[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5212-H5221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4103, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 484 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 484

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4103) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI, 
     clause 7 of rule XXI, or section 306 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and

[[Page H5213]]

     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in 
     the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. 
     Consideration of section 8106 for amendment under the five-
     minute rule shall not exceed one hour. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time 
yielded is for purposes of debate only on this subject.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 484 is a modified open rule providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 4103, the FY99 defense appropriations 
bill. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill 
for failing to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI requiring a 3-day 
layover of the committee report, clause 7 of rule XXI requiring printed 
hearings and reports to be available for 3 days prior to consideration 
of a general appropriations bill, and section 306 of the Budget Act of 
1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on the Budget unless reported by that committee.
  This pertains to scoring provisions which have in the past been 
carried by the DOD bill, and which have been signed off on by the 
Committee on the Budget.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule provides that amendments printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important appropriations bill. This is a 
somewhat complicated rule. I am trying to explain it. I would 
appreciate the Members' attention.
  The amendments about which I expect we will have significant debate 
throughout this hour, based on our conversations yesterday in the 
Committee on Rules, pertain to two distinct issues.
  The first is an amendment brought forward by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, addressing a deplorable circumstance involving the sale by a 
contracting firm of the congressional Medal of Honor. We applaud the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for taking this on, and I note 
there is no disagreement with self-executing this provision into the 
legislation to take care of this matter.
  The second issue addressed through this provision of the rule 
pertains to the year 2000 issue. The shorthand is Y2K. Members should 
get used to it, we are going to hear it a lot, the matter of preparing 
the Defense Department's computer systems to deal with the so-called 
millennium bug, which will occur as the year 2000 begins.
  Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Steve Horn) of the 
committee on Government Reform and Oversight has for some time, in 
fact, quite some time, been pushing the entire executive branch to 
become more aggressive in preparing for this problem, the Y2K problem. 
The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) recently issued a report card 
on the progress being made by Federal agencies, a report card full of 
Cs and Fs that would cause any parent real alarm if it were brought 
home from school by their child.
  The fact is that the administration has been woefully, if not 
negligently, slow in coming to grips with this Y2K problem. It has 
consistently underestimated the needs of all agencies in ensuring that 
mission critical computer systems across the board do not fail come 
January 1, 2000, and particularly those systems upon which our national 
security depends.
  The truth is, no one can credibly say that they did not see this 
problem coming. Most of us have known for some time that the year 2000 
will begin and that our computer-oriented society needs to prepare for 
the change. In fact, some of us have repeatedly engaged the 
administration on this issue as it applies to the intelligence field.
  Likewise, the defense appropriators, frustrated by the fact that 
there were no additional funds requested for the DOD's FY99 budget to 
meet the Y2K need, sought to force the administration to face facts by 
including additional monies in this spending bill for the Y2K fix.
  However, because the administration adopted what could be described 
as a head-in-the-sand approach to this problem and abdicated its 
responsibility to identify the true need and target a source for the 
necessary funds, the money as of now does not have an offset. In other 
words, there is a problem and no money to fix it.
  While I strongly support efforts to boost the intensity with which we 
tackle the Y2K problem, I do not believe that poor planning and a lack 
of willingness on the part of the administration to face this problem 
head on should justify our abdication or any abdication of the 
principles of fiscal discipline.
  For that reason, I have opposed using an emergency declaration in 
this bill to bail the administration out of the mess it has created. 
Therefore, what we are doing in this rule is striking that emergency 
declaration, with the knowledge that we fully intend to come back in 
the coming weeks with a separate bill, hopefully one that is paid for, 
to address the Y2K problem government-wide.
  In addition to self-executing out this emergency provision for Y2K, 
the rule also removes the emergency designation for the $20 million 
allocation in the bill relating to the tragic cable car incident in 
Italy, leaving the funds intact and fully offset from the Navy 
operations and maintenance account.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule waives points of order against provisions in 
the bill which do not comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting 
unauthorized or legislative appropriations in a general appropriations 
bill, and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting reappropriations in a 
general appropriations bill. This is not unusual for an appropriations 
bill.
  The rule provides priority in recognition for those amendments that 
have been previously printed in the Congressional Record, and it 
provides that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone 
recorded votes on any amendment, and may reduce voting time on 
postponed questions to 5 minutes, providing that the voting time on the 
first in a series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Nothing new 
there.
  The one provision of this rule that makes it a modified open rule, 
rather than a fully open rule, is that one which limits debate under 
the 5-minute rule on amendments to section 8106 of the bill to 1 hour. 
This debate centers on the highly controversial substantive issue of 
the War Powers Act, a matter of critical importance to all Members, but 
also one with the potential to become bogged down in extended debate. 
If memory serves me right, the author of this amendment agreed that an 
hour would be sufficient.
  In the interest of ensuring that the underlying appropriations bill 
is not unnecessarily sidetracked, we have acceded to the request of the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to limit debate on this one 
matter.

[[Page H5214]]

  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the traditional motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I would like to 
briefly extend my thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for their efforts to 
rebuild our Nation's defense capabilities, including particularly the 
critical needs of the intelligence community.
  The headlines in recent days and weeks have been full of instances 
where the eyes, ears, and brains of our intelligence capabilities have 
come under sharp focus. The truth is that we need good, timely, and 
well-analyzed intelligence now more than ever for our decision-makers 
as we grapple with the 21st century and the host of new threats and 
uncertainties confronting our national security, to say nothing of the 
technology we now face.

                              {time}  1700

  Now is not the time to become complacent and let down our guard. Good 
intelligence requires a long-term, steady commitment of attention, 
oversight and resources. The lesson we keep learning when something 
goes wrong in this arena is that we need to rebuild our capabilities to 
produce better and more focused intelligence, not further cut back on 
the tools in the tool box we make available to our policymakers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and for the underlying 
bill.

