[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 65 (Thursday, May 6, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2815-H2823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1664, KOSOVO AND SOUTHWEST ASIA 
            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 159 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 159

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1664) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for military operations, refugee relief, and 
     humanitarian assistance relating to the conflict in Kosovo, 
     and for military operations in Southwest Asia 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 4 of rule XIII 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 ranking 
     minority member of the Committee

[[Page H2816]]

     on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment printed in the 
     report may be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments 
     printed in the report 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 8 of rule XVIII. 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. During consideration of the bill, points 
     of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause 
     2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill 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. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open 
rule for H.R. 1664, the Kosovo Operations Supplemental Appropriations 
Act. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 4 of Rule XIII requiring a 3-day 
layover of the committee report and requiring 3-day availability of 
printed hearings on a general appropriations bill and section 306 of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 prohibiting consideration of 
legislation within the Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction unless 
reported by the Committee on the Budget.
  The rules provide for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The bill waives points of order against provisions in 
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting 
unauthorized or legislative appropriations in a general appropriations 
bill.
  The rule provides that before consideration of any other amendment it 
shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in the report of 
the Committee on Rules.
  The rule makes in order amendments printed in the report accompanying 
this resolution which may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject 
to a demand for a division of the question in the House or the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The rule waives all points of order against amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report.
  The rule waives points of order during consideration of the bill 
against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of Rule XXI 
prohibiting non-emergency designated amendments to be offered on an 
appropriations bill containing an emergency designation.
  The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 
5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provide for 1 motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 159 is a fair rule. It is an open rule that 
permits any Member to offer any amendment to the bill as long as the 
amendment does not violate House rules.
  The President's military campaign in Kosovo has put many of us in a 
tough spot. Like all Members, I support our troops, and I always 
support a strong national defense. I have strong reservations though 
about the President's decision to wage an ill-defined and possibly 
disastrous war in Yugoslavia because this war is draining our military 
resources, making it harder to meet threats in other areas of the world 
such as Iraq and North Korea. Our rear flank is exposed, which puts our 
military in harm's way.
  We must replenish our military readiness and supplies. Our young men 
and women in the military need and deserve that from this Congress. 
This rule will allow amendments to express Members' concerns about 
giving the President the tools to continue a never-ending conflict in 
the Balkans.
  Because this Kosovo spending bill is controversial, all Members need 
to support this rule so we can have an open discussion on the floor. 
Instead of closing down debate on this important issue, the Committee 
on Rules has provided for a fair and open amendment process. Members 
will have the opportunity to vote the Kosovo spending bill up or down, 
if they wish to do so, but in an hour we are not voting on Kosovo 
spending, we are voting on an open rule that allows the House to work 
its will.
  That is why we are here, to express our ideas and concerns and the 
opinions of the people back home whom we represent.
  I urge my colleagues to support this open rule which allows any 
Member to offer any amendment as long as it does not violate the rules 
of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a rule which will allow consideration of H.R. 
1664 which is the Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Bill 
for Fiscal Year 1999. The bill appropriates $12.9 billion in emergency 
supplemental funds mostly for military personnel, equipment, pay, 
retirement benefits and construction. As my colleague has described, 
this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.

                              {time}  1015

  Technically, this is an open rule. However, under the Rules of the 
House dealing with emergency supplemental appropriations, virtually all 
amendments, except cutting amendments, can be ruled out of order unless 
the Committee on Rules grants a waiver. Despite the numerous requests 
from House members, the Committee on Rules granted waivers for only 
three amendments and one of those was by the ranking minority Member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule does not open the process. This rule does not give the House 
an opportunity to work its will. Therefore, I will oppose the rule and 
I urge House Members to defeat it.
  The emergency supplemental appropriation bill before us today is a 
fat, bloated bill, with misplaced priorities. It puts buildings ahead 
of people. It funds long-term investments but denies money to immediate 
needs. This rule will not give House Members the chance to correct 
that.
  I am particularly disturbed because the Committee on Rules denied my 
request to offer a bipartisan Hall-Roukema amendment to provide $150 
million in much needed food assistance to the Albanian Kosovar refugees 
and displaced persons in the Balkans.
  Mr. Speaker, last weekend I went to Albania and Macedonia with a 
House delegation of 20 members, led by Majority Leader Dick Armey. We 
visited Stankovac 1, which is the largest refugee camp in Macedonia, 
which at that time housed 30,000 who were forced to flee from their 
homes in Kosovo.

