter recess. We may have hearings next week, but we will not see the end of this, we will not have all the facts on the table, before the Easter recess and before Zhu Rongji visits this country. Another fact that faces us is our trade deficit with the Chinese is at an alarming all-time high of $56.9 billion for 1998. It is rising exponentially every year. That reality ought to cause us to pause before we see the administration rush into a WTO deal. The Chinese continue to keep many of their markets closed, particularly to our agricultural sector, our farmers, who are in such crisis. The Chinese have signed and blatantly disregarded the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have engaged in a widespread crackdown on prodemocracy activists in China, effectively silencing all political dissent. We cannot give WTO membership in a vacuum, ignoring all other realities that face us. The 1999 State Department report on China, released in the last few weeks, demonstrably proves China's ignoring of the very covenant on civil and political rights that they signed last year. If we cannot trust them to live up to a human rights covenant that they signed, how can we assume they are going to live according to the rules and the obligations of the World Trade Organization? There is an issue of trust. They have not justified the trust we would show in placing them in the World Trade Organization. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress express power over foreign commerce. There is no question but that this is our right. There is no question in this Senator's mind that it is our responsibility to step forward and say: WTO membership for China will not be granted without a debate in the House and Senate and a joint resolution. There are serious questions that the House and the Senate need to address. For us to sit back and go off on our Easter vacation, to go off on recess, to hold our town meetings or to take our trips around the world, and to have been silent on this issue, I think, at this time, will be indefensible. I suspect there will be some kind of announcement on the U.S. position on China's membership in the WTO while we are gone. Then we would never have had the opportunity to debate very important questions. I do not have all of the answers to these questions, but I know they are serious questions and I know the Senator from Montana, the Senator from Alabama, who was on the floor just a moment ago, and myself ought to have a right, before we have the United States taking a position on WTO membership, to debate that on the floor of the Senate, to thoroughly examine the questions that have not yet been answered. One question I would have is this: Are we lowering the WTO bar for China, to rush them into membership? Since 1995, four countries have completed negotiations on accession protocol: Ecuador, Mongolia, Bulgaria, and Panama. All four of these nations were required to eliminate, on the date of accession or with very short transitions, trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. That has been the standard. Since 1995 the four nations that have sought to enter the WTO have been required to eliminate their trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. But China has firmly and continuously and repeatedly said they want a different standard. They want a longer transition period. They do not want to meet those WTO rules at the time of or soon after their accession to the WTO. That is a question I believe this body deserves the opportunity to investigate and debate thoroughly before we announce a national position regarding China's admission. Another question I think is a serious question for debate: Are we allowing China into the WTO before they have made the kind of market reforms to bring them into conformity with WTO standards? The administration argues if we will just let China in, we will have greater influence on China's reform efforts than we do now while they are outside of the World Trade Organization. I suppose that is debatable. But we ought to have the opportunity to have that debate. In my estimation, our influence on China would be far greater before they are admitted to the World Trade Organization than afterwards. Our ability to influence the kind of reforms the World Trade Organization would desire will be far greater if we say you are going to accrue the benefits of trade under the WTO only after these market reforms have taken place, these trade barriers have been lowered. Reforms should first be enacted, changes should first occur, and then membership should be granted --not vice versa. [[Page S2904]] I think this question deserves debate: Can China be trusted on trade issues? When we look at our exploding trade deficit with China, can they be trusted on trade issues if admitted to the World Trade Organization, or will we admit them to the World Trade Organization and then find them cavalierly ignoring the standards and the rules of the World Trade Organization? Our administration's own Trade Representative Barshefsky stated in her testimony, a little over 2 years ago, in reference to China, that ``China imposes new import barriers to replace those it removed.'' In other words, there can be the appearance of reform taking place, but if there are new barriers that are being erected while the old ones are being brought down, you really have not achieved the reforms necessary for World Trade Organization membership. China has almost one-third of its industrial production controlled by the state. Almost two-thirds of urban workers are employed in state- owned enterprises. These state-owned enterprises are notorious for their ability to destroy wealth. Some economists estimate that it would be cheaper for China to close down their state-owned enterprises and keep paying the workers--close down the enterprises, go ahead and pay them their salaries, they would still come out ahead, than to keep operating. But because the state-owned enterprises would be vulnerable to foreign competition, the Chinese Government has a strong disincentive to the state-owned enterprises that are heavily subsidized through China's centralized and insolvent banking system. One of the pledges that the Chinese Government made was that they would rapidly privatize the state-owned enterprises, shutting down those that they had to, privatizing others, allowing them to create capital by selling stock, but because of the recent economic downturn in China in which their robust growth rate has dropped appreciably, China now has backed off that pledge and has once again begun a round of bank loans to these very unprofitable, state-owned enterprises to subsidize them and to keep them in business. This is backpedaling already on the kinds of reforms that would be expected if China were in fact ready for admission to the World Trade Organization. Another question that this body needs to debate is, Should China be admitted as a developing country with far less stringent expectations and longer transition than allowed for other nations? That is what they desire. They say we are a developing Nation; therefore, we should be treated more leniently. They base their claim primarily upon their per capita gross domestic product. By every other measure, China is a major economic power in the world today and they want to be treated as such. They want to be recognized as a major economic power. China will argue that as a developing country, they are entitled to use subsidies. They are entitled to put limits on exports and other policies to promote development of certain key industries such as automobiles and telecommunications and heavy industrial equipment. China maintains that such programs are a part of China's industrial policy and not related to its application to the World Trade Organization. Many trade officials simply disagree with that assertion by the Chinese Government. That is a question and that is an issue the Senate should have the opportunity to debate, not after the fact but before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization and before the U.S. Government announces its position on Chinese accession. A WTO paper, prepared in response to a request from Chinese negotiators, suggested that industrial policies in China and other countries could violate the basic principles of nondiscrimination and national treatment and other WTO rules. They are not in compliance. They are not ready to join the WTO. Political considerations should not be the driving force in rushing China into the WTO before they have made necessary reforms. Another question I believe we should debate is this: Should China be given membership in WTO before Taiwan, which is simultaneously seeking membership? Will it be the position of the U.S. Government that we support the admission of People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization while not yet supporting Taiwan's admission? Which one should be admitted first? I think that is an important issue. I think that is one my colleagues in the Senate deserve to have the opportunity to discuss thoroughly. Many believe that once China is admitted, they will work feverishly to block Taiwan's entry, even though Taiwan is a much more developed Nation, has a much more developed economy, and an economy which is much more consistent with WTO rules. Yet without a vote of the Senate or a vote of the House, this administration is prepared to support the admission of China to the WTO before Taiwan's admission. I believe this question deserves debate as well: Will a premature entry by China into WTO hurt American business interests? I know that large corporate interests in this country support China's immediate accession to WTO, but many business people in this country have serious concerns as to how China's admission to WTO will impact them. U.S. business interests often want permanent MFN for China and would like to use an agreement on WTO, I believe, as a means to push for this goal, but many of these business interests are also concerned that China's WTO accession, without meeting market access and other requirements, would seriously limit U.S. business access to the Chinese market for a long time to come. The very access that American business wants so desperately, we would be locked out of that access permanently or for a long duration should they be admitted to the World Trade Organization before they have met market access rules. As a result, many U.S. interests are pushing U.S. negotiators to remain firm, to stand pat, and not concede on the conditions of China's entry into the World Trade Organization. I believe another question that this body needs to debate is, How will WTO admission for China affect jobs? Indeed, we should consider how it would affect our jobs here in the United States. I remind my colleagues, contained in this very supplemental appropriations bill, which we are soon prepared to vote on, is a measure to assist the U.S. steel industry and the jobs that go with it. Some of those jobs are in my home State of Arkansas, Mississippi County, Blytheville, AR, the No. 2 ranked county in the Nation in steel production. According to the Department of Commerce, last year alone the U.S.-China trade deficit in iron and steel was a $161 million loser for the United States. The year before that the U.S. realized a steel trade deficit of $141 million, and in 1996 the deficit was $140 million. Each year the deficit in iron and steel increases dramatically. My point is, this Congress should have a say in whether we allow an agreement to be made when our trade imbalance is what we experience, even without granting China World Trade Organization status. At the appropriate time, I would like to see China join the World Trade Organization and abide by its rules. I do not believe China is ready at this time to go beyond paying lip service to the fundamental changes necessary for accession, though I know some of my colleagues do believe that they are ready. However, I believe we can all agree that we ought not make this decision hastily. The consequences are too great and long lasting and, just as importantly, we ought not let the executive branch make this determination unilaterally. Article 1 of the Constitution gives to us, the Congress, the express power over foreign commerce. This decision is too important for us to cede that power, and this amendment is a means by which we can preserve our legitimate role in the legislative

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
(Senate - March 18, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2898-S2919] EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the matter of the order governing the amendment of the Senator from Texas be set aside so that I may offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 80 (Purpose: To defer section 8 assistance for expiring contracts until October 1, 1999) Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment numbered 80. Inset on page 43, after line 15: ``PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING ``HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND ``(DEFERRAL) ``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public Law 105-276 for use in connection with expiring or terminating section 8 contracts, $350,000,000 shall not become available until October 1, 1999.''. On page 42, strike beginning with line 10 through the end of line 21. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with the provision in the bill that was reported from the committee that deferred spending from the temporary assistance to needy families account. This will defer, instead, monies from the section 8 fund of HUD. There is approximately $1.2 billion in that account. This will defer for 1 year the use of $350 million in that account. It replaces the TANF amendment in the bill. Under that amendment, we deferred until 2001 the availability of funds which are transferred to the States. Because of the misunderstanding about that fund, I want to explain why we use that fund in the first place. I am once again alarmed over the misinformation that has been spread by some people in that entity, that agency, to try and make it look like somehow or other we took monies away from States or any specific State. In the first place, these grant awards are made quarterly. Actual cash outlays are made, but they are not transferred to the States until the States make expenditures in their TANF programs, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. In other words, the States first make the payments, and we pay it back. Some people, in the House in particular, have said this a way that the States can use this money for a piggy bank. In no way can they take this money and put it into another bank account and draw interest on it if they comply with the law. That is one report I have heard--that we are preventing States from taking the money to put it into their own accounts. We checked and we found that there was between $3 billion and $3.5 billion at the close of fiscal year 1998 in this fund. There are two quarters that have not even been distributed yet of this fiscal year 1999. And it is clear that the States have spent some money, and there is plenty of money to meet the States' expenditures and their requests for reimbursement of those expenditures. But this is not a fund that the States can come to willy-nilly and transfer the funds to their accounts. Secondly, Mr. President, we deferred this money from obligation in this fiscal year--really until 2001, October 1, 2001. The States would not--the bill that was reported from the committee-- lose any of their funds. We, pursuant to the entitlement that was authorized, agreed that Federal funds, taxpayers' funds, in the amount of $16.5 billion, from 1997 through 2002, would be placed in this account, to