                [From the Washington Post, May 21, 1998]

             For Gore, Low Profile on a High-Tech Headache

               (By Stephen Barr and Rajiv Chandrasekaban)

       When it's time to talk technology, Vice President Gore 
     never seems to be at a loss for words. Wiring schools to the 
     Internet. Celebrating the virtues of electronic mail. Using 
     computers to streamline government.
       But when it comes to the Year 2000 computer glitch, 
     arguably the nation's most pressing technological problem, 
     Gore has been strikingly silent. There have been no public 
     speeches, no ``town hall'' meetings, no photo ops with 
     programmers.
       For Gore, that may be because the Year 2000 glitch isn't 
     just a technological worry, it's also a political one that 
     could be potentially damaging to him, political analysts say. 
     Industry experts contend that the federal government has been 
     slow to address the issue, raising worries that crucial 
     computer systems--from those that control airplane traffic to 
     ones that process payments to schools, farmers and veterans--
     could grind to a halt on Jan. 1 2000. That's right when Gore 
     might find himself campaigning across Iowa and New Hampshire, 
     seeking the Democrat presidential nomination.
       ``It's very much a factor in his positioning for the 2000 
     race,'' suggested Andrew L. Shapiro, a fellow at the Berkman 
     Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. ``Al 
     doesn't want it to be Al's mess.'' Gore spokesman Lawrence 
     Haas said the vice president receives regular briefings on 
     the government's progress in fixing Year 2000 computer 
     problems, Haas personally directed the Cabinet to make the 
     fixes a high priority and has spoken about the potential 
     crisis to the President's Management Council, a group of 
     senior political appointees.
       ``He is not avoiding the issue,'' Haas said.
       Asked to point out speeches in which Gore has talked about 
     the so-called millennium bug, Haas could not identify one.
       The Year 2000 problem stems from the fact that many 
     computer systems use a two-digit dating system that assumes 
     that 1 and 9 are the first two digits of the year. Without 
     specialized reprogramming, the systems will recognize ``00'' 
     not as 2000 but 1900, a glitch that could cause computers to 
     either stop working or start generating erroneous data.
       Virtually every Cabinet department and federal agency 
     promises it will have fixed and tested its computer systems 
     and links before the 2000 deadline, but any significant 
     airline delay, power outage or telecommunications breakdown 
     could give Gore's political opponents an opening to question 
     his credibility or mock his efforts to ``reinvent'' 
     government.
       Republicans, in particular, appear ready to try to pin any 
     problem on him. In a recent memo to ``members of Congress and 
     conservative leaders'' on the Year 2000 problem, would be GOP 
     presidential contender Steve Forbes recently asked, ``What 
     has the administration's technology point may, Vice President 
     Al Gore, been doing for the past five years?''
       Rep. Stephen Horn (R-Calif.), a House Government Reform 
     subcommittee chairman who has held hearings on the Year 2000 
     problem since April 1996, said, ``All of us have wondered 
     where he is, since he is supposed to be the expert on all the 
     good things in the 21st century--telecommunications, 
     computers, technology.''
       Administration officials noted that President Clinton 
     created a special White House council in February to lead the 
     government's effort to prevent widespread computer problems 
     in 2000 and said Gore was personally involved in recruiting 
     John A. Koskinen, who has specialized in crisis management, 
     to lead the council.
       The vice president, Koskinen said, has ``provided the 
     support and leadership that we need at this stage. It doesn't 
     do us a lot of good just to have people talking. My sense is 
     to try to figure out the points of leverage, what are the 
     issues that need to be raised and at what time.''
       Greg Simon, Gore's former chief domestic policy adviser and 
     now a technology policy consultant in Washington, said public 
     speeches by the vice president could ``give out the 
     impression that he's promising to fix everyone's [Year 2000] 
     problem.
       ``It's more effective for him to work behind the scenes,'' 
     Simon said.
       Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.), who called on the White 
     House last year to designate a Year 2000 czar, said she hopes 
     Koskinen can spur the government to work faster on computer 
     fixes. Like some other lawmakers, she said the White House 
     has not used its bully pulpit enough to educate the public 
     about possible economic consequences or inconveniences.
       ``Ignoring this problem is a bigger risk than addressing 
     it,'' Morella said.
       Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), who heads a special Senate 
     committee and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted 
     Stephens (R-Alaska) recently called for $2.25 billion to be 
     set aside to deal with the computer fix.
       White House officials said Clinton is doing his part too. 
     The president is planning an address on the issue in the next 
     month or so, aides said. Clinton raised the Year 2000 problem 
     with Latin American leaders at their summit and worked with 
     British Prime Minister Tony Blair to ensure that the 
     communique issued at the end of the recent meeting of the 
     Group of Eight major industrialized nations called attention 
     to the computer challenge.
       Asked about the Year 2000 problem at a Rose Garden event 
     earlier this week, Clinton said the government plans to share 
     information with other countries ``and do everything we can 
     do to make sure that when the new millennium starts, it's a 
     happy event and not a cyberspace headache.''
       Gore is taking the issue seriously, Haas said.
       ``The other party has been quite open about its political 
     strategy of tying any problems that occur specifically to the 
     vice president,'' he said.
       On the Year 2000 computer front, Haas said, ``We have the 
     right people in place, we have the right process in place and 
     we do not expect major problems.''
                                  ____


                 Year 2000 Quotes From National Journal

       ``Gore has said virtually nothing about it. Indeed, he has 
     rejected pleas by industry leaders and legislators to play a 
     larger role. Back in January, Morella buttonholed Gore at a 
     White House photo-op and urged him to lead the nation's 
     repair effort. But Gore balked, saying it would take too much 
     of his time. Morella recounted. And then, according to 
     Morella, `he paused and said, `maybe you should do it.'' Neil 
     Munro, National Journal 6/20/98.
                                  ____


  Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget: 
           Statement of Administration Policy, June 23, 1998

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)


           department of defense appropriations bill, fy 1999

       (Sponsors: Livingston (R); Louisiana, Young (R); Florida.)
     Year 2000 Reserve Funds
       The Administration appreciates the emphasis that the 
     Committee has placed on Year 2000 (Y2K) computer conversion 
     activities. In the FY 1999 Budget, the President requested 
     $364 million for Y2K computer conversion. We recognize, 
     however, that ensuring DoD compliance may require the 
     flexibility to respond to unanticipated requirements. As 
     such, we would intend to employ the contingent reserve set 
     aside by the Committee only to the extent necessary, in order 
     to ensure funds are available to address emerging needs.
       The Administration would strongly oppose efforts to strike 
     the emergency contingency fund from this bill. The value of 
     the emergency mechanism approved by the House Appropriations 
     Committee is the flexibility it provides in the event that we 
     determine that additional resources are required. We have 
     only 556 days until January 1, 2000. We want to solve this 
     problem as soon as possible. Be delaying approval of 
     emergency funding and reopening the issue of the use of the 
     emergency spending authority, the House will create 
     controversy and delay. We hope the House will reconsider.
                                  ____


  Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget: 
           Statement of Administration Policy, June 23, 1998

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)


      treasury and general government appropriations bill, fy 1999

       (Sponsors: Livingston (R); Louisiana, Kolbe (R); Arizona.)
     Year 2000 Computer Conversion
       The Administration appreciates the emphasis that the 
     Committee has placed on year 2000 (Y2K) computer conversion 
     activities. OMB will continue to assist all agencies

[[Page H5215]]

     in ensuring that adequate resources are available to address 
     this critical issue. In the FY 1999 Budget, the President has 
     requested more than $1 billion for Y2K computer conversion. 
     In addition, the budget anticipated that additional 
     requirements would emerge over the course of the year and 
     included an allowance for emergencies and other unanticipated 
     needs.
       At this time, we believe that the resource levels included 
     in the President's budget will fully address Y2K computer 
     conversion requirements Government-wide. However, as we learn 
     more about how to address this problem, we expect that 
     ensuring Government-wide compliance will require flexibility 
     to respond to unanticipated requirements. To the extent such 
     unanticipated requirements are identified, it will be 
     essential to make that funding available quickly. It will 
     truly be emergency funding. The emergency mechanism recently 
     approved by the House Appropriations Committee provides such 
     flexibility.
       It is our understanding that when the House Rules Committee 
     meets today to take up the Defense and Treasury/General 
     Government appropriations bills, it will consider rules that 
     would strip the emergency funding mechanism from both bills. 
     This regrettable action will not help agencies move forward 
     in addressing this problem. We note that the Committee bill 
     allocates funds from the emergency reserve for Treasury and 
     other agency Year 2000 (Y2K) needs. If the emergency reserve 
     is not funded, the Congress will need to find other ways to 
     fund Treasury's critical Y2K needs.
       The value of the emergency mechanism approved by the House 
     Appropriations Committee is the flexibility it provides in 
     the event that we determine that additional resources are 
     required. We have only 556 days until January 1, 2000. We 
     want to solve this problem as soon as possible. Delaying 
     approval of emergency funding and reopening the issue of the 
     use of the emergency spending authority would create 
     controversy and delay. We hope that the House will 
     reconsider.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a case here of Alice in Wonderland. The 
Republican Majority has decided that two wrongs do make a right. They 
do not like the fact that the administration has not asked for enough 
money for the year 2000, so they are not going to give the 
administration any money to fix the year 2000. This is an extraordinary 
result.
  Mr. Speaker, let me state from the outset that it is my intention to 
oppose this rule. As my colleagues know, I am a consistent supporter of 
a strong national defense and it is not my practice to oppose rules 
dealing with defense matters. But in this case I must oppose this rule 
because I believe the Committee on Rules has made a very serious error, 
perhaps one of the most irresponsible actions they will ever take, by 
stripping all the funds for the year 2000 computer problem and for 
information systems security at the Department of Defense.
  This is one of the most reckless actions my Republican colleagues 
have taken in the 3\1/2\ years that they have had control of this body. 
And for those of us who do concern ourselves with national security, 
the ramifications of this action are quite frankly very disturbing.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations said in the report to 
accompany this important bill that there are only 18 months remaining 
before we are faced with the possibility that our military may not be 
mission capable because of the year 2000 date change.
  The report states, and I quote from the committee report:

       The committee believes it would be irresponsible not to 
     make available as soon as possible additional funding which 
     could be used during fiscal year 1999 to implement and test 
     essential fixes to national security-related information 
     systems, as well as to develop contingency plans to assure 
     continuity of essential operations in the event needed fixes 
     are not in place.

  The Republican majority on the Committee on Appropriations did 
exactly the right thing by making available $1.6 billion for the year 
2000 fix for the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies and by 
designating those funds as emergency spending.
  But after the committee had reported this bill, the Republican 
leadership instructed the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules 
to strip this critical funding from the bill and, in doing so, ignore 
the importance of making these monies available as soon as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are going to say, and we just 
heard them say that they have removed these funds because the President 
did not request enough money, because they are budget-busting funds, 
and because we can come back later this year and consider a 
supplemental appropriation that will include money for the year 2000 
fix.
  My answer to the Republican majority is as follows: It does not 
matter if the President did not request enough money. We need these 
funds to fix the well over 2 million computers and over 25,000 distinct 
computer systems within the Department of Defense that are embedded in 
weapons systems, are integral parts of command and control systems, 
satellite systems, the Global Positioning System, and on and on.
  So I would ask, how can this money be considered budget-busting? I 
think this money is needed to fund a true emergency that will address 
the critical issue of ensuring that the 2,800 mission-critical computer 
networks within the Department of Defense and the intelligence 
community that contain an estimated 30 billion program instructions 
are, in fact, fixed.
  During the hearing on this rule yesterday, the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) announced 
that the funds for the Defense Department year 2000 fix, as well as 
year 2000 funds for every other department and agency of the Federal 
Government, would be included in a supplemental appropriation to be 
considered later in the year. He stated that those supplemental funds 
would be offset with domestic spending cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, the plan announced by the gentleman from New York for 
addressing the year 2000 problem is a recipe for disaster.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, we may not be able to consider a 
supplemental appropriation at a later date, because the date is June 24 
and we are adjourning tomorrow for 2 weeks, and we have for all intents 
and purposes only 30 days or so in which to complete all the business 
required of us before we go home to face the voters. I, for one, do not 
want to face the voters in my Congressional District having failed to 
address this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want every Member to be perfectly clear what is going 
to happen because the Republican leadership has stripped year 2000 
money from this bill and from the Treasury-Postal appropriations 
legislation. If such a supplemental as the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) envisions ever sees the light of day, it should be understood 
that the money in the supplemental will not necessarily be designated 
as emergency spending. This is an important point because as 
nonemergency spending, year 2000 funds totaling $3.85 billion will have 
to be offset, and they will be offset from domestic spending.
  What the gentleman from New York has offered is a no-win proposition, 
because $3.85 billion in additional domestic cuts cannot easily happen. 
The gentleman's plan, which I assume is the Republican leadership's 
plan, is a plan for failure. The Republican leadership is playing a 
dangerous game by stripping these funds from the Defense and Treasury-
Postal appropriations bills, and for that reason, I intend to oppose 
this rule.
  We have an opportunity in this rule to make the funds available now 
to the Department of Defense and to the intelligence community which 
will allow them to find the programmers that can be trusted to work on 
these systems so that we will know that we have done our part in 
protecting our national security as the clock ticks towards January 1, 
2000. But we can only do so, Mr. Speaker, by restoring the funds to the 
bill under an emergency designation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of this body to act responsibly and 
to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  The Republicans are telling this body, ``Trust us. Trust us.'' Now, 
what we know as the Defense appropriations bill has to pass. We are not 
going to leave here without a Defense appropriations bill. We are not 
going to leave here without a Treasury appropriations bill. But we can 
leave here without a supplemental bill. There is no reason a 
supplemental bill has to pass prior to October 1, 1998. And there is no 
reason to believe that a supplemental bill constructed with additional 
domestic offsets is going to pass this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, excusing the expression, our colleagues on the other 
side are

