[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 65 (Thursday, May 6, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2823-H2892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 KOSOVO AND SOUTHWEST ASIA EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 159 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1664.

                              {time}  1138


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the

[[Page H2824]]

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 with Mr. Thornberry in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill we bring to the floor today was approved by 
the Committee on Appropriations just last week. The bill is designed to 
meet the emergency requirements of the War in Kosovo and to provide for 
other readiness-related items that are being exacerbated by the War in 
Kosovo. Mr. Chairman, this war has stretched our military resources 
terribly thin.
  Mr. Chairman, the President sent his request to the Congress, the 
committee reacted to that request quite expeditiously, and we made some 
changes. We provided the items that were identified by the President, 
but the committee, working in a nonpartisan way with our relative 
subcommittees, and I want to compliment the chairmen and ranking 
members of the subcommittees who were involved here in this particular 
bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) from the Subcommittee 
on Defense, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) from the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) from the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction, and also the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) who had an important part of this bill relative to embassy 
security; and these chairmen, plus their ranking members, did really an 
outstanding job.
  I want to call special attention to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha) who played such an important role in helping us put this 
bill together. It was a good bipartisan effort, and I hope that the 
vote today will reflect the bipartisanship with which we bring this 
bill.
  As we provide for the replacement of the air-launched cruise 
missiles, or the JDAMs munitions or the various other weapons that have 
been fired, bombs that have been dropped, aircraft that have been lost, 
we have a very clean bill that is related strictly to these issues of 
national defense and specifically relative to the Kosovo war, and, Mr. 
Chairman, it is a war. At this point it is basically an air war, it is 
a war, and the sorties are numerous, the targets being hit are 
numerous, and it is important that we move this bill quickly.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we added to this bill that 
has made some controversy has to do with pay, pay for those serving in 
our uniform who are risking their lives today in the Kosovo region and 
who are prepared to risk their lives in other regions of the world 
where they have been deployed for whatever their mission might be 
should something erupt, for example, in Korea with the North Koreans in 
southwest Asia, with Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis, and the money we 
put in for this pay raise is subject to authorization by the 
authorizing committee. It was a commitment that we made to our 
authorizers that they could write the rules, but we wanted to make the 
money available today.
  Mr. Chairman, I was happy to see the President on TV last night from 
an air base in Germany telling the American military folks there that 
we were going to do some good things in this bill including a pay 
raise, so I suspect what little controversy there might have been about 
that issue hopefully would have gone away overnight.

                              {time}  1145

  Also, we addressed the problem of the redux having to do with 
retirement. We are having a real problem with retention of forces. We 
are having a real problem with recruiting. We think it is important to 
do something for the men and women who wear the uniform and who go to 
war, many of whom are at war today.
  I am going to leave the details of the bill to the subcommittee 
chairman. After the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) takes his time, 
I am going to call on our subcommittee chairman to present the details 
of the bill.
  The bill before the House includes $12.9 billion for military 
operations relating to Kosovo and Operation Desert Fox and for refugee 
assistance. In developing this bill we consulted with the authorizing 
committees, the minority, the Pentagon, and our military commanders in 
the field.
  The bill has four parts--the largest of which is with the Defense 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction. For these activities the bill includes 
$11.24 billion, $5.8 billion above the President's request. The 
increases are all in areas of identified shortages (weapons 
procurement, spare parts, depot maintenance, recruitment, training, and 
base operations).
  In addition, the bill includes funding for increased military pay and 
retirement benefits at $1.8 billion subject to authorization and a 
presidential emergency declaration.
  The bill includes $1 billion above the President for military 
construction; $830 million is for mission-related items, $240 million 
for the NATO security investment program. This funding is directly 
related to troop readiness. It goes to our European bases. It is 
executable in 1 year, and it is mission directed. It is not pork.
  Third, the bill fully funds the President's request for refugee 
assistance. These funds are redirected away from reconstruction to 
refugees only. There is not reconstruction money in this bill for 
Serbia. There is $105 million in assistance to the front line states: 
Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Montenegro. There is 
a burden-sharing requirement.
  Finally, the bill includes a relatively small amount of money ($70 
million) for security at U.S. Balkan missions and for repairs at 
damaged embassies.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. Some will say it's too much. 
Some will say it's too little. But we have developed a bill that does 
what I believe we should be doing:
  (1) We have expeditiously moved to support our troops and fund the 
administration's request to prosecute the war.
  (2) We have addressed critical shortfalls in our defense 
preparedness: shortfalls that hinder our security and embarrass us for 
not adequately supporting our military.
  (3) We have sent a powerful, morale-boosting signal that we want to 
increase pay--while giving the authorizers a major role in that 
decision.
  (4) We have met the needs of helpless women and children whose 
tragedy is our tragedy.
  (5) We have provided funds to help meet the security needs of our 
people in the Balkans.
  (6) We have sent a message of support to the front line states whose 
help we must have it we are to succeed.
  (7) Because the funds over the President's request are designated as 
contingent emergencies--it is the President who must make the decisions 
about whether or when to spend. But we have given him the tools to 
succeed.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the right bill for this situation. I urge all 
members to support it and send a strong signal to our troops and to 
Milosevic.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Record I would like to insert a 
table reflecting the details of the reported bill.

[[Page H2825]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06MY99.000



[[Page H2826]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06MY99.001



[[Page H2827]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 11 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said on debate on the rule, this is one of the 
most serious votes that we will be casting this year. If we cannot play 
it straight on this amendment, we cannot play it straight on anything.
  This amendment should not be politicized. What we should be doing 
with this amendment is to provide every single dollar that we need to 
conduct the operations now going on in Kosovo. We should not provide 
one dime less and neither should we try to use this to play games on 
the budget.
  I am baffled by the fact that last week this House declined to 
support the operation that is now going on in Kosovo and yet this week 
the same people largely who opposed that motion last week are now 
suggesting that we should double the amount of spending for the 
operation which last week they said we should not be conducting at all. 
That gives confusion and inconsistency a bad name, in my view.
  I did not vote for the administration's original request on 
Rambouillet. I did not feel that we knew enough about what the results 
of that discussion would be in order to cast a vote at that time, and I 
did not believe in giving any administration a blank check.
  I know that there are a lot of people in this House who do not like 
President Clinton, and I think a number of Members have gone overboard 
in trying to politicize this war because they have such intense dislike 
for the President.
  I have seen quote after quote in the newspapers saying, ``This is 
Clinton's war; we do not want our fingerprints on it.'' I think those 
kind of comments are irresponsible.
  This is the West's war. This is NATO's war, and in my view the 
President is doing the best that anybody can under very difficult 
circumstances. That does not mean I agree with everything the 
administration is doing. I agree with Senator McCain. I believe that 
this war needs to be prosecuted in the most aggressive way possible, 
and I believe that the best way to assure the success of the air war is 
to threaten use of a ground war.
  So I do not necessarily agree with the administration on the fine 
points, but he is our commander in chief. He is the elected leader of 
this country. We are also elected leaders of this country, and we ought 
to be behaving ourselves in a manner consistent with the honor that has 
been afforded to each and every one of us by our constituents.
  I do not think we do that when we in one week decide that this House 
is not going to support that operation and again then in the next week 
decide but, oh, by the way, we are going to use this war as an excuse 
to move billions of dollars from next year's appropriation into this 
year's appropriation, put an emergency label on it which will enable 
the Congress next year to spend $3 billion more on military pork that 
has nothing whatsoever to do with Kosovo. In my view, that is what is 
happening today.
  So I want to explain the amendment that I will be offering later in 
debate. The administration has asked about $6 billion to cover the cost 
of this war, plus they have asked for humanitarian assistance. The 
amount that they have requested will pay for an 800-plane war, 24 hours 
a day bombing of virtually every target in Yugoslavia that one could 
imagine anywhere. That will be sustained on a daily basis through the 
end of the fiscal year.
  In addition, the administration has asked for enough money to fund 
not just the 24 Apaches which are on the ground now but a contingent of 
50 Apaches, over $700 million just to finance that.
  The administration has taken the full estimate of what it will cost 
to run that war for the remainder of the fiscal year and then, on top 
of that, just to be safe, they have tossed in an extra $850 million in 
a contingency fund. That is such a large operation that we will run out 
of targets before we run out of ammunition. We will, in the words of 
Winston Churchill, be ``bouncing the rubble'' if this continues that 
long.
  Now, the committee has done some other things. The committee has 
decided that they would raise the spending for that bill by 125 
percent. They have asked for $460 million more in munitions. My 
amendment says, all right, we are not going to argue about that. We 
will accept it. They have asked for $400 million for procurement; and 
again we say, okay, we are not going to argue about it. We will accept 
it.
  They have asked for a billion dollars more than the President in 
order to avoid having to reprogram from low-priority items to high-
priority items. We say, okay, I doubt that that is fully necessary, but 
we will accept that, too.
  What we do not accept are two other items in the bill. The budget 
rules under which we are supposed to operate say that if we want to 
designate something as an emergency so that it is exempted from the 
spending caps in our budget, it must meet two tests. It must, first of 
all, be an unanticipated expense; and, secondly, it has to be an 
expense which will be incurred immediately for an immediate purpose. 
There is $3 billion in the committee bill that does not meet those 
tests.
  Example: They have $2 billion in this bill for operation and 
maintenance, which is nothing but moving forward from next year's 
budget $2 billion into this emergency supplemental.
  There is also $1 billion added for 77 military construction projects 
in Europe. Thirty-seven of those items are not even on the Pentagon's 
5-year plan. We do not have physical plans for them. We do not really 
know what they are, but the money is thrown at them.
  Why? The reason is very simple. There is an agenda on the part of 
some Members of this House which says let us throw in as much as we 
can, call it an emergency Kosovo supplemental, even though it is not at 
all related to Kosovo, and that will enable us to spend $3 billion that 
we would not have otherwise been able to spend on the regular bill for 
pork. That is what is going on, in my view.
  So my amendment does not accept that $3 billion. The only military 
construction items that we fund are those directly related to Kosovo, 
three key items that are fully justified, including one operation at 
Aviano, and the rest we simply say deal with next year in the regular 
course of business because they do not relate to Kosovo.
  In addition, we do two other things. The committee has $1.8 billion 
in the bill which they suggest should go for a pay raise and a 
retirement enrichment package for the troops. I support that. The 
problem with the committee amendment is that it is subject to 
authorization, and that means that even though the money is in the bill 
it cannot actually be delivered to the troops until further legislation 
is passed. So we remove that impediment.
  We remove the language that makes that subject to authorization so 
that this is not just a potentially empty promise. We actually deliver 
the money that we say we want to provide. So, in other words, we make 
that pay raise real.
  The second thing we do is to take the supplemental, which the House 
passed previously, which is languishing in the Senate, which the 
President asked for it to deal with the largest natural disaster in 
this hemisphere in this century, Hurricane Mitch, and to deal with the 
emergency facing many farmers because of weather and because of the 
collapse of prices, and we include that in this package as well so that 
we take care of the home front as well as Kosovo.
  If we do not deal with that, we face the prospect of 100,000 refugees 
trying to make their way from Central American countries through Texas, 
through New Mexico, and it would cost us far more than dealing with it 
in this bill.
  So what I will simply say is, this amendment is an honest effort to 
reach a compromise position between the administration's original 
request and the committee's overblown efforts to throw in everything 
but the kitchen sink in this bill so that they can make more room for 
military pork in the regular military bill.
  I would urge that my colleagues do the responsible thing, adopt the 
Obey amendment when it is offered. That will send a signal that we are, 
indeed, going to play this straight. We are not going to abuse the 
emergency power that we have in the Budget Act but we will make every 
dime that is necessary to the Kosovo operation available and then some.
  We are exceeding what the administration thinks is necessary by 
almost a billion dollars, just in their own request, plus the 
additional items that

[[Page H2828]]

we are accepting in this package. I would urge support for the 
amendment when the time comes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman as I did in the 
meeting during the Committee on Appropriations. There is no military 
pork in this bill. I do not know where he comes up with that argument. 
There is no pork in this bill. This is as clean a national defense bill 
as this House has ever seen. There are no Member requests added to this 
bill, either when we wrote the bill or when we went to the full 
committee. It is just not the case.
  The gentleman says that the way we are spending money we are going to 
run out of targets before we run out of ammunition. The gentleman is 
not paying attention to what is happening in Kosovo.
  The gentleman should look closely at what General Hawley said just a 
few days ago when he pointed out that we were running short of not only 
air launch cruise missiles, we were running short of JDAMs, we were 
running short of all kinds of ammunition; and if they were called on to 
do another MRC somewhere in the world they could not do it. This is the 
general who has the responsibility to get there if we have to get 
there.
  Mr. Chairman, today's message is a real message. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) talks about the votes last week. Those were votes 
that gave Members an opportunity to voice their opinion in resolutions 
that were not truly binding. This is the real message. This is a 
message to Milosevic that we are serious. This is a message to our 
troops that we are serious in providing them with what they need to 
accomplish their mission and to give themselves a little protection 
while they are at it.
  This is a good bill. The amendment that the gentleman is talking 
about is not even before the House yet. It will be later.

                              {time}  1200

  It is a good bill. It is a clean bill.
  Just one last point, Mr. Chairman. If the President decides that the 
items that we have recommended in this bill are not truly emergencies, 
do Members know what he has to do to stop them from being spent? 
Nothing. Because, Mr. Chairman, unless the President determines that 
these items are emergencies, they do not get spent. The investment is 
not made.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is putting up a red herring. I did not 
say that there was pork in this bill. What I said was they are jamming 
$3 billion of nonemergency items into this bill to make room for $3 
billion worth of pork in the defense bill which will follow this. The 
gentleman knows that is what I said. He ought to keep it straight.
  Secondly, with respect to the JDAMS, the gentleman says there is a 
shortage of JDAM missiles. I would point out that the gentleman is the 
chairman of the subcommittee that cut that last year by 17 percent. The 
gentleman cut the President's request for that item by 13 percent in 
dollar terms and 17 percent in missile numbers. The President's request 
provides full funding for the restoration of every missile they need 
for JDAMS.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman on 
the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank 
the gentleman for yielding me the time, and to express my deep 
appreciation to my chairman for the job he has done in this bill. I 
must say, in spite of the protest of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), I would like to express my appreciation to him as well for a 
very cooperative effort on this bill.
  The fact is that in terms of dollar amounts both sides are relatively 
very close to each other, largely because we all recognize that there 
is urgency in moving this bill forward; that the dollars that are 
involved are a reflection of the President's views.
  Mr. Chairman, the two sides are really not that far apart on the 
dollar amounts that we are discussing here today. There are differences 
in the policy.
  But before going further, let me express my deep appreciation for my 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Jack Murtha), the 
ranking member of my subcommittee, who from the very beginning has 
cooperated with us in developing the defense portion of this $12.9 
billion package. There is not a Member of the House who is more 
concerned about the men and women who are potentially in harm's way 
that we are attempting to respond to by way of this supplemental.
  In developing this bill, we have consulted and worked very closely 
with not just the members of our subcommittee, but the members of the 
authorizing committee, as well as the military commanders in the field. 
My colleagues, this is a clean bill. It contains no special projects.
  As I would react to the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) regarding the pay provision of this bill, the $1.84 billion that 
are involved, we did not provide authorizing language because we were 
working very closely with the authorizers, who feel that is a 
centerpart of their own legislation.
  Indeed, their willingness to continue to work cooperatively with us 
in the months ahead are very important to both the committees, the 
authorizers as well as the appropriators, who are concerned about this 
matter.
  I would like to be very specific about one fact: That is, the vote 
today will send a very, very clear message to Slobodan Milosevic, who 
is watching our actions on the floor today. Our saying clearly that we 
intend to support our troops as long as they have to serve in this 
region and are faced with this challenge is very, very important, and 
Milosevic is watching the Members today.
  Beyond that, I would like to say to my colleagues, it is very 
important that while we may disagree on policy, that we come together 
in the final analysis on this vote. Nothing could be worse than to see 
sizeable numbers walk away from this very, very important bill. In the 
final analysis, I am convinced that there will be solid support for the 
$11.24 billion of this bill that is reflected in the defense portions 
of the bill.
  Like a number of my colleagues, I have had the opportunity to spend 
many hours at the White House in recent weeks in briefings with the 
Commander in Chief and his national security team. If there was one 
message I heard from the President last week, it was this: ``Provide 
the additional funds if you must, but--and this is very important--do 
not slow this package down.'' My colleagues, we must act and act now.
  Allow me to take just a minute to outline a few of the details of 
this $12.9 billion emergency spending package.
  The bill has four parts--the largest of which is within the Defense 
Subcommittee's jurisdiction. For these activities, we have included 
$11.24 billion which is $5.8 billion above the President's request. The 
increases are all in areas of identified shortages (spare parts, depot 
maintenance, training and op tempo funding shortfalls, and base 
operation costs).
  I could go on . . . and on about this package and our effort in 
Kosovo. In the interest of time and moving this bill forward, I want to 
simply urge my colleagues to support our military, send a strong signal 
to our troops in the field, and support this supplemental.
  In closing, I would like to thank the following people on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee staff, Chairman Young's staff, as well as 
my own personal staff, for their valuable assistance with this bill: 
Kevin Roper, Greg Dahlberg, Doug Gregory, Tina Jonas, Alicia Jones, 
Paul Juola, David Kilian, Jenny Mummert, Steve Nixon, David Norquist, 
Betsy Phillips, Trish Ryan, Greg Walters, Sherry Young, Harry Glenn, 
Brian Mabry, Arlene Willis, Leitia White, Grady Bourn, Julie Hooks, and 
Dave LesStrang.
  Mr. Chairman, as we go forward with amendments later, there will be 
plenty of time for discussions regarding the detail. But between now 
and then, it is very important that the Members recognize that the 
entire public is watching our response and our expression of support or 
lack of support for our troops as they work in harm's way.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding time to me.
  First let me say that I agree very much, this is an American, this is 
a NATO conflict. We in this House should speak with one voice and not 
be putting it on political terms. I feel very, very deeply about this. 
I support this

[[Page H2829]]

bill. At the end of the day, I support this bill. It is a major step 
toward my goal of making this the year of the troops, the year in which 
we recognize the needs of those who serve in uniform.
  I also support it because it ensures that our military has more than 
adequate resources to carry out the Kosovo air campaign. It bolsters 
the military readiness of our forces in the Balkan theater and the 
Armed Forces as a whole. It provides the resources to help address the 
tragic humanitarian situation in Kosovo.
  The basis of this bill was a $6 billion administration request in 
emergency funding. The request was based on four categories, military 
operations in and around Kosovo, Kosovar refugee relief, munitions and 
readiness munitions, and Desert Thunder and Desert Fox military 
operations.
  In addition to the administration's original request, our colleagues 
on the Committee on Appropriations have seen fit to add to the 
President's request, both to the humanitarian request and the matter 
request. There are some problems that our colleagues had on the 
Committee on Appropriations, and they have tried to address them. They 
have added certain categories.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to comment on two major additions to the 
original request. First, this bill sends the right signal to our men 
and women in uniform by providing $1.8 billion to fund the 
administration's military pay and retirement package, of course, 
conditioned upon the enactment of authorizing legislation through our 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Second, this bill provides for $1.1 billion in unrequested funds for 
overseas military construction in Europe and Southeast Asia. The 
inclusion of these projects is similar to the inclusion of the 
administration's pay and retirement package.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state that our Armed Forces 
have been neglected for too long. It is time we give our troops the 
supplies and the support that they need.
  Without any coherent international blueprint, the White House has 
bombed its way around the globe, while dropping troops far and wide for 
ill-defined peacemaking duties. This policy has gutted the American 
military, which now must be rebuilt.
  Last week a bipartisan Congress voted against President Clinton's 
undeclared war in Yugoslavia. Both Republican and Democrat members are 
reluctant to commit U.S. forces to a mission that has no strategic 
plan, no timetable, no definition of victory, and no clear national 
interests to defend.
  While there are many reasons for that vote, lack of support for our 
troops was not one of them. To the contrary, the leadership in this 
Congress supports our troops, but does not support President Clinton's 
frivolous deployment of them and haphazard waste of military resources.
  The last 6 years of focusless military use, combined with defense 
spending cuts, have stretched our forces to the point where serious 
gaps in our national security are developing. Not only have we left the 
Pacific without a single carrier to defend our allies and troops 
stationed in the region, but the carriers we are sending to combat in 
Yugoslavia and Iraq are drastically undermanned.
  For example, the Teddy Roosevelt is 418 sailors short, and the 
Enterprise is lacking an alarming 495 sailors. In total, the U.S. Navy 
is 18,000 sailors short, and those that are there are at risk because 
of it.
  Such shortfalls in recruits and equipment have reached crises level. 
This Congress wants to rebuild our depleted defense and make sure that 
our troops have the supplies they need while they are deployed wherever 
they are deployed.
  President Clinton has only proposed to cover the basic costs of his 
war in Yugoslavia. This Congress wants to take this opportunity to 
bolster our hollowed out military. This emergency spending will provide 
much needed munitions, spare parts, construction, training, recruiting, 
and pay increases for our military.
  Amid reports that the United States is running out of cruise missiles 
and cannibalizing some planes for parts, America must not forget that 
military weaknesses only challenge our enemies to take costly and 
dangerous risks.
  Mr. Chairman, the time is now to deter our enemies by bolstering our 
military. We have to send a very clear message that while we may not 
support the President's ill-advised war, we do support our troops 
wholeheartedly.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chair of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs, I have the 
responsibility to recommend to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) the funding level for the programs that come under the 
jurisdiction of our subcommittee. We have one overwhelming priority, 
and that is assistance to the refugees who have been driven from their 
homes and separated from their loved ones.
  The President requested a total of $566 million from our subcommittee 
as part of his supplemental request. We have approved the entire amount 
of this funding level, but we made some modifications. The funding 
would be allocated as follows:
  --$96 million for international disaster assistance;
  --$105 million for support of frontline States, including $5 million 
to document war crimes;
  --$75 million for Eastern Europe assistance to assist refugees within 
the borders of the frontline States; and
  --a total of $290 million for the refugee assistance accounts.
  Part of the original request was $170 million for an account normally 
used for long-term development projects.
  We have tried to discover how the funds would be used. We were told 
that $95 million of this amount would be made available for refugee 
assistance, but we already have separate accounts for the refugee and 
humanitarian services. When the administration officials were asked 
about that, we were told these funds could be used for such things as, 
and I quote, ``NGO development and microcredit activities.''
  I have nothing against either of these programs, but they are part of 
an ongoing program in Eastern Europe. They are emphatically not part of 
emergency refugee and humanitarian assistance.
  The President and Secretary of State have also discussed plans for a 
Southeastern Europe initiative. I fear they could use these fund to 
begin such an initiative, and I do not think they should, without 
adequate consultation and further approval by the Congress. Therefore 
we moved $95 million from these vaguely defined activities and made 
that additional amount available for direct support for refugees and 
humanitarian assistance.
  Indeed, this money, the $566 million, may not be sufficient. The 
administration is constantly changing its policies. It is difficult to 
know when enough is enough. One day the President announces that we are 
going to send 20,000 refugees to Guantanamo Bay. A few days later, the 
Secretary of State says, no, we are not going to do that, we are going 
to keep the refugees there because we then would be ethnically 
cleansing the region.
  The next day the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Gore, 
announces that 20,000 refugees are coming to the United States. At the 
drop of a hat, the Vice President committed $40 million for the 
transport and relocation of refugees to our country. I was not 
consulted about this. Neither was anyone else in Congress. I'm not sure 
the Secretary knew. Now we're left with a $40 million bill, and we must 
in good conscience pay for it. It leaves a hole in the request. I 
strongly encourage Members to vote in favor of this bill. It does not 
give the Administration a pot of money to begin the reconstruction of 
Southeastern Europe. If they want to begin a massive new spending 
program in the region, they need to come back to Congress. They and we 
also need to win the war.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, there are only 147 days 
left

[[Page H2830]]

in this fiscal year. This ought to be a time when we come together with 
bipartisan resolve to deal with three urgent crises that we could not 
have anticipated last September: the agricultural collapse in rural 
America, the devastation of Central America by Hurricanes Mitch and 
Georges, and the need to support our troops and the allied cause in 
Kosovo.
  The Republican majority, unfortunately, has sought to politicize the 
NATO operation in the Balkans, withholding support for it last week, 
amid well-publicized arm-twisting, and now this week voting to double 
the funding for it! In so doing, the majority hopes to use the NATO 
campaign to leverage funding for unrelated military purposes.
  We should reject partisan gamesmanship that toys with the lives of 
our troops and the refugees, that trivializes the dignity of our rural 
citizens, and that belittles the suffering of the people in Central 
America.

