[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.
____________________