[[Page H2817]]

  This is only one of many refugee camps in the Balkans housing the 
victims of President Milosevic genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing. 
Thousands more are arriving every day.
  There is a critical need to feed these people. A report released last 
week by the U.N. World Food Programme calculated that 1.4 million 
refugees and misplaced people will need to be fed in the Balkans and 
that report estimated the cost of feeding them over the next 17 months 
to be almost $300 million.
  The situation is getting worse. I quote from the World Food Programme 
report: The situation for displaced and other people inside Kosovo is 
certain to worsen because the entire food distribution system has 
ground to a halt.
  Without this money, many of the refugees face malnutrition or 
starvation. If the United States shifted money from other emergency 
feed accounts to handle this crisis, then we would have to cut our 
assistance to southern Sudan, North Korea and the Horn of Africa, 
Bangladesh and other crises.
  The bill does include $566 million for general humanitarian aid but 
this will be used mostly for medicine, shelter, sanitation. It is no 
substitute for food aid. Astonishingly the administration did not 
request any emergency funding through PL-480, which is the principal 
initial food assistance program. This is a sorry oversight. The 
Committee on Appropriations continued the glaring omission.
  I note that PL-480 is one of the few forms of international food 
assistance that directly benefits hurting U.S. farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, we are told that the purpose of NATO air strikes, which 
I support, are to protect the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, but there is 
no point to an air war to save the Kosovars if we leave them to starve 
and to be malnourished in refugee camps.
  Mr. Speaker, this emergency funding bill includes $156 million for 
military recruiting and advertising. It includes $1.1 billion for 
construction projects in Europe and Asia. We can, we must, include 
money to feed the very people this bill is intended to help. Food for 
the Kosovars is also an emergency.
  Adding funding for PL-480 in this bill is supported by the Coalition 
for Food Aid, which includes World Vision, CARE, the Catholic Relief 
Service, Save the Children and other groups.
  The failure of the world's biggest food producer to provide food to 
refugees fleeing starvation and brutality inside Kosovo is astounding. 
The Hall-Roukema amendment would have added about 1 percent to the cost 
of the bill, about $150 million.
  The recent reports of food shortages in Kosovo suggests that 
Milosevic has added a new weapon in his campaign of ethnic cleansing: 
Hunger. Just as we are fighting the troops with air strikes, we should 
fight this new danger with food donations.
  I want to thank my colleague the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
Roukema) for her support of this amendment. Without money to take care 
of the food needs in the Balkans, the bill is seriously flawed, and by 
denying an opportunity to improve the bill this rule is fatally flawed. 
I urge a defeat of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the honorable chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I merely want to rise in support of this rule. The rule 
does provide for us an exciting day today in the House because there 
are a lot of different issues that are going to be addressed.
  In many meetings, group sessions and one-on-one meetings that I have 
had leading up to today, I promised all of my colleagues that I would 
ask the Committee on Rules for an open rule so that Members could offer 
their amendments that would be germane and otherwise in order to the 
bill and let the majority work its will. That is exactly what I did. I 
did ask for an open rule. The Committee on Rules complied with that 
request.
  The rule today is an open rule and Members will have an opportunity 
to offer their amendments, and I just ask that we support this rule and 
get on with the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule. I had not intended 
to. Yes, when we were in discussions with the Committee on Rules and 
the committee leadership, I had the feeling that with the promises that 
we had been given that we were going to see a new day in this House 
with more bipartisan cooperation in the way legislation is brought to 
the floor and that those promises were, in fact, going to be kept.
  Then, after a series of conversations, apparently people behind the 
scenes decided that that rule was going to be shaped quite differently. 
Among the things that were done is that the committee put time limits--
under what is supposedly an open rule, the committee still put time 
limits of 40 minutes--on the major amendment that we are going to be 
debating on this bill.
  That amendment is very complicated; yet each side will only have 20 
minutes to debate it. The amendment is complicated enough it will take 
10 minutes to explain it, which will leave only 10 minutes to discuss 
the merits. That is not the way to debate questions of war or, for that 
matter, some of the other serious issues that are in this bill.
  Secondly, another amendment is being offered by the majority which is 
paid for by hijacking items that were in our amendment to pay for the 
items that we have listed in our amendment. In my view, that is an 
effort to weaken political support for our amendment. I would simply 
point out that since the majority has two-thirds of the staffing 
available or more in this place, to put together their legislation, I 
do not think they have an operational need to, in effect, steal or 
highjack our amendments, but that is largely what has been done.
  So it just seems to me that this rule is not what it was going to be 
yesterday and for that reason I am going to oppose it.
  I also want to say something else. I think that what happened on this 
rule is symptomatic of what is happening on this entire bill. I did not 
vote for the Rambouillet endorsement when it was on the floor.
  I do not believe in giving any administration a blank check, but we 
are now in a war and we have rampant misery which has been brought to 
the world, to the refugees and to a lot of others. We did not start 
that war; Mr. Milosevic did.
  Now the question is: What will NATO and what will the United States 
do about it?
  I believe we ought to do everything necessary to win. I do not 
believe the options for ground troops ought to be off the table and in 
that I very strongly agree with Senator McCain. But to me, that issue 
right now is beside the point.
  The issue is whether this House can come together and debate one of 
the most fundamental issues that will be before any legislative body, 
in a manner which is both bipartisan and constructive. I do not think 
this rule gets us off to a good start.
  In my view, if we cannot play this issue straight we cannot play any 
issue straight, with American lives on the line and with the future 
credibility of NATO on the line.
  What it seems to me is that we are being faced with a shifting 
understanding of what the rules are supposed to be for debating this 
legislation at the same time that we see spectacularly shifting 
positions on the part of the majority.
  Last week, the House voted against supporting the operation that is 
now going on in Kosovo and yet this week we are now asked to more than 
double the request that the administration made to finance that 
operation. That makes no sense whatsoever.
  I believe the reason that that has been done is that I believe last 
week's amendment was clearly intended to simply pin the label on the 
war of being Clinton's war, unfortunately politicizing the situation.
  Now, this week I think there is an effort being made to in essence 
pour all kind of money into this bill so we can free up enough room for 
$3 billion