be available to reimburse States for the expenditures they made for Assistance to Needy Families. Nothing in what the Appropriations Committee did harmed that program at all. But because by October 1 another $16.5 billion would have been added to $3 billion to $3.5 billion in that account--and there has never been a drawdown at the rate that would make those funds needed within that period of time. This is not a rainy day fund. We have been told that some people have said that States take these monies and put them in a rainy day fund to use at a later date. But the law says they can only get them to reimburse expenditures. If the administration is allowing this fund to be used as a rainy day account or a piggy bank account, it is wrong. We have had so many calls from so many States, including my own. And I see the Senator from New York is here, and I know that they have been besieged because of their population base. Of course, they are eligible for more money from this account, more than anyone other than California. But it depends on how much they spend before they can get it back. We made the decision to offset this bill. This is the first time we have offset totally a supplemental emergency bill. I have said to our committee, we ought to offset emergency funds with prior appropriated emergency funds and nonemergency funds with nonemergency prior appropriated funds. I think we are going to have a little discussion about that here on the floor. But clearly what we have done, Mr. President, is we have used this bill to reprogram prior appropriated funds. These funds that were appropriated to the TANF account are sitting there waiting for the States to spend money and then come and ask for it to be repaid. The process is so rapid that the administration has not paid the first two quarters of this year yet. So this is not something we have interfered with by deferring money until the second fiscal year. Because, as I said, this account would get $16.5 billion credited to it on October 1. What we have done is, in order to avoid this controversy--and we do not need a controversy on this bill. We need to get it done. This bill, in my opinion, is a very important bill. It will provide money for assistance because of a great natural disaster in a neighboring country in this hemisphere. The President asked us to declare that an emergency. We have taken the declaration of emergency through as far as the outlay categories are concerned, because it is very difficult to score under the budget process outlays that come from emergency accounts. We have not taken an emergency declaration through on those things that we believe are nonemergency in terms of the authorization process. So by that I mean, I fail to understand how we should extend the concept of emergency appropriations to natural disasters off our shores. We should be able to find the money, if we want to be good humanitarian members of this hemisphere, to assist our neighbors. I believe we should assist them. But I do not believe we should use the laws that were intended to demand taxpayers' funds immediately to meet natural disasters or declared emergencies by the President of the United States within the boundaries of our United States. So Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the spirit of compromise, to try and take away this battle that I saw coming over the use of TANF funds. No one supports the concepts of this Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. We all know it replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the AFDC program, that assisted so many States, including mine for so many years. But this now is a block grant program that works in conjunction with the welfare-to-work concepts, and that is very vital for the States. We know that. And I think the fear that was engendered in those States that somehow or other we might not keep the commitment that was made, that if they make those expenditures we would repay them according to the formula under the law that was passed in 1996, the Welfare Reform Act, is unfortunate and wrong. I hope that someone in the administration is listening. One of these days I will find some way to tweak the nose of the people who keep doing this, because they did it in the terms of border guards last week, and now they are doing it in terms of the States themselves in terms of the comments that have been made that somehow or other we were taking money that the States were entitled to; we were deferring money that they were entitled to, [[Page S2899]] which they would never get under the process of the law anyway until the time we deferred the expenditures. As a matter of fact, some people on this side of the aisle have argued with me to say this is not a full offset because I know that I am offsetting the expenditures under this bill against a fund that would never be expended this year. That is partially true. That is why we have declared an emergency, as far as the outlays, and we have admitted that, and we have said that is the only way we can do it. But we need to do it. I hope, in particular, my new friend from New York will understand that we are doing this to meet his objections and others, and we do so in the spirit of compromise. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York. Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to, on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself, thank Chairman Stevens, as well as Senator Byrd, for their assistance in removing the $350 million offset from the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, account, which would have deferred the funds until 2002. Mr. President, I and many others in New York feared that this offset set us off on the wrong course, that it would run counter to the intention of the welfare reform bill which allowed States to set aside TANF funds for use at a later date when welfare rolls would rise, such as during a future recession. My State, as the chairman knows, was particularly affected. The State was the source of nearly a quarter, about $80 million, of the $350 million that was offset. So I am pleased that the alternative offset would shift some HUD funds from one fiscal year to the next, funds that never would have been used. We have checked with both the administration as well as our side on Housing and on Banking and on Appropriations, and they agree with that. I say to the chairman that I appreciate very much the spirit of compromise in which this was offered. I understand his view and I will bring that message back to our State. The people of New York will now be breathing a sigh of relief that this has been replaced. I also thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, who worked with me on this. He found his State in a similar position as ours. At least for my first foray into the Senate legislative process, it has been a bipartisan and productive effort. For that, I very much thank the chairman for his understanding of our needs and yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to ask for adoption of the amendment but I will not move to reconsider because there may be some who want to discuss this, too. I will make a motion to reconsider this later today. May I reserve the right to make that later today? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion can be made today or any of the next 2 following days. Mr. STEVENS. I shall make it this afternoon, and I ask for the adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 80) was agreed to. Amendment No. 81 (Purpose: To set forth restrictions on deployment of United States Armed Forces in Kosovo) Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an amendment numbered 81. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: On page 58, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following: TITLE ____ RESTRICTIONS ON DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN KOSOVO SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``____________ Act of 1999''. SEC. ____02. DEFINITION. In this title, the term ``Yugoslavia'' means the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). SEC. ____03. FUNDING LIMITATION. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense, including funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and prior fiscal years, may be obligated or expended for any deployment of ground forces of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo unless and until-- (1) the parties to the conflict in Kosovo have signed an agreement for the establishment of peace in Kosovo; (2) the President has transmitted to Congress the report provided for under section 8115 of Public Law 105-262 (112 Stat. 2327); and (3) the President has transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report containing-- (A) a certification-- (i) that deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the United States; (ii) that-- (I) the President will submit to Congress an amended budget for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 not later than 60 days after the commencement of the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo that includes an amount sufficient for such deployment; and (II) such amended budget will provide for an increase in the total amount for the major functional budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) for fiscal year 2000 by at least the total amount proposed for the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo (as compared to the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 for major functional budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) in the budget that the President submitted to Congress February 1, 1999); and (iii) that-- (I) not later than 120 days after the commencement of the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo, forces of the Armed Forces of the United States will be withdrawn from on-going military operations in locations where maintaining the current level of the Armed Forces of the United States (as of the date of certification) is no longer considered vital to the national security interests of the United States; and (II) each such withdrawal will be undertaken only after consultation with the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; (B) an explanation of the reasons why the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the United States; (C) the total number of the United States military personnel that are to be deployed in Kosovo and the number of personnel to be committed to the direct support of the international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo, including ground troops, air support, logistics support, and intelligence support; (D) the percentage that the total number of personnel of the United States Armed Forces specified in subparagraph (C) bears to the total number of the military personnel of all NATO nations participating in the international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo; (E) a description of the responsibilities of the United States military force participating in the international peacekeeping operation to enforce any provision of the Kosovo peace agreement; and (F) a clear identification of the benchmarks for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo, together with a description of those benchmarks and the estimated dates by which those benchmarks can and will be achieved. (b) Consultation.-- (1) In general.--Prior to the conduct of any air operations by the Armed Forces of the United States against Yugoslavia, the President shall consult with the joint congressional leadership and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to those operations. (2) Definitions.--In this subsection: (A) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (i) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. (B) Joint congressional leadership.--The term ``joint congressional leadership'' means-- (i) the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate. SEC. ____04. REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING BENCHMARKS. Thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a detailed report on the benchmarks that are established to measure progress and determine the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo. Each report shall include-- [[Page S2900]] (1) a detailed description of the benchmarks for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Kosovo; (2) the objective criteria for evaluating successful achievement of the benchmarks; (3) an analysis of the progress made in achieving the benchmarks; (4) a comparison of the current status on achieving the benchmarks with the progress described in the last report submitted under this section; (5) the specific responsibilities assigned to the implementation force in assisting in the achievement of the benchmarks; (6) the estimated timetable for achieving the benchmarks; and (7) the status of plans and preparations for withdrawal of the implementing force once the objective criteria for achieving the benchmarks have been met. SEC. ____05. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this title restricts the authority of the President to protect the lives of United States citizens. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment now be laid aside and no call for regular order, except one made by myself or the mover of the amendment, the Senator from Texas, serve to bring back the pending amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendments Nos. 82 Through 88, En Bloc Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a package of amendments that have been cleared and I would like to say for the record what they are. They are: An amendment by Senator McCain to extend the Aviation Insurance Program through May 31, 1999. An amendment by Senator Grassley providing $1.4 million to expedite adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Health and Human Services Appeal Board. It also provides for an offset for that amount of $1.4 million. We have Senator Shelby's amendment which makes a technical correction to title IV. We have an amendment by Senator Byrd making a technical correction to the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program in the bill. An amendment by Senator Frist and Senator Thompson providing $3.2 million for repairs to Jackson, TN, Army aviation facility damaged by a tornado in January. It also provides for an offset in the same amount. An amendment by myself for a technical correction to the current year, 1999's Commerce-Justice-State bill, and provides for rules on the taking of Beluga whales. I send these amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Frist and Mr. Thompson, proposes amendments numbered 82 through 88, en bloc, as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 82 (Purpose: To extend the aviation insurance program through May 31, 1999) At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. 17. EXTENSION OF AVIATION INSURANCE PROGRAM. Section 44310 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 31, 1999.'' and inserting ``May 31, 1999.''. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 83 (Purpose: Expediting adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Department of Health and Human Services Appeals Board) On page 29, insert after line 10: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary General Departmental Management For an additional amount for `'general departmental management'', $1,400,000, to reduce the backlog of pending nursing home appeals before the Departmental Appeals Board. On page 42, line 8, strike $3,116,076,000 and insert $3,114,676,000 On page 42, line 9, strike $164,933,000 and insert $163,533,000. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to speed up adjudication, by the appeals board of the Department of Health and Human Services, of appeals from nursing facilities of civil monetary penalties levied by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for violations of standards established pursuant to the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. Currently, there is a substantial backlog of some 701 such cases. Delay in final adjudication of such cases subverts the purpose and effect of civil monetary penalties, delaying corrective action, and improvements in the quality of care offered by nursing facilities. Delays in adjudication of these cases also burdens nursing facilities through additional legal fees and the perpetuation of uncertainty caused by unresolved disputes. The number of such cases filed each year by nursing facilities has increased each year since 1995, the year when regulations for the Nursing Home Reform Act's enforcement standards went into effect. Currently, as I noted earlier in my statement, there are 701 such cases pending. Mr. President, the steady increase in appeals of civil monetary penalties since 1995 shows the effect of increased use, by the States and HCFA, of the enforcement regulations which went into effect in 1995. Nevertheless, in hearings I held in the Special Committee on Aging last July, the General Accounting Office reported that nursing facilities providing poor quality of care regularly escaped sanctions which could cause care to be improved. The pattern seemed to be that a facility would be sanctioned for poor quality of care, be required to attest in writing through a plan of correction that steps had been taken to improve care, and then be found deficient on the next visit from State officials. This pattern often continued for long periods of time. And when sanctions such as civil monetary penalties were levied by HCFA, the sanctioned facilities would appeal, causing lengthy delays in final resolution of the case. One week before my July hearings, President Clinton launched a variety of new initiatives designed to improve the quality of care in nursing facilities. Among those new initiatives was one designed to eliminate paper compliance with quality standards and to proceed more quickly to sanctions for those homes with a history of poor care. The upshot of oversight by the Special Committee on Aging and the Presidential initiatives is that there has been a substantial increase thus far in 1999 of appeals of civil monetary penalties by nursing facilities. Certainly, facilities have the right to appeal sanctions levied by HCFA. But it is also important that appeals be heard and resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Delay subverts improvement in the quality of care in nursing facilities as real deficiencies go uncorrected. Delay also slows the development of precedents which would clarify outstanding issues. Slow development of such precedents encourages facilities and their legal representatives to file appeals because guidance as to the worthiness of an appeal is lacking. And, as the body of precedents becomes more complete, adjudication of cases becomes speedier. The root problem has been that the departmental appeals board does not have sufficient resources to keep up with the increase in new cases, to say nothing of working off the current backlog of cases. I am given to understand that, at the present time about 25 new cases are filed with the appeals board each week. As will be clear from the table I am attaching to my statement, the number of cases decided each year has averaged around 23 for the last 3 years. Clearly, the board is swamped and needs help. The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes $2.8 million for the board. Were the Congress to provide those funds, it will certainly take time for the appeals board to gear up and begin to speed up adjudication of appeals.We can't wait to begin addressing this problem, Mr. President. The amendment I offer would provide $1.4 million to be made available through the supplemental appropriation we are now considering. I have not proposed to provide the full $2.8 million the President's budget proposes for the next fiscal year because the appeals board could not effectively spend that amount in what remains of the fiscal year. Therefore, I have essentially prorated that amount over the time remaining in this fiscal year. amendment no. 84 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: [[Page S2901]] Sec. . Title 49 Recodification Correction.--Effective December 31, 1998, section 4(k) of the Act of July 5, 1994 (Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 1370), as amended by section 7(a)(3)(D) of the Act of October 31, 1994 (Public Law 103- 429, 108 Stat. 4329), is repealed. amendment no. 85 (Purpose: To make a technical correction) On page 16, strike beginning with line 12 through page 23, line 8, and insert the following: Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. (a) Short Title.-- This section may be cited as the ``Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999''. (b) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) the United States steel industry has been severely harmed by a record surge of more than 40,000,000 tons of steel imports into the United States in 1998, caused by the world financial crisis; (2) this surge in imports resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 steel worker jobs in 1998, and was the imminent cause of 3 bankruptcies by medium-sized steel companies, Acme Steel, Laclede Steel, and Geneva Steel; (3) the crisis also forced almost all United States steel companies into-- (A) reduced volume, lower prices, and financial losses; and (B) an inability to obtain credit for continued operations and reinvestment in facilities; (4) the crisis also has affected the willingness of private banks and investment institutions to make loans to the U.S. steel industry for continued operation and reinvestment in facilities; (5) these steel bankruptcies, job losses, and financial losses are also having serious negative effects on the tax base of cities, counties, and States, and on the essential health, education, and municipal services that these government entities provide to their citizens; and (6) a strong steel industry is necessary to the adequate defense preparedness of the United States in order to have sufficient steel available to build the ships, tanks, planes, and armaments necessary for the national defense. (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section-- (1) the term ``Board'' means the Loan Guarantee Board established under subsection (e); (2) the term ``Program'' means the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program established under subsection (d); and (3) the term ``qualified steel company'' means any company that-- (A) is incorporated under the laws of any State; (B) is engaged in the production and manufacture of a product defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a basic steel mill product, including ingots, slab and billets, plates, flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products, bars, rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod; and (C) has experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses since the beginning of the steel import crisis, after January 1, 1998. (d) Establishment of Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program.--There is established the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program, to be administered by the Board, the purpose of which is to provide loan guarantees to qualified steel companies in accordance with this section. (e) Loan Guarantee Board Membership.--There is established a Loan Guarantee Board, which shall be composed of-- (1) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall serve as Chairman of the Board; (2) the Secretary of Labor; and (3) the Secretary of the Treasury. (f) Loan Guarantee Program.-- (1) Authority.--The Program may guarantee loans provided to qualified steel companies by private banking and investment institutions in accordance with the procedures, rules, and regulations established by the Board. (2) Total guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans guaranteed and outstanding at any 1 time under this section may not exceed $1,000,000,000. (3) Individual guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans guaranteed under this section with respect to a single qualified steel company may not exceed $250,000,000. (4) Minimum guarantee amount.--No single loan in an amount that is less than $25,000,000 may be guaranteed under this section. (5) Timelines.--The Board shall approve or deny each application for a guarantee under this section as soon as possible after receipt of such application. (6) Additional costs.--For the additional cost of the loans guaranteed under this subsection, including the costs of modifying the loans as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a), there is appropriated $140,000,000 to remain available until expended. (g) Requirements for Loan Guarantees.--A loan guarantee may be issued under this section upon application to the Board by a qualified steel company pursuant to an agreement to provide a loan to that qualified steel company by a private bank or investment company, if the Board determines that-- (1) credit is not otherwise available to that company under reasonable terms or conditions sufficient to meet its financing needs, as reflected in the financial and business plans of that company; (2) the prospective earning power of that company, together with the character and value of the security pledged, furnish reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan to be guaranteed in accordance with its terms; (3) the loan to be guaranteed bears interest at a rate determined by the Board to be reasonable, taking into account the current average yield on outstanding obligations of the United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable to the maturity of such loan; and (4) the company has agreed to an audit by the General Accounting Office, prior to the issuance of the loan guarantee and annually while any such guaranteed loan is outstanding. (h) Terms and Conditions of Loan Guarantees.-- (1) Loan duration.--All loans guaranteed under this section shall be payable in full not later than December 31, 2005, and the terms and conditions of each such loan shall provide that the loan may not be amended, or any provision thereof waived, without the consent of the Board. (2) Loan security.--Any commitment to issue a loan guarantee under this section shall contain such affirmative and negative covenants and other protective provisions that the Board determines are appropriate. The Board shall require security for the loans to be guaranteed under this section at the time at which the commitment is made. (3) Fees.--A qualified steel company receiving a guarantee under this section shall pay a fee in an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal balance of the guaranteed loan to the Department of the Treasury. (i) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress annually, a full report of the activities of the Board under this section during fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and annually thereafter, during such period as any loan guaranteed under this section is outstanding. (j) Salaries and Administrative Expenses.--For necessary expenses to administer the Program, $5,000,000 is appropriated to the Department of Commerce, to remain available until expended, which may be transferred to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of the International Trade Administration. (k) Termination of Guarantee Authority.--The authority of the Board to make commitments to guarantee any loan under this section shall terminate on December 31, 2001. (l) Regulatory Action.--The Board shall issue such final procedures, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. (m) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made available to carry out this section-- (1) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)); and (2) shall be available only to the extent that an official budget request that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement (as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) is transmitted by the President to Congress. AMENDMENT NO. 86 (Purpose: To increase, with a rescission, the supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military construction for the Army National Guard) On page 30, line 1, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert ``$14,500,000''. On page 43, line 12, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert ``$14,500,000''. amendment no. 87 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the taking of a Cook Inlet beluga whale under the exemption provided in section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)) between the date of the enactment of this Act and October 1, 2000 shall be considered a violation of such Act unless such taking occurs pursuant to a cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission. amendment no. 88 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: Sec. . Funds provided in the Department of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, Division A, Section 101(b)) for the construction of correctional facility in Barrow, Alaska shall be made available to the North Slope Borough. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc. The amendments (Nos. 82 through 88) were agreed to. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, is here and he will offer an amendment. After he has presented his amendment, I state to the Senator it will be my intention to move to table his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on that motion to table and the vote on the motion to table the Harkin amendment occur at 2:30. [[Page S2902]] Mr. HARKIN. Torricelli. Mr. STEVENS. Torricelli/Harkin amendment occur at 2:30. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Amendment No. 89 (Purpose: To require prior congressional approval before the United States supports the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization) Mr. HUTCHINSON. I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an amendment numbered 89. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following new section: SEC. ____. PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR SUPPORTING ADMISSION OF CHINA INTO THE WTO. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States may not support the admission of the People's Republic of China as a member of the World Trade Organization unless a provision of law is passed by both Houses of Congress and enacted into law after the enactment of this Act that specifically allows the United States to support such admission. (b) Procedures for Congressional Approval of United States Support for Admission of China Into the WTO.-- (1) Notification of congress.--The President shall notify the Congress in writing if the President determines that the United States should support the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization. (2) Support of china's admission into the wto.--The United States may support the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization if a joint resolution is enacted into law under subsection (c) and the Congress adopts and transmits the joint resolution to the President before the end of the 90-day period (excluding any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974), beginning on the date on which the Congress receives the notification referred to in paragraph (1). (c) Joint Resolution.-- (1) Joint resolution.--For purposes of this section, the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the 2 Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That the Congress approves the support of the United States for the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization.''