                              {time}  1215

  We should, instead, adopt the Obey substitute.
  The Obey amendment is well-crafted. It is responsible. It addresses 
the military and humanitarian needs in the Balkans, fully funding the 
Department of Defense's request. It includes the most justifiable of 
the defense add-ons, particularly those involving military pay and 
readiness. It addresses the disaster in Honduras and Guatemala, a 
situation we ignore at our Nation's peril; for if we ignore it, we will 
surely face a new flood of immigration northward and greater 
vulnerability to drug trafficking. And the Obey amendment provides 
desperately needed funding to meet the collapse in the price of 
agricultural commodities.
  Mr. Chairman, the House today has an opportunity to reverse its 
recent history of politicizing issues that should not be politicized 
and defaulting on the responsibility of a great power. Support the Obey 
substitute.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  It is really interesting to me. This bill is not about any political 
gamesmanship, and it has not been politicized. This bill is a true, 
clean national defense bill that provides what the national defense 
establishment needs to protect our Nation and to protect our troops.
  The only partisanship that I have heard in this debate today has come 
from that side, accusing this side of being partisan or of politicizing 
or of political gamesmanship. I want to assure the gentleman that there 
is no politics in this at all.
  For speakers on the other side to try to create the atmosphere that 
this is somehow political is just not right. We have gone overboard to 
make sure over the years that national defense issues were not 
political and there were no political games being played on them.
  I want to call attention just one more time to the fact that the only 
issue of politicization or political gamesmanship is coming from over 
there. And the fact that they say it does not make it true, and I 
insist that it is not true. This is a clean national defense 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hobson), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and I rise today to speak in strong support of the bill before 
us.
  Voting ``yes'' today is a vote for our troops. It says definitively 
that their daily sacrifices will not be downsized or neglected any 
more. It shows that we can transcend our differences and unite for 
their well-being. Our troops are in harm's way, so it is our duty and 
responsibility to muster the resolve to keep them safe.
  I worked closely with military commanders in the field to make this 
bill a reality. It is responsible and tightly honed to our most 
immediate and unanticipated needs in the Balkans and Southwest Asia. 
Remember that our European infrastructure is a critical staging area. 
It supports our mission in the Balkans and our training and pass-
through for operations in the Gulf and Africa.
  The time for leadership is now. There simply has been a failure to 
support our troops living and working overseas under very dangerous 
conditions. Let us pass this bill and show our troops that the 
sacrifices they make are worthy of the support of Congress and the 
American people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and I want to again commend him for his leadership in bringing 
the Obey amendment to the floor because, indeed, it is the responsible 
approach to the challenge that we have before us.
  Let me just first say that it is hard to believe that nearly 7 months 
ago there was the greatest natural disaster, the worst natural disaster 
in the history of our hemisphere since they recorded these things in 
Central America. I do not think the American people know that we have 
still not passed out of this Congress legislation for the disaster 
assistance that the American people in their compassion wanted us to 
do. The assistance is still hung up on budgetary gimmickry and offsets 
and the rest.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) corrects the situation in his 
amendment. Mr. Obey also recognizes the large number of refugees who 
have come out of Kosovo and puts $175 million more in for humanitarian 
assistance. Again, whatever we may think of the war effort and the air 
strikes, the American people, God bless them, want the refugees to have 
humanitarian assistance. It also addresses the needs of America's 
farmers here at home, and it is responsible in meeting the needs of our 
military.
  And how proud we are of our people in the military, both for putting 
themselves in harm's way and their courage, but also for the military's 
role in humanitarian assistance. They assisted most recently in the 
Balkans, and they were indeed largely responsible for our initial 
emergency assistance in Central America, even though we still have not 
paid the bill on that.
  So I ask my colleagues, when the time comes for amendments, to vote 
and support the Obey amendment and to do so with the knowledge that it 
is the responsible approach to meeting the needs of our military, to 
addressing the pay raise issue for the military, to honoring the 
commitment of the American people for humanitarian assistance and to do 
it in a fiscally sound way.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the very distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); and other members of the 
Committee on Appropriations for ``leaning forward'' and doing the right 
thing by addressing some of the most serious readiness and quality-of-
life shortfalls facing our military today.
  Our Nation's military leaders publicly testified last fall that the 
President's 6-year defense plan fell about $150 billion short of 
meeting basic military requirements. Knowing how politics work in this 
town, we should assume that the Joint Chiefs' estimate of the military 
shortfalls is understated.
  The budget resolution added about $8 billion to the President's 
underfunded defense request. It is a small but necessary first step. 
This supplemental adds approximately $6 billion in additional funding 
to address some of the military's most critical shortfalls.
  Our military has the responsibility of being able to fight two 
multiple theatre wars and conduct multiple concurrent smaller-scale 
contingency operations throughout the world. We have been cutting back 
on our military since 1989, to the extent that we could not conduct one 
at the time.
  The Army and the Air Force has been cut back 45 percent, the Navy 36 
percent, the Marines 12 percent. At the same time, our operational 
requirements have increased 300 percent. The problem is past being an 
emergency, it is critical.

[[Page H2831]]

  These additional funds will only begin to help our military to 
properly defend this country with a minimum loss of American lives 
among our service people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been more than a month since Milosevic launched 
his campaign of genocide. His atrocities continue to fill us with 
horror and revulsion: more than a million people, driven from their 
homes at gunpoint; entire towns burned to the ground; men and boys 
forced to kneel by the side of the road and shot dead before their 
families; grandparents burned alive because they were too feeble to 
flee.
  In the face of such brutal and systematic slaughter, we need to send 
him a message, an unmistakable message of American resolve, that his 
campaign of genocide will not stand.
  We have to set partisan politics aside. We have to stand united 
behind our troops. Even as we speak today, our pilots are hurtling off 
the decks of our carriers, risking their lives to save the Kosovars and 
see justice done. We have to give them the support that they need in 
order to win.
  Milosevic cannot be allowed to prevail. The scale and the details of 
his inhumanity ignite our moral indignation. Accounts coming out of 
Kosovo are shocking: Serbian soldiers knock on the windows of a 
refugee's car as he and his family wait to cross the border, and they 
were bearing AK-47s. They demanded $6,000 from the driver or his two 
daughters in the back seat. The father empties his wallet, but it is 
not enough. So the soldiers pull the young women from the car, drag 
them to a nearby garage, where several other soldiers, also wearing 
masks, were waiting. The gang rape lasted hours.
  Last Friday, in the village of Pristina, Serbian troops murdered 44 
Kosovars, shooting some and burning others alive. When relatives of the 
victims went to bury their loved ones, the soldiers told them that they 
would be shot, too, if they uttered a single prayer for the dead. And 
as one of the Kosovars said later, perhaps our silence helps them to 
deal with their shame.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, America cannot and we will not be silent as long 
as Milosevic continues his campaign of terror. As a superpower at the 
peak of our prosperity and our strength, America cannot look the other 
way and we cannot be diverted by our partisan differences.
  I have been troubled by the procedures that the House adopted today, 
and we have seen people trying to play politics with the President's 
funding request for these troops. I would urge my colleagues to unite 
behind the Obey substitute. It is clean, it is straightforward, it is a 
strong response to the present emergency, and by all prognostications 
it will be what we end up with next week on this floor.
  In the end, we have to move this process forward; and we have to do 
it today. Now is the time to accept the responsibilities of leadership. 
Now is the time to support our troops in the field, who are risking 
their lives so that this century might end better than it began. Now is 
the time to send Milosevic an unmistakable message: At the end of the 
20th century, the world will not stand for genocide.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Chair how much time the 
gentleman yielded back?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. No, I asked how much time did the gentleman yield back?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman yielded back 30 seconds, and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I think I probably just wasted 20 seconds of 
my time. I was not prepared for this. Let me be very brief now that my 
time has been stressed.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask Members to permit the eyes of their minds 
to see a greater vision here and to not be so narrow to think of this 
as Kosovo and Kosovo only.
  What concerns me most is that this is about funding a national 
military strategy. Sure, there are discussions of politics. Frankly, I 
do not mind that, because it is policy that drives all of this. The 
President's singular responsibility is to lay out the vital national 
security interests, then we come up with a military strategy as the 
means to enforce those.
  The President has one that is different, and I would not go along 
with it, but it is for us to transition out of a posture of global 
engagement in over 135 countries around the world and then fight and 
win nearly two simultaneous major regional conflicts. The open secret 
is we do not have the force structure today to do that.
  Let me share some facts with my colleagues about the size of the 
military today. In the Gulf War, we had 18 Army divisions, we had 24 
Air Force tactical wings, and in the Navy ships and submarines we had 
546 in 1990. Today, we are down to 10 divisions in the Army, 13 
tactical wings in the Air Force, and a 315 ship Navy. That is a 
reduction in the Army by 250,000, in the Air Force 150,000, and in the 
Navy 200,000.
  So what have we done by taking a foreign policy of global engagement? 
We have taken our military and we have stretched this great military of 
ours very thin all over the world. Now we find ourselves with depleted 
munitions. Depleted munitions. And not only in our ammo.
  When I hear individuals say, well, we are going to have to cut back 
or we are only going to have to replace bullet for bullet, do my 
colleagues realize the risks we are being placed in in other scenarios 
around the world?

                              {time}  1230

  Do not take it from me. Take it from General Shelton. General 
Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, ``Suffice it 
to say that what we have going on right now in Kosovo is a major 
theater of war with air assets. The fighting in Yugoslavia now means a 
much higher risk of a second regional conflict, protracted, with 
significant casualties.''
  My colleagues, vote for this.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding 
me the time, a new member on the committee, for this most important 
discussion.
  It is not whether we support our troops or not. We all do. We support 
them because they are risking their lives for us as the greatest 
country in the world. What we do not support at this time is the 
doubling of appropriations that our President gave us.
  We are 2 months away from doing the 2000 budget. We ought to be using 
this time and the extra $6 billion to put during that time in the 
appropriations process.
  It is important that we take care of education for our children, 
health care for our seniors, housing for those who need it. It is 
unfortunate we will not be able to get to that during this budget time 
because of the caps, the political caps that were set.
  Let us not say we do not support the troops, because we do. Let us 
support the President, our troops, and the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to H.R. 1664, the Kosovo 
Supplemental Appropriations for FY 1999. More than half of this bill's 
$13 billion appropriation is being used for funds that will eventually 
come from the budget surplus, and only illustrates the collective 
cowardice of the majority in refusing to consider these military 
construction projects under normal budgetary procedures. In essence, 
this bill gives to the military and takes from Social Security and 
Medicare. What is worse is that the doubling of the increase of this 
bill, from President Clinton's original request for $6 billion to $13 
billion, has not seen a resulting increase in aid to the refugees or in 
humanitarian aid, ostensibly a key part of this bill's original 
purpose. As one of the newest members on the House Appropriations 
Committee, I know that Appropriations are about three things: what you 
need, what you want, and what you'd like to have. This bill

[[Page H2832]]

was half of what we need, some of what members want, and no increase in 
what the refugees would like to have.
  In order to accurately discuss this vote, we must first place these 
issues into context. After the breakdown of peace talks between Serbian 
and Kosovar representatives in Rambouillet, France in mid-March, Serb 
forces entered the Yugoslav province of Kosovo en masse. An estimated 
one million Kosovar Albanians have since been driven from their homes, 
most into Albania and Macedonia, thousands of Kosovar Albanian men 
remain missing, and reports of rape and murder continue to trickle out 
of the embattled region.
  In response, on March 24, 1999, NATO began a massive bombing campaign 
against Yugoslav forces and installations in Serbia and Kosovo. Close 
to 1,000 NATO warplanes are now involved in the airwar (with over 80% 
from the United States). President Clinton recently called up an 
additional 33,000 reservists to aid in the fight, and asked Congress 
for $6.0 billion in supplemental funds to pay for current operations. 
This $6 billion request more than adequately addresses the commitment 
of the United States to this unified effort.
  The Republicans on the House Appropriation Committee drafted a $12.9 
billion emergency FY99 supplemental spending bill. On top of the White 
House's $6.05 billion spending request for the Kosovo mission, 
Republican appropriators included $1.8 billion to fund a pay raise and 
retirement package through the remainder of FY99, and the bill includes 
an additional $74 million in unspecified worldwide ``minor'' 
construction projects, provides additional funding for munitions 
purchases and operational readiness needs, such as recruitment, 
replacement of spare parts, equipment maintenance and military base 
operations, primarily with additional funds for operational readiness 
and for a military pay raise and retirement package. The bonus of this 
additional $6 billion in funding is that it does not have to be offset 
by similar reductions in spending in other programs.
  This is nothing but fiscal legerdemain, a sorry billion-dollar 
version of the old New York City street con of the three shells and the 
pea. Unfortunately, the elderly and the poor are the hapless victims of 
this con job. The majority of the Democratic members on this Committee 
see this for what it is: nothing but an attempt to fund defense 
projects that will not fit within the tight spending caps for FY00. I 
must reiterate one key point: there is not one thin dime of an increase 
in refugee assistance funding in this bill.
  There are certainly many items within this legislation that are 
probably worthy of the support of scarce taxpayer dollars. Let me make 
this clear: I do not oppose the hard working and brave persons in our 
nation's Armed Forces from getting a well deserved pay increase, better 
housing, a much improved retirement program, or other such items as 
needed. I object that my Republican colleagues do not have the 
collective courage to make the hard decisions and difficult choices 
inherent in being a member of the august House Appropriations 
Committee. What is becoming abundantly clear is one thing: the 
budgetary caps on spending will have to be increased. Only then will 
Congress be able to address our urgent domestic needs, preserve our 
vital fiscal surplus, and protect our nation's seniors who have already 
paid the price for the freedom that most of us enjoy but all of us take 
for granted.
  Our colleague, Congressman David Obey, will offer a sensible 
amendment that provides a total of $11 billion in funding. Of this sum, 
funds that do not have to be authorized will go toward an immediate pay 
increase for the military; an increase in the operations and 
maintenance in Kosovo, and more importantly, $175 million more for the 
refugees of Kosovo. If Congressman Obey's amendment is reasonable, 
sensible, and deserves the support of the majority of our colleagues.
  I would like to paraphrase a recent article in the New York Times, in 
closing, on this issue: This is nothing but Republican cowardice 
triumphing over principle; don't vote for the war, don't take 
responsibility for the war, don't vote to stop the war, but vote to 
pump more money into a policy we don't like. American taxpayers pay us 
a good sum of money to make difficult decisions, and it is time that we 
stepped up to the plate and made them.
  It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress will prevail in supporting 
the amendment of Congressman Obey. Without the adoption of the Obey 
amendment, this bill must be rejected by the House of Representatives. 
Congress must preserve the surplus for Social Security, Medicare and 
Medicaid. We must increase the caps on domestic and defense spending, 
and do so while maintaining the integrity of our balanced budget. These 
issues are not mutually exclusive, but Congress must have the courage 
to make these tough decisions.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Interior.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to pay tribute to the two 
brave servicemen who lost their lives this week during a training 
exercise in Albania, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin Reichert of Wisconsin 
and Chief Warrant Officer David Gibbs from my district.
  David Gibbs grew up in Massillon, Ohio, graduating from Washington 
High School in 1980. I wish to express my sympathy to David's family, 
his mother Dorothy, his wife and three children. Their pain can only be 
eased by the knowledge that his country salutes his heroic service.
  These two men chose to serve their country in one the noblest 
traditions and they made the ultimate sacrifice in protecting the 
principles and freedoms which the United States represents. All our men 
and women in uniform are to be commended for their service. We must 
support our troops so they can do the job they so valiantly volunteered 
to do when they joined the armed services.
  And we in Congress have a responsibility to ensure that our troops 
have the resources they need for the best equipment, the most reliable 
and advanced technology, and the needed training to make them the most 
respected military in the world.
  I will support this bill, because while we do not yet know the cause 
of this latest tragedy, the American people need to know that we are 
adequately supporting our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason we are here today is that the President 
submitted a request for $6 billion for the Kosovo operation, which 
would bring us to the end of fiscal year 1999; and that was clearly an 
unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstance that came up because of the 
actions of Slobodan Milosevic. Those situations ought to be few and far 
between, outside the caps, without any offsets, a true emergency.
  The underlying bill that has come from committee more than doubles 
the amount from the President's request on a set of premises which are 
entirely different. It is operating on a premise that goes far beyond, 
entirely beyond the definition of ``emergency,'' which had been part of 
the President's request, and much of it is only partly related to 
Kosovo.
  On the other hand, we have before us an amendment that has been 
offered by the minority ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), which responsibly but narrowly deals with the Kosovo 
situation and other emergencies along the way.
  Who can deny that we look rather foolish in this Congress, and I 
really am embarrassed by it, that 7 months after what had happened in 
Central America and 7 months after we truly knew way back in the fall 
that the problems on our farms were very serious, yet we passed that 
legislation 3 months ago. It has not moved to a final conclusion, the 
emergencies relating to Central America and related to the farms, and 
we have not done anything about it.
  The Obey amendment deals with both of those issues and also makes 
certain that the pay increase for our military personnel is funded now, 
not uncertain as to when and if it will be authorized, but funded now. 
So it deals with the emergencies in Kosovo, on the farms, in Central 
America, and our military personnel.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we have a world crisis and an acute national 
emergency. I support this $12.9 billion spending package.
  I have opposed past defense spending bills because we have failed, in 
my judgment, to take four difficult but necessary steps to realize 
savings and modernize our military. We failed to: cancel procurement of 
expensive, unnecessary weapon systems; close unnecessary military bases 
and depots at home and abroad; and require our allies, particularly 
Europeans, to pay

[[Page H2833]]

their fair share of stationing U.S. troops in their countries.
  And we are still funding a military designed to fight the Cold War, 
but the Cold War has ended. The world today is different, and it is a 
more dangerous place.
  The war in Kosovo costs money, and lots of money. As a fiscal 
conservative during my 11 years in Congress with consistently high 
marks from the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government 
Waste, and other fiscal watch dog organizations, I am on the floor to 
say we need to appropriate this money. The fact is that we have already 
spent it.
  Over the past 40 years, the United States has deployed troops around 
the world 41 times, but 33 of these 41 missions have come in just the 
past 8 years.
  We need to realize the tremendous costs we accrue when we deploy our 
military to troubled spots all over the world. These missions cost 
money and resources which we have taken from other parts of the defense 
budget.
  Today, our military has a number of acute needs that must be 
addressed. We need to do a better job attracting new enlistees and 
maintaining the necessary level of reenlistment. Our soldiers, sailors, 
pilots and Marines are overworked and underpaid. Our training has 
suffered. We do not have the necessary munitions for potential new 
encounters. And we are cannibalizing existing planes, tanks, and other 
equipment for their parts in order to make other equipment operational.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us have not supported the President's decision 
to use military force in Yugoslavia and did not vote for last week's 
resolution endorsing air strikes. But the fact is, there is a war in 
Kosovo and we need to pay for it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the effort being 
undertaken by NATO in Kosovo and Serbia. I rise in agreement that we 
must fund our armed services at increased levels to ensure that our 
security and our ability to join our allies in maintaining 
international security and stability is maintained.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the President has requested the correct sum 
for the war until September 30th of this year, $5.9 billion. I believe 
that war against Serbian genocide and ethnic cleansing is absolutely 
essential for us to participate in.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I also believe we must assist our farmers who find 
themselves in real crises, and the almost 1 million victims of this 
hemisphere's worst natural disaster in this century. I therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, will support the Obey amendment.
  I will also, I tell my good friend and the chairman, be supporting 
increasing the fiscal year 2000 appropriations for our military to 
ensure the objectives of which I have spoken and of which the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) has so eloquently spoken.
  Our national interest, our commitment to humanitarian and moral 
principles, will be served by the passage of the Obey amendment and it 
will do so in a way more consistent, I believe, with fiscal 
responsibility and our responsibility to our men and women in the Armed 
Forces and to our allies in this just war in which we are now involved.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Obey amendment fails, I fully intend to support 
the Young alternative. There is no question but that we must support 
this effort which is undertaken by NATO and ourselves to defend the 
principles for which NATO was created, for which this country stands, 
and which are critically important if the world is to be the place in 
which we want our children to live and in their future succeed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member 
of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I suspect that history will record our action today on 
this supplemental as an especially important act of this Congress. As 
we basically fight two undeclared wars simultaneously, one through 
humanitarian purposes in the Balkans and the other over Iraq, our 
actions today help pay for one and indirectly for the other.
  This is a replenishment but it is also an investment to keep our 
young people in uniform, and wars are fought by the young, safe and 
well-equipped in battle. This bill supports our troops. This bill will 
make an immediate difference in their lives.
  This bill acknowledges what the White House will not, that all of our 
military and humanitarian missions in the Balkans will cost billions 
more than the President will admit. This bill will boost morale by 
providing military pay raises and retirement benefits. It will do 
things for refugees.
  And finally, this bill gives the President control over the use of 
these emergency dollars that we provide. In other words, the Commander 
in Chief could use it to meet any crisis.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
emergency supplemental bill for our troops in Yugoslavia under the 
leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bill 
Young). I think it is a great bill.
  President Clinton has created a national security emergency by 
cutting the defense budget while spreading our troops around the world. 
In the last 8 years, our military has been reduced by some 40 percent. 
Look at Yugoslavia. Already the President has had to call up 25,000 
reserves and divert planes from the Iraqi ``no fly'' zone to 
Yugoslavia.
  While I have, and many others do as well, strong reservations about 
the decisions that have led us to this point, I feel that the United 
States is now confronted by a series of bad options in Yugoslavia. I 
believe it is important, however, that NATO continue its operation. The 
credibility of NATO and the United States depends on it.
  The $12.9 billion in this bill will ensure that our troops receive 
the resources they need to carry out their mission and begin to rebuild 
our national defenses, which have been substantially weakened by Mr. 
Clinton's neglect.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support 
our troops by voting ``yes'' on this important bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1664. 
This is not a referendum today on the air campaign against Yugoslavia. 
It is a first step in restoring the dollars that have been taken out of 
critical readiness accounts of the Department of Defense and to 
replenish stockpiles of our critical weapons and munitions.
  We have a crisis today in the readiness of our Armed Forces. Two 
weeks ago, I was out at my Jacksonville Naval Air Station. Twenty-one 
P-3's sitting on the tarmac. Only four could fly because of a lack of 
spare parts. I met with the S-3 pilots. They are supposed to be flying 
20 to 25 hours a month to keep up their skills. They had only flown 5 
hours last month because there were no planes that they could fly.
  This Congress needs to send a message to the young men and women 
serving in uniform in our military that we support them and that we are 
going to provide them with the resources that they need to do the fine 
job that they always do for this country. I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1664.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, just when we were starting to see 
evidence of the positive change in the old international mind-set of 
having the rest of

[[Page H2834]]

the world identify a problem at some distant point on the globe and 
collectively point to the U.S. and say they solve the problem with 
their troops and their treasury, it appears we are in danger of 
reverting to the old way.