[[Page H2818]]

worth of pork in the next defense bill. I think that is illegitimate. I 
do not think we ought to be treating a serious issue like this this way 
and I would urge a vote against the rule because it is not conducive to 
finding common ground on the most serious issue we face.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of what I think is a very responsible 
and open rule that gives Members a chance to consider a very wide 
variety point of view on what is a critical issue, as we all know. I 
cannot understand why we are having opposition to an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. operations in Kosovo have exposed the reality that 
the fabric of our national security has indeed worn very, very thin, at 
a time when it is still a dangerous world. Over the last several years, 
the Clinton-Gore administration has demanded more from the military but 
it has actually provided less resources for the military.
  From Somalia to Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq, all those places, our troops are 
being deployed overseas, more often, for longer periods of time, even 
as our defense budget has been cut or has been held even.
  Well, today the bill has come due. It is simply time to pay up. The 
supplemental appropriation under consideration under the leadership of 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) will address the immediate needs arising from 
the U.S. operation in the Balkans, but it will also shore up other 
critical readiness areas that have been sadly depleted.
  Mr. Speaker, last week's debate on the War Powers Act showed that 
Congress was of many minds on the policy issue, but this debate today 
is not about policy. I repeat, this is not a policy debate today. It is 
about money. It is about resources to take care of our troops, and that 
is something that Congress must pursue with a single-minded intensity.
  Who among us would deny our troops in harm's way the best training, 
the best equipment, the best odds to survive and to win with the least 
casualties?
  I know that some of my colleagues would like to deal with the policy 
issue by refusing to fund military operations in Kosovo.

                              {time}  1030

  They are absolutely right, that policy missteps by the Clinton-Gore 
administration can have grave consequences, as we have seen vividly and 
tragically in Somalia when the body of a U.S. soldier was dragged 
through the streets of Mogadishu.
  But failing to fund our troops' needs would invite the same kind of 
disaster by leaving our men and women on the front lines without the 
training and resources they need to protect themselves.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and vote for the 
supplemental appropriations bill. Taking care of our troops and our 
national security are among the most fundamental duties this body has.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party has again demonstrated its 
willingness to try to have things both ways. In some circles, it might 
be said that railing against a military action and then doubling the 
money to fight it should be called hypocrisy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to explain how a political party can, on 
one hand, demonstrate its visceral hostility towards the President, and 
then, on the other hand, turn around and double his request for money 
for what they call Clinton's war. All I can do is shake my head in 
disbelief.
  Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for political gamesmanship. Today, 
right now, our military stands in harm's way. Today is the time for 
Congress to stand up and support them, and not play games with their 
lives in order to advance a political agenda.
  Democrats have, in spite of the divergence of views within our 
Caucus, gone to great lengths to keep politics out of the debate about 
Kosovo. How I wish I could say the same thing about the other party.
  Mr. Speaker, in all likelihood I will vote for the supplemental made 
in order by this rule. The rule itself is irresponsible and unfair. It 
allocates some of the money voted in the original supplemental for 
agricultural assistance, but it denies a separate vote on the disaster 
assistance for Central America, and it denies a vote to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) on supplemental food assistance for the refugees 
in Albania.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans are fond of chanting their mantra that the 
President has underfunded the Armed Forces, but I would like to offer 
an alternative, and more accurate, perspective. Last year the President 
asked for $2.9 billion more for defense spending than either the Senate 
or the House Republican budget resolutions provided. Two years ago the 
President asked for $12.3 billion more. This year the President asked 
for $104 billion more in budget authority and $198 billion more in 
outlays for the next decade than did the Republican budget.
  I may not have agreed with all the President's priorities, Mr. 
Speaker, but the fact is that his budget requests have been 
significantly higher than what the Republican Congress has agreed to in 
their budget resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Caucus is divided about the amount of 
extra military spending in this supplemental, but I would be hard-
pressed to find a member of our caucus who does not think that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) was treated unfairly last night by the 
Republican leadership and the Republican members of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, no one in the House, no one, speaks with more moral 
authority about the issue of hunger than does my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). Each and every Member of this House 
knows full well that the actions of Milosevic in Kosovo have created a 
humanitarian catastrophe that has sent Kosovar Albanians streaming out 
of their homeland seeking safety in their neighboring countries of 
Albania and Montenegro. Mr. Speaker, sadly, no one in the 
administration anticipated this level of disaster.
  The Committee on Rules last night had, in the words of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the opportunity to do the right thing, but the 
Republican majority took a pass. Does the hostility of the Republican 
Party toward the President reach so deep that hungry children are going 
to be made to suffer? Pardon the pun, but that should be food for 
thought for all of us.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, passage of this defense spending 
supplemental is so important to the Republican majority that this rule 
also makes in order an amendment designed to appease the most 
conservative wing of their party. That amendment, sponsored by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), would in essence cut domestic 
non-defense discretionary spending across the board by 5 percent.
  So not only will the Republican majority not allow an additional $150 
million in spending for food assistance for Kosovar Albanian refugees, 
the Republicans are willing to cut other domestic programs to fund 
supplemental military spending.
  All I can do, Mr. Speaker, is shake my head in disbelief.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for the Kosovo emergency 
appropriations bill. It is an open rule. It is a fair rule. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  The Committee on Rules was given a tough task this week, and I 
commend them for their hard work. In two important ways the rule 
provides an opportunity to add a critical component to the underlying 
bill: specifically, how to pay for it.
  First, it protects a provision that I authored to force the President 
to pursue NATO reimbursements for our costs in Operation Allied Force 
and report back to Congress on its progress by September 30 of this 
year.