. (2) Procedures.-- (A) In general.--A joint resolution may be introduced at any time on or after the date on which the Congress receives the notification referred to in subsection (b)(1), and before the end of the 90-day period referred to in subsection (b)(2). A joint resolution may be introduced in either House of the Congress by any member of such House. (B) Application of section 152.--Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the provisions of subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(b), (d), (e), and (f)) apply to a joint resolution under this section to the same extent as such provisions apply to resolutions under section 152. (C) Discharge of committee.--If the committee of either House to which a joint resolution has been referred has not reported it by the close of the 45th day after its introduction (excluding any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974), such committee shall be automatically discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar. (D) Consideration by appropriate committee.--It is not in order for-- (i) the Senate to consider any joint resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on Finance or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C); or (ii) the House of Representatives to consider any joint resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on Ways and Means or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C). (E) Consideration in the house.--A motion in the House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a joint resolution may only be made on the second legislative day after the calendar day on which the Member making the motion announces to the House his or her intention to do so. (3) Consideration of second resolution not in order.--It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider a joint resolution (other than a joint resolution received from the other House), if that House has previously adopted a joint resolution under this section. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN. I am just trying to find out from the Senator, is there a time allotment or not? Mr. STEVENS. When the Senator finishes, I will make a motion to table. It should be about 1 o'clock. Mr. HARKIN. I just didn't know---- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have not asked for a time limitation on the Senator making his presentation, but he knows that as soon as he finishes, I will make a motion to table. Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is going to table both at 2:30? Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make a motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, and after the Senator from Iowa, I will make a motion, but I got unanimous consent that those votes occur at 2:30. Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has the floor? Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question--for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand the distinguished Senator from Alaska is saying he is going to move to table. I would like to speak on the amendment, but the Senator is moving to table as soon as the Senator is finished. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would be pleased if the Senator would agree to try to reach a time agreement on that, because we have other Senators wishing to offer amendments this afternoon also. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, first, that the Senator yield to me? I apologize. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman. Mr. STEVENS. How much time would the Senator like to have? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think for my presentation I probably only need 15 minutes. If there are those who speak against the amendment, I would like to yield proportionally then. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I still have the floor, how much time does the Senator from Montana seek? Mr. BAUCUS. I was thinking of 10, 15 minutes. Mr. STEVENS. Could we have an agreement that there be 30 minutes on this amendment? Is the Senator from Montana speaking against the amendment? Mr. BAUCUS. I am speaking against the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object---- Mr. STEVENS. I am seeking a limitation of 30 minutes on the amendment, that the time following that time to be--I will make a motion to table, only a motion to table be in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection---- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that Senators Roth and Moynihan wish to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be expanded to 40 minutes to be followed only by a motion to table offered by me. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object. Mr. STEVENS. Forty-five minutes. The Senator wants to close. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suspect the others the Senator mentioned are going to speak in opposition. There are some who might want to speak in favor. If we are going to extend the time afforded Senators who want to speak against, I think we might have trouble extending the time with that restriction. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do desire to limit the time if possible, so we can have a vote when the Senate comes back out of that conference. Could we agree to 30 minutes on a side? Is there objection to 30 minutes on a side? I renew my request---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. The agreement then is 1 hour equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. [[Page S2903]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. This is a very straightforward amendment that simply says that before China can be admitted to the World Trade Organization, there will have to be a joint resolution passed by the Congress supporting that accession of China to the World Trade Organization. It is very simple. It is simply saying we should have a voice in this. We should not have the administration arbitrarily and unilaterally making a very, very significant and major decision without the input of the U.S. Congress and this body. It does not prejudge what should happen. It does not say whether China should be in or not. There may be very compelling arguments that could be presented in such a debate. But it does say that before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization, every Senator in this body ought to have an opportunity to look at the evidence and have a say in the outcome of that debate. That is why we need this amendment, because Congress needs to, once again, assert its constitutional responsibility in the area of foreign commerce. I believe we must do it now for a couple of reasons. It is the only opportunity we are going to have before the recess, and our only opportunity before Zhu Rongji visits this Nation next month. He will come during our Easter recess. So, if Congress is going to have any kind of statement on this, if we are going to be able to take any kind of action on this, we must take it now. I know some of my colleagues will say this should have gone through committee. In an ideal world I would agree. It is very straightforward. I do not think it would require a great deal of debate, as to whether someone is for it or against it, but ideally that is where it should have gone. But, once again, the stream of negotiations that have taken place in recent weeks between our country and the Chinese Government, with our officials going to China--Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Secretary of State Albright, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky have all been making repeated trips to China-- negotiating, obviously; attempting to broker a deal on the World Trade Organization accession of China. If we wait for an announcement by the administration that a deal has been reached, an announcement by the administration that the outlines of an agreement have been reached, we will make China's membership in the WTO a fait accompli. Any effort to stop it after the fact, after the negotiations are completed and after an agreement has been announced, I think will be too late for this body to really make a difference. The amendment is, as I said, very straightforward. It would require a joint resolution to be passed before the United States could support admission of China into the WTO. Again, it does not preclude our support for China's entry. It simply sends a clear statement that Congress should be involved in the process of deciding U.S. support for China's accession into the WTO. The administration should not make any hasty deals with China. We must give careful consideration to the timing as well as to the consequences of Chinese accession. Congress must be thoroughly involved in that debate. We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the most populous nation in the world, and, as we hear so often, the largest market in the world, in a vacuum. There are certain facts that we must face; there is a political environment in which all of these negotiations are occurring. The Chinese have used espionage to obtain important nuclear secrets from the United States. That is a matter that must be fully investigated. I believe it will be. I believe the appropriate oversight committees are moving expeditiously to investigate. But it certainly is not going to happen before we go out on the Easter recess. We may have hearings next week, but we will not see the end of this, we will not have all the facts on the table, before the Easter recess and before Zhu Rongji visits this country. Another fact that faces us is our trade deficit with the Chinese is at an alarming all-time high of $56.9 billion for 1998. It is rising exponentially every year. That reality ought to cause us to pause before we see the administration rush into a WTO deal. The Chinese continue to keep many of their markets closed, particularly to our agricultural sector, our farmers, who are in such crisis. The Chinese have signed and blatantly disregarded the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have engaged in a widespread crackdown on prodemocracy activists in China, effectively silencing all political dissent. We cannot give WTO membership in a vacuum, ignoring all other realities that face us. The 1999 State Department report on China, released in the last few weeks, demonstrably proves China's ignoring of the very covenant on civil and political rights that they signed last year. If we cannot trust them to live up to a human rights covenant that they signed, how can we assume they are going to live according to the rules and the obligations of the World Trade Organization? There is an issue of trust. They have not justified the trust we would show in placing them in the World Trade Organization. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress express power over foreign commerce. There is no question but that this is our right. There is no question in this Senator's mind that it is our responsibility to step forward and say: WTO membership for China will not be granted without a debate in the House and Senate and a joint resolution. There are serious questions that the House and the Senate need to address. For us to sit back and go off on our Easter vacation, to go off on recess, to hold our town meetings or to take our trips around the world, and to have been silent on this issue, I think, at this time, will be indefensible. I suspect there will be some kind of announcement on the U.S. position on China's membership in the WTO while we are gone. Then we would never have had the opportunity to debate very important questions. I do not have all of the answers to these questions, but I know they are serious questions and I know the Senator from Montana, the Senator from Alabama, who was on the floor just a moment ago, and myself ought to have a right, before we have the United States taking a position on WTO membership, to debate that on the floor of the Senate, to thoroughly examine the questions that have not yet been answered. One question I would have is this: Are we lowering the WTO bar for China, to rush them into membership? Since 1995, four countries have completed negotiations on accession protocol: Ecuador, Mongolia, Bulgaria, and Panama. All four of these nations were required to eliminate, on the date of accession or with very short transitions, trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. That has been the standard. Since 1995 the four nations that have sought to enter the WTO have been required to eliminate their trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. But China has firmly and continuously and repeatedly said they want a different standard. They want a longer transition period. They do not want to meet those WTO rules at the time of or soon after their accession to the WTO. That is a question I believe this body deserves the opportunity to investigate and debate thoroughly before we announce a national position regarding China's admission. Another question I think is a serious question for debate: Are we allowing China into the WTO before they have made the kind of market reforms to bring them into conformity with WTO standards? The administration argues if we will just let China in, we will have greater influence on China's reform efforts than we do now while they are outside of the World Trade Organization. I suppose that is debatable. But we ought to have the opportunity to have that debate. In my estimation, our influence on China would be far greater before they are admitted to the World Trade Organization than afterwards. Our ability to influence the kind of reforms the World Trade Organization would desire will be far greater if we say you are going to accrue the benefits of trade under the WTO only after these market reforms have taken place, these trade barriers have been lowered. Reforms should first be enacted, changes should first occur, and then membership should be granted --not vice versa. [[Page S2904]] I think this question deserves debate: Can China be trusted on trade issues? When we look at our exploding trade deficit with China, can they be trusted on trade issues if admitted to the World Trade Organization, or will we admit them to the World Trade Organization and then find them cavalierly ignoring the standards and the rules of the World Trade Organization? Our administration's own Trade Representative Barshefsky stated in her testimony, a little over 2 years ago, in reference to China, that ``China imposes new import barriers to replace those it removed.'' In other words, there can be the appearance of reform taking place, but if there are new barriers that are being erected while the old ones are being brought down, you really have not achieved the reforms necessary for World Trade Organization membership. China has almost one-third of its industrial production controlled by the state. Almost two-thirds of urban workers are employed in state- owned enterprises. These state-owned enterprises are notorious for their ability to destroy wealth. Some economists estimate that it would be cheaper for China to close down their state-owned enterprises and keep paying the workers--close down the enterprises, go ahead and pay them their salaries, they would still come out ahead, than to keep operating. But because the state-owned enterprises would be vulnerable to foreign competition, the Chinese Government has a strong disincentive to the state-owned enterprises that are heavily subsidized through China's centralized and insolvent banking system. One of the pledges that the Chinese Government made was that they would rapidly privatize the state-owned enterprises, shutting down those that they had to, privatizing others, allowing them to create