                              {time}  1245

  Several weeks ago we gave conditional approval to the U.S. being part 
of a NATO international peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Four thousand 
troops out of the 28,000, 15 percent of the total. Now that we have 
undertaken the air campaign, instead of a 15 percent contribution, it 
appears we are shouldering from 60 to 80 percent of that contribution.
  The President should seek financial reimbursement from our allies as 
this bill requires. Moreover, the military campaign will not be the end 
of the story in Kosovo. Refugee assistance and resettlement will be 
expensive undertakings. So, too, will rebuilding. There must be 
equitable burdensharing. Our Nation has not, cannot and will not walk 
away from our responsibilities. But the burden is not ours exclusively, 
and our allies must recognize this.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution.
  While our military operations in Kosovo continue with no end in 
sight, America faces a crisis in military readiness. Our troops are 
overextended and underfunded. The military is 40 percent smaller now 
than the successful force of Operation Desert Storm, and operational 
commitments around the world have increased by 300 percent. More troops 
are being sent around the world to perform more missions with fewer 
resources. While Congress has restored some funding to the defense 
budget, the Joint Chiefs of Staff still estimate that there is a 
significant shortfall.
  The Navy is decommissioning ships faster than they are being 
replaced. We are literally flying the wings off aircraft that are 
almost 40 years of age. The Air Force and the Army are running short on 
missiles. The list goes on and on. An effective military force cannot 
fight and win in a world where critical weapons systems must be 
cannibalized to keep other equipment operational.
  Task Force Smith paid a high price in Korea in 1950 because the Army 
was stretched too thin, underequipped and overutilized. We must not 
allow that to happen again. I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the supplemental. Not only is readiness 
important and the funding we are putting in here will bring the morale 
of our troops up where it should be and provide them the resources they 
need, but we are also showing strong support at the same time for our 
operations in Kosovo. I think that that is particularly important, that 
we stress that we are fully supportive of what our military is doing at 
the present time in Kosovo and that we are fully behind the work of our 
courageous and brave men and women who are out there fighting this 
battle for all of us.
  These humanitarian concerns that we have in this Congress are 
particularly important. We want to make certain that our military today 
and tomorrow is going to have the sufficient resources and assets that 
are so important.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, objection has been heard from the other side of the 
aisle because I have stated, as have others, that this war is being 
politicized. Let me tell my colleagues why I say that. A spokesman for 
your leadership last week, in explaining to the press how they 
justified voting to double spending for a war which last week they 
opposed conducting at all, said: ``it is easier for us to support the 
Pentagon than it is to support this President.''
  The distinguished majority whip took the floor just a few minutes ago 
and said ``This President is bombing his way around the globe.'' That 
is the same gentleman who was reported in a Washington Post article 
last week to have called in a series of lobbyists to ask them to lobby 
for this bill.
  One member is quoted in the article, `` `We've added a lot in defense 
money to this,' said one lawmaker who asked not to be identified. `That 
helps those lobbyists.' '' That is not my quote. That is a member of 
the other side.
  Another member of the leadership is quoted as saying, ``We want to 
make clear that this is Clinton's war.''
  The majority is suggesting that we ought to, instead of supporting 
the request that the President has made of almost $7 billion, instead 
they are pouring billions of dollars, totally unrelated to the war, 
into this budget bill which is supposed to be an emergency 
appropriation for Kosovo. And what effect does that have? That gives 
the public the impression that the war costs a whole lot more than it 
is actually costing. Then they wonder why I raise objections about the 
politicization which has gone on.
  Then we have heard that Clinton has almost single-handedly weakened 
the military. I would point out that the other side of the aisle has 
controlled this House for the last 4\1/2\ years. They have spent more 
than $1 trillion on military spending during that time. They have added 
$27 billion to the President's request. Yet all but $3.5 billion of 
that has gone for items other than readiness. If they are so concerned 
about readiness, why did they not put the money there, instead of 
spreading it and larding it for pork items all throughout the budget? 
Pork items which have been amply reported in the press.
  I heard one speaker say that it was terrible that we did not have 
enough JDAM missiles. I would point out, it was the majority party that 
pushed a bill through this House last year which cut the appropriation 
for JDAMs from $53 million to $46 million and cut the number of 
available missiles by 17 percent. If they really believed we needed 
additional money for readiness, why did they not put the money there in 
the 4\1/2\ years that they have led this institution?
  And then, lastly, we hear a speaker say that we have got to have 
better burdensharing between other NATO countries and the United 
States. Yet their version of this bill gratuitously pays, 1 year ahead 
of time, our full military construction dues to NATO. That makes us the 
only country in the world that provides them money ahead of time. How 
are we going to get better burdensharing when we are acting like Uncle 
Sucker doing that?
  I would urge Members to vote for my amendment when the time comes. 
That is the responsible action to take.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  One of our speakers said that history will record our activities 
today. I am not so much concerned about history as I am the young 
Americans who are serving in uniform, those in the Army and the Navy 
and the Air Force and the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard who go to 
war when America goes to war. Those are the ones that I am trying to 
look after today and that this bill tries to look after.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has just raised the issue of JDAMs 
again. Over the 4 years that I had the privilege of chairing the 
Subcommittee on Defense, the biggest battle I had on this floor in 
developing a bill that could be signed was because I added more money 
than the President asked for.
  Mr. OBEY. Not for JDAMs.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. For JDAMs. To show Members how conservative 
this committee is, JDAMs last year was not ready to go into full 
production because JDAMs had some technical problems. And so there was 
a program slip, and we did reduce the amount of money because of the 
program slip. We are not going to pay for a program that is slipping. 
JDAMs are being used today, and we are running out of them.
  Mr. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
adequate funding for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) 
military actions in Kosovo. I support the Clinton Administration's 
request for $6 billion to stop Yugoslavian President Slobodan 
Milosevic's campaign of terror, but I cannot

[[Page H2835]]

support the $12 billion funing package proposed in H.R. 1664.
  The U.S. role in NATO must be unflinching. The Administration's $6 
billion spending request is too important to be bogged down in 
political maneuvers of non-urgent defense spending. Let us pass the $6 
billion our military needs to continue operating the NATO effort and 
then debate the merits of additional, non-emergency military funding in 
another, less urgent forum.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I firmly support H.R. 1664, The Emergency 
Defense Supplemental Appropriations Bill for FY 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, our armed forces are stretched farther around the world 
today than at any time in our history. Deployments in both the Middle 
East and the Balkans have revealed a true national defense emergency. 
Our armed forces are suffering from dangerously low personnel, 
equipment and muntions.
  Our military is under considerable strain and the measures being 
taken to continue operations cause me great concern. We are converting 
portions of our critical nuclear arsenal for conventional warheads to 
address severe cruise missile shortages. We are pulling aircraft 
carriers out of the Pacific to patrol the Mediterranean, despite 
potentially dangerous tensions with China and North Korea. We are 
transferring aircraft and support crews from missions over Iraq to fly 
sorties over Yugoslavia. Finally, the President has called up 30,000 
reservists and enacted orders that prohibit many members of the Air 
Force from leaving the service until the Kosovo air war is over.
  Mr. Chairman, the shell game our military commanders are being forced 
to play must be stopped. We cannot continue to put our service men and 
women in harm's way without the support necessary to complete the 
resources without delay. To do anything less is both irresponsible and 
morally wrong.
  I firmly oppose this Administration's policy in the Balkans. I have 
repeatedly voted against legislation affirming our participation in 
Operation Allied Force and continue to believe that American military 
intervention in the region is not the answer. My vote in support of 
this emergency supplemental legislation is not an approval of this 
Administration's foreign policy in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Haiti or any other 
region of the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1664 because this legislation supports 
our troops. No matter where our troops are deployed, Congress must 
never neglect their needs. We have a responsibility to provide our 
military personnel with the necessary tools and training to complete 
their missions wherever they are. Congress cannot abandon our troops 
just because the President deploys them unwisely. I urge my colleagues 
to support our service men and women by approving this important 
legislation.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, watching this debate I couldn't 
help but ask myself a question. Where are the 302B allocations? For 
those watching at home, 302B allocations set the spending levels that 
the 13 Appropriations Committees must work with to move forward the 
federal--nonemergency--spending.
  The 302B allocations are nowhere to be found. The federal budget is 
so tight that the Majority Budget Committee Members can't figure out 
how they are going to fund the government next year without busting the 
spending caps. The Majority is having a heck of a time figuring out how 
to increase military spending without cutting important social 
initiatives or busting the budget caps.
  Then, along comes the Kosovo Emergency Spending bill--which Congress 
can now use to slide billions of dollars under the budget caps into 
military spending with little complaint from the Administration. Well, 
I protest, Mr. Chairman.
  The other body has done the right thing with the Kosovo Emergency 
Spending bill. I support the Obey substitute because it, as well as the 
bill moving through the other chamber, gets the job done in Kosovo, but 
is not a giveaway to the special interests here in Washington.
  This bill is not an excuse to push through billions of dollars of 
spending and take the pressure off the federal spending caps. That 
should be done in front of the American public in the normal 
Appropriations process.
  Support the Obey substitute.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1664, 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for military operations, 
refugee relief, and humanitarian assistance relating to the conflict in 
Kosovo. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to 
respond to current defense shortfalls. However, I would also like to 
take this opportunity to highlight a few of my concerns about the bill.
  U.S. forces are in harm's way. This is the case no matter what your 
position was on the debate regarding the Kosovo policy resolutions last 
week, Therefore, it is imperative for the Congress to stand united in 
support of this important bill. While I continue to strongly oppose the 
deployment of U.S. ground troops to the region, it is nevertheless 
critical that our military commanders and our troops have the necessary 
military equipment to carry out their current mission and finish the 
job.
  Passing this bill sends a clear message to Slobodan Milosevic that we 
stand united behind our Armed Forces. A strong, bipartisan vote shows 
that we will continue to fight Milosevic and his brutal campaign of 
ethnic cleansing, and that we support NATO's mission to force him to 
withdraw from Kosovo and return to peace negotiations.
  This bill is designed to replenish the current shortages in 
munitions, equipment and spare parts in the Services. While this bill 
goes further than the President's initial request, it is still an 
appropriate response to accelerate funding to meet the critical 
shortfalls identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Clearly, the 
conflict in Kosovo has exposed the fact that our Armed Forces can be 
overextended. We are involved militarily in Iraq and Bosnia at the same 
time we pursue our objectives in Kosovo. Our immediate ability to 
respond to crises in other strategically important areas, such as the 
Persian Gulf and the Pacific theater, has been eroded considerably. 
Moreover, if we are going to reverse the alarming rate of decline in 
recruitment and retention of experienced military personnel, we must 
also provide adequate pay, quality-of-life and retirement benefits.
  I have some concerns that this bill includes more than $1 billion for 
additional military construction spending. Only a small percentage of 
these funds have any relevance to the current military activity in 
Yugoslavia. The 77 projects which are funded in the bill are scattered 
in locations ranging from Southwest Asia to Northern Europe. It is 
highly arguable whether they represent the most pressing military 
construction needs. I question whether they need to be part of this 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I would hope that the House 
could more appropriately address these military construction add-ons 
when it is time to consider the regular fiscal year 2000 Military 
Construction Appropriation bill, which is usually among the first 
spending bills considered by the House.
  However, I strongly support the main thrust and intent of this 
legislation as an important response to the current defense shortfalls. 
We must begin the necessary process of correcting that situation now, 
or it will get worse. I will vote for this bill and strongly encourage 
my colleagues to support the legislation as well.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
1664, the supplemental Emergency Appropriations for Kosovo and 
Southwest Asia, and I urge the Committee on Appropriations to return to 
this body with a more fiscally prudent bill to cover the true costs of 
U.S. military operations against Yugoslavia.
  Let me say at the outset that my opposition to this measure does not 
in any way reflect upon my belief that the President has seriously 
miscalculated the merits of Operation Allied Force. Last week, as this 
body debated a series of resolutions dealing with the crises in Kosovo, 
I expressed my lack of confidence in the military policies pursued by 
the President and his political advisors.
  Today, however, from my humble vantage point, the issue is 
dramatically different. The men and women of the United States Armed 
Forces who find themselves in the thick of the Balkan conflict are not 
allowed to question the merits of the orders given by their commanding 
officers. By choosing to enlist in the military, they allow themselves 
to be placed in harm's way in order to defend America's interests even 
when those ``national interests'' as defined by their Commander-in-
Chief are questionable or controversial. I believe Congress must reward 
their commitment with all of the resources reasonably necessary to 
successfully carry out their mission.
  The issue then before us is as follows: what level of emergency 
funding is consistent with achieving the objectives of the current NATO 
military campaign? To put it another way, how much has the Kosovo 
conflict cost us? It is my opinion that this figure is considerably 
less than $13 billion.
  My colleagues make a somewhat persuasive case that overall military 
preparedness has suffered as assets, equipment, and manpower are 
diverted from other regions of the world to cover the conflict in 
Kosovo. And yet, proponents of this measure are stretching the 
definition of ``readiness'' to include military projects and equipment 
not even remotely related to Operation Allied Force.
  The bill includes multiple construction items in seven countries: 
Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom. 
My colleagues argue that many of the barracks and maintenance shops in 
those countries were built before World War II and that no significant 
modernization improvements have been made. Can we not rectify

[[Page H2836]]

these shortcomings through the normal appropriations process? Congress 
necessarily reserves the emergency supplemental bills to pay for 
unforeseen circumstances like disaster assistance or military 
conflicts. Do the indoor firing ranges or vehicle wash facilities 
qualify under such a designation?
  The bill further calls for a $1.8 billion increase in military 
pensions and cost of living adjustments for military personnel not 
participating in the NATO operation. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, I 
fully support improvements in the quality of life in the military. I 
agree with those legislators who claim that this Administration has 
contributed to the decline in recruitment and retention of experienced 
military personnel.
  However, the situation, while unacceptable, is completely unrelated 
to the subject of this bill--military operation in Yugoslavia and 
Southwest Asia. Again, those inequities are better rectified through 
Congress' annual appropriations process.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the intent of the 
legislation to restore our military might and return to an era of 
``peace through strength''. I have consistently voted in favor of 
virtually every military appropriation bill that congress has 
considered. Today, however, I cannot in good conscience support a 
measure which attempts to reverse several years of military decline by 
loading up a supplemental appropriations bill and bootstrapping onto a 
true ``emergency''.
  Accordingly, I vote ``no'' on the resolution.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Kosovo 
(H.R. 1664). Our military is in fact in an emergency situation, where 
readiness is dangerously low. I dare say that the two recent Apache 
(AH-64A) helicopter crashes in the Balkan Theater are a direct result 
of reduced flying hours for our air crews, which has been precipitated 
by a constant drain on training dollars. Most regrettably, we have lost 
the lives of two American patriots.
  Mr. Chairman, this state of military un-readiness cannot be allowed 
to continue, and that is why this $12.9 billion package of military 
priorities is so important. This appropriations bill includes $3 
billion for vital spare parts, depot maintenance backlogs and 
recruiting, $831 million for neglected overseas military activities 
that house our forward deployed forces, and $684 million to replenish 
the all important precision guided munitions (PGM) including cruise 
missiles, JDAM (joint direct attack munitions), HARM, Maverick, and 
others. The Administration has allowed the stockpiles of these PGM's to 
reach a dangerously low level, so we must act now in order to get the 
production lines running.
  In addition, this legislation includes a down payment on needed 
improvements to military pay and retirement benefits. This $1.8 billion 
provision will serve as a starting point to increase active duty pay, 
and the repeal of the REDUX retirement system that has been such a 
deterrent to recruitment and retention.
  My support for this bill should, in no way, be construed as my 
support for the President's misguided military action in the Balkans. 
My position in opposition to Operation Allied Force has been clearly 
stated in previous votes on this floor. This is not a blank check for 
the President, but a bill to replenish the readiness accounts of the 
services that have been emptied to carry out this operation. Moreover, 
we have young Americans serving their country who are in harm's way; 
they are caught in the middle of this foreign policy dispute, and it 
would be irresponsible for this Congress not to fully support them in 
every way possible. This emergency supplemental doesn't begin to fix 
the long decay of our armed forces, but it provides for their most 
pressing readiness and equipment needs of today. I urge the adoption of 
this legislation.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state for the record my 
position on the Supplemental Appropriation Bill. Last week I voted for 
a resolution that would have removed our troops from Yugoslavia, 
pursuant to the War Powers Act. The current mission in Kosovo concerns 
me tremendously. I am not convinced that our involvement in Kosovo 
serves our national interest. When the President sends American troops 
into battle there must be a national interest at stake. There should be 
a clear goal of the mission, including a realistic exit strategy. In 
addition, the President should inform the public of the impact on 
military readiness around the globe.
  The operation in Kosovo is extremely perilous. If the President 
insists on deploying ground troops into Kosovo, many American lives 
will be lost. The mission in Kosovo is also stripping away valuable 
military resources from other parts of the world. If the United States 
continues to engage in peacekeeping missions around the world, our 
military will be less prepared to respond to true national security 
threats. Thus, Kosovo presents two real dangers to the United States: 
one immediate and one long term.
  Although I oppose the mission in Kosovo, I understand the need for a 
strong national defense. The men and women of our armed forces are a 
treasured asset. No citizen should underestimate the value of the 
military in protecting our country from foreign threats and defending 
our national interests abroad. For that reason, I support the efforts 
of Congress to meet the needs of our armed forces.
  Finally, notwithstanding my support for the Supplemental 
Appropriation Bill, I object to the way Congress pays for emergencies. 
Currently, Congress is not limited by budget rules or caps when it 
appropriates money for emergencies. While I agree that Congress needs 
to be unrestrained when responding to natural disasters, I take 
exception with the current process of funding emergency situations. 
Every time Congress attempts to respond to an emergency, Members of 
Congress use the opportunity to include funding for non-emergency 
items. Instead, Congress should establish a fund to help pay for 
emergencies when they arise. That way we can avoid including unrelated 
items into emergency appropriations bills, and maintain sound fiscal 
policies at the federal level.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1664. This money 
is being requested to support the war in Yugoslavia, a war we must 
exit, not support this ill-conceived conflict has not caused the 
inadequacies of our defense infrastructure just as surely as these ill-
conceived funding requests will not cure the problems that years of 
fiscal neglect have created.
  I believe in a strong defense and I pledge to support funding levels 
that will strengthen our military. But we must do this properly through 
the normal FY 2000 appropriations process.
  I also believe there are valid humanitarian issues in Kosovo, and I 
support the humanitarian efforts there. But make no mistake, whether it 
be 6 or 13 billion dollars, the money will come directly out of the 
1999 Social Security budget surplus.
  Democrats and Republicans alike have agreed that Social Security 
needs to be protected, yet we are about to fail our first test of that 
commitment. I for one refuse to prosecute this war and the pretense for 
its funding on the backs of the Americans who depend on Social 
Security.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this emergency 
supplemental appropriation to support an undeclared war in Kosovo. 
Republicans have added a tremendous amount of unnecessary funding to 
the Administration's request, openly disregarding the integrity of the 
Congressional budget process and the use of ``emergency spending''.
  The bill that we consider today, H.R. 1664, is more than double the 
Administration's request. Many of the programs loaded into this bill 
have little to do with the war but rather are individual requests. How 
do we justify such outrageous spending? Many of these requests have 
nothing to do with humanitarian efforts to rebuild a country that our 
bombs are systematically destroying. Let me assure you, I steadfastly 
support funding for humanitarian efforts--and I would not hesitate to 
vote affirmatively on a bill specifically targeted to provide such 
funding. But this bill's major thrust is to support ``pet projects'' 
and an undeclared war--which I do not support.

  Also, I am disturbed by the proposal that social security surpluses 
could be used to fund this war. Mr. Chairman, I ask you how can this 
be? Less than two weeks ago this Congress on a bipartisan basis passed 
the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution vowing to protect social 
security. How I ask you does a Republican majority extract $6.9 billion 
out of a program that they argue must be protected by a ``lock box''? I 
agree with Mr. Obey's remarks: ``I find it mind-boggling that some of 
the same members who yesterday voted against the operation will today 
vote to more than double the amount of spending that the President has 
asked for to conduct those operations.''
  Let me remind you of our obligation to fund programs that support 
U.S. citizens and taxpayers, our constituents, and our soldiers. Our 
current discretionary Federal budget allocates a whopping 48.2 percent 
to national defense, while a mere 5.3 percent is invested in educating 
our children; an embarrassing 1.5 percent is dedicated to housing our 
citizens; and worse still, the very soldiers who serve today, and 
become our veterans tomorrow, are shamelessly allocated just 3.4 
percent of the Federal discretionary budget to support their veterans 
benefits and services.
  Mr. Chairman, these are only a few of the significant programs that 
deserve this Congress' attention and support. I vehemently oppose this 
supplemental appropriations bill, and more importantly I oppose this 
war. Instead of voting on this supplemental, let's do something far 
more meaningful. Let's vote to stop the bombing and direct our 
attention towards negotiating a diplomatic solution to end the horrific 
genocide, death and destruction in Yugoslavia. A bill that provides 
``true'' humanitarian assistance to the people of Kosovo, and rebuilds 
the region will get my vote.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, this bill before us today--The Kosovo 
and Southwest

[[Page H2837]]

Asia Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999--is bringing to 
the fore front of debate several pressing issues that will have a long-
standing effect upon the National Security of the United States.
  First, the Kosovo operation, while it may not directly be vital to 
America's immediate national security interests, it most certainly will 
have an impact in the long-term. The United States is engaged in the 
Balkans to combat the forces of inhumanity and aggression. The list of 
daily atrocities committed by Yugoslavian troops against the ethnic 
Kosovar Albanians, is all but too well known. We are indeed witnessing 
a modern day genocide in Europe. Here it is, almost the end of the 
century, and we almost stood idlely by as President Slobodan Milosevic 
began a genocidal policy of intimidation, rape and extermination under 
the name of ``ethnic cleansing.'' However, the United States and NATO 
did not stand down. Geo-politically, the conflict in the Balkans has 
the potential to embroil other nearby states, thus creating a 
destabilizing effect throughout Eastern Europe. America has a vital 
security interest in a stable, democratic and peaceful Europe. This is 
why the United States along with its NATO allies have found it 
necessary to stand up to Milosevic's naked aggression in Kosovo. In 
order to continue this important mission, the President has requested 
this emergency spending bill, which will pay for the mission for until 
the end of the fiscal year.
  The second vital element that is included within the President's bill 
is the international economic, refugee and disaster assistance package 
for the ``front-line states'' effected by the Balkans crisis. 
Furthermore, I support the Obey substitute Amendment because it does so 
much more for the refugees than the Republican add-on in the underlying 
legislation. This money will go towards fulfilling our long-term 
commitment to the peoples of the Balkans and demonstrate our extreme 
desire to sow the seeds of recovery once the conflict is over. 
Additionally, the Obey substitute measure also places in this emergency 
bill, the Agricultural and Central American Assistance package from the 
previous supplemental, H.R. 1141. This is vital to protect and assist 
America's farmers and our Latin American neighbors who suffered 
terrible privation after Hurricane Mitch raged across their lands. My 
own district of Guam would indirectly benefit from this added 
provision, as some funds dedicated to the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service would be reprogrammed to assist in Guam's plight 
with illegal migrant Chinese nationals, of which some 1,100 have been 
apprehended.
  Mr. Speaker, the third issue effecting America's long-term security 
interests included in this bill have to do with supporting and paying 
for our Armed Forces. I do support the pay raise included herein as our 
troops have long had to face a widening gap in pay between themselves 
and the private sector. America's military men and women are the very 
embodiment of dedication, ingenuity and ``can-do'' tenacity. They 
deserve this pay raise and I urge every member to support it. 
Interestingly, the Republican budget resolution this year did not fund 
the 5.5 percent raises for certain military personnel critical to 
maintaining readiness, commonly referred to as ``Pay Table Reform.''
  There are other military budget items that are also funded by 
Congress. These are in the areas of MILCON, spare parts, munitions, 
readiness, base operations and depot maintenance. These budget accounts 
are very important and do require our attention. In principle, I 
support recapitalizing these important accounts. However, my colleagues 
on the other side of the isle are misconstruing some of the facts 
regarding the military budget in general and this spending bill in 
particular. In fact the Republican majority has spent many weeks 
bashing the President for his supposed lack of concern for our 
military. For weeks, they have incorrectly stated that the President 
has been negligent in his responsibility to provide for our military. 
They maintain that this is demonstrated by the President's many years 
of inadequate defense budget requests while, at the same time, 
deploying troops in more world-wide engagements than ever before. What 
my learned colleagues fail to comprehend is that today's ``readiness 
crisis'' is actually as result of two simultaneous factors--the post-
cold war military draw down and the new multi-faceted security 
environment. These two components are not any person's fault despite 
what the majority would have you believe but they are a reality of 
tighter budgets and an unstable and uncertain international arena. It 
is glaringly apparent that the Republican majority is using the 
occasion of the Emergency Spending Bill as an opportunity to politicize 
and cast blame on certain global realities that our nation's foreign 
policy experts--on all sides of the political spectrum--still have yet 
to sort out.