[[Page H2819]]

  Second, the rule gives priority to an amendment by myself and two 
colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from South 
Carolina. Our amendment uses a combination of NATO reimbursements and 
across-the-board reductions to ensure that the new, additional 
emergency spending in this bill will be fully offset.
  We give the President to the end of this fiscal year to secure NATO 
reimbursements, and the remaining amount of offsets, if necessary, 
would come from small reductions in non-defense discretionary spending 
in the next fiscal year.
  It is important to note that the amendment uses a sequester mechanism 
already in budget law and would exempt several programs from any 
reductions.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on Rules, and I urge my 
colleagues to pass this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill, 
along with last week's votes on Kosovo, reveal a fundamental flaw in 
the majority party's vision of national security.
  First, the majority of House Republicans voted against our military's 
effort to stop genocide in Kosovo. Now that same majority uses funding 
for the operation as an excuse for $6 billion in non-Kosovo military 
spending. The majority whip calls us chicken hawks.
  The other side complains that the administration's defense policy is 
``doing more with less.'' But in rejecting Kosovo while giving the 
Pentagon $6 billion more, these critics embrace a doctrine of doing 
nothing with everything. In today's world, we cannot afford to do 
nothing. With today's budget, we cannot afford to buy everything.
  Republicans complain that our military's efforts to bring peace to 
the Balkans undermines readiness. Ready for what, if not Kosovo? Ready 
for the Soviet Union to spring to life, or Nazi Germany? Readiness is 
not an end in itself, it is a means to an end, our military's ability 
to carry out its mission, a means to ensuring our own security and 
prosperity.
  Ethnic conflict and regional instability, as in Kosovo, threaten our 
security and prosperity. It makes no sense to build up fortress America 
and sit inside idle while the world outside falls apart. Congress' 
decisions on the military must reflect the world as it is and will be, 
rather than a world of the past.
  I urge my colleagues to support this needed funding for our troops 
over Kosovo, and to resist playing games with it. We are better than 
that.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is far from 
perfect, but it allows adequate debate, and it will certainly allow us 
who think that it is unwise to increase the spending to vote against 
the spending. It certainly allows an opportunity for those who think 
that we should double the spending to explain why we should spend so 
much money on a war that we have not declared.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that this war has been pursued for 
over a month. We have not appropriated the funds, so whether or not we 
act today, the war will continue, unfortunately. The war has not been 
declared, but if we go ahead and fund it, we become partners in this 
war. I do not think that is a wise policy. We should not provide the 
funding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a fallacy, that floats around this House that 
says that if we increase the funding for the military, we will have 
greater defense. That reminds me of the accusation from the right that 
always challenges the left that says, if there is a social problem, all 
you want ever to do is throw more money at it. The worse the problem 
gets, the more money they want to spend on the social problem.
  It seems like the worse our defense gets and the more we get into 
quagmires around the world and the more we accept the policy of 
policing the world, all we seem to do is come back and say, well, if we 
just put more money in it, everything is going to be okay.
  But if we are in a quagmire, if we are following a policy that is 
unwise, the money might just make conditions much worse. I think this 
is why we must defeat the spending on this program, because the 
problems with what is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq will be 
compounded as long as the administration has the money to fund the war.
  Yes, I am for a strong national defense, but if the policy is wrong, 
it will undermine all the spending. The money will actually be wasted. 
Funding encourages a policy that is in error. Funding is an endorsement 
of the war. We must realize that it is equivalent to it. We have not 
declared this war. If we fund it, we essentially become partners in 
this ill-advised war.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule, despite my disappointment 
with several of my amendments not receiving waivers.
  There will be lots of seemingly contradictory statements made during 
today's debate about this bill. Some will say this bill is about 
rebuilding our military, which it is. Some will say it is about raising 
the pay of our courageous men and women in service, which it is. Some 
will say it gives the administration the dollars which not only will 
escalate this war, but possibly expand it to a ground war, which it 
does.
  This modified open rule not only restricts amendments that would have 
moved needed national defense funds to other appropriations categories, 
but also restricts a number, under House rules, of amendments that 
could have prohibited the buildup of the war, such as an amendment by 
my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton).
  Overwhelmingly, the House had passed an amendment that would have 
restricted a ground war, but it is not allowed under this bill, where 
it would have had the force of law. Several amendments of mine that 
would have reached back were also prohibited.
  So while there are a number of waivers, there are not any waivers for 
those of us who were trying to affect some of the ability of previous 
funds to be moved around.
  However, by allowing a modified open rule, it still gives many of us 
the flexibility to offer amendments that are within the House rules 
that will greatly restrict this Administration's ability to escalate 
and expand this war, and possibly even force the needed peace 
settlement that is pending. Our House vote last week clearly pushed the 
administration towards that, along with the work of Reverend Jesse 
Jackson.
  This rule will most likely, and it should, pass. That is quite a 
difference from the last few sessions of Congress. Quite frankly, in 
the last few sessions when we had a controversial vote like this, many 
of us were jammed. That resulted in us coming to the floor and taking 
down a rule. I learned there were more woodsheds out in this floor than 
I believed were possible. We were hauled in. We were told our party was 
collapsing. We were told the whole Congress was going to fold. We were 
going to lose control of Congress.
  But in fact, a lot of this controversy inside our party has been 
alleviated by our new Speaker, who has at least given us the 
flexibility to offer different amendments. We as a party need to pull 
together and pass this rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to reluctantly support this rule because it 
does allow some amendments that will hopefully force the President to 
come before this body and the Senate before he would send ground troops 
into Kosovo. I am not sure it will do it, but I think at least it 
expresses the will of the Congress that we would like for him to come 
before this House and the Senate before sending our troops into harm's 
way.
  When President George Bush decided to go into the Persian Gulf, there 
was great planning involved. We created an