[[Page H5216]]

playing Russian roulette, Russian roulette with our national security, 
because they are not willing to fund in this bill the money to repair 
and to make sure that our computer systems are adequate and are ready 
for the year 2000.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, otherwise. And it is one that 
deserves the support of every Member. We have a commitment to our 
military forces to ensure that they have the best equipment available 
today and that work proceeds to ensure that they will have the best 
available in the years to come. Equipment, pay raises, operation and 
management, planning and logistics are all part of this bill that is 
designed to ensure that our Nation is strong and that our Nation is 
secure.

  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not do all of the job. By deleting the 
emergency funding for the year 2000 fix, my Republican colleagues have 
stuck their head in the sand. They may say the President has stuck his 
head in the sand, but he has got a Republican ostrich standing right 
next to him, deep, deep in the sand.
  This bill will leave us exposed, and it is for that reason that I 
oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am ready to concede that it is clear that the majority 
is a lot better at responsibility than it is at rhetoric. For that 
reason we are taking a fiscally responsive approach to this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
gentleman from Glens Falls, New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, to demonstrate that point.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I seldom get upset, and even when I do, I 
smile about it. I am trying not to smile about it, because there is 
nothing more than politics being played here today.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a problem with the computers in 2000. And, yes, 
it has to be dealt with and it has to be dealt with in a timely manner. 
But the truth is, after I hear the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) my 
good friend, and my very good friend, stand up here and start blaming 
Republicans, turning this into some kind of a political debate over 
this issue, I just get terribly upset.
  Now, if they were sincere on that side of the aisle, the President of 
the United States, whether we like him or do not like him, would have 
asked for this. And when we read the administration's position on this 
bill, they never asked for it because they know it is part of an 
ongoing process that we are putting together, not only with the Defense 
Department but with every other department of government where we have 
25 million computers out there. So to stand up here and try to make it 
a political issue in my opinion is just irresponsible nonsense.
  Now, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I 
see him over there, is one of the most outstanding and respected 
Members of this body who has done yeoman's work on this, one of the 
most important bills that will come before this Chamber in any given 
day in any given year.
  Even though we are severely underfunded in the Defense appropriations 
bill, as we are in the Defense authorization bill this year, we are 
probably $40 billion a year short if we are going to provide adequate 
research and development and procurement for our young men and women 
who, God forbid, ever have to go into combat, we ought to give them the 
very best we can. And we are not doing that, and we should all be 
severely criticized for it. But under the budgetary constraints that 
the gentleman from Florida has to live with, this is a very, very 
important measure.
  Let me also thank him for adopting and agreeing to have me self-
execute into the bill a Solomon amendment which would prohibit the 
Department of Defense from contracting or subcontracting with people 
who have been convicted of unlawful manufacture of the sale of 
Congressional Medals of Honor.
  That has been happening in this country. There has been an industry 
that is actually manufacturing and selling these to people who do not 
deserve them, and they are running around flashing their Congressional 
Medals of Honor around this country. That is outrageous.
  The fact is that my amendment would prohibit that company and any 
other company which is convicted of manufacturing these medals and then 
selling them on the public market from doing any business with the 
Department of Defense over the next 15 years.
  Right now, there is no law against it. There is a very, very minor 
fine. This particular industry was fined a very small amount, something 
like $5,000. Well, it ought to be a serious offense for doing that. And 
this amendment would prohibit it. I thank the gentleman for accepting 
my amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, sometimes Members of the minority have to take 
time to spell out what the majority is doing, because it appears that 
the thought police in the majority caucus prevent many people on the 
majority side from expressing what it is that they are really doing, 
even those who disagree with what they are doing.
  The committee originally decided that this computer 2000 problem was 
so severe that it justified being handled as an emergency, and they put 
the money in this bill and in the Treasury-Postal bill to deal with it. 
Now, because of an internal revolution once again in the Republican 
Caucus, this emergency money is being taken out and we are being told: 
``Well, do not worry, we are going to gather it all together in some 
supplemental bill. We will deal with it at some future time. We do not 
know how we will pay for it, but it will be out of mandatory 
programs.''
  They leave us wondering, number one, whether they will ever be able 
to pass that emergency legislation at all. Secondly, they leave us 
wondering if they do target mandatory programs, whether it will be 
Medicare or whether it will be Social Security or what programs they 
will go after in order to fund this emergency when they get around to 
feeling that it is really an emergency.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there was a very good reason 
why the committee put this money in in the first place. It is a 
``little'' problem if all of a sudden in the year 2000 our FAA 
computers go dark. I would not want to be in a plane flying around the 
country that day. It is going to be a ``little bit'' of a problem if 
Social Security cannot write its checks. It is going to be a ``little 
bit'' of a problem if the veterans all of the sudden do not get their 
checks. It is going to be a problem if the health care providers do not 
get their Medicare checks from the government.
  And as far as the Defense Department is concerned, we are talking 
about missile-critical systems. The NORAD ballistic missile early-
warning system relies on computers and they could have a serious 
problem. The Global Positioning System is another system that could be 
in trouble.