  Mr. Chairman, it is important to also point out that the Republicans 
have conveniently forgotten that the discretionary budget caps enacted 
into law, which sets the spending levels for the Department of Defense, 
were part of the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. The very same bill 
that was supported by the entire Republican leadership of the House and 
Senate and the vast majority of Congressional Republicans.
  The President requested $198 billion more in defense outlays than the 
Republican Budget Resolution conference agreement over the 10 year 
period, 2000-2009. This year the House Democratic alternative provided 
$48 billion more in defense outlays than the Republican Budget 
Resolution conference agreement over the 10 year period, 2000-2009.
  In their zeal to criticize the Democrats as anti-defense, the 
Republican's have in fact been creating a mis-information campaign. 
This year in the House Armed Service Committee hearing cycle on the 
FY00 budget request, our service chiefs testified about our military's 
readiness and troop retention problems. One ``quality of life'' benefit 
that all the chiefs stated was an important factor on declining troop 
re-enlistment was the retirement system, known as REDUX. A repeal of 
this program, which would restore military pensions to 50 percent of 
basic pay after 20 years instead of 40 percent, would go a long way 
toward reversing the declining re-enlistment rates. Despite the fact 
that all chiefs noted that the REDUX repeal was a top priority for 
their troops, the Republican budget did not fund the repeal of REDUX. 
The Republican resolution rejected the appeals of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to fund this critical personnel initiative.
  The Republicans are guilty of not thinking long-term when it comes to 
defense planning. However, this President does think long-term. This 
year the President requested $2.9 billion more for defense over five 
years than the Republicans provided for in their FY 1999 budget 
resolution. The President, with the support of many Congressional 
Democrats, have been the moving party for increasing the Defense budget 
in a responsibly and fiscally prudent manner. While Republicans have 
been content to follow the President's lead in the short-term, time 
again, they have shown that in the long-term their holy grail of 
issues, the tax cut, will always supplant national defense in their 
budgets.
  Mr. Chairman, my dear friends on the other side of the isle are 
exploiting the Kosovo crisis to make political points against the 
President and NATO in order to create the impression that Democrats are 
not strong on defense issues. Their efforts are a political ploy and 
not a reasoned or responsible effort. I urge all my colleagues to 
support the Obey substitute amendment.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1664, 
the Emergency Kosovo Supplemental for Fiscal Year 1999.
  My vote today is both a statement of support for our men and women in 
harm's way and also for addressing the increasingly serious readiness, 
quality of life, and infrastructure shortfalls.
  Last week, Congress fulfilled its duties under the War Powers Act by 
voting on a resolution calling for the withdrawal of our soldiers from 
Kosovo and by voting on a resolution to declare war on Yugoslavia. I 
voted to withdraw our soldiers and against declaring war. In addition, 
I voted to require the President to obtain congressional approval 
before deploying ground forces and against authorizing the air strikes.
  Despite my votes, the air strikes go on. It is now my responsibility 
to ensure that our armed forces have the ability to carry out this 
mission to a successful conclusion. Indeed, H.R. 1664 gives the 
President precisely what he believes is needed for the Kosovo campaign.
  But H.R. 1664 goes further, by addressing the dire emergency that our 
involvement in Kosovo finally has brought to light. While defense 
budgets and force structure have diminished, U.S. security commitments 
have grown. Our soldiers are asked to do more and more with less and 
less. That is wrong.
  The $6.9 billion in H.R. 1664 is merely a down payment on the 
substantial needs of the military that have for too long been 
neglected. We will make an immediate difference for our military by 
providing much needed funds for spare parts, equipment maintenance, and 
recruiting.
  If America wishes to protect its own freedom and security, it must 
accept the burden of paying for it. This bill advances that cause. I 
urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1664--support our men and women 
in the Armed Forces.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, as every Member in this body is well 
aware, the issue of Kosovo is an extremely difficult one and there is 
no easy answer.
  It would be easier for all of us if this issue were black and white. 
It would be easier for us if this supplemental spending bill was not 
mired in politics. And it would be easier if all of the funds in this 
bill were used for true emergencies.
  I supported the Obey amendment today, not because I support further 
military operations in Kosovo, but because it is the responsible thing 
to do. The legislation and the current amendment before us, does not 
address the real

[[Page H2838]]

emergencies that need to be dealt with right away.
  Regardless of one's perspective on current United States policy and 
operations in the Balkans, our troops are in harm's way, and we have a 
responsibility to ensure that they have the resources they need. I do 
not support continuing the airstrikes and I do not support sending in 
ground troops.
  But we have already spent an estimated $1 billion on this operation. 
A responsible nation does not commit to something and then refuse to 
pay for it.
  I may oppose the policy that we've committed to, but I am not willing 
to say that the United States should break the promise America has 
already made to NATO. It is not that easy. But, I will not refuse U.S. 
aid for the tens of thousands of refugees expelled from their homeland. 
That is why I supported the Obey amendment today.
  Unfortunately, some Members are using a time of international crisis 
as an opportunity to load on billions of dollars in pork. No matter 
what some on the other side of the aisle might say, these additional 
funds are not going to help the men and women that are stationed in the 
Balkans.
  These funds will not go to the innocent refugees struggling for their 
very lives throughout the region.
  Here's what the pork will pay for: $47 million is going for a 
bachelor officers' complex in Bahrain; $1.34 billion is earmarked for 
spare parts unrequested by the Pentagon. Not only are these spare parts 
unrequested, but the Department of Defense is still overspending for 
these parts by as much as 618 percent. The Pentagon paid one contractor 
$76 for 57-cent screws.
  None of this wasteful spending is going to bring us closer to peace. 
Not one pork barrel project is going to end this terrible tragedy or 
help the innocent Kosovar refugees. And wasteful spending is not going 
to help the people in Central America or America's farmers hurt by 
falling crop prices.
  If some Members of this Congress are determined to provide additional 
funds for the military operation not requested by the President, those 
moneys should come from cuts to wasteful and redundant programs in the 
current Pentagon budget, through the regular appropriations process.
  By weighing this bill down with unrequested pork, we are also 
jeopardizing aid to our farmers. Our farmers are still faced with 
declining prices for their crops--threatening their income and their 
livelihood. It is essential that we rush this aid to American farmers 
to help them recoup losses resulting from natural disasters and 
persistently low commodity prices. Farmers need this funding now--but 
putting unrequested add-ons in this bill could delay and threaten that 
aid.
  We must also take the responsible path and include funding for 
Hurricane Mitch. Hurricane Mitch left behind a catastrophe of tragic 
proportions. Thousands died and millions of people were displaced 
throughout Central America.
  This disaster calls for a major humanitarian response from the United 
States and this Congress has let this issue twist in the wind. That is 
irresponsible and unacceptable.
  We can't turn our backs on our troops, the Kosovar refugees, American 
farmers, or the victims of Hurricane Mitch. We must address these 
important issues and be responsible.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this 
legislation. I strongly support the funding this bill provides for our 
troops engaged in the conflict over Kosovo, but I oppose the reckless 
manner the majority party has taken in bringing this bill to the floor 
of the House.
  As we all know, earlier this year, President Clinton asked Congress 
for an emergency appropriation to aid disaster relief in the United 
States and Central America in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, provide 
agricultural relief to U.S. farmers and fund the U.S. commitment to the 
Middle East peace process. At that time, many Republican members of 
this body insisted, as is within their rights, that the appropriated 
funds be offset by finding savings elsewhere in the budget, even though 
the budget rules don't require offsets.
  Now, we have a situation where the President has requested an 
emergency appropriation to pay for the military operation in Kosovo. 
Instead of insisting on finding offsets, the Republican members of the 
House added some $7 billion to this bill in extraneous defense spending 
unrelated to Kosovo that would usually be considered through the normal 
appropriations process.
  If it is truly an emergency, this bill should provide only the 
necessary funds for the Kosovo operation, which many Republican members 
of this body have voted repeatedly against. The willingness of the 
majority party to increase, by $6 billion, funding for the military 
effort that most voted against last week is the height of hypocrisy. 
How can you vote against our engagement in the Kosovo conflict one 
week, then turn around and vote for a $13 billion increase for that 
same effort the very next week?
  The answer, of course is pork. The majority knows that the increases 
in this bill won't be offset. This emergency supplemental bill is being 
used as a tool to pay for billions of dollars worth of defense projects 
unrelated to the ongoing operation over Kosovo. The majority has, in 
effect, found a way to fund through the supplemental what their FY 2000 
budget resolution won't allow. This bill is being used as a ``free 
lunch'' card to bypass the appropriations process later this year, 
while providing the illusion of maintaining the appropriations caps 
that this body approved in 1997.
  As I indicated, I will be voting in favor of this bill because it is 
the only mechanism we have to provide much needed assistance to the men 
and women of our armed forces, who are engaged in a dangerous conflict 
over Yugoslavia. I also happen to support many of the provisions the 
majority intends to add on to this legislation. And I believe that most 
of the add-ons in this bill, including a military pay and pension 
increase, should be considered, but only as part of the normal 
appropriations process. Unfortunately, the majority has eliminated that 
option. I fear we are heading down a slippery slope of fiscal 
irresponsibility lead by the Republican Leadership.
  Our troops are engaged in a critical conflict that will have a 
lasting affect on the stability and future of Europe. We are fighting 
against the same kind of nationalistic forces that have taken far too 
many American lives during this century. Let's put partisanship behind 
us to give our troops the support they need. Let's not sacrifice this 
bill and fiscal responsibility to the political wishes of a nervous 
majority.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, with its actions today, the Republican 
leadership continues its muddle of our Balkan policy. The vast majority 
of Republicans have already rejected both a declaration of war and a 
complete withdrawal of our troops, and voted against supporting current 
troop operations.
  However, the Republicans still want to spend twice as much money as 
requested for Kosovo, thereby surreptitiously busting the budget caps 
they've pledged to maintain. Ironically, this inflates the cost of the 
very effort on which they can't figure out their position. Simply being 
against the President and also claiming 20-20 hindsight on matters of 
diplomacy is not leadership.
  I supported the Democratic substitutes, which would eliminate much of 
the military spending unrelated to Kosovo. It would also have included 
the necessary emergency funding for the unprecedented hurricane damage 
in Central America, and provide much needed aid to the American farmer. 
It is shameful these funds have languished for months without action.
  Our troops deserve a bill that is not one dime less than our military 
obligations require. The American people deserve a bill that is not one 
dime more.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support our troops and to 
express my complete disgust at the process forced on the House of 
Representatives by the Republican majority.
  Today I am faced with a choice. I want to do two things: support our 
men and women who are in harm's way in Kosovo, and protect the money in 
the Social Security Trust Fund. Unfortunately, the Republicans have 
decided that Social Security is not particularly important, and they 
used the Trust Fund to more than double what the Department of Defense 
needs to fully fund the military operations in Kosovo. Republicans are 
willing to rob the Trust Fund to increase the defense budget out of 
year 2003. I have to ask: how is building a depot in Germany two or 
three years from now an emergency?
  We have an appropriations process. We have budget agreements. It was 
just three weeks ago that we passed the Republican budget plan that set 
caps on military spending. The budget sets limit on agriculture 
spending, education spending, and every other kind of federal spending. 
Today we are seeing the Republicans bypassing their own budget 
constraints and undermining the whole process.
  Six weeks ago we passed the much needed supplemental spending bill 
that had money in it to help our farmers get loans they desperately 
need to begin planting. The situation facing farmers is truly an 
emergency, and yet the House Republicans decided that the agriculture 
funding had to be off-set with spending cuts. Six whole weeks have gone 
by since then and nothing has happpened--no money for farmers, no 
meetings to get the legislation ready for the President's signature, no 
apparent concern for American farmers. It is shameful that the 
Republicans would let our hard-working farmers twist in the wind while 
we have these petty fights. But now we see these same Republicans 
stealing from the Trust Fund to spend on pork projects that the 
Department of Defense has not asked for.
  Let me say again, it is a hard choice the Republican majority is 
forcing on me today. So, while I have no reluctance in supporting our 
troops, I am only reluctantly voting for this supplemental spending 
bill.

[[Page H2839]]

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, this bill is full of pork.
  While listening to this debate, I couldn't help but ask myself a 
question. Where are the 302(b) allocations that the House must use to 
act on other appropriations bills? For those watching at home, 302(b) 
allocations set the spending levels that the 13 Appropriations 
Subcommittees must work with before moving forward the federal--NON 
emergency--spending.
  The 302(b) allocations are nowhere to be found in this Congress.
  While federal statute calls on appropriators to put together 302(b) 
spending levels soon after the budget passes, they have not yet been 
able to do so. This is because the federal budget is so tight, the 
Majority can't figure out how they are going to fund the government 
next year.
  Basically, the Majority has been trying to increase military spending 
under the recently passed federal budget without cutting important 
social initiatives or busting the budget caps--and under this budget, 
that was proving impossible.
  Then, along comes the Kosovo Emergency Spending bill which Congress 
can now use to slide billions of dollars under the budget caps into 
military spending with little complaint from the Administration. Well, 
Mr. Speaker, I protest.
  The other body has done the right thing with the Kosovo Emergency 
Spending bill. I support the Obey substitute because it, as well as the 
bill moving through the other chamber, gets the job done in Kosovo, but 
is not a giveaway to the special interests here in Washington.
  The bill we have before us today is not an excuse to push through 
billions of dollars of spending and take the pressure off the federal 
spending caps. I urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in vehement opposition to the 
$12.9 billion supplemental appropriations for the military attack on 
Yugoslavia as well as the $11.7 billion substitute amendment.
  Last week, I voted against the bill to authorize the current NATO 
mission. In fact, the bill failed when two hundred thirteen members of 
this body also opposed the measure. Why is the majority leadership 
today requesting $13 billion for a mission they opposed just a week 
ago. It appears that the majority can't spend enough on a war they 
refuse to authorize.
  The majority is playing partisan politics with Kosovar and U.S. 
lives.
  I will not support a funding request for a mission that has no clear 
parameters and is laden with pork-barrel defense spending. The 
Administration asked for $6 billion in the emergency supplemental, not 
the $12.9 billion to be voted on today. This piece of legislation 
appropriates funds for some projects that clearly are not urgent in 
nature.
  Instead of giving NATO a war to justify it's purpose, we should be 
giving our elderly prescription drug benefits, our children better 
schools, and our workers a Social Security system they can count on 
when they retire. This bill will divert surplus funds attributable to 
Social Security in order to pay for military pay raises and retirement 
as well as military installations abroad that are completely unrelated 
to Operation Allied Force.
  Proponents who support this measure argue that the Pentagon in 
underfunded. they contend that we must improve our military readiness 
and quality of life for our military personnel. I disagree but the 
debate on the appropriate level of defense spending should come in the 
context of the normal appropriations process where spending caps cannot 
be broken.
  The emergency supplemental should not create an opportunity for 
``Christmas at the Pentagon'' with more cruise missiles, laser guided 
bombs and other munitions added to our arsenal.
  Appropriating defense funds for the attack on Yugoslavia gives the 
President the authorization needed under the War Powers Act to continue 
the air strikes and allow him to use ground troops if necessary. 
However, if funds were withheld, the President would be required to 
remove the troops from their current mission by May 25, 1999. 
Unfortunately, those same Republicans who voted last week not to 
authorize the current air strike are essentially giving NATO carte 
blanche to carry out its air attack through the summer and beyond.
  If my colleagues really wanted to support the troops, they would help 
in the effort to end the NATO bombing. Thirty three thousand reserves 
have been called up for the Kosovo conflict.
  The Cold War is over. The U.S. and NATO must adapt their strategies 
to reflect this fact. They must learn to deal with regional conflicts 
and ethnic cleansing in an effective manner, including international 
diplomatic measures.
  I will not vote to spend billions of dollars for a mission that can 
be accomplished with a smaller price tag through diplomacy. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing H.R.1664, Defense/Kosovo Supplemental 
Appropriations for FY 1999.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, the President submitted to Congress an 
emergency spending request of $6.0 billion to fund the current 
operations in Yugoslavia through the end of fiscal year 1999. The 
Republican majority then more than doubled the requested amount adding 
defense spending items that have absolutely nothing to do with the NATO 
operations or an emergency. For these and other reasons which I will 
expand upon, I must oppose this bill.
  The additional spending on such areas as increased pay and retirement 
for our military, munitions procurement, spare parts, depot maintenance 
and additional moneys for recruiting are clearly justified 
expenditures, but should and must be addressed in the regular 
appropriation process where the recently passed budget bill reserved 
$290 billion for such purposes and other priorities. The reason the 
majority insists on including these items in H.R. 1664 is that the new 
spending doesn't have to be offset and thus will free up like amounts 
when they start spending the $290 billion.
  Also, many of the other unrequested projects like $115 million for 
new facilities in Britain including $13 million for a dormitory in 
Fairlord and $10 million for a control tower in Lakenheath are 
questionable. Clearly, the $48.3 million for new bachelor housing and 
$35 million for a control center in Bahrain are not an emergency.
  All this additional spending has been declared ``emergency'' spending 
by the Republicans in order to avoid the need for offsetting cuts in 
other discretionary accounts. Under this bill, these costs will be 
taken from the currently projected Federal Budget surplus.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the entire surplus is made up of excess Social 
Security trust funds being amassed to pay Social Security benefits to 
current and future retirees. It was only a few short weeks ago that you 
and your colleagues were beating your chests over the myth that you 
have created a ``lockbox'' to hide the surplus trust funds from those 
who would seek to spend them! Guess the majority has found the key and 
now you're doing exactly what you promised the American people you 
would never do!
  Mr. Chairman, I support our men and women bravely serving our country 
in Yugoslavia. But, I cannot support this bill which circumvents the 
annual appropriation process and the spending caps and unjustly uses 
the Social Security Trust Fund surplus.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise with serious concerns 
regarding H.R. 1664. This bill appropriates a total of $12.9 billion in 
emergency supplemental funds for fiscal year 1999, some $6.9 billion 
more than the President's request. Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to 
resist the temptation to add unrelated expenditures, even important 
ones, which would further delay the process, because that would 
undermine the very goals that this funding is intended to meet.
  Despite months of allied diplomatic efforts and after forty-three 
days of a sustained air campaign, the government of Slobodan Milosevic 
has continued to defy the international community. Instead, Milosevic 
has pursued a course of repression and terror against the people of 
Kosovo. The atrocities committed by the government of Milosevic know no 
bounds, as the Yugoslavian police and military have been bent on the 
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.
  The NATO alliance could not allow these actions to go uncontested as 
they represent a threat to European security and stability. The U.S. 
and NATO objective in Kosovo is to achieve a durable peace that 
prevents further repression and provides for democratic self-government 
for the Kosovar people. We know we have a responsibility to the people 
of Kosovo to respond to the humanitarian crisis.
  This past weekend I joined a congressional delegation that traveled 
to Germany, Albania, Macedonia, Italy and Belgium. While it was indeed 
disheartening to see the effects of this human tragedy up close and 
personal, it was reassuring to witness the dedication and selfless 
dedication of our troops and the humanitarian organizations operating 
in the region. Our troops are supporting ``Operation Shining Hope,'' a 
major humanitarian effort to help the refugees. They need our 
additional help.
  Mr. Chairman, it was incomprehensible to imagine the size of this 
tragedy. While we are all guilty of watching CNN, the scope of this 
crisis is overwhelming when seen in person. In Albania there are 
367,200 displaced refugees, in Macedonia 142,650 refugees, and in 
Montenegro 63,300 refugees. On the ground and among the refugees, I was 
able to interact and listen to the stories of this human tragedy. I 
heard first hand accounts of the systematic killing of innocent men and 
boys, the senseless destruction of homes, and even the brutal rape of 
Kosovar women.
  In addition to confronting the humanitarian crisis, I had the 
opportunity to interact with our troops. As is the norm, the U.S. Armed 
Forces are performing with great skill, extreme attention to detail, 
and with a strong commitment to achieving the goals of the NATO 
alliance.

