Supplemental spending bill may face fatal impasse

The first major bill of the 106th Congress, the fiscal 1999 supplemental spending package, has hit a major impasse-with the Senate going in one direction, the House in another and the Clinton administration in yet a third.

While Senate sources appear willing to let the aid package drop altogether, House appropriators are still pushing the administration to work with Congress on offsets-but the White House remains staunchly opposed to paying for what it classifies as emergency spending. Both the House and Senate supplemental bills would provide disaster relief to Central America and Colombia, military and economic assistance to Jordan and aid to economically strapped U.S. farmers.

The $1.3 billion House version of the bill is almost completely offset and has drawn a veto threat primarily over its proposed $648 million cut in "callable capital" appropriations available to international lending institutions.

The heftier $2.4 billion Senate supplemental also is almost entirely offset, albeit with cuts denounced by the White House-such as those to the food stamp, welfare-to-work and other favored domestic programs.

The final Senate bill-which also includes riders blocking proposed mining and oil royalties rules and prohibiting the federal government from claiming any share of states' tobacco settlement money-no longer deems any of the expenses to be emergencies.

An Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman said the administration continues to oppose the offsets and legislative riders in both bills, and urged Congress "to move as quickly as possible so that aid can be provided to farmers, the victims of natural disasters and to Jordan. All are urgent [matters] and the administration position remains that the emergency spending should be passed through Congress without offsets."

While the House and Senate bills differ widely, sources from both chambers agree that it must be offset-and that the administration is making matters worse by not cooperating.

A House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman said, "Unless the administration comes forward with some offsets that are acceptable, we're going to be in a real bind."

Although frustrated, House appropriators say they "will have to conference it in some form or another," according to the spokeswoman.

But one Senate GOP source described a different mood across the Capitol, saying, "There is a serious discussion that will have to take place among leaders and [Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska] when we get back [from recess] about whether or not we even do this, because now we're getting into the regular appropriations cycle. I think it is a live possibility that members may decide to move on to the regular appropriations process."

Under that scenario, Congress would simply provide funding for Jordan and Central American disaster relief in the fiscal 2000 foreign operations bill, and the farm aid in next year's Agriculture appropriations bill-which the aide noted would likely be one of the first fiscal 2000 appropriations completed as a result.