[[Page H2820]]

army of 550,000 troops, and before we went in there was a very sound 
battle plan. When we went into Kosovo, the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
indicated to the President that they thought it was a mistake to start 
bombing without more planning.
  Nevertheless, the President chose to do it because he thought, in his 
own wisdom, that he could end this thing in a short period of time. The 
Nazis could not do it, and we have not done it in the last 30 days. Now 
they are talking about sending in ground troops.
  Hopefully, the discussions that are going on in Germany today will 
preclude that possibility by getting other U.N. forces in there to deal 
with this problem. But the fact of the matter is, proper planning has 
not taken place.

                              {time}  1045

  And as a result, if we send ground troops in there, we are going to 
see a lot of young men and women come home in body bags or being 
maimed.
  What Nazi Germany could not do in years we are talking about doing in 
months, and we are talking about sending 200,000 or 300,000 ground 
troops in there. I tell my colleagues, in my opinion, the poor 
planning, the ineffective leadership out of the White House, the poor 
foreign policy will lead to a disaster if we do not take proper 
precautions.
  That is why this House, the people's House, and the other body needs 
to be involved in the decision-making process. The American people need 
to have all the facts before them through their elected 
representatives. The case needs to be made before we ever send one 
young man or one young lady into harm's way into Kosovo.
  That is why I think it is extremely important that that point be made 
today, that it has to be made clear to the White House, do not do this 
without consulting with this body and the other body. Because if we get 
into a ground war without proper planning, without all the people 
working together, with the entire Nation behind it, it is a recipe for 
disaster. We saw that happen in Vietnam when the country came apart.
  We need proper planning. We need the leadership of the Congress to be 
involved in the decision-making process as well as every Member here 
voting on it. So I would just urge the White House that after we 
appropriate this money today, and I am sure it is going to happen and 
the rule will pass, I urge the White House to consult with this body 
before ever sending one young man or one young lady into harm's way in 
Kosovo.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the ranking minority member on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and I also commend Mr. Hall for his tremendous leadership.
  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said earlier, no one has 
greater standing in this body than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
when it comes to meeting the needs of the hungry throughout the world. 
We are blessed to serve with him, and it is a privilege to call him 
colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all very blessed to have the privilege to serve 
in this body. We speak for the American people. They give us this 
privilege, and we should deal with it responsibly. We owe them that, to 
use our best thinking and our arts of compromise to come to agreement 
on issues for America's future. At no time is it more important that we 
put our partisanship aside, as when we put our children in harm's way, 
our young people in harm's way, as they are now in the Balkans.
  That is why it was so disappointing to see the rule that came to the 
floor this morning. Last night I went home fully prepared to come in to 
vote for the rule. We were told that we had bipartisan cooperation and 
that it would be an open rule. Indeed, the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations heralded it just that way in his 
remarks just a few moments ago when he said this is an open rule which 
will allow each Member to bring his or her amendment to the floor.
  But what form do those amendments take? Would others consider it 
their amendment if, as in the case of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the Republican majority altered the amendment? Certainly they 
knew the appeal of the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin. It is 
responsible, it addresses our military needs, it recognizes the 
increased cost of the huge number of refugees who unexpectedly 
descended upon Macedonia and Albania, and it has the urgency of 
Hurricane Mitch contained in it. It also addresses the needs of 
America's farmers.
  They knew that it was responsible. They knew it would appeal to their 
Republican Members. That is why it was so disappointing to see the 
illusion of an open rule with a rule that changed the amendment of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, co-opting the provision on agricultural 
assistance and giving a piece of that amendment to one of their 
colleagues, hoping to deflect support from the amendment of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin by having a separate agricultural vote.
  And what they also lost is the success of the Obey amendment, which 
contains, again, $175 million in humanitarian assistance. Others have 
said that there is disagreement about the policy and the war and the 
air strikes and the rest. I myself support President Clinton's action 
and commend him for his courageous leadership. But one thing we all 
agree on is that the American people want us to provide humanitarian 
assistance. They do not want to see the most vulnerable, the children 
and the elderly, starving and freezing and going without the absolute 
basic necessities. But unless we have the additional humanitarian 
assistance, that will be the case.
  In addition, in the so-called open rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall), as was mentioned, was denied the opportunity to put in $150 
million in additional food assistance for the refugees. How can this be 
called an open rule if the gentleman from Ohio, who is on the 
committee, has standing on the issue, is present at the table to make 
his case, is denied the opportunity to present an amendment which will 
give people food to eat? We are talking about the basics.
  I was pleased to join our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), on a visit to the Balkans. We visited the refugee 
camps. We can speak firsthand as to the needs there and to how those 
needs have grown since the administration made its request to Congress.
  I support the President's request, I support the President's support 
of the NATO action, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
rule.
  For some reason, between yesterday, when there was a spirit of 
cooperation for an open rule that we could all support. That rule would 
give the American people what they should expect of us, which is a 
reasoned and informed debate on the actions in the Balkans and how much 
we should be paying for it. Instead we are faced with the choice of 
voting for twice as much money as the President asked for in his bill 
on a policy that the Republican majority rejected last week. I guess 
they are saying, ``We do not agree with you, but we want you to spend 
twice as much money to pay for it.''
  In sadness, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), and I would just point out that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin is printed in the rule exactly as it was 
offered.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. The 
emergency defense appropriations bill is vitally important to our 
national security, whether we agree with NATO's involvement in Kosovo 
or not.
  I have not been shy in stating my own opposition to the manner in 
which the President has handled this situation, but this bill is about 
supporting our troops and making sure they have the tools and the 
training that they need to return home safely.
  This bill is about making sure that our interests are secure on a 
global basis, and right now I am disheartened to say they are not. In 
fact, the Pentagon has told us that there will be a readiness crisis if 
they do not get this funding by Memorial Day. If we ever had a military 
emergency, it is right now, and that emergency reaches much farther 
than the endless air raids going on in the Balkans.
  Since we started talking about this bill a few weeks ago, I have 
heard story