[[Page H2840]]

  Congress should endeavor to avoid a confrontation with the 
administration by passing a bill which is not loaded with funding 
projects total unrelated to the mission. The bill includes funding for 
construction projects in Germany, Britain, Italy and Bahrain. That's 
right, Mr. Chairman, a new bachelors housing complex in Bahrain is 
needed to secure the freedom of Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my disappointment with the refusal to 
allow debate on Representative Tony Hall's amendment. This amendment 
would have provided an additional $150 million for food and needed 
supplies. The refugees in Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro need this 
additional aid. I wish that all the Members of this body could have 
seen the faces of the refugees and listened to each family account 
their personal disaster. We might differ on the status of our military 
but I can not believe that we can differ on the need for food.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that there are issues important to our uniformed 
service members, including pay, housing, and retirement benefits. As 
important as these issues are to my constituents and to the 
constituents of each of my colleagues, we must resist the temptation to 
add unrelated expenditures which will further delay our ultimate goal.
  The Obey amendment pays for the conflict in Kosovo, increased 
military pay for our troops, money for emergency food assistance to the 
refugees and provided for the victims of the storm in Central America 
such as the terrible result of Hurricane Mitch. I support this approach 
by the Obey amendment and I support the addition to this budget of 
humanitarian aid to be offered by Nancy Pelosi and Tony Hall. We must 
include such additional relief to ease this human tragedy of the ethnic 
Albanians. If we are to establish a lasting peace and assist in the 
humanitarian effort, we should not fund unrelated projects.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support today for H.R. 
1664, the Kosovo Operations Supplemental Appropriations Act. This bill 
addresses two very critical matters facing our country and our 
military: overall military readiness and the on-going conflict in the 
Balkans.
  Our military is dangerously underfunded and it time to reverse this 
injustice to our country and our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines. President Reagan was right when he said, ``I believe it is 
immoral to ask the sons and daughters of America to protect this land 
with second-rate equipment and bargain-basement weapons. If they can 
put their lives on the line to protect our way of life * * * we can 
give them the weapons, the training, and the money they need to do the 
job right.''
  History has spoken that the price of freedom is not cheap. If we fail 
to improve our nation's military readiness and win the war in the 
Balkans, we will send a message to every two-bit dictator that the U.S. 
is no longer a Superpower and is ripe for aggression against its people 
and soil. As one of the Vice Presidents of the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly, I will meet with our NATO allies in a special meeting in 
Brussels, Belgium, tomorrow, May 7, 1999. During this meeting, I will 
stress the fact that our mission in Kosovo cannot fail. The world is a 
dangerous place and it becomes even more dangerous if the NATO mission 
in Kosovo fails.
  To my colleagues who oppose the conflict in Kosovo, our brave 
fighting men and women are in harm's way. Their lives are in danger. To 
withdraw now rewards a brutal tyrant. You may disagree whether we 
should be there or not but we are past that debate now. It is 
imperative we all do what we can to win this fight. Ultimately, the 
survival of NATO and our status as a Superpower is at stake. I urge all 
my colleagues to support the Supplemental Appropriations Act. It is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
support for the prompt passage of H.R. 1664, the fiscal year 1999 
Kosovo Operations Supplemental Appropriations Act.
  While I have some concerns about the level of spending in this 
measure, I believe we should act promptly to provide our service men 
and women with the resources they need to carry out their 
responsibilities in this NATO-led mission.
  This legislation, while not perfect, addresses a number of 
increasingly serious readiness, quality-of-life and infrastructure 
shortfalls identified by our country's military leaders.
  I ask my colleagues to put aside their differences and act in a 
bipartisan manner to support the prompt release of these funds. Whether 
you support U.S. participation in this operation or not, I urge you to 
support this supplemental funding request. We have a responsibility to 
ensure that our military has the resources it needs to successfully 
execute this mission.
  This legislation appropriates funds for some critical shortfalls in 
our military spending. For example, it provides much needed funding for 
spare parts, ammunition, equipment maintenance, and recruiting. All of 
these areas have experienced shortages and these funds will make the 
necessary investments in our Operations and Maintenance accounts.
  I would also note that this legislation provides $1.9 billion for a 
military pay increase and for retirement benefits, subject to 
congressional authorization and a Presidential emergency declaration. I 
think this provision will send an important message to our troops and 
their families of the value this nation places on their work.
  As I have urged my colleagues before, I believe the United States 
should continue to support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 
(NATO) efforts in the Balkans. NATO has been principally responsible 
for the relative stability and economic prosperity that Europe has 
enjoyed over the last fifty years. Our experience in two world wars 
clearly demonstrates that a stable Europe is in the national interest 
of the United States.
  There are three reasons why our actions in Yugoslavia should be 
supported by this Congress: Number one, the strength of NATO; number 
two, our experience with Milosevic; and number three, the alternative 
of doing nothing.
  It is in our vital interest that there be a strong and resolute NATO. 
Think of the hundreds of thousands of innocent soldiers, sailors, and 
airmen that were lost in Europe because we did not have NATO when we 
needed NATO.
  We need NATO now. We need to act with NATO. We need a strong NATO. 
And if we do, the United States will not have to be the world's 
peacekeeper in the future.
  Secondly, our experience with Milosevic, because NATO did not get 
involved in Bosnia when it had an opportunity. As a result, 250,000 
lives were lost, 2\1/2\ million people were displaced, and 40,000 women 
were raped. It could have been prevented had NATO acted when it had the 
opportunity.
  And thirdly, think of the alternative. This is the fault line, my 
colleagues, between the Muslim and the Orthodox worlds. This is the 
fault line that has existed for generations. If we had not gotten 
involved in a multilateral action with NATO taking the lead, think what 
would have happened.
  We know what Milosevic was going to do, why he had 40,000 troops 
amassed on the border, why he did not want to compromise at 
Rambouillet. He knew exactly what he was going to do; and he did it.
  But if he had done that and NATO had not gotten involved, do my 
colleagues really think other nations would have stood by? Of course 
they would not have. We would have had the Mujahidin getting involved. 
We would have had Islamic extremists getting involved. And do my 
colleagues really think Russia then would not have gotten involved if 
there had not been the strength of NATO taking the leadership here?
  My colleagues, we are doing the only responsible thing. This is not 
the United States acting unilaterally. We are acting multilaterally. We 
are acting with NATO. We are acting in the long-term interests of this 
country. We are doing the right thing, for a number of reasons. And the 
Congress should be supporting it.
  Politicizing or slowing the release of these funds to our armed 
forces could ultimately jeopardize our involvement in the 19-nation 
NATO operation.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on 
this emergency spending bill and support the timely release of these 
funds.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendments submitted for printing in House Report 106-127. 
The amendments 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 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.
  During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 106-127.

[[Page H2841]]

                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Latham

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 submitted for printing in House Report 106-
     127 offered by Mr. Latham:
       Page 27, after line 23, insert the following new chapter 
     (and redesignate the subsequent chapter and sections 
     accordingly):

                               CHAPTER 5

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

       For additional gross obligations for the principal amount 
     of direct and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1928-1929, to be available from funds in the Agricultural 
     Credit Insurance Fund, $1,095,000,000, as follows: 
     $350,000,000 for guaranteed farm ownership loans; 
     $200,000,000 for direct farm ownership loans; $185,000,000 
     for direct farm operating loans; $185,000,000 for subsidized 
     guaranteed farm operating loans; and $175,000,000 for 
     emergency farm loans.
       For the additional cost of direct and guaranteed farm 
     loans, including the cost of modifying such loans as defined 
     in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000: farm operating 
     loans, $28,804,000, of which $12,635,000 shall be for direct 
     loans and $16,169,000 shall be for guaranteed subsidized 
     loans; farm ownership loans, $35,505,000, of which 
     $29,940,000 shall be for direct loans and $5,565,000 shall be 
     for guaranteed loans; emergency loans, $41,300,000; and 
     administrative expenses to carry out the loan programs, 
     $4,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                         OFFSETS--THIS CHAPTER

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  agency for international development

                         development assistance

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-118 and in prior acts making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     $40,000,000 are rescinded.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277 and in prior acts making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     $17,000,000 are rescinded.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                federal capital loan program for nursing

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under the Federal Capital Loan 
     Program for Nursing appropriation account, $2,800,000 are 
     rescinded.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


            education research, statistics, and improvement

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in section 
     101(f) of Public Law 105-277, $6,800,000 are rescinded.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                        peacekeeping operations

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277, $10,000,000 are rescinded.

                    MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                  International Financial Institutions

     Contribution to the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
                              Development

                      Global Environment Facility


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277, $25,000,000 are rescinded.

                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

                          Unanticipated Needs


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 101-130, the Fiscal Year 1990 Dire Emergency Supplemental 
     to Meet the Needs of Natural Disasters of National 
     Significance, $10,000,000 are rescinded.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment today is merely an effort to recognize and ensure that 
we provide our Nation's farmers with essential credit. This amendment 
will provide $105.6 million in appropriations to support over $1 
billion in farm loans and an additional $4 million for administrative 
expenses.
  Although the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) Agriculture Committee 
chairman, asked the Secretary of Agriculture to release about $150 
million in unobligated funds to ease the credit gap, the House is again 
being asked to do the heavy lifting for USDA.
  Members may recall, earlier this year, the House voted to release 
$470 million in funds that could be made immediately available for 
guaranteed farm loans. As expected, the Senate, the other body, 
continues to debate among themselves about additional farm spending, 
further delaying the supplemental that the House passed in March.
  In addition, the USDA has delayed disaster payments that were 
appropriated last October; and the farm credit crunch continues. I 
think the House should be aware that the $2.3 billion that was made 
available last year has still not gotten to the farmers, and it may be 
June until USDA finally figures out how to disburse those funds that we 
appropriated last year because of the disaster in agriculture.
  These loans are important to those who need assistance today. We have 
farmers in the field that have no credit, have not been able to secure 
the guarantees that they need at the bank, and it is extraordinarily 
important that we move and move quickly in this provision. This is the 
language that was agreed to by the House in H.R. 1141; and it is 
offset, entirely offset, with unobligated funds.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that we have not been given an 
ironclad assurance from the other body that we will end up with a 
combined conference report that will include both supplementals, the 
one that we passed in March and this one today. That is why it is so 
essential that we have this provision that is needed immediately, that 
this is the fastest-moving vehicle and we have to get this credit to 
our farmers as quickly as possible.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to say to the gentleman and to our colleagues that, 
normally, I would object to this amendment because this is purely a 
national defense bill. But I would say the reason I would accept this 
amendment today, the joint leadership of the House and Senate has 
decided that once this bill has cleared the House that this 
supplemental as well as the first supplemental that the gentleman 
mentioned will be conferenced on a parallel track.

                              {time}  1300

  So we will be dealing with the issue of the agriculture anyway on the 
first supplemental.
  Incidentally, I would say to the gentleman the President did not ask 
for anything for agriculture. His amendment finally came as an 
adjustment to his request for the supplemental, Mr. Chairman, and we 
did add that money in the first supplemental appropriations bill.
  So I accept the gentleman's amendment today, and I would hope that we 
could in the interests of time move on because I do not think there is 
much opposition here.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) had raised a similar issue in 
the full committee and, I think, did a very good job explaining why 
this was necessary, and so I thank the gentleman for offering the 
amendment, and, from our standpoint, we are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida very much, and I would reiterate 
that I do not think we need to go on for the full 40 minutes here in 
debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies.

[[Page H2842]]

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished Member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for yielding this time to me, and 
on behalf of rural America and the real interests of rural America I 
must rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham) and urge my colleagues to instead support the Obey 
substitute that will be offered today after the next amendment to this 
bill.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for doing the best 
that he could inside his own caucus. He is a member of our 
subcommittee, and I know how deeply he feels these issues. But truly I 
would say to his leadership:
  This is not the way for America to deal with the crisis affecting 
U.S. citizens, our farmers from coast to coast, west to east, north to 
south. Why should we even consider an amendment here today which deals 
with such a teensy-weensy portion of a massive problem as part of an 
emergency supplemental dealing with Kosovo. We considered this bill 
dealing with rural America in the House several weeks ago, nearly 2 
months ago, and then something happened over in the other body, and the 
leadership of both institutions were not able to get themselves 
together.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I would have to say to my dear friend from Florida 
(Mr. Young):
  This is not his fault either. He has my sympathy because I understand 
a little bit about Florida, and that I-75 runs between Ohio and 
Florida, so a lot of our people go down there during the winter and 
come back. And the gentleman has tried to do the best that he can under 
constraints that are being applied by the leadership of this House and 
the leadership of the other body.
  Mr. Chairman, it kind of reminds me of that old song by Peggy Lee 
when I look at this amendment: Is That All There Is? And when we look 
at the actual content of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), he has been cut back by his own leadership to only 
include a small portion of agricultural credit that is desperately 
needed by our farmers to get through this spring planting season. 
However even the administration's abysmal request to this Congress 
included funding for the staff to administer that. That is not in the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Ag credit 
money that will unleash dollars in the private sector will not help 
farmers in this crisis because we need people to deliver the 
assistance, and we know that because of the depth of this crisis in our 
country the disaster payments from last year have not even been fully 
processed.
  And what has our Secretary of Agriculture been doing? He has been 
robbing one account over there to pay for another account just to try 
to keep staff people in place in these farm service agencies around the 
country, and last week all authority ran out. So the rob-Peter-to-pay-
Paul mechanism that has been used because we have not been able to 
clear a bill because of the backwardness of the leadership of this 
institution now places the burden on the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham), a respected member of our subcommittee, who is trying to do 
the best he can, but I would like to ask: Where is the leadership of 
this House and where is the leadership of the other body to give the 
farmers of this country that we owe such a debt of gratitude to for 
keeping this Nation fed, food security fundamental to any body 
politic's peace, why can they not get their day in the sun? Why do we 
get back-doored at the end, in the last file in the cabinet in a bill 
dealing with Kosovo and we cannot even deal with the enormity of this 
problem?
  What kind of signal does the gentleman's amendment also give to 
farmers, because in that particular amendment we basically have to 
offset the $109 million that he is talking about, and why is the crisis 
in rural America any less of a crisis than what we are facing in 
Kosovo, in a foreign land, or Hurricane Mitch? What about the people of 
this country?
  I do not think I am xenophobic; I care very much about this country. 
The people of this country elected me to be here, and I think they 
should be at the front of the line, not at the back of the file 
cabinet.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I view what is happening in rural America a true 
emergency. We are now into Day 69 of this Congress, and we cannot even 
get a debate in here about the dimensions of people who are going 
bankrupt from coast to coast.
  So, with all due respect to the gentleman from Iowa, I think he has 
done the best job he can do with this amendment, but if people in this 
body really want to help rural America, we ought to vote no on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and yes on 
the Obey substitute and truly ask the leadership of this institution to 
bring up a freestanding bill that is an emergency for the people of 
this country who are trying to feed us and the world and are being 
ignored at the highest levels of this legislative body.
  Mr. Chairman, I just say that in the Obey substitute that will be 
offered we not only deal with agricultural credit, the full amount 
asked for by the administration, we ask for sufficient funds for people 
to administer that credit at our farm service agencies. We also deal 
with the three major credit programs in his amendment. We talk about 
emergency assistance for farm workers. We have special aid to those who 
produce hogs around this country who literally are on their knees. 
Also, our emergency conservation programs are attended to, livestock 
assistance for those affected by disasters. Our watershed and flood 
prevention programs, our rural water and sewer grants, rural housing 
and even food aid for Kosovo refugees: $175 million in Mr. Obey's 
substitute. With the surpluses we have on our backs here and with 
hungry people there, what a win-win for everyone.
  Why can we not get a freestanding vote on the needs of rural America 
in this Chamber?
  So I know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) tried very hard, but 
truly he needs the support of his own leadership, and I ask the House 
to support the Obey substitute and defeat the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I very much 
appreciate the gentlewoman from Ohio's comments, and I think what she 
is expressing is the same sentiments I have and the frustration with 
the other body because we have done the heavy lifting here in the 
House, and our frustration really is to getting the conference done and 
move on.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the State of 
South Dakota (Mr. Thune), an outstanding representative who has been 
such a strong advocate for agriculture.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me and would simply say that the gentlewoman from Ohio is certainly 
right about one point, and that is that there is a crisis in 
agriculture. We are seeing the lowest prices historically in a great 
many years. We have a credit crunch going on out there, which is what 
this attempts to address, and we desperately need some solutions. And 
frankly I hope that as we continue to move through this congressional 
session that we will take up issues like mandatory price reporting, a 
piece of legislation that I have introduced, crop insurance reform, 
which is something that I have joined with the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) in working on, as well as looking at other ways, 
examining other ways, in which we can support our agricultural 
producers.
  I will, however, take issue with one point, and that is that this 
body has not been responding. We have tried, which is why we are here 
today on this supplemental appropriation, to keep this issue in front 
of the Congress at every opportunity. My colleague is right; it was put 
on the other supplemental bill, but it is languishing in the Senate. 
Frankly, we do not have a lot of control of what happens in the Senate 
as much as we would like to.
  But the fact of the matter is that we believe it is important enough, 
and so a number of us from agricultural states who represent rural 
districts who are suffering as my colleague's is got together and tried 
to at least attach this particular piece of legislation, the hundred 
million dollars plus in loan guarantee authority, to this supplemental 
bill, and I do not for a minute suggest that that is not going to 
negate the need that we have to do a number of

[[Page H2843]]

other things in the area of agriculture in this Congress. But there is 
an orderly process underway for doing that. We cannot do everything on 
appropriations bills, and the authorizing committee on which I serve, 
the Committee on Agriculture, we are working in an orderly way to 
address these. We have had hearings on a number of these subjects 
already. My full expectation is that we will move forward with a number 
of these initiatives that are so important to the areas of the country 
that are suffering miserably from an agricultural crisis that does not 
seem to have any end in sight.
  But we want to keep this issue in front of the American public, in 
front of this Congress, and that is why we are here today, and I think 
it is very important that we move the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), and I credit him, my neighbor from 
Iowa, working with us on this and taking the leadership role.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THUNE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for 
allowing this money to be included in the emergency supplemental. It is 
absolutely critical for our farmers. In my particular district I have 
got 26 counties, all of which are dependent on agriculture, and they 
are hurting and hurting worse than they have in decades, and the fact 
is that we got to get the money to them immediately.
  While this is, as my friend from Ohio says, a paultry sum, it is 
still better than nothing, at least to start the ball rolling so that 
the creditors can, in fact, advance the money to our farmers for their 
spring planting, at least the northern part of my district where they 
are still doing it. In the southern part they have already done it, but 
I do want to commend both of my colleagues for their work in getting 
this included.
  I did want to ask the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) a question, 
and that has to do with the money to administer the loans:
  Is there a fact, our FSA office is going to have the ability to 
administer that $1.1 billion of loan guarantees that this bill would 
underwrite?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, in the 
amendment there is $4 million to administer these loans. So this is a 
package with the administrative funds in there. We will get the money 
to them, both the dollars and the costs in the offices.
  Mrs. EMERSON. So that our FSA offices will get that money together 
with. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank my neighbor across the 
border in Iowa for the leadership role he has taken on this, Mr. 
Latham, and again would simply add that this is critical. We need 
because of the credit crisis and crunch that we are experiencing in the 
rural areas of this country to address this issue at each and every 
opportunity that we can. I will continue to come in front of this body 
and advocate as strongly as I can that we address what is a very 
serious crisis in the rural sector of our economy in this country, and 
we can start today by adding this important amendment on to this 
legislation.
  I would certainly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support the Latham amendment and move this forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about an issue that 
this amendment does not directly address. It takes the form 
supplemental that was dealt with in our March supplemental, but it does 
not address the other part, which was really the main part of that 
supplemental, which was the aid, which was a true emergency, dealing 
with Hurricane Mitch in Central America. The supplemental that we have 
in front of us now will not just be a defense supplemental, it will be 
defense and farm supplemental, and it is absolutely, I would use the 
word tragic, for it not to be a defense farm and Central American 
supplemental. The devastation caused by Hurricane Mitch is historic in 
terms of its magnitude.
  Now I had the opportunity to travel to Nicaragua when the President 
went down there to view firsthand some of the damage. Literally entire 
villages were wiped out. We could not see any trace of what once was 
thriving communities. The only way that these countries, which really 
have done an incredible job towards democracy, towards economic 
viability as we are their major trading partners and major allies, the 
only way that they are going to be able to get back on their feet and 
to continue this road is with our support.

                              {time}  1315

  This occurred in October.
  Let me remind my colleagues in this Chamber of another time in 
Central America when the United States Congress funded far more than $1 
billion in not humanitarian aid but in military activities, and with 
tragic consequences.
  I do not even want to speculate what will happen if these economies 
in these countries do not get back on their feet, but I think we can 
speculate what will happen. If we are looking for true emergencies, by 
the definition of the statute on supplemental bills, this is clearly 
the case.
  I urge that we end up doing this. I will offer an amendment later 
this afternoon to do just that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) very much for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think this is an issue that should not be 
before us. I think our farmers need our help, and we should all support 
all of our farmers across this country. Agriculture is important to 
this Nation. Just because in my city there are not a lot of farmers, we 
certainly drink the milk, eat the meat, fry the chickens, eat the corn. 
Our farmers are vital to our economy and we should help them all.
  I think it is crucial and important, and we all know in our heart of 
hearts we are not doing enough. Yes, what Milosevic has done in 
Yugoslavia and the genocide there should be responded to with 
humanitarian aid, with what is going on in the Balkans and in that 
hemisphere, but we should also look at Mitch, because if Milosevic is 
bad, Mitch was devastating to Central America.
  It is in our hemisphere. Remember, this is the Americas, North 
America, Central and South America, and we share a border and an 
economy. Those people there are waiting for us to respond in Nicaragua 
and Honduras. They are waiting for us, and if we do not respond we are 
sending a very clear signal in this hemisphere and we are giving them 
the back of our hand.
  Who are we opening the doors to? We are opening the doors to drug 
traffickers in Central America. That is what we are saying. We are 
saying we are not going to be there.
  Who do we think is going to fill this void in Latin America? Think 
about what my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) just 
said. Think about those burgeoning democracies.
  The Cold War has ended, but there is devastation. There are 1 million 
people without food and shelter. Mr. Chairman, where do we think they 
are going to come and search for that shelter and that food? We share 
borders with them. Let us develop those economies. Let us develop those 
infrastructures in Central America, or we will build tents and refugee 
camps here for them in the United States of America.
  Let us not do that, and give a hand to them, please.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about supplemental emergency 
spending on very important projects, and there is a moral basis for us 
to support our farmers. There is a moral basis for us to put the things 
there that we need for our troops. There is also a moral basis for us 
to pay for it.
  This Congress has passed a budget that said we will protect 100 
percent of Social Security. There is no excuse for our body to pass 
this bill and not pay for it.
  Now there are going to be a lot of people that are going to say, but 
we cannot; we cannot pay for this. When

