Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment strikes the emergency designation for the Bosnian funds from the bill. This supplemental request is mandated by section 8132 of the appropriations bill for 1999. If the President certifies that the mission to Bosnia must continue, under the law this then continues. Bosnia costs are emergency, as Congress specifically funded only through June 30, 1998. The problem we face now is the cost of the continued deployment has already been paid. The administration has sought to seek these funds to avoid damage to the readiness and the quality of life that the military faces, which is not currently deployed, but they may face missions, as I have told the Senate before, to Bosnia or Iraq within the remainder of this year. The emergency designation allows those moneys necessary for this deployment to come out of the emergency fund rather than having to come out of reprogrammed accounts for the moneys we have already appropriated for quality of life and for readiness for the remainder of the force that is not deployed. Under the circumstances, I agree with Senator Feingold's position. We, however, thought we had a commitment that the troops would be out on July 1. I think the Senate realizes that. The President made the finding that the law required it if he was going to continue the deployment, and that is not only for 1998 but for 1999. We will address, as we have already indicated with the comments of the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, today, the continued deployment in Bosnia at length during the consideration of both the authorization bill and the defense appropriations bill this year as we look to 1999. But for the purpose now of dealing with the continued deployment for the remainder of this year, I implore the Senator not to require, by striking the emergency designation, that these funds must be taken from other portions of the Department of Defense that are already accounted for in the appropriations we have made for those functions. And we would again just be doing that. I feel like a white rat in one of those circular wheels. We just continue to go around and around. And we don't get anywhere if we appropriate money and we have to go back and take that money and put it into another purpose, particularly this late in the year. It would also have a problem because some of the moneys that have already been committed would not actually be spent until 1999. We went into that yesterday in connection with another matter. But, clearly, if we do not have the emergency designation, those moneys that are actually spent in 1999 will be counted against our allocation that we are already working on for 1999 in terms of the new bill for fiscal year 1999. And, unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office has already told us we are $3.7 billion short to meet the level of funding that is indicated in the budget. There is this battle between the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. This will add to that deficit. When we try to correct that deficit, it would mean the moneys that are basically emergency moneys to deal with the continued deployment through September 30 of this year must actually be counted against 1999. I have to tell you, Mr. President, that makes that problem of the deficit and defense allocation for outlays for 1999 even that much worse. So, under the circumstances, I have no alternative but to urge the Senate to table the Feingold amendment. Let us deal with Bosnia in terms of the 1999 bill, and let us address the whole subject of the continued deployment and the funding for anything that goes on. I will tell the Senate that it is not possible to get those soldiers out of there at one time. There has to be, if we are going to have a staggered withdrawal, a staged withdrawal, a downsizing to the point where we can do it legitimately, and without risk to anyone. So I urge the Senate to support me in the motion that I am going to make in order to prevent us from forcing the Department of Defense to use moneys that have already been appropriated for other functions in the Department to pay the cost of this emergency caused by the President's determination that the troops will stay there after July 1. I am about ready to make the motion to table. Before I do so, does the Senator wish to make one last statement concerning his amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Feingold amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina. It does relieve a problem we are developing here. Amendment No. 2122