[[Page H2821]]

after story from my colleagues about the terrible situation our 
military is facing, about soldiers who have never trained with live 
rounds and pilots who are not getting flight time because there are no 
spare parts to repair their planes. This kind of readiness crisis means 
that our national security is presently at serious risk.
  Now, this rule gives us an opportunity to mitigate that risk. We have 
an obligation to support our troops and refurbish the military that is 
currently being hollowed out to fund this war effort, and we have the 
responsibility to do this as expeditiously as possible, which is 
exactly what this rule does.
  Let me say to my friends that I understand they may not agree with 
the emergency nature of this bill. My colleagues may object to the war 
in Kosovo on its face, as I do, or to using this kind of vehicle to 
refurbish our stripped-down Armed Forces. But the process must not be 
undermined.
  I heard a lot last week about the votes we had on the floor over 
Kosovo. Some folks said that we sent the wrong message to Milosevic. 
Well, make no mistake about it, while I object to the President's 
handling of this situation, I know our troops need our support now more 
than ever. The Congress cannot abandon our troops just because the 
President deploys them unwisely. We must support our troops even as we 
disagree with the President. This rule and this bill will convey 
exactly that message to Serbia and to the Americans stationed there.
  Mr. Speaker, our troops are in harm's way. Our national security is 
at risk. We have an obligation to give our sons and daughters 
everything they need to protect themselves. We have an obligation not 
to abandon our troops in the field. I urge my colleagues to support the 
rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time; and I rise in support of the rule today.
  It is very, very important that the farm credit provisions in the 
amendment that we will be putting forward was made a part of the 
discussion today, and the amendment will be offered.
  As everyone knows, agriculture is in a very difficult situation 
today. The USDA has not been able to get out the checks that are needed 
as far as the disaster that we passed last year, the $2.3 billion.
  We have a credit crisis in agriculture today, and we have to use 
every possible means to make sure that we get credit to our farmers 
this spring. They are in the field today. And we appreciate very much 
the Committee on Rules allowing us to have this amendment be part of 
the debate today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I just heard the distinguished majority whip 
indicate that we cannot abandon our troops in the field. I do not know 
of a single person in the House who has any intention of doing that. I 
do think that the interpretation of the vote that occurred last week 
might, in some people's minds, be interpreted that way, but I certainly 
do not know of anyone who intentionally intends to do that on either 
side of the aisle.
  I do want to take just a moment to discuss this myth that somehow it 
is the Clinton administration which has created a military readiness 
problem. I would point out that for 4\1/2\ years the majority party has 
controlled this Congress. During that time it has added $27 billion to 
the President's military requests.