[[Page H2844]]

we say that, what we mean is we do not mind taking the money out of the 
Social Security system to pay for it because that is what we are going 
to do. Everybody readily admits that the money that is going to be used 
to pay for this supplemental is coming directly from the Social 
Security funds.
  So the question that we have to ask ourselves, if it is moral to 
supply the proper things for our troops and if it is moral to put the 
things there for our farmers so that they can continue to feed us, so 
they will be there next year to be able to produce a crop and pay for 
it and pay the taxes, how is it not moral for us to pay for it?
  Ask anybody in their district if they believe the agencies of the 
Federal Government are efficient. I do not think we will find one, 
other than a Federal employee working for one of those agencies. If 
that is what the constituency says, why do we not have the courage to 
ask the rest of the Federal agencies to become efficient enough to pay 
for that?
  We are going to be having an amendment in a little while that is 
going to discuss that very issue, and the question, as we leave here 
today and go back to our homes, are we going to leave here being 
consistent or are we going to leave here being inconsistent?
  We are going to claim a moral high ground and then we are going to 
duck the issue when it comes to the moral high ground for our children.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in the throes of debate on many different and 
important issues. I rise today to support the proposal of my colleague, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  I happen to have been with a delegation that visited Central America. 
I saw the faces of the men, women and children that had been devastated 
by Hurricane Mitch.
  Part of the process and part of the obligation that we face in this 
House is to maintain a focus on the issues that are important and to 
maintain in priority the things that merit attention. Part of the 
process is respecting the fact that we, as leaders in the world and 
leaders in this hemisphere, have an obligation to help those in need. 
That is what I am speaking about today.
  It has been almost 6 months since the devastation in Central America; 
6 months where people have been without the basic essentials that 
sometimes most of us take for granted; 6 months that we have been 
sitting and doing nothing on their behalf.
  I was with the President. I saw the work that was being done by the 
men and women of our Armed Forces, I saw the work that was being done 
by the relief agencies, but I do not see the same kind of response from 
this body. I think we can do better. I think we as Americans have an 
obligation to help those people in Central America.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out here that the amendment 
that has been offered, and I have the greatest of respect for the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and for the gentleman from South 
Dakota (Mr. Thune) for doing the best they possibly can for their 
constituents, who are desperate people. People who are on the farms 
these days are living in desperation for their continued livelihood.
  I would just like to point out here that the amendment that has been 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) is one-fifth, only 20 
percent, of the amount that is provided for agriculture under the Obey 
amendment that will be before us very shortly. Not only that, but it is 
offset.
  We have a true emergency. We have a true emergency of people who are 
desperate for being able to continue their livelihood, and that sort of 
emergency ought to be something where we are willing to provide the 
money as an emergency in the same way that we are for military purposes 
here in the underlying bill.
  In this instance, the Obey bill provides five times as much money, 
more than what was in the supplemental bill that has already gone over 
to the Senate and has not been acted on in months. This would move it 
along, yes, but it ought to be moved on. If my colleagues are not 
interested in only some sort of a fig leaf, it ought to be moved along 
with the Obey amendment, because the Obey amendment does something else 
for other desperate people. It deals with the desperate people in 
Central America, also an emergency, which happened 7 months ago and 
which has also been sitting in the Senate for the last several weeks, 
at least, where the emergency that would allow those desperate people 
also to get on with their lives and put their lives together, not be 
immigrating to the United States and such; that they would also be able 
to move on.
  I would urge that if my colleagues are not for a fig leaf that they 
would defeat the amendment that is before them and instead vote for the 
Obey amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the frustration we have with the 
other body as far as trying to get all of these very important 
provisions moved. I would just say that this is an area where there is 
absolute consensus with everyone. This needs to be done. It needs to be 
done quickly.
  Why hold things this important up for things that are under 
discussion and have no consensus?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been facing three emergencies. One is with the 
war in Kosovo, which this bill is supposed to be dealing with; and then 
we have two others, two other weather-related emergencies; one in 
Central America which has created such a disastrous situation because 
people are not able to make a living after Hurricane Mitch in Central 
America. We are going to see a flood of immigrants coming into this 
country unless we do something about it. Second is the emergency in 
rural America, which is caused in part by natural disasters and in part 
by the collapse of farm prices for a number of commodities.
  When this all first began, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, tried to do the right 
thing. He produced a proposal to deal with the first emergency in 
Central America and in rural America, and he had a bipartisan approach 
to it which we were fully willing to support. Then his party leadership 
intervened and said, ``no, we do not want to do it that way.''
  So they reversed course, and they attached a number of pay-for 
provisions to the supplemental, which were terribly risky for the 
national security interests of the United States. Among other things, 
they would have paid for the supplemental by pulling $175 million off 
the table that we needed on the table in order to negotiate with the 
Russians an agreement to get out of their hands weapons grade 
plutonium. There is no higher priority of our government than doing 
that. And yet that agreement was put in danger by the reckless bill 
which passed the House in order to pay for the agriculture problems.
  That bill, because of those outrageous offsets, has been languishing 
in the Senate going nowhere. So when this bill came to the floor, we 
produced an amendment on this side which we will vote upon sometime 
today, which tries to recognize that we ought to deal with the 
emergency for the folks on the home front the same way we deal with the 
emergency for Kosovo. We believe it deserves equal treatment under our 
actions here.
  Now, what is going on here today is very simple. Because our 
amendment includes a number of provisions to deal with the emergency in 
rural America, our friends on the other side of the aisle are feeling 
the political heat. So they are looking for a way, in my view, to 
obscure the lack of progress that has gone on dealing with the problems 
on the farm front so far.

                              {time}  1330

  This is, in effect, what many people would call a cover-your-tail 
amendment, to be blunt about it. It is paid for by hijacking one of the 
items that we used to pay for our amendment.

[[Page H2845]]

  The worst thing about it is not what it does, because I do not really 
oppose the idea of providing credit for farmers. Obviously, we have 
been trying to get that done for months. So has the administration.
  But the problem is that that is the only thing this amendment does on 
the farm front. It does nothing to provide the $42 million that is 
necessary in order to help eliminate the backlog in loan deficiency 
payments, for instance, out in rural America. It provides nothing for 
section 32 aid to hog farmers, who desperately need it.
  It is consistent with past Republican actions on farm issues, 
however. Because we will remember in 1993 when we had the Mississippi 
and Missouri River floods which devastated large sections of this 
country, the majority held up passage of emergency help on that score 
for months, debating about what the offsets should be.
  In 1996 when Grand Forks in the upper Midwest again was flooded and 
facing an emergency, again the majority party held up for months 
passage of getting effective relief to those folks, again because we 
got into the same accountant's debate.
  Now today again we are told that this is an important issue, but it 
is not important enough to treat it as an emergency, although, in this 
very bill, they are treating as emergencies the construction of a 
number of facilities in Europe which the Pentagon did not even want to 
build for the next 5 years.
  If anybody believes that this amendment, well-intentioned as it may 
be, is sufficient to bring into parallel treatment military bases in 
Europe versus the needs of our farmers at home, they are not reading 
this amendment or this bill very carefully.
  I am going to oppose this amendment, not because I am opposed to the 
intent, but because of the double standard which is being applied which 
does not recognize the emergency on the farm to the same degree that we 
recognize other problems; and secondly, because I think it is a mistake 
not to include the other assistance that my amendment provides for 
livestock, for watershed flood improvement, for the rural housing 
problems.
  So that is why I think we ought to recognize this amendment for what 
it is and treat it accordingly.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman is aware that the offsets in 
this are ones that he proposed. The ones he is referring to really are 
not germane to the amendment at hand.
  I would like to have everyone know that this is fully offset, it is 
fully paid for. It is something that I think is quite important today 
that we move this and move this quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of very important issues in 
agriculture. We will deal with a lot of those through the normal 
appropriations process. This is the one area where there is consensus 
to move ahead. Everyone agrees that this needs to be done and needs to 
be done today.
  If we want to start more fights with the other body, if we want to 
stop or stand in the way of help for our farmers and the critical needs 
that they have today, all we need to do is load it up with a bunch of 
extraneous issues. But this is critical today, that we move this and 
move it quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to, in closing, urge everyone to support 
this amendment. It is paid for. I want to also thank the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her support on so many of these agricultural 
issues, and our chairman of the subcommittee, and also, certainly, the 
chairman of the full committee, who bent over backwards to be of 
assistance to agriculture.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
for the Latham amendment.
  Last year's unexpected and uncontrollable market forces caused farm 
income to decline precipitously. Farming, a notoriously risky business, 
saw even tougher times due to the Asian financial crisis, which caused 
export markets to dry up, and bountiful production world wide, which 
drove prices down. On top of natural disasters here at home, Congress 
had to act.
  The $6 billion provided last fall allowed farmers to get through the 
year. It helped them harvest and market their crops and pay off their 
bills. However, as many geared up for planting this spring, poor market 
forecasts which projected inadequate cash flows, forced producers to 
seek direct and guaranteed loans from USDA.
  However, due to extraordinary demand, there's a large shortfall in 
these loan programs. Already, more than 26,000 producers have received 
loans from USDA. By providing an additional $106 million, as this 
amendment does, 12,000 more farmers will be able to farm this year.
  This amendment and USDA's credit program deserve your support. By 
supporting them, you not only signal to farmers that Congress 
recognizes their distress, but you also help farmers keep their dreams 
alive for a bright future in agriculture.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
submitted for printing in House Report 106-127.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 submitted for printing in House Report 106-
     127 offered by Mr. Coburn:
       At the end (before the short title), add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. Within 15 days after Congress adjourns to end the 
     first session of the 106th Congress and on the same day as a 
     sequestration (if any) under sections 251 and 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     cause, in the same manner prescribed for section 251 of such 
     Act, a sequestration for fiscal year 2000 of all non-exempt 
     accounts within the discretionary spending category 
     (excluding function 050 (national defense)) to achieve--
       (1) a reduction in budget authority equal to 
     $12,947,495,000 minus the dollar amount of reimbursements 
     identified in the report required by section 205 (efforts to 
     increase burden-sharing); and
       (2) a reduction in outlays equal to $12,947,495,000 minus 
     the dollar amount of reimbursements identified in the report 
     required by such section 205.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will control the 
time in opposition.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this debate be 
expanded to 20 minutes on each side.
  There was a drafting error in the rule. We were supposed to be given 
the same amount of time as all of the other amendments. Because of the 
drafting error, we were not. I would ask unanimous consent as a 
courtesy from the minority to give us the same amount of time on our 
amendment that he will have on his.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we gave a lot 
of reasons why Members should vote against the rule when it was before 
us. One of the reasons is that not enough time was provided for a 
number of amendments.
  If we had had some time in opposing that rule we might have been able 
to deal with each of the problems equitably, but I do not think it is 
fair to make adjustment to only one amendment, and therefore, I do 
object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, the United States is engaged in a war. It 
is a war not of Congress' making, but a war, nevertheless, and one that 
has revealed for the whole world to see the inadequacy of the resources 
available to our military services.
  We have a moral obligation to provide the necessary resources to the 
men and women whose lives are at risk fighting this war, but we have 
another obligation as well. That is an obligation to the American 
taxpayer and our senior citizens to maintain integrity in our 
budgeting, to pay for the additional necessary emergency military 
spending without using social security

[[Page H2846]]

funds. We have an obligation to maintain fiscal discipline and achieve 
truly honestly balanced budgets.
  This amendment represents the honest, responsible way to pay for this 
military emergency. It recognizes that, first of all, the President has 
a responsibility to secure reimbursements from our NATO allies for our 
military operations in Yugoslavia.
  Currently the United States is bearing the overwhelming majority of 
the military burden of this NATO bombing campaign. It is our pilots 
whose lives are at risk, it is our reservists being called up, it is 
our forces stretched too thin around the world.
  It is unconscionable that we should also be bearing the overwhelming 
majority of the financial burden, so I offered a provision in this bill 
that forces the President to pursue reimbursements from our NATO allies 
and report back to Congress on its progress by September 30 of this 
year. I hope the President takes this responsibility as seriously as 
President Bush did in the similar circumstances of the Persian Gulf 
War.
  This amendment today reasons that the President may not succeed in 
seeking equitable reimbursements. To the extent that the reimbursements 
from our NATO allies fall short of the total emergency expenditures, 
then this amendment will force across-the-board reductions in most 
nondefense spending, and it will fully offset this new emergency 
spending.
  It is important to note that if the President does his job and 
secures the appropriate reimbursements from our allies, for whom we are 
fighting, the spending cuts necessary will be very small, indeed. In 
fact, under this amendment, the size of any spending reductions is 
really up to the President.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and offset the 
costs of the war we are waging in and for Europe. Mr. Chairman, if we 
pass this amendment we can keep our moral obligation to both our 
soldiers and our seniors, but a vote against this amendment forces us 
to choose between soldiers and seniors, and that is a choice we should 
not have to be making.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment offered by the 
distinguished gentleman because I know that he has been such a strong 
supporter of national defense issues, so I am reluctant to oppose his 
amendment.
  However, I think his amendment would give us real trouble. I am not 
usually one that raises the issue of a presidential veto, but I am 
satisfied that if this amendment became part of this bill, that it 
would certainly invite a presidential veto.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2000 already cuts 
nondefense spending by over 9 percent. The Coburn amendment would 
increase this by an additional 5 percent, and would make the total 
reduction for fiscal year 2000 funding that this amendment would cut a 
14 percent cut in nondefense spending for fiscal year 2000.
  That is just not going to work. The fiscal year 2000 problem is 
already serious enough. The across-the-board cut would force a 
devastating 14 percent reduction in all nondefense programs, including 
education, food safety inspection, drug law enforcement, science 
research, the national parks, drug prevention, crime prevention, 
agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, elderly housing, and 
many other programs. It just will not work.
  So as much as I support the effort that the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Coburn) makes in supporting our strong national defense, I just 
cannot support his amendment because of what it does to the FY 2000 
budget.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford)
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  My dad used to have a saying, and that was, the Lord helps those who 
help themselves. I think my dad would be rolling around in the grave 
right now if he knew that we were part of a 19-country alliance wherein 
we were picking up about 80 to 90 percent of the bill. Yet, that 
happens to be the case.
  So the question with this amendment is, if we choose to foot the bill 
on 80 to 90 percent of the goods, will we at least account for it 
honestly, rather than borrowing it from social security? So I think 
that is the simple choice that this amendment is all about.
  To put it in perspective, what we are talking about here is Thirteen 
billion. Experts have said we have a real problem coming with social 
security. If we do not do this, that problem gets worse. Thirteen 
billion dollars is enough money to pay for a full year's worth of 
social security benefits for 1.4 million retirees. Thirteen billion 
would pay for a full month's worth of benefits for nearly 20 million 
retirees. Thirteen billion is more than social security pays in an 
entire year for seniors' insurance, for benefits for kids under the age 
of 18. Thirteen billion would pay social security benefits for every 
African American retiree until September in a given year. Thirteen 
billion is over 10 percent of this illusory and quickly-diminishing 
social security surplus.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just about truthful and 
straightforward accounting. If we want to spend, if we want to build 
somebody else's house, if we want to cover 80 to 90 percent of the cost 
of this endeavor, fine, but let us account for it honestly.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The problem we 
face here is that we are operating under a budget process which is, in 
my view, a public lie. I think the entire budget process is a fraud, 
and because it is, we see amendments like this offered which, in 
substance, would make no sense whatsoever.
  We are already required by the budget to cut virtually everything 
that the government provides on the domestic side of the ledger by 13 
percent next year. This budget or this amendment would require us to 
cut that even more deeply.
  Over the next 5 years the budget requires us to cut virtually 
everything that we do on the domestic side of the ledger by 18 percent 
in real terms. I do not know of many Members of this House on either 
side of the aisle who would actually vote for that when the time comes. 
We are required to cut health by 18 percent over that period, we are 
required to cut administration of justice by 18 percent in real terms 
over that period, we are required to cut agriculture by 25 percent over 
that period, in real terms.
  This amendment would add to those cuts. It would require us to make 
further reductions in health funding, such as the National Institutes 
of Health, which this Congress pretended just 3 weeks ago it wanted to 
double spending on.
  It would require us to make further cuts in the FBI. It would require 
us to make cuts of 2 percent in veterans' health care, and deeper cuts 
in other veterans' programs.

                              {time}  1345

  I do not believe that that is what the public supports. This is 
portrayed as a Social Security amendment. It does not really have 
anything to do with that issue. I do not know of many Social Security 
recipients who think that we ought to be cutting veterans benefits, who 
think we ought to be cutting the Weather Service. Ask the senior 
citizens who just had their homes wiped out in Oklahoma whether they 
would like to see the Weather Service cut back further so they get even 
less warning from tornadoes than they got last week.
  It just seems to me that this is an amendment which is extreme in 
nature. It suggests that there is only one priority in the entire 
country; and, in fact, I do not know of many responsible citizens over 
65 or under 65 that happen to share that view. What they want us to do 
is to take a balanced view, recognize something that is an emergency 
and recognize what it is not. That is what we should be doing instead 
of dealing with this amendment today.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
that.
  All that is is Washington double-talk. What that is saying is we 
cannot deliver services more efficiently. What we are hearing is 
hearing an appropriator say we do not want to cut spending.
  The Federal Government is not efficient. Nobody knows that better 
than

[[Page H2847]]

the people here. The refusal to demand efficiency and accountability 
out of the agencies of the Federal Government is why we have this 
problem. Thirteen billion dollars will pay for Social Security 
benefits, bringing them back up for every one of the notch babies.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time.
  Let me just say that I did not intend to speak on this amendment, but 
in a former life I chaired the subcommittee that funded veterans' 
programs in the country. I also serve on another committee that 
addresses questions like the FBI.
  I have a penchant for appreciating the work that is done at the 
subcommittee level, where people take seriously the business of 
listening to the pros and cons of very special programs and making 
judgments about spending levels that are a reflection expert testimony.
  We made major adjustments downward in that first subcommittee. Half 
of the savings in the last few years came from those efforts. But in 
the meantime we listened to the people who were directly affected and, 
because of a lack of that in an amendment that cuts across the board, I 
am afraid I must rise and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against 
this amendment.
  This amendment will put special limits on next year's process that do 
not fairly reflect the work of the subcommittees and committees. So I 
urge our Members to recognize that the work really gets done around 
this place in authorizing as well as appropriation subcommittees, and 
that is where it appropriately should take place.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Coburn 
amendment that will completely offset this supplemental. Failure to 
offset this spending will result in a raid on Social Security.
  President Clinton has created a national security emergency by 
cutting our military while stretching our troops around the world. 
Providing for our troops, however, does not mean the abandoning of 
fiscal discipline and taking from Social Security.
  The Coburn amendment calls for the President's Office of Management 
and Budget to perform an across-the-board cut of all fiscal year 2000 
nondefense discretionary spending equal to the amount of this 
appropriation.
  Make no mistake about it, voting against the Coburn amendment is a 
vote to raid the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for this spending. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, could we inquire as to how much 
time is remaining for each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. Both sides have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. And may I inquire as to who has the right to 
close the argument on this debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has the right to 
close.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  One of the reasons that I believe that the gentleman objected to our 
unanimous consent request is that it is hard to hear about spending 
Social Security money. It is not palatable to politicians.
  This chart shows exactly the fallacy of what Washington is telling 
the American public about surpluses. Here, in green, is what Washington 
is saying is the surplus. The red shows the rise in the national debt 
each year.
  The question that I would have for our body is, if we have a surplus, 
why is the debt rising? Why did the debt rise $105 billion last year? 
Why are our children going to be burdened with an additional $1,000 per 
person just on the basis of what we did last year?
  Congress has a moral obligation to our troops, to restore our 
military readiness, and we also have a moral obligation to our farmers, 
who are dependent on us. But we also have a moral obligation not to 
spend Social Security money. Probably that is not right. We have a 
moral obligation to be truthful about whether or not we are going to 
spend Social Security money. To oppose offsetting this bill is to make 
the assumption that this government is running at an efficient level.
  So everybody at home can actually see where we are on the numbers, 
these are CBO numbers, the projected Social Security surplus. Not real 
surplus, but an excess of Social Security payments over Social Security 
outflows that were projected to be $127 billion this year.
  We already have consumed, on what we have done so far this year, $16 
billion of that. We have already committed $16 billion of the seniors' 
Social Security money. When we pass this supplemental, without this 
amendment, we will spend another $13 billion of Social Security money. 
That is enough money for every notch baby in this country to get 
equitable treatment to the neighbors that are around them.
  I understand why it is difficult to trim. I have great respect for 
the members of the Committee on Appropriations and the hard job that 
they have. But I also know what the American people feel about it. They 
want those services delivered, but they know they are not delivered in 
an efficient manner. For us to say we cannot do so is not an 
appropriate response to the people that we represent.
  I would take my colleagues back to World War II. We did not allow 
spending to go up in every other branch of government. We actually cut 
spending in every other branch of government because we had a war.
  I have heard that today from both sides of the aisle: ``We have a 
war.'' There is not a moral imperative for us to pay for the war out of 
other agencies instead of taking it from our seniors?
  The last point that I would like to make is, if we take this money 
from our seniors, what we are really doing is lowering the standard of 
living of our children and we are decreasing the opportunity that our 
children will have to have a standard of living comparable to what we 
have.
  As we take opportunity, and we are the land of opportunity, we should 
never be so guilty as to steal the future from our children, because 
they will pay back this money. Our seniors are not going to pay this 
back, the Members of this body are not going to pay back this money, 
but our children and grandchildren will be the ones to pay back this 
money.
  So the question we have to ask ourselves as we leave here today, as 
we leave after voting, and I am very hopeful that we pass this bill, 
is, can I live with myself saying it is morally right to support our 
troops and to fund them at a level that makes their readiness and gives 
them the equipment and the ability to carry out their missions and it 
is not morally right to pay for it; but it is morally right to take 
money from every notch baby, to take money from the Social Security 
System, to take money out of the very future that we say is our highest 
priority?
  This conference passed a budget that said we are going to protect 100 
percent of Social Security, and there are Members on this floor and in 
this body that voted for that. By failing to vote for this amendment, 
what the Member is saying is, ``King's X. I did not mean it. I am not 
going to vote to protect Social Security. I am not for protecting the 
Social Security surplus. I am not for fixing Social Security. My vote 
on the budget was meaningless. It did not matter.'' If that is the 
case, then we need to fix the budget process.
  I would appreciate the support on this amendment, as will every other 
senior in this country and every child.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Again, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am reluctant in my 
opposition to this amendment to offset the spending, because my history 
in this House has been to vote for as many spending cuts as I possibly 
could. However, to make spending offsets from the fiscal year 2000 
funds that have not even been appropriated yet to pay for a fiscal year 
1999 expenditure is just not right and it is not workable.
  The gentleman is correct. There are a lot of ways and a lot of places 
where we can save money. One of the areas that

[[Page H2848]]

has been rather sacrosanct for a long time is mandatory spending. The 4 
years my party has been in the majority, the Committee on 
Appropriations, has put forth to this body major reductions in many, 
many programs, some of them very difficult to vote for, but we did.
  We started to get our fiscal house in order, but we did not touch the 
mandatory programs, and those are programs where the money has to be 
spent without some change in the basic law. That might be a place that 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and I could look for future 
offset funding; but for a fiscal year 1999 supplemental, we should not 
be reaching out to fiscal year 2000 where the money has not even been 
appropriated.
  Now, on the Social Security issue, and I agree with the gentleman, we 
have an obligation. We have made a commitment on Social Security, and I 
represent a district that has more Social Security recipients than most 
anybody in this House, and I certainly would be extremely careful of 
anything that we do relative to Social Security. But, understand, again 
we are talking about fiscal year 1999 money. The budget resolution, the 
setting aside of the Social Security Trust Fund and all those monies 
are in fiscal year 2000, not fiscal year 1999. So the issue does not 
really apply to the bill that we are dealing with today.
  Now, the last point. Based on the omnibus appropriations bill that 
was approved by this Congress last year, and I certainly hope that that 
never happens again, because that is not something any of us are really 
proud of, but based on that bill, the baseline or a freeze at fiscal 
year 1999 levels takes us $17 billion over the budget caps of 1997 for 
fiscal year 2000. And if we continue the things that we really are 
obligated to do, where we have commitments, where we have contracts 
already in the procedure, we are then up to over $30 billion over the 
1997 budget caps. If we take 14 percent cut in nondefense spending for 
fiscal year 2000, we cannot get there from here.
  So as much as I appreciate the gentleman's efforts and the work we 
have done together over the years for national defense, I cannot 
support his amendment, and I would hope that the House would reject 
that amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Coburn 
amendment. I rise against this amendment because any cut in domestic 
programs is wrong--including the proposed 2 percent cut for Community 
Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Indian Health Facilities, 
Indian Health Services, and Veterans' Medical Care.
  The priorities of this amendment are misplaced. This amendment that 
seeks to take an across-the-board swipe against the challenges that 
working families and/or the struggling poor face in consequential areas 
such as job training, education, health care and affordable housing is 
morally wrong.
  Our nation is a nation divided when it comes to healthcare. There are 
those with access and those without. And as you know, the poor are less 
likely to have access to care. African Americans, Latinos and other 
minority groups are less likely to have access to care. That is why I 
believe that community and migrant health centers are so vital. Until 
we can have a national health care plan, health centers provide the gap 
for those that do not have access to coverage.
  Mr. Chairman, non-defense discretionary spending for FY2000 is 
approximately $40 billion less than provided for in 1999. Given the 
human needs in my district where the median income is $25,250, I cannot 
support another cut.
  I cannot support this amendment and I urge my colleagues not to 
support it because it does nothing to lend a helping hand to those 
people in America who are hungry, who are out of a job, who are ill or 
who need a roof over their head. The solution to our problems cannot be 
solved by taking from someone in need in order to help someone else.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Coburn-Toomey-
Sanford amendment--an amendment which would offset the entire cost of 
this emergency appropriations bill in two ways.
  First, the amendment calls for our allies to share the burden of 
funding this NATO operation with the United States taxpayer. It would 
hold the nations participating in Operation Allied Force responsible 
for sharing the cost of what is swiftly becoming a protracted and 
costly air campaign. Member nations are already participating 
materially with us. We need for them to participate monetarily.
  Second, should the Administration be unable to obtain reimbursement 
from our NATO allies, this amendment would allow funds to be utilized 
from FY2000 non-defense discretionary spending; thus ensuring that this 
appropriation will be paid for without dipping into the Social Security 
Trust Fund.