                              {time}  1715

  The military pay system could be in trouble. As Deputy Defense 
Secretary Hamre testified, ``failure of a microchip in a critical, 
large or dangerous piece of machinery, loss of air pressure in an F-15 
or submerged submarines can be devastating or even life threatening.''
  And I would ask, what happens about Russian concerns over the year 
Y2K problem? What happens if the Russians' early warning attack system 
goes haywire on January 1, 2000? How will they respond? Will they think 
that we caused the problem? Are their offensive nuclear systems safe 
from computer malfunction? Well, I tell my colleagues, we do not know. 
Because we do not know, this money should stay in this bill, and that 
is why the responsible vote for national security is to vote against 
this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
me the time.
  When we get into the discussion of this bill, one provision that will 
come up for review, I think, is section 8106, which will limit the 
expenditure of funds in this bill for offensive military purposes 
except when taken in accordance with Article I, section 8 of the

[[Page H5217]]

Constitution. Members probably realize this is the War Powers Clause, 
which vests in Congress the authority to decide when the United States 
commences, initiates offensive military action.
  I believe the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) in his remarks 
suggested this section was referred to the War Powers Act. It is, in 
fact, the constitutional provision--the War Powers Clause.
  I just wanted to take a minute on the rule to lay a bit of the 
groundwork for this in light of recent practices by Presidents of the 
United States.
  Members have said, why do we need to do this? We are sort of 
restating the Constitution. I think it is very instructive about the 
need for this body and this Congress to reassert its position regarding 
war powers, if we review what this administration's and the preceding 
administration's positions have been with regard to the really 
unrestrained authority, as they see it, of the President of the United 
States to initiate military action in behalf of the Nation.
  For example, when I pressed the Secretary of State during her 
appropriations hearing earlier in this year for an explanation of the 
authority that the administration believed it had then to initiate 
further attacks against Iraq, we were provided, finally, last week with 
the Secretary's explanation.
  A very telling provision in that submission for the Record reads as 
follows:

       These provisions should be understood in the light of the 
     President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to 
     use armed forces to protect our national interests.

  This is about as expansive a definition of presidential authority 
under the Constitution as is imaginable and, I suggest, is a very 
dangerous assertion by the executive, if left unchallenged by the 
legislative branch.
  Yesterday we received a statement of administration policy 
threatening a veto of this bill if section 8106 remains in it. And in 
that statement of administration policy, the following statement 
appears. And I quote: ``The President must be able to act decisively to 
protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.''
  In other words, the administration is asserting that it has authority 
to use the military forces of the United States according to its 
definitions of national security and foreign policy interests.
  I think Members will understand that this runs afoul of the 
limitation on the Commander in Chief's powers and those war powers 
reserved to the Congress by the Constitution.
  Finally, we cite frequently President Bush's actions before the 
Persian Gulf War, in coming to Congress and the vote that we took at 
that time. Then, President Bush said, and I quote, ``I feel I have the 
authority to fully implement the U.N. resolutions.''
  As he signed the resolution authorizing the Persian Gulf War, he 
said,

       My request for congressional support did not, and my 
     signing this resolution does not constitute any change in the 
     longstanding positions on either the President's 
     constitutional authority to use the armed forces to defend 
     vital U.S. interests.

  So this is a recurring problem. It is past time that the legislative 
branch reasserted its constitutional authority.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Greater San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), very 
distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding 
me this time.
  I am very pleased that the chairman of the Committee on Rules is 
still here in the Chamber because I would like to rise in very strong 
support of this rule, because I think that if one were to look at the 
preamble of the U.S. Constitution, it is very clear that this 
appropriation bill that we are going to consider is the single most 
important appropriation bill that we will ever consider here.
  Why? Because providing for the common defense, as stated in the 
preamble, is our top priority. We know that there are a wide range of 
issues with which we deal in this institution, ranging from health 
care, education, a wide range of things, all of which, all of which can 
be dealt with by local and State governments and individuals in many 
cases. But when it comes to our Nation's security, there is no level of 
government, city, county, State, and individuals cannot unilaterally 
provide for our common defense. So that is why the measure which the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be bringing forward as this 
rule is passed is the single most important appropriation bill that the 
Congress considers.
  Having said that, I believe that there are a number of things that 
need to be brought to light. I know that the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young), chairman, and the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), have spent a great deal of time 
working, thoughtfully, in a bipartisan way on this. But I am one who 
believes that as we have looked at national security threats that have 
come to the forefront just over the past several months, whether it was 
the potential transfer of technology to the People's Republic of China, 
the nuclear proliferation and testing that has taken place in India and 
Pakistan, if we look at the very, very dangerous Korean peninsula, we 
look at developments in the Middle East, it is obvious that we need to 
do what we can to enhance our defense capabilities.
  As was said by the ranking minority member of the subcommittee before 
the Committee on Rules, he has talked time and time again with the 
President. The President calls for the deployment of troops to deal 
with very serious situations throughout the world, and yet we do not 
always provide the necessary resources for those troops.
  I was told not long ago that we have troops in 65 countries 
throughout the world. Yet since we have seen the demise of the Soviet 
Union, we have cut back, we have cut back dramatically.
  We all are very pleased that the Soviet bear is now history, but we 
do still live in a very dangerous world. That is why I strongly support 
the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and then some.
  I hope very much that we will recognize that we can do more. But as 
we look at this very important question that has come to the forefront 
on the so-called Y2K problem and the argument that was provided that 
funding that was necessary was going to be in the defense 
appropriations bill and the Treasury/postal appropriations bill, it is 
obvious that the problem is a very, very serious one.
  If we look at the statement of administration policy that came out, 
first on the DOD appropriation bill, the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has provided me with 
this; it is very important in looking at the Y2K issue. The statement 
from the administration is: The administration appreciates the emphasis 
that the committee has placed on Year 2000, the Y2K computer conversion 
activities.
  And so obviously there is recognition and support for that. But then 
when one looks at the Treasury and general government appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1999, on this same issue the administration says: 
At this time we believe that the resource levels included in the 
President's budget will fully address Y2K computer conversion 
requirements governmentwide.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that we have made the decision 
that we want to do this in a supplemental is that most everyone has 
acknowledged that the governmentwide problem impacts all 13 of the 
appropriations bills. This is a very, very far-reaching issue. There 
are reports coming right now that a particular airline will in fact not 
fly any aircraft on the first day of the year 2000. There are reports 
that we could potentially see, we know all kinds of very dangerous 
things that could happen, but possibly we could see a blockage of the 
flow of fuel throughout this country and other parts of the world.
  Then, of course, as came up during the discussion on the DOD 
appropriations bill in the Committee on Rules, the potential problem 
that could exist with computers in other parts of the world, in fact, 
with countries that have nuclear capability. This is a very, very 
serious and frightening issue, and that is why, while we see this 
statement made in the Treasury report of administration policy that 
they are satisfied with what was there in the administration's budget, 
we believe very strongly