                              {time}  1100

  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than $4 billion 
of that $27 billion went into readiness items such as operation and 
maintenance. The rest of the items went into what are largely 
considered military pork projects: the consolation prize destroyer that 
was provided in the district of the majority leader in the other body 
after his contractor was not selected by the Defense Department, the 
decision of the Congress to fund 10 additional C-130s that the Pentagon 
did not ask for rather than putting that funding into readiness.
  Senator McCain himself has pointed out that there were more than 
$4\1/2\ billion worth of pork items in the military budget last year. 
They were in charge. If they thought there was a readiness problem, why 
did they not put the money there rather than where they put it?
  I saw a comment in the paper which said that the President was 
responsible for the fact that there were not enough JDAMs. The fact is 
they cut those missiles by 17 percent last year in the defense budget 
they brought to the floor.
  So let us keep the record straight.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is 
an open rule, and I believe it is the right thing for us to do. I 
congratulate my friend from Charlotte, North Carolina, for the very 
able job that she has done under somewhat difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, military policy by committee does not work. The 
Constitution gives the President the clear authority to lead in 
situations like today in the Balkans. It is now his responsibility to 
ensure that our national interests are protected. Many Americans, 
including Members of this body, have serious doubts about the 
President's overall policy in the Balkans, whether vital national 
interests were on the line at all in Kosovo. Others are deeply 
concerned with the military strategy to date, namely, whether the 
current air campaign can prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, the price of failure in Kosovo is simply too great at 
this point. American prestige and power, two of the most positive 
forces for good in the world today, cannot be abandoned on the field of 
battle. Developing and implementing a strategy that wins is the 
President's first responsibility to the American people.
  Congress must ensure that the resources are available to carry out 
that strategy, as well as to ensure that our national security 
infrastructure around the globe is able to protect our national 
interests. This bill will, in fact, make sure that that is the case.
  Now, as has been said, Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, an open rule. I 
do not understand how any Member of this body could conceivably vote 
against an open rule. What we have done is we have provided the ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
opportunity to offer his amendment. It has not been changed. It is the 
amendment that he submitted to us, and we have made that in order.
  We also are addressing a concern that was raised about offsets, and 
so we have made in order the amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Coburn).
  We also are very concerned about immediately addressing the needs of 
our agriculture interests across this country, and so we have made in 
order the amendment by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) which will 
effectively deal with that.
  Now, there are many people who also want us to deal with questions of 
policy on the Balkans. This open amendment process ensures that that 
will, in fact, happen. Under the open amendment process, we will be 
able to consider the Rohrabacher amendment, the Souder amendment. Other 
questions will come up as to exactly what our role should be and what 
level of funding should be there for it.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong vote in support of this rule. It has 
been carefully crafted. It should enjoy bipartisan support.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Ohio has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and 
in opposition to what I see as the irresponsibility of the Republican 
leadership in addressing domestic and international emergencies.
  We want to send a strong message of support for our troops in Kosovo 
today, and I hope that we will. But the Republican leadership has a 
consistently poor

[[Page H2822]]