  Offsetting this spending is vital to maintaining our budget 
priorities, which this Congress labored so hard to preserve earlier 
this year. The United States has domestic priorities that must be 
protected.
  We must be disciplined, Mr. Speaker. Members have talked about saving 
Social Security and Medicare during our recent budget debate. We have 
talked about creating a lock box for our nation's retirement security. 
I voted for a budget that set aside surplus money for our nation's 
elderly, and I am not going to waver from that commitment.
  This amendment will help protect our elderly and maintain our fiscal 
discipline.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on the amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the importance of supporting 
our troops during the current conflict in Kosovo. It is essential that 
these men and women who are putting their lives on the line for the 
safety and freedom of the ethnic Albanians be provided with the tools 
necessary to perform their work.
  Nonetheless, I strongly object to the Coburn/Toomey/Sanford amendment 
which pits the current needs of our military services against the 
health care needs of our veterans. The VA budget for Fiscal Year 2000 
is already almost $2 billion dollars less than is needed to provide 
health care to our current veterans.
  This tells not only our nation's veterans, but those currently 
serving in Kosovo, that our government will provide them with the 
ammunition they need to fight a war, but should they be harmed as a 
result, we may not be able to take proper care of them when they 
return. This is the wrong message to send to our fighting men and women 
in Kosovo and around the world.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote against our nation's veterans. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat this measure.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I wish to state my support for this 
emergency supplemental bill.
  Our national security is at stake here today, and I believe that a 
vote against this emergency bill is equivalent to turning our backs on 
the young men and women in our armed forces.
  The President has offered a version of this emergency defense bill 
that represents a first step, but one that is inadequate in meeting the 
true emergency before us.
  The Clinton Administration has asked that we only provide enough 
funds to cover the costs of the war in Yugoslavia. But we were running 
out of cruise missiles before we ever launched one over Kosovo. And our 
airplanes faced a spare parts shortage before we sent a single one to 
take on Milosevic. In other words, the President wants to only invest 
enough to maintain our military's current weakened status.
  That's not good enough. We owe it to America and our troops to do 
more than just return the military to its previous unacceptable level 
of readiness. We have a moral obligation to give our soldiers, pilots 
and sailors the tools to carry out their missions. Just as they are 
doing their duty to protect us, we must do our duty to support them.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want a true assessment of our current situation, 
then we should heed the concerns of our nation's top soldier--Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs, General Henry Shelton.
  A recent article in Jane's Defense Weekly said the following:

       With the number of US combat aircraft involved in NATO's 
     Operation ``Allied Force'' in Yugoslavia set to reach 800 in 
     the coming weeks, senior Department of Defense (DoD) 
     officials are downgrading the armed forces' ability to meet 
     its national military strategy of being able to concurrently 
     fight and win two major regional conflicts.

  The article continues,

       As a result Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. 
     Henry Shelton now believes the armed forces' ability to 
     prevail in a second MTW [Major Theater War] in a reasonable 
     amount of time and with minimum casualties has been dulled by 
     the continuing commitment in the Balkans.

  Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot afford to play games with our national 
security, and I believe that it is essential to support this emergency 
defense bill.
  And, while I believe that this bill represents a critical investment 
in preserving our national security, I do not take its price tag 
lightly.
  Mr. Chairman, we have made great strides in recent years under the 
leadership of this Congress to balance the federal budget for the 
benefit or our future generations. I am disappointed today that the 
President chose to send us this emergency funding without a 
corresponding offset in the budget. The bottom line, however, is that 
the money has to come from somewhere and the only alternative to 
cutting spending is to add this bill to our nation's federal debt.

[[Page H2849]]

  Mr. Chairman, I made a pledge to my constituents in the 8th District 
in North Carolina that I would lock away Social Security funds and not 
allow them to be used for other government spending. While I truly 
believe that our Nation faces a critical situation with our national 
security, I believe that it is better to pay for this measure by other 
means rather than adding to the deficit as the President has proposed 
in his request.
  That is why I will support the Coburn, Toomey, and Sanford amendment 
to offset this emergency appropriations bill with reimbursements from 
other NATO countries and a minor reduction in other areas of government 
spending. I am supporting this amendment with the understanding that 
our government will aggressively pursue reimbursements from other NATO 
countries, because I believe that we have shouldered a disproportionate 
share of the costs of this operation.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of this amendment. However, if it 
is not successful, I will still support final passage of this emergency 
spending bill because I truly believe that our nation faces threat in 
its national security.
  Mr. Chairman, this operation has stretched our armed forces too thin, 
and we all know that a rubber band will break when it's stretched too 
far. This Congress cannot run that risk with the U.S. military. We need 
this emergency legislation to help restore our military readiness. We 
must restore our military resource because this strain is compromising 
our security here at home.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 106-127.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3, submitted for printing in House Report 
     106-127, offered by Mr. Obey:
       Before the chapter 1 heading, insert the following new 
     heading: ``TITLE I--KOSOVO AND SOUTHWEST ASIA EMERGENCY 
     SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS''.
       In section 207--
       (1) after the first dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $850,400,000)'';
       (2) after the second dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $341,000,000)'';
       (3) after the third dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $509,400,000)''; and
       (4) after the last dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $850,400,000)''.
       In section 208--
       (1) after the first dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $635,000,000)'';
       (2) after the second dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $87,000,000)'';
       (3) after the third dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $262,700,000)'';
       (4) after the fourth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $58,000,000)'';
       (5) after the fifth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $224,300,000)'';
       (6) after the sixth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''; and
       (7) after the last dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $635,000,000)''.
       In section 210--
       (1) after the first dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $122,100,000)'';
       (2) after the third dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $5,200,000)'';
       (3) after the fourth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $16,300,000)'';
       (4) after the fifth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $77,000,000)'';
       (5) after the sixth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $600,000)'';
       (6) after the eighth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $23,000,000)''; and
       (7) after the last dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $122,100,000)''.
       In section 211--
       (1) after the first dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $254,000,000)'';
       (2) after the second dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $116,200,000)'';
       (3) after the third dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $45,900,000)'';
       (4) after the fourth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $8,000,000)'';
       (5) after the fifth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $69,800,000)'';
       (6) after the seventh dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $13,800,000)'';
       (7) after the eighth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $300,000)''; and
       (8) after the last dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $254,000,000)''.
       Strike section 212 and insert the following:
       Sec. 212. (a) Fiscal Year 2000 Increase in Military Basic 
     Pay.--(1) The adjustment to become effective during fiscal 
     year 2000 required by section 1009 of title 37, United States 
     Code, in the rates of monthly basic pay authorized members of 
     the uniformed services shall not be made.
       (2) Effective on January 1, 2000, the rates of monthly 
     basic pay for members of the uniformed services shall be 
     increased by 4.4 percent.
       (b) Reform of Rates of Basic Pay.--Effective on July 1, 
     2000, the rates of monthly basic pay for members of the 
     uniformed services within each pay grade are as follows:
       

                        COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
O-9.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
O-8.............   6,569.10   6,784.50   6,926.40   6,966.60    7,148.40
O-7.............   5,458.50   5,829.60   5,829.60   5,871.90    6,091.20
O-6.............   4,045.50   4,444.50   4,736.10   4,736.10    4,754.40
O-5.............   3,236.10   3,799.50   4,062.30   4,112.10    4,276.20
O-4.............   2,727.30   3,321.30   3,542.70   3,592.20    3,798.60
O-3 \3\.........   2,534.40   2,873.40   3,100.80   3,351.90    3,512.40
O-2 \3\.........   2,210.40   2,517.90   2,899.80   2,997.60    3,059.40
O-1 \3\.........   1,919.10   1,997.40   2,413.80   2,413.80    2,413.80
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00       $0.00
O-9.............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00        0.00
O-8.............   7,443.00   7,512.30   7,794.60   7,876.20    8,119.20
O-7.............   6,258.30   6,451.20   6,643.80   6,837.00    7,443.00
O-6.............   4,958.40   4,985.70   4,985.70   5,152.50    5,769.00
O-5.............   4,276.20   4,404.90   4,642.50   4,953.60    5,268.30
O-4.............   3,966.00   4,236.90   4,447.20   4,593.60    4,740.90
O-3 \3\.........   3,688.50   3,835.50   4,024.80   4,123.20    4,123.20
O-2 \3\.........   3,059.40   3,059.40   3,059.40   3,059.40    3,059.40
O-1 \3\.........   2,413.80   2,413.80   2,413.80   2,413.80    2,413.80
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........      $0.00  $10,614.3  $10,666.8  $10,888.8  $11,275.20
                                     0          0          0
O-9.............       0.00   9,283.80   9,417.60   9,611.10    9,948.30
O-8.............   8,471.40   8,796.60   9,013.50   9,013.50    9,013.50
O-7.............   7,955.10   7,955.10   7,955.10   7,955.10    7,995.10
O-6.............   6,063.00   6,357.00   6,524.10   6,695.70    7,024.20

[[Page H2850]]

 
O-5.............   5,415.30   5,562.30   5,731.80   5,731.80    5,731.80
O-4.............   4,791.60   4,791.60   4,791.60   4,791.60    4,791.60
O-3 \3\.........   4,123.20   4,123.20   4,123.20   4,123.20    4,123.20
O-2 \3\.........   3,059.40   3,059.40   3,059.40   3,059.40    3,059.40
O-1 \3\.........   2,413.80   2,413.80   2,413.80   2,413.80   2,413.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, basic pay for
  commissioned officers may not exceed the rate of basic pay for level V
  of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ While serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
  Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of
  Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant
  of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is calculated to be
  $12,441.00, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under
  section 205 of title 37, United States Code. However, actual basic pay
  for these officers may not exceed the rate of basic pay for level V of
  the Executive Schedule.
\3\ This table does not apply to commissioned officers in the grade O-1,
  O-2, or O-3 who have been credited with over 4 years of active duty
  service as an enlisted member or warrant officer.


  COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN
                   ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade     2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00  $3,351.90   $3,512.40
O-2E............       0.00       0.00       0.00   2,997.60    3,059.40
O-1E............       0.00       0.00       0.00   2,413.80    2,578.50
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14     Over 16
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............  $3,688.50  $3,835.50  $4,024.80  $4,184.40   $4,275.60
O-2E............   3,156.30   3,321.30   3,448.20   3,542.70    3,542.70
O-1E............   2,673.60   2,770.50   2,866.80   2,997.60    2,997.60
                 -------------------------------------------------------
                   Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24     Over 26
                 -------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............  $4,402.50  $4,402.50  $4,402.50  $4,402.50   $4,402.50
O-2E............   3,542.70   3,542.70   3,542.70   3,542.70    3,542.70
O-1E............   2,997.60   2,997.60   2,997.60   2,997.60    2,997.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                            WARRANT OFFICERS
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade      2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
W-4..............   2,582.10   2,777.70   2,857.80   2,937.60   3,071.70
W-3..............   2,346.90   2,545.80   2,545.80   2,578.50   2,684.10
W-2..............   2,055.60   2,223.90   2,223.90   2,297.10   2,413.80
W-1..............   1,712.70   1,963.50   1,963.50   2,127.60   2,223.90
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                     Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14    Over 16
                  ------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
W-4..............   3,204.90   3,337.50   3,471.90   3,608.40   3,739.20
W-3..............   2,804.40   2,962.80   3,059.40   3,164.70   3,285.60
W-2..............   2,545.80   2,642.40   2,739.30   2,833.50   2,937.90
W-1..............   2,323.80   2,424.00   2,523.60   2,624.10   2,724.30
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24    Over 26
                  ------------------------------------------------------
W-5..............      $0.00  $4,458.00  $4,611.00  $4,764.90  $4,918.50
W-4..............   3,873.30   4,006.20   4,139.70   4,273.50   4,410.30
W-3..............   3,405.60   3,525.60   3,645.60   3,765.90   3,886.20
W-2..............   3,044.70   3,151.80   3,258.60   3,365.70   3,365.70
W-1..............   2,824.20   2,899.80   2,899.80   2,899.80   2,899.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            ENLISTED MEMBERS
 Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
                                  Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pay Grade      2 or less    Over 2     Over 3     Over 4     Over 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \1\..........      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00      $0.00
E-8..............       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00       0.00
E-7..............   1,758.90   1,920.60   1,993.20   2,066.10   2,139.60
E-6..............   1,513.20   1,671.90   1,746.00   1,817.40   1,892.70
E-5..............   1,327.80   1,488.30   1,560.90   1,634.70   1,708.50
E-4..............   1,238.10   1,368.00   1,441.80   1,514.40   1,587.90
E-3..............   1,167.00   1,255.80   1,329.00   1,330.80   1,330.80
E-2..............   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20
E-1..............        \2\   1,001.70   1,001.70   1,001.70   1,001.70
                    1,001.70
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                     Over 8    Over 10    Over 12    Over 14    Over 16
                  ------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \1\..........      $0.00  $3,003.90  $3,071.70  $3,157.80  $3,259.20
E-8..............   2,518.80   2,591.70   2,659.50   2,741.10   2,829.30
E-7..............   2,212.50   2,285.40   2,359.50   2,430.90   2,504.40

[[Page H2851]]

 
E-6..............   1,966.50   2,040.30   2,111.40   2,184.00   2,235.90
E-5..............   1,783.50   1,855.20   1,928.70   1,929.00   1,929.00
E-4..............   1,587.90   1,587.90   1,587.90   1,587.90   1,587.90
E-3..............   1,330.80   1,330.80   1,330.80   1,330.80   1,330.80
E-2..............   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20
E-1..............   1,001.70   1,001.70   1,001.70   1,001.70   1,001.70
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                    Over 18    Over 20    Over 22    Over 24    Over 26
                  ------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \1\..........  $3,360.30  $3,460.20  $3,595.50  $3,729.60  $3,900.90
E-8..............   2,921.40   3,014.40   3,149.10   3,282.90   3,471.90
E-7..............   2,577.30   2,650.50   2,776.80   2,915.10   3,122.40
E-6..............   2,274.60   2,274.60   2,274.60   2,274.60   2,274.60
E-5..............   1,929.00   1,929.00   1,929.00   1,929.00   1,929.00
E-4..............   1,587.90   1,587.90   1,587.90   1,587.90   1,587.90
E-3..............   1,330.80   1,330.80   1,330.80   1,330.80   1,330.80
E-2..............   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20   1,123.20
E-1..............   1,001.70   1,001.70   1,001.70   1,001.70  1,001.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty
  Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant
  Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast
  Guard, basic pay for this grade is $4,701.00, regardless of cumulative
  years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
  Code.
\2\ In the case of members in the grade E-1 who have served less than 4
  months on active duty, basic pay is $926.70.

       (c) Retired Pay Computation Formula for Members of the 
     Armed Forces who Entered Military Service on or After August 
     1, 1986.--(1) Section 1409(b) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)''.
       (2) Paragraph (3) of section 1401a(b) of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--
       ``(A) If the percent determined under paragraph (2) is 
     equal to or greater than 3 percent, the Secretary shall 
     increase the retired pay of each member and former member who 
     first became a member on or after August 1, 1986, by the 
     difference between--
       ``(i) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) 1 percent.
       ``(B) If the percent determined under paragraph (2) is less 
     than 3 percent, the Secretary shall increase the retired pay 
     of each member and former member who first became a member on 
     or after August 1, 1986, by the lesser of--
       ``(i) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) 2 percent.''.
       (3)(A) Section 1410 of such title is amended--
       (i) by striking ``on that date'' and all that follows 
     through ``increases in the retired pay'' and inserting ``on 
     that date if increases in the retired pay'';
       (ii) by striking ``section); and'' and inserting 
     ``section).'';
       (iii) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (iv) by amending the section heading to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1410. Restoral of cost-of-living adjustment amount at 
       age 62 for members entering on or after August 1, 1986''.

       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

``1410. Restoral of cost-of-living adjustment amount at age 62 for 
              members entering on or after August 1, 1986.''.

       (C) Chapter 73 of such title is amended as follows:
       (i) Section 1447(6)(A) is amended by striking ``(determined 
     without regard to any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of 
     this title)''.
       (ii) Section 1451(h) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (iii) Section 1452(c) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
       (4) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
       (d) Funding for Fiscal Year 2000.--There is hereby 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 
     for military personnel functions administered by the 
     Department of Defense, to be available only for increases in 
     basic pay attributable to subsections (a) and (b) and for 
     increased payments to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund attributable to the amendments made by 
     subsection (c), amounts as follows:
       For ``Military Personnel, Army'', $559,533,000.
       For ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $436,773,000.
       For ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $177,980,000.
       For ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $471,892,000.
       For ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', $40,574,000.
       For ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', $29,833,000.
       For ``Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps'', $7,820,000.
       For ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', $13,143,000.
       For ``National Guard Personnel, Army'', $70,416,000.
       For ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', $30,462,000.
       (e) Applicability Contingent on Emergency Funding 
     Designation.--(1) Each of the amounts provided in subsection 
     (d) is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)).
       (2) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) (including the amendments 
     made by those subsections) shall take effect only if, and the 
     amounts provided in subsection (d) shall be available only 
     if, the President transmits to the Congress before October 1, 
     1999, an official budget request that includes, for each of 
     the amounts provided by subsection (d), designation of the 
     entire amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
       In chapter 4, strike the item relating to ``North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization Security Investment Program''.
       In section 401--
       (1) after the first dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $810,920,000)'';
       (2) after the second dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $285,000,000)'';
       (3) after the third dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $159,890,000)'';
       (4) after the fourth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $329,730,000)'';
       (5) after the fifth dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $35,500,000)''; and
       (6) after the last dollar amount, insert the following: 
     ``(reduced by $810,920,000)''.
       At the end of the bill, strike the short title and insert 
     the following:

         TITLE II--OTHER EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $42,753,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

       For additional gross obligations for the principal amount 
     of direct and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1928-1929, to be available from funds in the Agricultural 
     Credit Insurance Fund, $1,095,000,000, as follows: 
     $350,000,000 for guaranteed farm ownership loans; 
     $200,000,000 for direct farm ownership loans; $185,000,000 
     for direct farm operating loans; $185,000,000 for subsidized 
     guaranteed farm operating loans; and $175,000,000 for 
     emergency farm loans.
       For the additional cost of direct and guaranteed farm 
     loans, including the cost of modifying such loans as defined 
     in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000: farm operating 
     loans, $28,804,000, of which $12,635,000 shall be for direct 
     loans and $16,169,000 shall be for guaranteed subsidized 
     loans; farm ownership loans, $35,505,000, of which 
     $29,940,000 shall be for direct loans and $5,565,000 shall be 
     for guaranteed loans; emergency loans, $41,300,000; and 
     administrative expenses to carry out the loan programs,

[[Page H2852]]

     $4,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Office of the Secretary


 EMERGENCY GRANTS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS

       For emergency grants to assist low-income migrant and 
     seasonal farmworkers under section 2281 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     5177a), $25,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount shall 
     be available only to the extent an official budget request 
     for $25,000,000, that includes designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


          funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply

                              (section 32)

       For an additional amount for the fund maintained for funds 
     made available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 
     (7 U.S.C. 612c), $120,000,000, to be used for assistance to 
     small- and medium-sized hog farmers: Provided, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request for $120,000,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement under section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

                          Farm Service Agency


                     EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM

       For an additional amount for the ``Emergency Conservation 
     Program'' for expenses resulting from natural disasters, 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for $25,000,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                      LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

       For an additional amount for the Livestock Assistance 
     Program under Public Law 105-277, $60,000,000: Provided, That 
     the entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request for $60,000,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.


                      LIVESTOCK INDEMNITY PROGRAM

       An amount of $3,000,000 is provided to implement a 
     livestock indemnity program as established in Public Law 105-
     18: Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only 
     to the extent an official budget request for $3,000,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


               WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

       For an additional amount for ``Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Operations'' to repair damages to the waterways 
     and watersheds, including debris removal that would not be 
     authorized under the Emergency Watershed Program, resulting 
     from natural disasters, $80,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for $80,000,000, that includes designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.


                  rural community advancement program

       For an additional amount for the costs of direct loans and 
     grants of the rural utilities programs described in section 
     381E(d)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 2009f), as provided in 7 U.S.C. 1926(a) and 7 
     U.S.C. 1926C for distribution through the national reserve, 
     $30,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be for grants under 
     such program: Provided, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request for 
     $30,000,000, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

                         Rural Housing Service


              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

       For additional gross obligations for the principal amount 
     of direct and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of 
     the Housing Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the 
     rural housing insurance fund to meet needs resulting from 
     natural disasters, as follows: $10,000,000 for loans to 
     section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary; and 
     $1,000,000 for section 504 housing repair loans.
       For the additional cost of direct and guaranteed loans, 
     including the cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to remain 
     available until expended, $1,534,000, as follows: section 502 
     loans, $1,182,000; and section 504 housing repair loans, 
     $352,000: Provided, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $1,534,000, that includes designation of the entire amount of 
     the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.


                    RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

       For an additional amount for grants for very low-income 
     housing repair, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1474, to meet 
     needs resulting from natural disasters, $1,000,000: Provided, 
     That the entire amount shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for $1,000,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.