[[Page H5218]]

that this needs to be looked at governmentwide in an even more serious 
way and a more intense way.
  Now, a statement was made earlier by one of my colleagues that it has 
been decided that funding for this will come from mandatory spending, 
that decision has not yet been made.
  I will say that while the President has said that he wants every 
nickel of the budget surplus to be expended on Social Security, the 
thing that concerns us greatly is that some who are looking to deal 
with this issue simply want it to come from the surplus. We do not know 
exactly how it is going to be paid for yet, whether it is mandatory or 
discretionary. But it seems to me that we will be doing everything that 
we possibly can to deal as responsibly as possible with this.
  I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I urge support of 
this rule and the measure.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I, of course, was quoting the chairman of the Committee on Rules when 
I said this was going to come out of mandatory spending. My friends 
over there, I guess, have adopted the ostrich as the official bird of 
the Republican Party because they want to stick their head in the sand. 
They do not want to appropriate any money for this problem. It is a 
very, very interesting position.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
no on this DOD rule because of the serious omission of funding for the 
Year 2000 problem.
  We cannot provide for our common defense if the DOD computers do not 
work on January 1, 2000. At the DOD, we have computers and microchips 
that operate everything from elevators to guided missiles. DOD relies 
on computers to do payroll processing, retirement benefits, operate 
weapons systems, order supplies, the list goes on and on. This is just 
in one important department. The list goes on throughout the Federal 
Government as well as the private sector.
  If computer systems were to fail, it would not only compromise the 
DOD's ability to run its day-to-day operations but it would compromise 
the Nation's security as well.
  DOD is currently on OMB's watch list of agencies which must do a 
better job in fixing their Y2K problem. This rule, this budget, without 
necessary funding, does not help.
  We need to be focusing on tackling the problem instead of playing 
games. And I am very concerned. This issue affects each and every one 
of the men and women and children in this country. At this point in 
time, what we have are folks playing games on the issue and not being 
willing to address it.

                              {time}  1730

  This should not, Mr. Speaker, be a partisan issue. It is an issue 
that affects all of us. We will all suffer the consequences if we do 
not address it. It is irresponsible to proceed on this rule without the 
necessary funding for the year 2000 problem. I would urge very strongly 
a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hefner), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we have got an excellent 
defense bill. Our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), has done a tremendous 
job.
  But the chairman of the Committee on Rules made a statement a while 
ago that we are playing politics with the Nation's defense, but this 
goes back beyond this bill. This goes back to when we were considering 
the budget. We had a rule that came in here on a budget, that there 
were two budgets that were offered, and they eliminated one of the 
budgets that could be offered because they were afraid it was going to 
pass.
  Then we beat our chest and said we have balanced the budget. We have 
sent out press releases. We have finally accomplished a balanced 
budget.
  Now here we are. We set caps. We put caps on this budget, and we are 
trying to find ways to break the caps. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Neumann) over here who is a strong supporter of the Kasich budget, 
they are trying to break the agreement that they made on the balanced 
budget and the Kasich budget.
  If this is a problem that has to be fixed, it has to be fixed. It is 
something that is going to come. We do not know the exact day, but it 
is coming. My colleagues talk about playing politics with it. This is 
an unfortunate situation.
  I plan to vote for the budget because I believe that this is a good 
bill. But we have played too many games with this budget, and it is 
going to come back to haunt us because we are not going to be able to 
maintain a balanced budget and stay within these caps unless you cut 
some of the programs that are so vital to the American people.
  I do not believe that the American people want to cut Medicare. I do 
not believe they want to cut lunch programs for kids, and Medicaid. It 
is just not going to happen. We are going to find ourselves in a 
situation where we are either going to have to have a tremendous 
continuing resolution or close the government down.
  Unfortunately, this debate has to come on this defense bill, but it 
is what you get into when you play games with big numbers. It is like 
the old saying goes: Figures do not lie, but liars figure.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the allowances of time 
might be for both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 11 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. 
Striking the bill's provisions providing $1.6 billion in emergency 
funding for the year 2000 computer crisis is truly a very dangerous 
move. Unless corrected on time, the year 2000 date change will cause 
malfunctions or the total shutdown of the Pentagon's computer network, 
with devastating consequences.
  The communications system linking United States forces together 
across the globe so that they can respond to threats to our security at 
any time that is at risk. The basic navigational system used by U.S. 
military and civilians around the world involved in commercial trade 
and travel are jeopardized. The payroll system that ensures that 
millions of soldiers and military retirees receive compensation for the 
sacrifices that they have made to protect our freedom, these are 
threatened.
  The GAO reports said that at the current rate it will take 3\1/2\ 
years for the Pentagon to correct its year 2000 problems. But there are 
only 18 months until the first day of the year 2000. We need to speed 
up the progress.
  This should not be a political issue. Once again, my Republican 
colleagues do not seem to get the message. Once again, they play 
politics with a deadly serious issue. To appease the right wing of 
their party, they are truly willing to compromise. Compromise on what? 
The future safety of the entire Nation.
  Stop the games. Protect our Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by way of introduction, I want to read a quote 
from the National Journal. And I am quoting. It may possibly be of 
interest to some of our guests in the room.
  ``Gore has said virtually nothing about it. Indeed, he has rejected 
pleas by industry leaders and legislators to play a larger role.'' We 
are talking about year 2000 here. ``Back in January, Morella 
buttonholed Gore at a White House photo op and urged him to lead the 
Nation's repair effort, but Gore balked, saying it would take too much 
of his time, Morella recounted. And then, according to Morella, he 
paused and said `Maybe you should do it.' ''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I know the Vice President was joshing when 
he put it all in my hands. On the other hand, it has been well over 2 
years that we in Congress, on two subcommittees in particular, have 
been having hearings.
  When you take the number of hearings that we have had on the mother 
of