capital by selling stock, but because of the recent economic downturn in China in which their robust growth rate has dropped appreciably, China now has backed off that pledge and has once again begun a round of bank loans to these very unprofitable, state-owned enterprises to subsidize them and to keep them in business. This is backpedaling already on the kinds of reforms that would be expected if China were in fact ready for admission to the World Trade Organization. Another question that this body needs to debate is, Should China be admitted as a developing country with far less stringent expectations and longer transition than allowed for other nations? That is what they desire. They say we are a developing Nation; therefore, we should be treated more leniently. They base their claim primarily upon their per capita gross domestic product. By every other measure, China is a major economic power in the world today and they want to be treated as such. They want to be recognized as a major economic power. China will argue that as a developing country, they are entitled to use subsidies. They are entitled to put limits on exports and other policies to promote development of certain key industries such as automobiles and telecommunications and heavy industrial equipment. China maintains that such programs are a part of China's industrial policy and not related to its application to the World Trade Organization. Many trade officials simply disagree with that assertion by the Chinese Government. That is a question and that is an issue the Senate should have the opportunity to debate, not after the fact but before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization and before the U.S. Government announces its position on Chinese accession. A WTO paper, prepared in response to a request from Chinese negotiators, suggested that industrial policies in China and other countries could violate the basic principles of nondiscrimination and national treatment and other WTO rules. They are not in compliance. They are not ready to join the WTO. Political considerations should not be the driving force in rushing China into the WTO before they have made necessary reforms. Another question I believe we should debate is this: Should China be given membership in WTO before Taiwan, which is simultaneously seeking membership? Will it be the position of the U.S. Government that we support the admission of People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization while not yet supporting Taiwan's admission? Which one should be admitted first? I think that is an important issue. I think that is one my colleagues in the Senate deserve to have the opportunity to discuss thoroughly. Many believe that once China is admitted, they will work feverishly to block Taiwan's entry, even though Taiwan is a much more developed Nation, has a much more developed economy, and an economy which is much more consistent with WTO rules. Yet without a vote of the Senate or a vote of the House, this administration is prepared to support the admission of China to the WTO before Taiwan's admission. I believe this question deserves debate as well: Will a premature entry by China into WTO hurt American business interests? I know that large corporate interests in this country support China's immediate accession to WTO, but many business people in this country have serious concerns as to how China's admission to WTO will impact them. U.S. business interests often want permanent MFN for China and would like to use an agreement on WTO, I believe, as a means to push for this goal, but many of these business interests are also concerned that China's WTO accession, without meeting market access and other requirements, would seriously limit U.S. business access to the Chinese market for a long time to come. The very access that American business wants so desperately, we would be locked out of that access permanently or for a long duration should they be admitted to the World Trade Organization before they have met market access rules. As a result, many U.S. interests are pushing U.S. negotiators to remain firm, to stand pat, and not concede on the conditions of China's entry into the World Trade Organization. I believe another question that this body needs to debate is, How will WTO admission for China affect jobs? Indeed, we should consider how it would affect our jobs here in the United States. I remind my colleagues, contained in this very supplemental appropriations bill, which we are soon prepared to vote on, is a measure to assist the U.S. steel industry and the jobs that go with it. Some of those jobs are in my home State of Arkansas, Mississippi County, Blytheville, AR, the No. 2 ranked county in the Nation in steel production. According to the Department of Commerce, last year alone the U.S.-China trade deficit in iron and steel was a $161 million loser for the United States. The year before that the U.S. realized a steel trade deficit of $141 million, and in 1996 the deficit was $140 million. Each year the deficit in iron and steel increases dramatically. My point is, this Congress should have a say in whether we allow an agreement to be made when our trade imbalance is what we experience, even without granting China World Trade Organization status. At the appropriate time, I would like to see China join the World Trade Organization and abide by its rules. I do not believe China is ready at this time to go beyond paying lip service to the fundamental changes necessary for accession, though I know some of my colleagues do believe that they are ready. However, I believe we can all agree that we ought not make this decision hastily. The consequences are too great and long lasting and, just as importantly, we ought not let the executive branch make this determination unilaterally. Article 1 of the Constitution gives to us, the Congress, the express power over foreign commerce. This decision is too important for us to cede that power, and this amendment is a means by which we can preserve our legitimate role in the legislative branch.

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
(Senate - March 18, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2898-S2919] EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the matter of the order governing the amendment of the Senator from Texas be set aside so that I may offer an amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 80 (Purpose: To defer section 8 assistance for expiring contracts until October 1, 1999) Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment numbered 80. Inset on page 43, after line 15: ``PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING ``HOUSING CERTIFICATE FUND ``(DEFERRAL) ``Of the funds made available under this heading in Public Law 105-276 for use in connection with expiring or terminating section 8 contracts, $350,000,000 shall not become available until October 1, 1999.''. On page 42, strike beginning with line 10 through the end of line 21. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with the provision in the bill that was reported from the committee that deferred spending from the temporary assistance to needy families account. This will defer, instead, monies from the section 8 fund of HUD. There is approximately $1.2 billion in that account. This will defer for 1 year the use of $350 million in that account. It replaces the TANF amendment in the bill. Under that amendment, we deferred until 2001 the availability of funds which are transferred to the States. Because of the misunderstanding about that fund, I want to explain why we use that fund in the first place. I am once again alarmed over the misinformation that has been spread by some people in that entity, that agency, to try and make it look like somehow or other we took monies away from States or any specific State. In the first place, these grant awards are made quarterly. Actual cash outlays are made, but they are not transferred to the States until the States make expenditures in their TANF programs, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. In other words, the States first make the payments, and we pay it back. Some people, in the House in particular, have said this a way that the States can use this money for a piggy bank. In no way can they take this money and put it into another bank account and draw interest on it if they comply with the law. That is one report I have heard--that we are preventing States from taking the money to put it into their own accounts. We checked and we found that there was between $3 billion and $3.5 billion at the close of fiscal year 1998 in this fund. There are two quarters that have not even been distributed yet of this fiscal year 1999. And it is clear that the States have spent some money, and there is plenty of money to meet the States' expenditures and their requests for reimbursement of those expenditures. But this is not a fund that the States can come to willy-nilly and transfer the funds to their accounts. Secondly, Mr. President, we deferred this money from obligation in this fiscal year--really until 2001, October 1, 2001. The States would not--the bill that was reported from the committee-- lose any of their funds. We, pursuant to the entitlement that was authorized, agreed that Federal funds, taxpayers' funds, in the amount of $16.5 billion, from 1997 through 2002, would be placed in this account, to be available to reimburse States for the expenditures they made for Assistance to Needy Families. Nothing in what the Appropriations Committee did harmed that program at all. But because by October 1 another $16.5 billion would have been added to $3 billion to $3.5 billion in that account--and there has never been a drawdown at the rate that would make those funds needed within that period of time. This is not a rainy day fund. We have been told that some people have said that States take these monies and put them in a rainy day fund to use at a later date. But the law says they can only get them to reimburse expenditures. If the administration is allowing this fund to be used as a rainy day account or a piggy bank account, it is wrong. We have had so many calls from so many States, including my own. And I see the Senator from New York is here, and I know that they have been besieged because of their population base. Of course, they are eligible for more money from this account, more than anyone other than California. But it depends on how much they spend before they can get it back. We made the decision to offset this bill. This is the first time we have offset totally a supplemental emergency bill. I have said to our committee, we ought to offset emergency funds with prior appropriated emergency funds and nonemergency funds with nonemergency prior appropriated funds. I think we are going to have a little discussion about that here on the floor. But clearly what we have done, Mr. President, is we have used this bill to reprogram prior appropriated funds. These funds that were appropriated to the TANF account are sitting there waiting for the States to spend money and then come and ask for it to be repaid. The process is so rapid that the administration has not paid the first two quarters of this year yet. So this is not something we have interfered with by deferring money until the second fiscal year. Because, as I said, this account would get $16.5 billion credited to it on October 1. What we have done is, in order to avoid this controversy--and we do not need a controversy on this bill. We need to get it done. This bill, in my opinion, is a very important bill. It will provide money for assistance because of a great natural disaster in a neighboring country in this hemisphere. The President asked us to declare that an emergency. We have taken the declaration of emergency through as far as the outlay categories are concerned, because it is very difficult to score under the budget process outlays that come from emergency accounts. We have not taken an emergency declaration through on those things that we believe are nonemergency in terms of the authorization process. So by that I mean, I fail to understand how we should extend the concept of emergency appropriations to natural disasters off our shores. We should be able to find the money, if we want to be good humanitarian members of this hemisphere, to assist our neighbors. I believe we should assist them. But I do not believe we should use the laws that were intended to demand taxpayers' funds immediately to meet natural disasters or declared emergencies by the President of the United States within the boundaries of our United States. So Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the spirit of compromise, to try and take away this battle that I saw coming over the use of TANF funds. No one supports the concepts of this Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. We all know it replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the AFDC program, that assisted so many States, including mine for so many years. But this now is a block grant program that works in conjunction with the welfare-to-work concepts, and that is very vital for the States. We know that. And I think the fear that was engendered in those States that somehow or other we might not keep the commitment that was made, that if they make those expenditures we would repay them according to the formula under the law that was passed in 1996, the Welfare Reform Act, is unfortunate and wrong. I hope that someone in the administration is listening. One of these days I will find some way to tweak the nose of the people who keep doing this, because they did it in the terms of border guards last week, and now they are doing it in terms of the States themselves in terms of the comments that have been made that somehow or other we were taking money that the States were entitled to; we were deferring money that they were entitled to, [[Page S2899]] which they would never get under the process of the law anyway until the time we deferred the expenditures. As a matter of fact, some people on this side of the aisle have argued with me to say this is not a full offset because I know that I am offsetting the expenditures under this bill against a fund that would never be expended this year. That is partially true. That is why we have declared an emergency, as far as the outlays, and we have admitted that, and we have said that is the only way we can do it. But we need to do it. I hope, in particular, my new friend from New York will understand that we are doing this to meet his objections and others, and we do so in the spirit of compromise. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York. Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to, on behalf of Senator Moynihan and myself, thank Chairman Stevens, as well as Senator Byrd, for their assistance in removing the $350 million offset from the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, account, which would have deferred the funds until 2002. Mr. President, I and many others in New York feared that this offset set us off on the wrong course, that it would run counter to the intention of the welfare reform bill which allowed States to set aside TANF funds for use at a later date when welfare rolls would rise, such as during a future recession. My State, as the chairman knows, was particularly affected. The State was the source of nearly a quarter, about $80 million, of the $350 million that was offset. So I am pleased that the alternative offset would shift some HUD funds from one fiscal year to the next, funds that never would have been used. We have checked with both the administration as well as our side on Housing and on Banking and on Appropriations, and they agree with that. I say to the chairman that I appreciate very much the spirit of compromise in which this was offered. I understand his view and I will bring that message back to our State. The people of New York will now be breathing a sigh of relief that this has been replaced. I also thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, who worked with me on this. He found his State in a similar position as ours. At least for my first foray into the Senate legislative process, it has been a bipartisan and productive effort. For that, I very much thank the chairman for his understanding of our needs and yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am going to ask for adoption of the amendment but I will not move to reconsider because there may be some who want to discuss this, too. I will make a motion to reconsider this later today. May I reserve the right to make that later today? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion can be made today or any of the next 2 following days. Mr. STEVENS. I shall make it this afternoon, and I ask for the adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 80) was agreed to. Amendment No. 81 (Purpose: To set forth restrictions on deployment of United States Armed Forces in Kosovo) Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an amendment numbered 81. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: On page 58, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following: TITLE ____ RESTRICTIONS ON DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN KOSOVO SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE. This title may be cited as the ``____________ Act of 1999''. SEC. ____02. DEFINITION. In this title, the term ``Yugoslavia'' means the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). SEC. ____03. FUNDING LIMITATION. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense, including funds appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and prior fiscal years, may be obligated or expended for any deployment of ground forces of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo unless and until-- (1) the parties to the conflict in Kosovo have signed an agreement for the establishment of peace in Kosovo; (2) the President has transmitted to Congress the report provided for under section 8115 of Public Law 105-262 (112 Stat. 2327); and (3) the President has transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report containing-- (A) a certification-- (i) that deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the United States; (ii) that-- (I) the President will submit to Congress an amended budget for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 not later than 60 days after the commencement of the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo that includes an amount sufficient for such deployment; and (II) such amended budget will provide for an increase in the total amount for the major functional budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) for fiscal year 2000 by at least the total amount proposed for the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo (as compared to the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 for major functional budget category 050 (relating to National Defense) in the budget that the President submitted to Congress February 1, 1999); and (iii) that-- (I) not later than 120 days after the commencement of the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo, forces of the Armed Forces of the United States will be withdrawn from on-going military operations in locations where maintaining the current level of the Armed Forces of the United States (as of the date of certification) is no longer considered vital to the national security interests of the United States; and (II) each such withdrawal will be undertaken only after consultation with the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; (B) an explanation of the reasons why the deployment of the Armed Forces of the United States to Kosovo is in the national security interests of the United States; (C) the total number of the United States military personnel that are to be deployed in Kosovo and the number of personnel to be committed to the direct support of the international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo, including ground troops, air support, logistics support, and intelligence support; (D) the percentage that the total number of personnel of the United States Armed Forces specified in subparagraph (C) bears to the total number of the military personnel of all NATO nations participating in the international peacekeeping operation in Kosovo; (E) a description of the responsibilities of the United States military force participating in the international peacekeeping operation to enforce any provision of the Kosovo peace agreement; and (F) a clear identification of the benchmarks for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo, together with a description of those benchmarks and the estimated dates by which those benchmarks can and will be achieved. (b) Consultation.-- (1) In general.--Prior to the conduct of any air operations by the Armed Forces of the United States against Yugoslavia, the President shall consult with the joint congressional leadership and the chairmen and ranking minority members of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to those operations. (2) Definitions.--In this subsection: (A) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (i) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. (B) Joint congressional leadership.--The term ``joint congressional leadership'' means-- (i) the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the Senate. SEC. ____04. REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING BENCHMARKS. Thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a detailed report on the benchmarks that are established to measure progress and determine the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Kosovo. Each report shall include-- [[Page S2900]] (1) a detailed description of the benchmarks for the withdrawal of the Armed Forces from Kosovo; (2) the objective criteria for evaluating successful achievement of the benchmarks; (3) an analysis of the progress made in achieving the benchmarks; (4) a comparison of the current status on achieving the benchmarks with the progress described in the last report submitted under this section; (5) the specific responsibilities assigned to the implementation force in assisting in the achievement of the benchmarks; (6) the estimated timetable for achieving the benchmarks; and (7) the status of plans and preparations for withdrawal of the implementing force once the objective criteria for achieving the benchmarks have been met. SEC. ____05. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this title restricts the authority of the President to protect the lives of United States citizens. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment now be laid aside and no call for regular order, except one made by myself or the mover of the amendment, the Senator from Texas, serve to bring back the pending amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendments Nos. 82 Through 88, En Bloc Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a package of amendments that have been cleared and I would like to say for the record what they are. They are: An amendment by Senator McCain to extend the Aviation Insurance Program through May 31, 1999. An amendment by Senator Grassley providing $1.4 million to expedite adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Health and Human Services Appeal Board. It also provides for an offset for that amount of $1.4 million. We have Senator Shelby's amendment which makes a technical correction to title IV. We have an amendment by Senator Byrd making a technical correction to the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program in the bill. An amendment by Senator Frist and Senator Thompson providing $3.2 million for repairs to Jackson, TN, Army aviation facility damaged by a tornado in January. It also provides for an offset in the same amount. An amendment by myself for a technical correction to the current year, 1999's Commerce-Justice-State bill, and provides for rules on the taking of Beluga whales. I send these amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Frist and Mr. Thompson, proposes amendments numbered 82 through 88, en bloc, as follows: AMENDMENT NO. 82 (Purpose: To extend the aviation insurance program through May 31, 1999) At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. 17. EXTENSION OF AVIATION INSURANCE PROGRAM. Section 44310 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``March 31, 1999.'' and inserting ``May 31, 1999.''. ____ AMENDMENT NO. 83 (Purpose: Expediting adjudication of civil monetary penalties by the Department of Health and Human Services Appeals Board) On page 29, insert after line 10: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary General Departmental Management For an additional amount for `'general departmental management'', $1,400,000, to reduce the backlog of pending nursing home appeals before the Departmental Appeals Board. On page 42, line 8, strike $3,116,076,000 and insert $3,114,676,000 On page 42, line 9, strike $164,933,000 and insert $163,533,000. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to speed up adjudication, by the appeals board of the Department of Health and Human Services, of appeals from nursing facilities of civil monetary penalties levied by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for violations of standards established pursuant to the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. Currently, there is a substantial backlog of some 701 such cases. Delay in final adjudication of such cases subverts the purpose and effect of civil monetary penalties, delaying corrective action, and improvements in the quality of care offered by nursing facilities. Delays in adjudication of these cases also burdens nursing facilities through additional legal fees and the perpetuation of uncertainty caused by unresolved disputes. The number of such cases filed each year by nursing facilities has increased each year since 1995, the year when regulations for the Nursing Home Reform Act's enforcement standards went into effect. Currently, as I noted earlier in my statement, there are 701 such cases pending. Mr. President, the steady increase in appeals of civil monetary penalties since 1995 shows the effect of increased use, by the States and HCFA, of the enforcement regulations which went into effect in 1995. Nevertheless, in hearings I held in the Special Committee on Aging last July, the General Accounting Office reported that nursing facilities providing poor quality of care regularly escaped sanctions which could cause care to be improved. The pattern seemed to be that a facility would be sanctioned for poor quality of care, be required to attest in writing through a plan of correction that steps had been taken to improve care, and then be found deficient on the next visit from State officials. This pattern often continued for long periods of time. And when sanctions such as civil monetary penalties were levied by HCFA, the sanctioned facilities would appeal, causing lengthy delays in final resolution of the case. One week before my July hearings, President Clinton launched a variety of new initiatives designed to improve the quality of care in nursing facilities. Among those new initiatives was one designed to eliminate paper compliance with quality standards and to proceed more quickly to sanctions for those homes with a history of poor care. The upshot of oversight by the Special Committee on Aging and the Presidential initiatives is that there has been a substantial increase thus far in 1999 of appeals of civil monetary penalties by nursing facilities. Certainly, facilities have the right to appeal sanctions levied by HCFA. But it is also important that appeals be heard and resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Delay subverts improvement in the quality of care in nursing facilities as real deficiencies go uncorrected. Delay also slows the development of precedents which would clarify outstanding issues. Slow development of such precedents encourages facilities and their legal representatives to file appeals because guidance as to the worthiness of an appeal is lacking. And, as the body of precedents becomes more complete, adjudication of cases becomes speedier. The root problem has been that the departmental appeals board does not have sufficient resources to keep up with the increase in new cases, to say nothing of working off the current backlog of cases. I am given to understand that, at the present time about 25 new cases are filed with the appeals board each week. As will be clear from the table I am attaching to my statement, the number of cases decided each year has averaged around 23 for the last 3 years. Clearly, the board is swamped and needs help. The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes $2.8 million for the board. Were the Congress to provide those funds, it will certainly take time for the appeals board to gear up and begin to speed up adjudication of appeals.We can't wait to begin addressing this problem, Mr. President. The amendment I offer would provide $1.4 million to be made available through the supplemental appropriation we are now considering. I have not proposed to provide the full $2.8 million the President's budget proposes for the next fiscal year because the appeals board could not effectively spend that amount in what remains of the fiscal year. Therefore, I have essentially prorated that amount over the time remaining in this fiscal year. amendment no. 84 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: [[Page S2901]] Sec. . Title 49 Recodification Correction.--Effective December 31, 1998, section 4(k) of the Act of July 5, 1994 (Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 1370), as amended by section 7(a)(3)(D) of the Act of October 31, 1994 (Public Law 103- 429, 108 Stat. 4329), is repealed. amendment no. 85 (Purpose: To make a technical correction) On page 16, strike beginning with line 12 through page 23, line 8, and insert the following: Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. (a) Short Title.-- This section may be cited as the ``Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999''. (b) Congressional Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) the United States steel industry has been severely harmed by a record surge of more than 40,000,000 tons of steel imports into the United States in 1998, caused by the world financial crisis; (2) this surge in imports resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 steel worker jobs in 1998, and was the imminent cause of 3 bankruptcies by medium-sized steel companies, Acme Steel, Laclede Steel, and Geneva Steel; (3) the crisis also forced almost all United States steel companies into-- (A) reduced volume, lower prices, and financial losses; and (B) an inability to obtain credit for continued operations and reinvestment in facilities; (4) the crisis also has affected the willingness of private banks and investment institutions to make loans to the U.S. steel industry for continued operation and reinvestment in facilities; (5) these steel bankruptcies, job losses, and financial losses are also having serious negative effects on the tax base of cities, counties, and States, and on the essential health, education, and municipal services that these government entities provide to their citizens; and (6) a strong steel industry is necessary to the adequate defense preparedness of the United States in order to have sufficient steel available to build the ships, tanks, planes, and armaments necessary for the national defense. (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section-- (1) the term ``Board'' means the Loan Guarantee Board established under subsection (e); (2) the term ``Program'' means the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program established under subsection (d); and (3) the term ``qualified steel company'' means any company that-- (A) is incorporated under the laws of any State; (B) is engaged in the production and manufacture of a product defined by the American Iron and Steel Institute as a basic steel mill product, including ingots, slab and billets, plates, flat-rolled steel, sections and structural products, bars, rail type products, pipe and tube, and wire rod; and (C) has experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses since the beginning of the steel import crisis, after January 1, 1998. (d) Establishment of Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program.