record of leadership when it comes to providing emergency assistance to 
those in need.
  During the last 2 years, Republicans have politicized emergency 
appropriations bills and delayed, sometimes for months, getting needed 
assistance to our farmers in California and North Dakota who have 
experienced disasters. We all remember that in 1997, when the 
Republican leadership sent the House home for the Memorial Day recess 
while North Dakotans flooded out of their homes waited for relief.
  Today, emergency assistance for our farmers and for critical Central 
America has waited for months while Republicans use the Kosovo 
supplemental appropriations bill as a vehicle for their political 
agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the faces and this is the tragedy of what is 
happening in Central America. But 6 months has passed since Hurricane 
Mitch killed more than 9,000 people in Central America in the worst 
disaster in 200 years. Thousands more are missing, and tens of 
thousands have been left homeless. $5.3 billion in damage to this 
region has wiped away 50 years of progress and returned the region to 
the level of development it had in the beginning of the century. Yet 
the Republicans continue to turn their backs on this tragedy in our own 
hemisphere.
  The emergency supplemental is critical to the reconstruction of this 
region. If emergency aid is not received soon, it will lead to the 
political instability of the region and cause mass migration towards 
the United States. Responsible leadership means support for our troops, 
and it means helping our farmers in need. But responsible leadership 
also means that we must help those in the backyard of our own 
hemisphere.
  I support the Obey amendment as a common-sense approach to balancing 
the many emergency needs that require our attention. The Republican 
leadership must stop playing political games while American farmers and 
our troops and our neighbors in Central America continue to suffer.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just make a few 
comments in closing.
  I believe that this bill is a fat one, and I think it is bloated, and 
it has a lot of misplaced priorities. It technically is an open rule. 
But because it comes under the emergency rules, it is very restrictive 
because it gives tremendous power and ability to the Committee on 
Appropriations to pretty much decide the fate for the whole Nation 
here.
  It is hard to get at this bill. The bill started at $6 billion, and 
kind of overnight it went to $12 billion. And a lot of these items, 
while important, are really not, in my opinion, high priority.
  We have got an item in here for $156 million for advertising. Gee, 
that is really a high priority and exciting, that we are going to give 
$156 million to some companies on Madison Avenue to advertise, when in 
fact we do not have any food aid in this bill.
  And I find the fact that we cannot amend it to be not only 
restrictive but very frustrating. Not only did our administration miss 
it, but the Committee on Appropriations missed it. And because of that 
and other restrictive rules, we must oppose it.
  One of the things that I am reminded of and I keep in the back of my 
mind is, when the delegation went to Macedonia and Albania this past 
weekend, one of the things that we kept hearing from our own pilots was 
the fact that as they flew over Kosovo it was like one great big 
bonfire, thousands upon thousands of house fires were lit up as they 
would fly over. It went for miles. The whole country was lit up.
  In questioning the refugees in the camps that we were at, there was 
not one family that I talked to that did not have their house burned 
down, that were not robbed. And one man has caused this. We are not 
there because we like being there. We are not there because we are 
trying to feed people. We are there because one person caused a million 
people to be affected in such a way that I find it unbelievable.
  So when we get a chance to really fund our priorities, one of the 
highest priorities of being able to feed people, we do not even have 
that kind of food item in here.
  So, for these reasons and others, the fact that it is so restrictive, 
we must oppose this rule and, hopefully, defeat it and come back with a 
much better rule and much better bill that really funds what the 
priority should be according to this crisis that we are in over there.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
very much for yielding me time.
  Ladies and gentlemen of Congress, I rise in support of this rule and 
the supplemental. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support it.
  Let me just say, I have heard some rhetoric since I have been here 
the last 10 or 15 minutes that there is not enough food aid or refugee 
assistance in here. There is $600 million in here, as requested by the 
President, for food and refugee assistance, $600 million. It is in the 
line. It is there. And to say it is not is just purely false. It is 
there. It was asked by the President. We put that money in.
  But this vote today is probably one of the most important votes we 
can take as Members of Congress. The issue is simple: Do you support 
our men and women in uniform as they defend America's interests and 
will you help us restore our Nation's defense so that our soldiers can 
do their jobs?
  Last week, the House spoke on the President's policies concerning the 
engagement in Kosovo; and. Clearly, the House had some misgivings about 
those policies. But today, let there be no mistake, the United States 
Congress stands with its soldiers, sailors, and airmen as they defend 
America.
  Since the conclusion of the Cold War, the Federal Government has 
steadily drawn down its defenses. In fact, this administration's 
budgets have severely reduced those budgets of our military over the 
last few years, and for good reason. The President did so under the 
assumption that the world was a safer place in the absence of a Soviet 
threat.
  But, with Saddam Hussein, the instability in North Korea and with the 
current situation in Kosovo, we have learned a valuable lesson: The 
world is not a safer place. And, in fact, the threats from terrorist 
nations have increased, and we must be prepared to defend America's 
interests.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the persons in the 
gallery to refrain from conversations. The speaker on the floor 
deserves to be heard. Visitors are the guests of the House, and the 
Chair requires your compliance.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the money we spend today will start the 
process of giving our soldiers and sailors and airmen the resources 
they need to do their jobs. It will make certain that they have the 
training they need to keep them safe. It will give them the livable 
housing and reasonable wages. It will give them spare parts they need 
to keep their planes in the air. And it will give them the munitions to 
allow them to carry out their missions.
  To my colleagues who disagree with the President's policy, let me say 
simply, you had your vote last week. To my colleagues who want to pick 
this supplemental apart, let me say that this, too, is important for 
our servicemen and servicewomen to not be subject to partisan politics.
  Now is the time to rise above the partisanship and vote for the good 
of the country as a whole. To my colleagues who feel we should offset 
this emergency spending, let me say that this bill represents our best 
efforts to deal with the national emergency. And to my colleagues who 
worry about the impact of this vote on the Social Security Trust Fund, 
let me say, we will replenish that money to the Social Security Trust 
Fund. We cannot replenish the lives of our soldiers that may be lost if 
we fail to provide adequate resources to them in this time of need.
  Let me state again: Every penny of Social Security receipts will be 
credited to the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people expect the Congress to act 
responsibly

[[Page H2823]]

when it comes to providing for our Nation's security. Let us not fail 
them. Vote for this rule, vote for this defense supplemental, and vote 
for our soldiers and sailors and airmen as they defend America.
  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we have committed our armed forces 
to the conflict in Kosovo and now we must pay for it. This 
unanticipated expense is a classic example of what constitutes 
emergency spending. I have voted to support our troops and the NATO 
operation in Yugoslavia. We need to provide emergency funding for our 
troops in the field.
  But the emergency appropriations bill that we will be asked to 
support, today, spends more than twice the 6 billion dollars requested 
by our military commanders for Kosovo. It will add billions of dollars 
in spending for non-emergency items that should be considered during 
our normal budget process.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I clearly 
understand that the military has pressing needs, including improved pay 
and benefits for the troops, military infrastructure, equipment and 
spare parts. I support a pay raise for the military, pay scale reform, 
and retirement benefits reform. Our troops have earned a raise and it 
is the right thing to do.
  But I don't believe that an emergency supplemental should be loaded 
up with spending that is more appropriately considered during the 
regular budget process. I don't think that today's bill shows a 
commitment to honest budgeting and spending controls.

                              {time}  1115

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. 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 253, 
nays 171, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               YEAS--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--171

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berman
     Brown (CA)
     Chenoweth
     Cox
     Kuykendall
     McNulty
     Slaughter
     Tiahrt
     Wilson
     Wynn

                              {time}  1134

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. KANJORSKI, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE 
JOHNSON of Texas and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________