[[Page H5219]]

all computer glitches, the year 2000 need for compliance in all of our 
computers, then with all of the committees that have had hearings, I 
think the total is something like 25 hearings.
  In January I had the honor of giving the radio address in response to 
the President's address, in which I asked the President to use the 
bully pulpit, to issue an executive order to appoint a year 2000 
computer czar. Finally, in February, John Koskinen was appointed. He 
started in March. He is trying very hard to spend his time getting 
government compliance as well as looking at the private sector, State 
and local government, as well as internationally.
  But, my friends, we are moving too slowly. We have legislatively, in 
Congress, had on bills the idea of quarterly reports, a CIO, a national 
strategy, and now we are going to accelerate it with monthly reports. 
But the point is this has been in the offing. The President has not 
requested the money for this.
  What will be happening is not that the year 2000 will be forgotten, 
because it cannot be. It is an unrelenting deadline that we are going 
to have to face. We are going to have to face it also with contingency 
plans.
  So being crafted will be a supplemental appropriation to cover not 
only Department of Defense and its needs for compliance, which are very 
critical, but to cover all of the other agencies of government. We will 
be able to look at that and know that this is the money that is going 
to be going, probably $5 billion, to cover what is needed with all of 
the agencies.
  One final point is that, when the original request of the agencies 
was made in terms of what will the cost be of putting us into 
compliance, $2.3 billion was the estimate; and now the estimate, my 
friends, is $5 billion. I will submit that that still is probably not 
going to cover the total costs.
  So we need to move on it, but please do not think that Congress has 
not been there on the forefront time and time again, over and over 
again, urging that we face this problem and that we expeditiously lead 
the world in terms of going into compliance. It also is going to affect 
computer chips, which may mean high-rise buildings, elevators, security 
systems, as well as our major DoD systems, too.

  So I would submit it is not forgotten. It will be coming up in a 
supplemental appropriations bill, and Congress can say we have been 
leading the way.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the white rabbit in Alice in 
Wonderland. ``I'm late. I'm late. I'm late for a very important date. 
Hello. Good-bye. Hello. Good-bye. I'm late.'' The Republicans are 
saying they are late, but they do not want to put any money in the bill 
to take care of the problem. This is extraordinary.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule 
which I do not think moves us forward, but in fact takes us a step 
backwards in addressing an issue that is vital to our national 
security.
  The year 2000 problem is a far cry from some Orson Welles spoof. 
Rather, the inability of many government and in fact private sector 
computers to correctly recognize the date after the year 2000 is a 
problem that can have dramatic impacts on our financial markets, 
payments of Social Security, Medicare benefits, and certainly our 
national defense system.
  The Committee on Appropriations wisely made the decision to provide 
$1.6 billion for the so-called Y2K reprogramming in this legislation 
for a very good reason. If the computer problems are not remedied, the 
change could cause total shutdown of many systems upon which the 
defense community relies.
  There are approximately 2,800 critical computer networks and systems 
at DoD. So far, less than 30 percent of those systems have had the year 
2000 problem fixed, including those that control the Global Positioning 
System, the ballistic missile attack early warning system. We have 
heard all of these before.
  Some of my colleagues have suggested that we repackage these funds 
into a so-called emergency spending bill much like the one introduced 
earlier this year that, frankly, has been sitting untouched for 6 
months. We cannot wait 6 months. We cannot wait 6 weeks. Frankly, Mr. 
Speaker, we need to address this problem now. The GAO estimates at 
current pace it will take more than 3\1/2\ years for DoD to fix the 
problem in the remainder of its systems.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. We cannot wait. This 
critical problem needs to be addressed now. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the 
subcommittee, who is going to perform on this and I hope to tell us the 
merits of this legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to 
address the issue of the rule. Following adoption of the rule, we are 
going to be debating a lot of the issues about the bill itself.
  When we get into the bill itself shortly and, hopefully, my 
colleagues will hear from me and others that this is a good bill as far 
as it goes, but it does not go far enough. There are many, many 
requirements for our own national security effort that we are not 
meeting in this bill because of the lack of funds. But we need to get 
this rule adopted so that we can get to this bill, get it into 
conference, and do the best we can to provide for a strong national 
security.
  I want to note with appreciation the gentleman on the minority side 
who has presented their case on this rule today, because he has always 
been a strong supporter of national defense. Some of those votes were 
fairly close on occasion. I appreciate that support.
  But now to have this fuss on this rule about the Y2K problem I think 
is maybe just not ``I'm late, I'm late, I'm late,'' as the gentleman 
from Texas said, but the fact is that maybe someone else is late, but 
not necessarily us.
  When the subcommittee met, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) and I worked together for weeks and weeks and weeks to present 
a bill that we thought met the requirements of the national security 
requirements with the few dollars available.
  We decided that the Y2K problem was important. We were, frankly, 
amazed that we had no requests from the administration for the Y2K 
solution. We do not know what the solution is today, but we know we 
better get started sooner rather than later, or we are really going to 
be ``I'm late, I'm late, I'm late'' as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has suggested.
  So we did this. The full committee agreed to this. There was some 
debate about it. The full committee agreed to it. But subsequently the 
Committee on Rules decided, along with the leadership of the majority 
party, that the Y2K problem in the Defense bill, and the Y2K problem 
provided for in the Treasury, Postal bill and other defense issues 
should be taken from the respective bills and put into one freestanding 
bill that would call attention to the fact that there was a serious 
problem with the Y2K issue. At the stroke of midnight on December 31, 
1999, we are going to encounter a serious problem, if in fact we do not 
solve the problem prior to that time.

                              {time}  1745

  I listened to the speech of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). 
It was basically the same speech that I made in the committee and at 
the Committee on Rules and at other places, and I agree. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin and I do not agree all that often, but I agree with the 
things that he said, because he said the same things I had been saying.
  I will make it a little more of a concern for Members. In the Defense 
Department, there are approximately 2 million computers. There are 
25,000 computer systems in the Defense Department. Two thousand eight 
hundred of those computer systems are mission critical. Only about a 
third of those are able to deal with the Y2K problem. So we do have to 
move ahead and settle this issue. What we need to do is adopt this 
rule, get this bill passed in the House, get in the conference and make 
way for the freestanding bill that is going to provide the money for 
Y2K and other emergency issues.
  Let us not make this a political football. This defense bill has not 
been political since I have been here, since the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr.