Mr. STEVENS. Under the previous agreement we have, it is my understanding now that the pending business will be amendment No. 2122, offered by Senator Bond. Is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the pending amendment, No. 2122, is the CDBG amendment; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment will provide $260 million for emergency Community Development Block Grants that will fund disaster relief, long-term recovery, and mitigation in communities affected by Presidentially declared disasters that have occurred in this fiscal year, 1998. This funding is needed to supplement funding provided through the more traditional emergency disaster programs under the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, the Small Business Administration, SBA, and the Army Corps of Engineers. I have concerns about using CDBG funds for emergency purposes, especially since the Department of Housing and Urban Development did not really provide adequate data and accountability concerning the use of these emergency CDBG funds in the past. Nevertheless, this legislation is designed to ensure that funds go to disaster relief activities that are identified by the Director of FEMA as unmet needs that have not been or will not be addressed by other Federal disaster assistance programs. In addition, to assure accountability, States must provide a 25 percent match for these emergency CDBG funds and HUD must publish a notice of program requirements and provide an accounting of CDBG funds by the type of activity and the amount of funding and the recipient. Mr. President, I know of no opposition to this amendment. I ask for the immediate adoption of this amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as I understand it, we will now move to amendment No. 2123, which is the FEMA amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is this amendment before the Senate?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment would replenish FEMA's disaster relief fund by $1.6 billion, as requested by the administration, consistent with FEMA's current estimate of the additional funds needed to meet the fiscal year 1998 and prior year disaster requirements. So far this year, there have been Presidential disaster declarations in 17 States and territories. These disasters include snowstorms, typhoons, tornadoes, flooding, and ice storms. Most of these disasters have been related to the weather phenomenon we now know as El Nino. While funds are currently available in the disaster relief fund, there are not sufficient funds on hand to meet the total costs which are estimated to stem from current disasters. In fact, FEMA estimates it will need every penny currently in the disaster relief fund to meet the existing cost projections of more than $3 billion from the disasters that have occurred prior to fiscal year 1998. Included in the $1.6 billion appropriations request are funds for disasters which are also anticipated to occur in fiscal year 1998 based on the 5-year historical average cost of disaster relief. To date, FEMA disaster relief has been running very close to that 5-year average, despite the fact that a number of Senators and some people have raised questions about there being more damage that is caused by El Nino than has been caused in recent years. I support FEMA's expeditious provision of aid to many of the needy communities that are stricken by disasters and wish to be sure that the disaster fund is fully funded, but, as I stated yesterday, I continue to be deeply concerned about the cost of disaster relief. Each year, we are seeing these costs rise exponentially, and the need for cost containment now is paramount. I urge the authorizing committees to look at these costs and determine if there is some way to reduce the costs for these funds. In the last 5 years, we have appropriated a staggering $18 billion to FEMA for disaster relief compared to $6.7 billion for the prior 5-year period. Clearly, the costs associated with disaster relief are growing out of control. Unfortunately, we also have learned over the past few years that disaster funds have gone to some facilities like golf courses or to refurbish shrubbery in high-income communities, to facilities associated with universities that already have impressive endowments and revenue-generating capabilities, and to provide housing assistance to some who are really not in need. I really hope that the administration will realize it must put controls on these expenditures if FEMA is to continue to get the support of the Congress. Moreover, Senator Bond, over the last few years, has pushed FEMA to submit a legislative plan of reforms to control disaster costs. With some reluctance, FEMA did submit a proposal for reforming the Stafford Act last summer. The proposed amendments address several very important areas, including new incentives for mitigation, streamlining the grant process, and eliminating certain facilities currently eligible for disaster relief, such as I said, golf courses. It is critical that this FEMA reform legislation be acted upon by the authorizing committees this year, and I urge them to work with Senator Bond to enact these reforms. Meanwhile, while it is clear that we expect and need reform of FEMA programs, we also believe that Congress must complete action on this disaster relief funding legislation as quickly as possible, so that the disaster needs of our communities can be met. I see the Senator from Oklahoma is here. I wish to state, I did reconsider the vote on the prior amendment. I did not know whether it was this amendment or the prior amendment that the Senator wished to address. If he wishes to address the first one, I will be happy to withdraw that and bring it back to where the Senator can offer an amendment to it.

Mr. STEVENS. I will say for the Senator, I have just read his remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield there?

Mr. STEVENS. When I was informed that we were running out of money, according to the projections for FEMA, and would be out of money if they met all of the disaster requirements for fiscal year 1998, I said we had to do something about it but we would not do anything about it unless we got a request from the administration. That is why it came in yesterday.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for a vote on the pending amendment, the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond. I urge adoption of the amendment at this time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so Senator Helms may offer his amendment. And I state to the Senate that this amendment will require a rollcall in the not-too- distant future.

Mr. STEVENS. May we have order, Mr. President?

Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Helms amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent this vote take place at 6:30 p.m.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Illinois seek time?