--There is established the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program, to be administered by the Board, the purpose of which is to provide loan guarantees to qualified steel companies in accordance with this section. (e) Loan Guarantee Board Membership.--There is established a Loan Guarantee Board, which shall be composed of-- (1) the Secretary of Commerce, who shall serve as Chairman of the Board; (2) the Secretary of Labor; and (3) the Secretary of the Treasury. (f) Loan Guarantee Program.-- (1) Authority.--The Program may guarantee loans provided to qualified steel companies by private banking and investment institutions in accordance with the procedures, rules, and regulations established by the Board. (2) Total guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans guaranteed and outstanding at any 1 time under this section may not exceed $1,000,000,000. (3) Individual guarantee limit.--The aggregate amount of loans guaranteed under this section with respect to a single qualified steel company may not exceed $250,000,000. (4) Minimum guarantee amount.--No single loan in an amount that is less than $25,000,000 may be guaranteed under this section. (5) Timelines.--The Board shall approve or deny each application for a guarantee under this section as soon as possible after receipt of such application. (6) Additional costs.--For the additional cost of the loans guaranteed under this subsection, including the costs of modifying the loans as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a), there is appropriated $140,000,000 to remain available until expended. (g) Requirements for Loan Guarantees.--A loan guarantee may be issued under this section upon application to the Board by a qualified steel company pursuant to an agreement to provide a loan to that qualified steel company by a private bank or investment company, if the Board determines that-- (1) credit is not otherwise available to that company under reasonable terms or conditions sufficient to meet its financing needs, as reflected in the financial and business plans of that company; (2) the prospective earning power of that company, together with the character and value of the security pledged, furnish reasonable assurance of repayment of the loan to be guaranteed in accordance with its terms; (3) the loan to be guaranteed bears interest at a rate determined by the Board to be reasonable, taking into account the current average yield on outstanding obligations of the United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable to the maturity of such loan; and (4) the company has agreed to an audit by the General Accounting Office, prior to the issuance of the loan guarantee and annually while any such guaranteed loan is outstanding. (h) Terms and Conditions of Loan Guarantees.-- (1) Loan duration.--All loans guaranteed under this section shall be payable in full not later than December 31, 2005, and the terms and conditions of each such loan shall provide that the loan may not be amended, or any provision thereof waived, without the consent of the Board. (2) Loan security.--Any commitment to issue a loan guarantee under this section shall contain such affirmative and negative covenants and other protective provisions that the Board determines are appropriate. The Board shall require security for the loans to be guaranteed under this section at the time at which the commitment is made. (3) Fees.--A qualified steel company receiving a guarantee under this section shall pay a fee in an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal balance of the guaranteed loan to the Department of the Treasury. (i) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Commerce shall submit to Congress annually, a full report of the activities of the Board under this section during fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and annually thereafter, during such period as any loan guaranteed under this section is outstanding. (j) Salaries and Administrative Expenses.--For necessary expenses to administer the Program, $5,000,000 is appropriated to the Department of Commerce, to remain available until expended, which may be transferred to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Development of the International Trade Administration. (k) Termination of Guarantee Authority.--The authority of the Board to make commitments to guarantee any loan under this section shall terminate on December 31, 2001. (l) Regulatory Action.--The Board shall issue such final procedures, rules, and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act. (m) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made available to carry out this section-- (1) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)); and (2) shall be available only to the extent that an official budget request that includes designation of the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement (as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) is transmitted by the President to Congress. AMENDMENT NO. 86 (Purpose: To increase, with a rescission, the supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military construction for the Army National Guard) On page 30, line 1, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert ``$14,500,000''. On page 43, line 12, strike ``$11,300,000'' and insert ``$14,500,000''. amendment no. 87 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the taking of a Cook Inlet beluga whale under the exemption provided in section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)) between the date of the enactment of this Act and October 1, 2000 shall be considered a violation of such Act unless such taking occurs pursuant to a cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Commission. amendment no. 88 At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: Sec. . Funds provided in the Department of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277, Division A, Section 101(b)) for the construction of correctional facility in Barrow, Alaska shall be made available to the North Slope Borough. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc. The amendments (Nos. 82 through 88) were agreed to. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, is here and he will offer an amendment. After he has presented his amendment, I state to the Senator it will be my intention to move to table his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on that motion to table and the vote on the motion to table the Harkin amendment occur at 2:30. [[Page S2902]] Mr. HARKIN. Torricelli. Mr. STEVENS. Torricelli/Harkin amendment occur at 2:30. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Amendment No. 89 (Purpose: To require prior congressional approval before the United States supports the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization) Mr. HUTCHINSON. I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an amendment numbered 89. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following new section: SEC. ____. PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR SUPPORTING ADMISSION OF CHINA INTO THE WTO. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States may not support the admission of the People's Republic of China as a member of the World Trade Organization unless a provision of law is passed by both Houses of Congress and enacted into law after the enactment of this Act that specifically allows the United States to support such admission. (b) Procedures for Congressional Approval of United States Support for Admission of China Into the WTO.-- (1) Notification of congress.--The President shall notify the Congress in writing if the President determines that the United States should support the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization. (2) Support of china's admission into the wto.--The United States may support the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization if a joint resolution is enacted into law under subsection (c) and the Congress adopts and transmits the joint resolution to the President before the end of the 90-day period (excluding any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974), beginning on the date on which the Congress receives the notification referred to in paragraph (1). (c) Joint Resolution.-- (1) Joint resolution.--For purposes of this section, the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution of the 2 Houses of Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That the Congress approves the support of the United States for the admission of the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization.''. (2) Procedures.-- (A) In general.--A joint resolution may be introduced at any time on or after the date on which the Congress receives the notification referred to in subsection (b)(1), and before the end of the 90-day period referred to in subsection (b)(2). A joint resolution may be introduced in either House of the Congress by any member of such House. (B) Application of section 152.--Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the provisions of subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(b), (d), (e), and (f)) apply to a joint resolution under this section to the same extent as such provisions apply to resolutions under section 152. (C) Discharge of committee.--If the committee of either House to which a joint resolution has been referred has not reported it by the close of the 45th day after its introduction (excluding any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974), such committee shall be automatically discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar. (D) Consideration by appropriate committee.--It is not in order for-- (i) the Senate to consider any joint resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on Finance or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C); or (ii) the House of Representatives to consider any joint resolution unless it has been reported by the Committee on Ways and Means or the committee has been discharged under subparagraph (C). (E) Consideration in the house.--A motion in the House of Representatives to proceed to the consideration of a joint resolution may only be made on the second legislative day after the calendar day on which the Member making the motion announces to the House his or her intention to do so. (3) Consideration of second resolution not in order.--It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider a joint resolution (other than a joint resolution received from the other House), if that House has previously adopted a joint resolution under this section. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, if I might. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN. I am just trying to find out from the Senator, is there a time allotment or not? Mr. STEVENS. When the Senator finishes, I will make a motion to table. It should be about 1 o'clock. Mr. HARKIN. I just didn't know---- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have not asked for a time limitation on the Senator making his presentation, but he knows that as soon as he finishes, I will make a motion to table. Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is going to table both at 2:30? Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make a motion to table the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas, and after the Senator from Iowa, I will make a motion, but I got unanimous consent that those votes occur at 2:30. Mr. HARKIN. That is fine with me. I just wanted to make sure. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, who has the floor? Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has the floor. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question--for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand the distinguished Senator from Alaska is saying he is going to move to table. I would like to speak on the amendment, but the Senator is moving to table as soon as the Senator is finished. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would be pleased if the Senator would agree to try to reach a time agreement on that, because we have other Senators wishing to offer amendments this afternoon also. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, first, that the Senator yield to me? I apologize. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman. Mr. STEVENS. How much time would the Senator like to have? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I think for my presentation I probably only need 15 minutes. If there are those who speak against the amendment, I would like to yield proportionally then. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I still have the floor, how much time does the Senator from Montana seek? Mr. BAUCUS. I was thinking of 10, 15 minutes. Mr. STEVENS. Could we have an agreement that there be 30 minutes on this amendment? Is the Senator from Montana speaking against the amendment? Mr. BAUCUS. I am speaking against the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object---- Mr. STEVENS. I am seeking a limitation of 30 minutes on the amendment, that the time following that time to be--I will make a motion to table, only a motion to table be in order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection---- Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that Senators Roth and Moynihan wish to speak, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be expanded to 40 minutes to be followed only by a motion to table offered by me. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object. Mr. STEVENS. Forty-five minutes. The Senator wants to close. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I suspect the others the Senator mentioned are going to speak in opposition. There are some who might want to speak in favor. If we are going to extend the time afforded Senators who want to speak against, I think we might have trouble extending the time with that restriction. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do desire to limit the time if possible, so we can have a vote when the Senate comes back out of that conference. Could we agree to 30 minutes on a side? Is there objection to 30 minutes on a side? I renew my request---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STEVENS. The agreement then is 1 hour equally divided? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. [[Page S2903]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. This is a very straightforward amendment that simply says that before China can be admitted to the World Trade Organization, there will have to be a joint resolution passed by the Congress supporting that accession of China to the World Trade Organization. It is very simple. It is simply saying we should have a voice in this. We should not have the administration arbitrarily and unilaterally making a very, very significant and major decision without the input of the U.S. Congress and this body. It does not prejudge what should happen. It does not say whether China should be in or not. There may be very compelling arguments that could be presented in such a debate. But it does say that before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization, every Senator in this body ought to have an opportunity to look at the evidence and have a say in the outcome of that debate. That is why we need this amendment, because Congress needs to, once again, assert its constitutional responsibility in the area of foreign commerce. I believe we must do it now for a couple of reasons. It is the only opportunity we are going to have before the recess, and our only opportunity before Zhu Rongji visits this Nation next month. He will come during our Easter recess. So, if Congress is going to have any kind of statement on this, if we are going to be able to take any kind of action on this, we must take it now. I know some of my colleagues will say this should have gone through committee. In an ideal world I would agree. It is very straightforward. I do not think it would require a great deal of debate, as to whether someone is for it or against it, but ideally that is where it should have gone. But, once again, the stream of negotiations that have taken place in recent weeks between our country and the Chinese Government, with our officials going to China--Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Secretary of State Albright, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky have all been making repeated trips to China-- negotiating, obviously; attempting to broker a deal on the World Trade Organization accession of China. If we wait for an announcement by the administration that a deal has been reached, an announcement by the administration that the outlines of an agreement have been reached, we will make China's membership in the WTO a fait accompli. Any effort to stop it after the fact, after the negotiations are completed and after an agreement has been announced, I think will be too late for this body to really make a difference. The amendment is, as I said, very straightforward. It would require a joint resolution to be passed before the United States could support admission of China into the WTO. Again, it does not preclude our support for China's entry. It simply sends a clear statement that Congress should be involved in the process of deciding U.S. support for China's accession into the WTO. The administration should not make any hasty deals with China. We must give careful consideration to the timing as well as to the consequences of Chinese accession. Congress must be thoroughly involved in that debate. We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the most populous nation in the world, and, as we hear so often, the largest market in the world, in a vacuum. There are certain facts that we must face; there is a political environment in which all of these negotiations are occurring. The Chinese have used espionage to obtain important nuclear secrets from the United States. That is a matter that must be fully investigated. I believe it will be. I believe the appropriate oversight committees are moving expeditiously to investigate. But it certainly is not going to happen before we go out on the Easter recess. We may have hearings next week, but we will not see the end of this, we will not have all the facts on the table, before the Easter recess and before Zhu Rongji visits this country. Another fact that faces us is our trade deficit with the Chinese is at an alarming all-time high of $56.9 billion for 1998. It is rising exponentially every year. That reality ought to cause us to pause before we see the administration rush into a WTO deal. The Chinese continue to keep many of their markets closed, particularly to our agricultural sector, our farmers, who are in such crisis. The Chinese have signed and blatantly disregarded the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have engaged in a widespread crackdown on prodemocracy activists in China, effectively silencing all political dissent. We cannot give WTO membership in a vacuum, ignoring all other realities that face us. The 1999 State Department report on China, released in the last few weeks, demonstrably proves China's ignoring of the very covenant on civil and political rights that they signed last year. If we cannot trust them to live up to a human rights covenant that they signed, how can we assume they are going to live according to the rules and the obligations of the World Trade Organization? There is an issue of trust. They have not justified the trust we would show in placing them in the World Trade Organization. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress express power over foreign commerce. There is no question but that this is our right. There is no question in this Senator's mind that it is our responsibility to step forward and say: WTO membership for China will not be granted without a debate in the House and Senate and a joint resolution. There are serious questions that the House and the Senate need to address. For us to sit back and go off on our Easter vacation, to go off on recess, to hold our town meetings or to take our trips around the world, and to have been silent on this issue, I think, at this time, will be indefensible. I suspect there will be some kind of announcement on the U.S. position on China's membership in the WTO while we are gone. Then we would never have had the opportunity to debate very important questions. I do not have all of the answers to these questions, but I know they are serious questions and I know the Senator from Montana, the Senator from Alabama, who was on the floor just a moment ago, and myself ought to have a right, before we have the United States taking a position on WTO membership, to debate that on the floor of the Senate, to thoroughly examine the questions that have not yet been answered. One question I would have is this: Are we lowering the WTO bar for China, to rush them into membership? Since 1995, four countries have completed negotiations on accession protocol: Ecuador, Mongolia, Bulgaria, and Panama. All four of these nations were required to eliminate, on the date of accession or with very short transitions, trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. That has been the standard. Since 1995 the four nations that have sought to enter the WTO have been required to eliminate their trade practices that were incompatible with WTO rules. But China has firmly and continuously and repeatedly said they want a different standard. They want a longer transition period. They do not want to meet those WTO rules at the time of or soon after their accession to the WTO. That is a question I believe this body deserves the opportunity to investigate and debate thoroughly before we announce a national position regarding China's admission. Another question I think is a serious question for debate: Are we allowing China into the WTO before they have made the kind of market reforms to bring them into conformity with WTO standards? The administration argues if we will just let China in, we will have greater influence on China's reform efforts than we do now while they are outside of the World Trade Organization. I suppose that is debatable. But we ought to have the opportunity to have that debate. In my estimation, our influence on China would be far greater before they are admitted to the World Trade Organization than afterwards. Our ability to influence the kind of reforms the World Trade Organization would desire will be far greater if we say you are going to accrue the benefits of trade under the WTO only after these market reforms have taken place, these trade barriers have been lowered. Reforms should first be enacted, changes should first occur, and then membership should be granted --not vice versa. [[Page S2904]] I think this question deserves debate: Can China be trusted on trade issues? When we look at our exploding trade deficit with China, can they be trusted on trade issues if admitted to the World Trade Organization, or will we admit them to the World Trade Organization and then find them cavalierly ignoring the standards and the rules of the World Trade Organization? Our administration's own Trade Representative Barshefsky stated in her testimony, a little over 2 years ago, in reference to China, that ``China imposes new import barriers to replace those it removed.'' In other words, there can be the appearance of reform taking place, but if there are new barriers that are being erected while the old ones are being brought down, you really have not achieved the reforms necessary for World Trade Organization membership. China has almost one-third of its industrial production controlled by the state. Almost two-thirds of urban workers are employed in state- owned enterprises. These state-owned enterprises are notorious for their ability to destroy wealth. Some economists estimate that it would be cheaper for China to close down their state-owned enterprises and keep paying the workers--close down the enterprises, go ahead and pay them their salaries, they would still come out ahead, than to keep operating. But because the state-owned enterprises would be vulnerable to foreign competition, the Chinese Government has a strong disincentive to the state-owned enterprises that are heavily subsidized through China's centralized and insolvent banking system. One of the pledges that the Chinese Government made was that they would rapidly privatize the state-owned enterprises, shutting down those that they had to, privatizing others, allowing them to create capital by selling stock, but because of the recent economic downturn in China in which their robust growth rate has dropped appreciably, China now has backed off that pledge and has once again begun a round of bank loans to these very unprofitable, state-owned enterprises to subsidize them and to keep them in business. This is backpedaling already on the kinds of reforms that would be expected if China were in fact ready for admission to the World Trade Organization. Another question that this body needs to debate is, Should China be admitted as a developing country with far less stringent expectations and longer transition than allowed for other nations? That is what they desire. They say we are a developing Nation; therefore, we should be treated more leniently. They base their claim primarily upon their per capita gross domestic product. By every other measure, China is a major economic power in the world today and they want to be treated as such. They want to be recognized as a major economic power. China will argue that as a developing country, they are entitled to use subsidies. They are entitled to put limits on exports and other policies to promote development of certain key industries such as automobiles and telecommunications and heavy industrial equipment. China maintains that such programs are a part of China's industrial policy and not related to its application to the World Trade Organization. Many trade officials simply disagree with that assertion by the Chinese Government. That is a question and that is an issue the Senate should have the opportunity to debate, not after the fact but before China is admitted to the World Trade Organization and before the U.S. Government announces its position on Chinese accession. A WTO paper, prepared in response to a request from Chinese negotiators, suggested that industrial policies in China and other countries could violate the basic principles of nondiscrimination and national treatment and other WTO rules. They are not in compliance. They are not ready to join the WTO. Political considerations should not be the driving force in rushing China into the WTO before they have made necessary reforms. Another question I believe we should debate is this: Should China be given membership in WTO before Taiwan, which is simultaneously seeking membership? Will it be the position of the U.S. Government that we support the admission of People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization while not yet supporting Taiwan's admission? Which one should be admitted first? I think that is an important issue. I think that is one my colleagues in the Senate deserve to have the opportunity to discuss thoroughly. Many believe that once China is admitted, they will work feverishly to block Taiwan's entry, even though Taiwan is a much more developed Nation, has a much more developed economy, and an economy which is much more consistent with WTO rules. Yet without a vote of the Senate or a vote of the House, this administration is prepared to support the admission of China to the WTO before Taiwan's admission. I believe this question deserves debate as well: Will a premature entry by China into WTO hurt American business interests? I know that large corporate interests in this country support China's immediate accession to WTO, but many business people in this country have serious concerns as to how China's admission to WTO will impact them. U.S. business interests often want permanent MFN for China and would like to use an agreement on WTO, I believe, as a means to push for this goal, but many of these business interests are also concerned that China's WTO accession, without meeting market access and other requirements, would seriously limit U.S. business access to the Chinese market for a long time to come. The very access that American business wants so desperately, we would be locked out of that access permanently or for a long duration should they be admitted to the World Trade Organization before they have met market access rules. As a result, many U.S. interests are pushing U.S. negotiators to remain firm, to stand pat, and not concede on the conditions of China's entry into the World Trade Organization. I believe another question that this body needs to debate is, How will WTO admission for China affect jobs? Indeed, we should consider how it would affect our jobs here in the United States. I remind my colleagues, contained in this very supplemental appropriations bill, which we are soon prepared to vote on, is a measure to assist the U.S. steel industry and the jobs that go with it. Some of those jobs are in my home State of Arkansas, Mississippi County, Blytheville, AR, the No. 2 ranked county in the Nation in steel production. According to the Department of Commerce, last year alone the U.S.-China trade deficit in iron and steel was a $161 million loser for the United States. The year before that the U.S. realized a steel trade deficit of $141 million, and in 1996 the deficit was $140 million. Each year the deficit in iron and steel increases dramatically. My point is, this Congress should have a say in whether we allow an agreement to be made when our trade imbalance is what we experience, even without granting China World Trade Organization status. At the appropriate time, I would like to see China join the World Trade Organization and abide by its rules. I do not believe China is ready at this time to go beyond paying lip service to the fundamental changes necessary for accession, though I know some of my colleagues do believe that they are ready. However, I believe we can all agree that we ought not make this decision hastily. The consequences are too great and long lasting and, just as importantly, we ought not let the executive branch make this determination unilaterally. Article 1 of the Constitution gives to us, the Congress, the express power over foreign commerce. This decision is too important for us to cede that power, and this amendment is a means by which we can preserve our legitimate role in the legislative