[[Page H5220]]

Murtha) was chairman, since I have been chairman. It has never been 
political. National defense, national security, and intelligence should 
never be political. The interest of the Nation has got to be above the 
interest of the politicians.
  Mr. Speaker, I say, let us pass the previous question, let us pass 
the rule, let us get into the bill and let us move along so that we can 
then get to the freestanding bill that will provide for the emergency 
funding that we need to address this emergency issue.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, people watching this debate must be scratching their 
heads and saying, now, these people on the other side of the aisle, 
they say there is a big problem here, there is a real big problem but 
they do not want to vote any money to correct it. What is going on 
here? I sympathize with folks who are viewing this debate. There is 
something very missing. What is missing is money to solve this problem 
now that we all recognize.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on National 
Security and one of the true experts and champions of defense in this 
House.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to address what I 
consider one of the serious problems that we face in defense. The 
chairman just said, and I agree with him completely, we are far short 
of the amount of money we need in order to address the tempo of 
operations that the President has set for this country. I agree with 
the fact that we have to deploy troops, that we have to lead throughout 
the world. But, on the other hand, I worry when we do not have enough 
money in order to fund the tempo of operations, and consequently our 
readiness is slipping. But we are even shorter than that. We are $10 
billion short in procurement. Technology is what did so well in the 
Gulf War. We have trucks that are out of date, we have airplanes that 
are out of date, we have helicopters out of date. So we have real 
problems. But one of the most serious problems that we face today is 
the Y2K problem if we do not address this problem. We have, as the 
chairman just stated, 2,800 mission critical systems in the Defense 
Department. It would take them 3 years at the rate we are going in 
order to correct those problems. We sat down in subcommittee, and I do 
not believe we have had a vote for 5 years in that subcommittee. We 
have always worked it out, unanimously, so that everybody agreed. We 
listened to new members, we listened to members that had been there and 
we have always come to an agreement without a vote over the 5-year 
period. In this particular case, the President did not ask for this 
money, and I think he made a mistake. He should have asked for the 
money. But we believe, as we have many times in the past, that we not 
only need the money that is there, we need more money, and one of the 
things that has to be done is to fix this problem.
  How do we fix the problem? We do not have any extra money. We could 
not take money out of recruiting. They are 7,000 short in the Navy. The 
Army is having trouble recruiting. They are paying a bonus to the Air 
Force of $100,000 now over a 5-year period in order to recruit. There 
is no money anyplace else. So we believe it was enough of an emergency 
that we should declare an emergency and make the request, as we have 
done in the 20 something years that we have been on the committee many, 
many times, we have made emergency decisions, declared emergencies and 
put extra money in because we felt it was important to the security of 
this great country. We unanimously agreed to that. We went to the full 
committee, and the full committee almost unanimously agreed.
  What worries me is that if we pass this rule, we will then be in a 
position where we have to depend on somebody else later on solving the 
problem. I have heard it was not going to be offset and I have heard it 
is going to be offset.
  I think we ought to have a freestanding vote, and I think we ought to 
let the Committee on Rules go back and give us a rule where we can vote 
on whether this should be an emergency, and I think we would find a 
majority of the Members in this House would agree, Republicans and 
Democrats, in a bipartisan manner would agree that this should be an 
emergency situation, that we should vote the almost $2 billion for Y2K 
and for computer security, both those being essential to the many 
mission critical systems that we have available in this country today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Members of the House to think hard, to 
vote this rule down, to let the Committee on Rules go back and set up 
another rule and give us a vote, let us make a decision without voting 
this down and then later on having to depend on somebody else to maybe 
offset it from programs that we do not like so the Defense Department 
does not get what it wants and we offset things that are already cut to 
the bone. I would request the Members to vote this rule down, and then 
consider a separate vote on the extra money.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We 
have heard the very articulate statement of the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on National Security, one of the truly bipartisan members 
when it comes to defense. It is a travesty, it is ridiculous that this 
bill does not include money to address the year 2000 problem. 
Republicans should join with Democrats in rejecting this rule. Vote 
``no'' on the rule and fund the year 2000 problem now.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the ranking member has indeed 
made a point of view about the urgency of the need for dealing with the 
Y2K problem. In my opening remarks, I stated that we indeed have plans 
to provide dollars to deal with those issues despite the fact that the 
administration seems to have overlooked this matter. So I guess I would 
simply say that the lack of planning on the part of the administration 
should not precipitate a crisis on the majority side of the House, or 
in the House at all, and it will not. We have an orderly and fiscally 
responsible way to proceed to deal with Y2K, and I would daresay our 
track record on Y2K is a whole lot better than the administration's so 
far, and I think that that has been carefully articulated and 
accurately articulated by the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Rules, the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules reading from the 
administration's statement, and from the distinguished chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee who is the coauthor of this legislation.
  So it seems to me that we all agree that there is a need to deal with 
a problem that the administration has overlooked and we have indeed 
said that we are going to do it in a thoughtful, orderly and 
responsible way; and, therefore, there is no reason at all to vote 
against the rule.
  There is, however, a problem. But the dime is not the problem. 
Getting off the dime is the problem. Those who would like to help the 
majority on this side might like to communicate with the White House 
about getting off the dime and helping us deal with Y2K, because indeed 
it is a serious problem. Behind all of the Y2K issue which has come up, 
we know that there is a very serious, necessary piece of legislation 
for this body, and that is appropriating sufficient funds for the 
defense of our Nation and our national security, and that includes our 
intelligence capabilities as well. This bill, I believe, does that 
well. I believe the rule is certainly an appropriate rule for the 
circumstances that we have that deal with the issue. I think that all 
parties have understood that we have a plan to deal with the money 
issue for the Y2K on a governmentwide basis that will solve not only 
the problem for the Defense Department but for those other computers 
that run those elevators and airplanes and other things that have been 
talked about.
  All of this having been said, I believe that the right statement, 
that we cannot wait, is correct. We cannot wait. We should pass this 
rule right now, and get on with the debate, and then pass the defense 
appropriations bill. Therefore, I urge support for the rule.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest the political game this 
rule plays on this most crucial of deadlines: the Year 2000.
  We can fix this problem. There is a winning solution. But we must 
address it today.
  The American people have seen us hold emergency bills hostage, even 
shut down the government over certain disputes.

[[Page H5221]]

  This is one area where America can no longer tolerate delay. This is 
a critical emergency, as important as any natural disaster. It is a 
matter of national security that we directly appropriate money to fix 
the Year 2000 problem.
  In addition to the technical problems, we have a perception problem. 
If the American people think there is a problem, they will react 
accordingly and we could face a national panic.
  I urge opposing this rule, unless we allow the immediate 
appropriation of funds to fix this problem as soon as we can. We are 
already almost out of time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 201, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Baesler
     Cannon
     Dingell
     Fawell
     Gonzalez
     Hamilton
     Hutchinson
     Markey
     McDade
     Slaughter
     Solomon

                              {time}  1814

  Mr. MANZULLO and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________