                Foreign Assistance and Related Programs


               public law 480 program and grant accounts

       For an additional amount for ``Public Law 480 Program and 
     Grant Accounts'' for humanitarian food assistance under title 
     II of Public Law 480, $175,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the 
     entire such amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such 
     amount shall be available only to the extent of a specific 
     dollar amount for such purpose that is included in an 
     official budget request transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress and that is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 1101. The Secretary of Agriculture may waive the 
     limitation established under the second sentence of the 
     second paragraph of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 
     (7 U.S.C. 612c), on the amount of funds that may be devoted 
     during fiscal year 1999 to any 1 agricultural commodity or 
     product thereof.
       Sec. 1102. Notwithstanding section 11 of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i), an 
     additional $28,000,000 shall be provided through the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation in fiscal year 1999 for 
     technical assistance activities performed by any agency of 
     the Department of Agriculture in carrying out any 
     conservation or environmental program funded by the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation: Provided, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request for 
     $28,000,000, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     enforcement and border affairs

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     Enforcement and Border Affairs'' to support increased 
     detention requirements for Central American criminal aliens 
     and to address the expected influx of illegal immigrants from 
     Central America as a result of Hurricane Mitch, $80,000,000, 
     which shall remain available until expended and which shall 
     be administered by the Attorney General: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

[[Page H2853]]

                               CHAPTER 3

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $8,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That of 
     such amount, $5,100,000 shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $7,300,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of such amount, $1,300,000 shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force'', $1,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $69,500,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $16,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $300,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $8,800,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $46,500,000: Provided, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid'', $37,500,000: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 4

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  agency for international development

                   international disaster assistance

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``International Disaster Assistance'' 
     for necessary expenses for international disaster relief, 
     rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance, pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     amended, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'', in addition 
     to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, to provide 
     assistance to Jordan, $50,000,000 to become available upon 
     enactment of this Act and to remain available until September 
     30, 2001: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.


              central america and the caribbean emergency

                         disaster recovery fund

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for 
     necessary expenses to address the effects of hurricanes in 
     Central America and the Caribbean and the earthquake in 
     Colombia, $621,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2000: Provided, That the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     and, except for section 558, the provisions of title V of the 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in division A, section 
     101(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)): Provided 
     further, That up to $5,000,000 of the funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph may be transferred to ``Operating Expenses of 
     the Agency for International Development'', to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000, to be used for 
     administrative costs of USAID in addressing the effects of 
     those hurricanes, of which up to $1,000,000 may be used to 
     contract directly for the personal services of individuals in 
     the United States: Provided further, That up to $2,000,000 of 
     the funds appropriated by this paragraph may be transferred 
     to ``Operating Expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development Office of Inspector General'', to remain 
     available until expended, to be used for costs of audits, 
     inspections, and other activities associated with the 
     expenditure of the funds appropriated by this paragraph: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be obligated and expended subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be subject to the funding ceiling contained in section 
     580 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in Division 
     A, section 101(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)), 
     notwithstanding section 545 of that Act: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     made available for nonproject assistance: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                           Debt Restructuring

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``Debt Restructuring'', $41,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That up to 
     $25,000,000 may be used for a contribution to the Central 
     America Emergency Trust Fund, administered by the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                   foreign military financing program

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``Foreign Military Financing Program'', 
     for grants to enable the President to carry out section 23 of 
     the Arms Export Control Act, in addition to amounts otherwise 
     available for such purposes, for grants only for Jordan, 
     $50,000,000 to become available upon enactment of this Act 
     and to remain available until September 30, 2001: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     nonrepayable, notwithstanding section 23(b) and section 23(c) 
     of the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 2401. The value of articles, services, and military 
     education and training authorized as of November 15, 1998, to 
     be drawn down by the President under the authority of section 
     506(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     shall not be counted against the ceiling limitation of that 
     section.

                               CHAPTER 5

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             FOREST SERVICE


                    reconstruction and construction

       For an additional amount for ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'', $5,611,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to address damages from Hurricane Georges and other 
     natural disasters in Puerto Rico: Provided, That the

[[Page H2854]]

     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the amount provided shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request that 
     includes designation of the entire amount as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, 
     is transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That funds in this account may be transferred to and 
     merged with the ``Forest and Rangeland Research'' account and 
     the ``National Forest System'' account as needed to address 
     emergency requirements in Puerto Rico.

                               CHAPTER 6

                                OFFSETS

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277 and in prior acts making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs, 
     $17,000,000 are rescinded.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                   foreign military financing program


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     104-208 for the cost of direct loans authorized by section 23 
     of the Arms Export Control Act, $18,000,000 are rescinded.

                    MULTILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President

                  International Financial Institutions

     Contribution to the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
                              Development

                      Global Environment Facility


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-277, $23,000,000 are rescinded.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                        Payments to Air Carriers


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the budgetary resources provided for ``Small Community 
     Air Service'' by Public Law 101-508 for fiscal years prior to 
     fiscal year 1998, $815,000 are rescinded.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                       State Infrastructure Banks


                              (rescission)

       Of the available balances under this heading, $6,500,000 
     are rescinded.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Trust Fund Share of Transit Programs


                          (highway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the budgetary resources provided for the trust fund 
     share of transit programs in Public Law 102-240 under 49 
     U.S.C. 5338(a)(1), $665,000 are rescinded.

                  Interstate Transfer Grants--Transit

       Of the available balances under this heading, $600,000 are 
     rescinded.

                     GENERAL PROVISION--THIS TITLE

       Sec. 2601. Division B, title I, chapter 1 of Public Law 
     105-277 is amended as follows: under the heading ``Operation 
     and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', strike ``$1,496,600,000'' 
     and insert ``$1,456,600,000''.

         TITLE III--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                             THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses,'' 
     $921,000, to remain available until expended.

                DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    United States Information Agency


                        buying power maintenance

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $20,000,000 are rescinded.

                               CHAPTER 2

      UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

       For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of 
     the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 
     105-292), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                               CHAPTER 3

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                       Bureau of Land Management


                   management of lands and resources

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 105-83, $6,800,000 are rescinded.

           Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians


                         federal trust programs

       For an additional amount for ``Federal Trust Programs'', 
     $21,800,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $6,800,000 is for activities pursuant to the Trust Management 
     Improvement Project High Level Implementation Plan and 
     $15,000,000 is to support litigation involving individual 
     Indian trust accounts: Provided, That litigation support 
     funds may, as needed, be transferred to and merged with the 
     ``Operation of Indian Programs'' account in the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs, the ``Salaries and Expenses'' account in the 
     Office of the Solicitor, the ``Salaries and Expenses'' 
     account in Departmental Management, the ``Royalty and 
     Offshore Minerals Management'' account in the Minerals 
     Management Service and the ``Management of Lands and 
     Resources'' account in the Bureau of Land Management.

                               CHAPTER 4

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


     state unemployment insurance and employment service operations

       Under this heading in section 101(f) of Public Law 105-277, 
     strike ``$3,132,076,000'' and insert ``$3,111,076,000'' and 
     strike ``$180,933,000'' and insert ``$164,933,000''.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              Health Resources and Services Administration


                federal capital loan program for nursing

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under the Federal Capital Loan 
     Program for Nursing appropriation account, $2,800,000 are 
     rescinded.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


            education research, statistics, and improvement

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in section 
     101(f) of Public Law 105-277, $6,800,000 are rescinded.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                  Corporation for Public Broadcasting

       For an additional amount for the Corporation for Public 
     Broadcasting, to remain available until expended, $11,000,000 
     to be available for fiscal year 1999, and $37,000,000 to be 
     available for fiscal year 2000: Provided, That such funds be 
     made available to National Public Radio, as the designated 
     manager of the Public Radio Satellite System, for acquisition 
     of satellite capacity.

                               CHAPTER 5

                        CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                     Capitol Buildings and Grounds


                         house office buildings

                          house page dormitory

       For necessary expenses for renovations to the facility 
     located at 501 First Street, S.E., in the District of 
     Columbia, $3,760,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol shall transfer to 
     the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives such portion of the funds made available 
     under this paragraph as may be required for expenses incurred 
     by the Chief Administrative Officer in the renovation of the 
     facility, subject to the approval of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives: Provided 
     further, That section 3709 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (41 U.S.C. 5) shall not apply to the funds made 
     available under this paragraph.


                     o'neill house office building

       For necessary expenses for life safety renovations to the 
     O'Neill House Office Building, $1,800,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That section 3709 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (41 U.S.C. 5) shall not 
     apply to the funds made available under this paragraph.

                ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 3501. (a) The aggregate amount otherwise authorized to 
     be appropriated for a fiscal year for the lump-sum allowance 
     for the Office of the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and the aggregate amount otherwise authorized 
     to be appropriated for a fiscal year for the lump-sum 
     allowance for the Office of the Majority Whip of the House of 
     Representatives shall each be increased by $333,000.
       (b) This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 
     2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.
       Sec. 3502. (a) Each office described under the heading 
     ``HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFICES'' in the Act making appropriations 
     for the legislative branch for a fiscal year may transfer any 
     amounts appropriated for the office under such heading among 
     the various categories of allowances and expenses for the 
     office under such heading.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 
     amounts appropriated for official expenses.
       (c) This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 
     1999 and each succeeding fiscal year.

                               CHAPTER 6

                             POSTAL SERVICE

                  Payments to the Postal Service Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Payments to the Postal 
     Service Fund'' for revenue forgone reimbursement pursuant to 
     39 U.S.C. 2401(d), $29,000,000.

[[Page H2855]]

                   EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

                  FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

                          Unanticipated Needs


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 101-130, the Fiscal Year 1990 Dire Emergency Supplemental 
     to Meet the Needs of Natural Disasters of National 
     Significance, $10,000,000 are rescinded.

                               CHAPTER 7

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                   Community Planning and Development


                   community development block grants

       Notwithstanding the 6th undesignated paragraph under the 
     heading ``Community Planning and Development--community 
     development block grants'' in title II of the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-276; 112 Stat. 2477) and the related provisions of the 
     joint explanatory statement in the conference report to 
     accompany such Act (Report 105-769, 105th Congress, 2d 
     Session) referred to in such paragraph, of the amounts 
     provided under such heading and made available for the 
     Economic Development Initiative (EDI) for grants for targeted 
     economic investments, $250,000 shall be for a grant to 
     Project Restore of Los Angeles, California, for the Los 
     Angeles City Civic Center Trust, to revitalize and redevelop 
     the Civic Center neighborhood, and $100,000 shall be for a 
     grant to the Southeast Rio Vista Family YMCA, for development 
     of a child care center in the City of Huntington Park, 
     California.

                     Management and Administration


                      office of inspector general

       Under this heading in Public Law 105-276, add the words, 
     ``to remain available until September 30, 2000,'' after 
     $81,910,000,''.

                    TITLE IV--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

       Sec. 4001. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (as contained in division A, section 101(a) of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) is amended--
       (a) in title III, under the heading ``Rural Community 
     Advancement Program, (Including Transfer of Funds)'', by 
     inserting ``1926d,'' after ``1926c,''; by inserting ``, 306C, 
     and 306D'' after ``381E(d)(2)'' the first time it appears in 
     the paragraph; and by striking ``, as provided in 7 U.S.C. 
     1926(a) and 7 U.S.C. 1926C'';
       (b) in title VII, in section 718 by striking ``this Act'' 
     and inserting ``annual appropriations Acts'';
       (c) in title VII, in section 747 by striking ``302'' and 
     inserting ``203''; and
       (d) in title VII, in section 763(b)(3) by striking ``Public 
     Law 94-265'' and inserting ``Public Law 104-297''.
       Sec. 4002. Division B, title V, chapter 1 of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277) is amended under the heading 
     ``Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service'' 
     by inserting after ``$23,000,000,'' the following: ``to 
     remain available until expended,''.
       Sec. 4003. The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
     Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 ( as contained in 
     division A, section 101(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277)) is amended--
       (a) in title II under the heading ``Burma'' by striking 
     ``headings `Economic Support Fund' and'' and inserting 
     ``headings `Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund', 
     `Economic Support Fund' and'';
       (b) in title V in section 587 by striking ``199-339'' and 
     inserting ``99-399'';
       (c) in title V in subsection 594(a) by striking 
     ``subparagraph (C)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)'';
       (d) in title V in subsection 594(b) by striking 
     ``subparagraph (a)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
       (e) in title V in subsection 594(c) by striking ``521 of 
     the annual appropriations Act for Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs'' and inserting ``520 of this 
     Act''.
       Sec. 4004. Subsection 1706(b) of title XVII of the 
     International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262r-
     5(b)), as added by section 614 of the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     1999, is amended by striking ``June 30'' and inserting 
     ``September 30''.
       Sec. 4005. The Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in division 
     A, section 101(e) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) 
     is amended--
       (a) in the last proviso under the heading ``United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, Administrative Provisions'' by 
     striking ``section 104(c)(50)(B) of the Marine Mammal 
     Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407)'' and inserting 
     ``section 104(c)(5)(B) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407)''.
       (b) in section 354(a) by striking ``16 U.S.C. 544(a)(2))'' 
     and inserting ``16 U.S.C. 544b(a)(2))''.
       (c) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of this 
     section shall take effect as if included in Public Law 105-
     277 on the date of its enactment.
       Sec. 4006. The Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (as contained in division A, section 101(f) of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) is amended--
       (a) in title I, under the heading ``Federal Unemployment 
     Benefits and Allowances'', by striking ``during the current 
     fiscal year'' and inserting ``from October 1, 1998, through 
     September 30, 1999'';
       (b) in title II under the heading ``Office of the 
     Secretary, General Departmental Management'' by striking 
     ``$180,051,000'' and inserting ``$188,051,000'';
       (c) in title II under the heading ``Children and Families 
     Services Programs, (Including Rescissions)'' by striking 
     ``notwithstanding section 640 (a)(6), of the funds made 
     available for the Head Start Act, $337,500,000 shall be set 
     aside for the Head Start Program for Families with Infants 
     and Toddlers (Early Head Start): Provided further, That'';
       (d) in title II under the heading ``Office of the 
     Secretary, General Departmental Management'' by inserting 
     after the first proviso the following: ``Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading for 
     carrying out title XX of the Public Health Service Act, 
     $10,831,000 shall be for activities specified under section 
     2003(b)(2), of which $9,131,000 shall be for prevention 
     service demonstration grants under section 510(b)(2) of title 
     V of the Social Security Act, as amended, without application 
     of the limitation of section 2010(c) of said title XX:'';
       (e) in title III under the heading ``Special Education'' by 
     inserting before the period at the end of the paragraph the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That $1,500,000 shall be for 
     the recipient of funds provided by Public Law 105-78 under 
     section 687(b)(2)(G) of the Act to provide information on 
     diagnosis, intervention, and teaching strategies for children 
     with disabilities'';
       (f) in title II under the heading ``Public Health and 
     Social Services Emergency Fund'' by striking ``$322,000'' and 
     inserting ``$180,000'';
       (g) in title III under the heading ``Education Reform'' by 
     striking ``$491,000,000'' and inserting ``$459,500,000'';
       (h) in title III under the heading ``Vocational and Adult 
     Education'' by striking ``$6,000,000'' the first time that it 
     appears and inserting ``$14,000,000'', and by inserting 
     before the period at the end of the paragraph the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the amounts made available for 
     the Perkins Act, $4,100,000 shall be for tribally controlled 
     postsecondary vocational institutions under section 117'';
       (i) in title III under the heading ``Higher Education'' by 
     inserting after the first proviso the following: ``Provided 
     further, That funds available for part A, subpart 2 of title 
     VII of the Higher Education Act shall be available to fund 
     awards for academic year 1999-2000 for fellowships under part 
     A, subpart 1 of title VII of said Act, under the terms and 
     conditions of part A, subpart 1:'';
       (j) in title III under the heading ``Education Research, 
     Statistics, and Improvement'' by inserting after the third 
     proviso the following: ``Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under section 10601 of title X of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, $1,000,000 
     shall be used to conduct a violence prevention demonstration 
     program: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under section 10601 of title X of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, $50,000 shall be 
     awarded to the Center for Educational Technologies to conduct 
     a feasibility study and initial planning and design of an 
     effective CD ROM product that would complement the book, We 
     the People: The Citizen and the Constitution:'';
       (k) in title III under the heading ``Reading Excellence'' 
     by inserting before the period at the end of the paragraph 
     the following: ``: Provided, That up to one percent of the 
     amount appropriated shall be available October 1, 1998 for 
     peer review of applications'';
       (l) in title V in section 510(3) by inserting after ``Act'' 
     the following: ``or subsequent Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Acts''; and
       (m)(1) in title VIII in section 405 by striking subsection 
     (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Other References to Title VII of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.--The table of contents of 
     the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11301 et seq.) is amended--
       ``(1) by striking the items relating to title VII of such 
     Act, except the item relating to the title heading and the 
     items relating to subtitles B and C of such title; and
       ``(2) by striking the item relating to the title heading 
     for title VII and inserting the following:

               `` `TITLE VII--EDUCATION AND TRAINING'.''.

       (2) The amendments made by subsection (m)(1) of this 
     section shall take effect as if included in Public Law 105-
     277 on the date of its enactment.
       Sec. 4007. The last sentence of section 5595(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code (as added by section 309(a)(2) of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-
     275) is amended by striking ``(a)(1)(G)'' and inserting 
     ``(a)(1)(C)''.
       Sec. 4008. The Department of Transportation and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in division 
     A, section

[[Page H2856]]

     101(g) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)) is amended: 
     (a) in title I under the heading ``National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration, Operations and Research, (Highway 
     Trust Fund)'' by inserting before the period at the end of 
     the paragraph ``: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     other funds available in this Act for the National Advanced 
     Driving Simulator Program, funds under this heading are 
     available for obligation, as necessary, to continue this 
     program through September 30, 1999''.
       Sec. 4009. Division B, title II, chapter 5 of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277) is amended under the heading 
     ``Capitol Police Board, Security Enhancements'' by inserting 
     before the period at the end of the paragraph ``: Provided 
     further, That for purposes of carrying out the plan or plans 
     described under this heading and consistent with the approval 
     of such plan or plans pursuant to this heading, the Capitol 
     Police Board shall transfer the portion of the funds made 
     available under this heading which are to be used for 
     personnel and overtime increases for the United States 
     Capitol Police to the heading ``Capitol Police Board, Capitol 
     Police, Salaries'' under the Act making appropriations for 
     the legislative branch for the fiscal year involved, and 
     shall allocate such portion between the Sergeant at Arms of 
     the House of Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and 
     Doorkeeper of the Senate in such amounts as may be approved 
     by the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate''.
       Sec. 4010. Section 3027(d)(3) of the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5307 note; 112 Stat. 366) 
     as added by section 360 of the Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained 
     in division A, section 101(g) of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277)) is re-designated as section 3027(c)(3).
       Sec. 4011. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
     the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 
     (as contained in division A, section 101(b) of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277)) is amended--
       (a) in title I, under the heading ``Legal Activities, 
     Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'', by 
     inserting ``and shall remain available until September 30, 
     2000'' after ``Holocaust Assets in the United States''; and
       (b) in title IV, under the heading ``Department of State, 
     Administration of Foreign Affairs, Salaries and Expenses'', 
     by inserting ``and shall remain available until September 30, 
     2000'' after ``Holocaust Assets in the United States''.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 5001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       This Act may be cited as the ``1999 Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) seek to control the time 
in opposition?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control 20 
minutes, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this country is engaged in a war which is the 
consequence of the inability of the West to act going as far back as 
1982. Mr. Milosevic has been consistently and perniciously grinding 
people into the dust in Bosnia, in Croatia, in Kosovo for over a 
decade. And because action was not taken to stop him more than a decade 
ago, the cost of stopping him now is going to be much higher than it 
otherwise would have been.
  We can all argue about how we got here, but the fact is we are here, 
and we owe the troops in the field and we owe the President an 
obligation to deal with this issue on the merits--right down the 
middle. I do not think this House has done a very good job of doing 
that.
  We have seen an incredible array of political comments the last few 
weeks. Last week, for instance, we have seen one Member of this body 
indicate that this needed to be clearly understood as Clinton's war 
rather than the national problem that it really is. We saw a good many 
efforts being made to simultaneously oppose what the President is doing 
and what NATO is doing and at the same time double the spending for 
conducting that war.
  We saw 80 percent of the Members of the majority party vote last week 
against conducting the very operation which today they are suggesting 
we should spend twice as much money on as the President is asking. I 
think that that is spectacularly inconsistent, and I think it is 
confusing and destructive of our ability to find common ground on this 
issue.
  The President asked for $6 billion, a little over $6 billion, to 
finance a war which is literally an 800-plane, 24-hour-a-day constant 
bombarding of all of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo. He has asked for 
funds fully sufficient to conduct at least that level of activity 
between now and the end of the fiscal year.
  In addition to that, he has asked for funds fully sufficient to pay 
for an Apache operation over there twice as large as the one which is 
now operating. And it seems to me that we ought to support him in that 
effort.
  The majority party has responded, after falling off one side of the 
horse last week by refusing to support this operation, they are now 
responding by falling off the other side of the horse and saying, in 
essence, that we ought to increase the size of this bill by 125 
percent.
  They increased $460 million for additional munitions. The amendment 
now before us says, all right, in the interest of compromise, we will 
buy that. They increased procurement by $400 million. We say, okay, in 
the interest of compromise, we will buy that too. They provided a 
billion dollars to avoid reprogramming for operation and maintenance 
items because they want to make sure we have enough money to fully fund 
all of the Pentagon's needs, not just in Kosovo but elsewhere. We say, 
okay, we agree with that. We will give them that billion dollars.
  What we do not want to give them is the $3 billion that has nothing 
whatsoever to do with Kosovo but has everything to do with another game 
that is going on. We have 2 simultaneous problems. We have the Kosovo 
problem. We also have a budget problem. And under the budget which the 
majority passed two weeks ago, caps were established on what we can 
spend for every category of Government, including defense.
  What they are now trying to do with this bill is to take $3 billion 
of items that are not related to Kosovo, stick them in this bill, which 
will, therefore, enable them to spend $3 billion more on what largely 
are pork items. And we do not agree with doing that.
  So we removed that $3 billion. That still leaves us $5 billion above 
the President's request, a huge amount of funding. And we make the pay 
raise, which the majority party claims it is providing real, by making 
it deliverable immediately rather than deliverable upon passage of 
another piece of legislation. That is what we do.
  We also, responding to some of the advice of Members, such as the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) who suggested that we need more 
money by way of food aid. We have also provided that.
  What we do not want to do is misuse the precious privilege we have to 
declare certain items emergencies when we think they are emergencies. 
And it just seems to me, therefore, that if they want to avoid 
polarizing this issue, they would take the amendment that we are 
offering today and support it in the interest of moving both sides to 
the center.
  Now, some persons will say, well, we have to add all of these items 
to this bill despite the fact that they are not emergency items because 
we have a readiness problem, and they claim that the President is 
responsible for that. The fact is that for the last 4\1/2\ years the 
majority party has been in control, they have added $27 billion to the 
President's military budgets and all but $3\1/2\ billion of that has 
gone to non-readiness items.
  I did not make those choices. They did. They had the votes to push 
them through and they did. I would simply ask, if we do have a 
readiness problem today, I would say let us take care of it. The 
defense bill is going to be coming out here in a few weeks' time. Deal 
with it on that bill.

[[Page H2857]]

  What I would say, also, is that if they think that we have a 
readiness problem, why did they put 80 percent of the money they added 
to the defense budget in non-readiness items? That seems to me again 
spectacularly inconsistent. We are also told, ``Oh, we have to put more 
money in because the Pentagon says that they are stretched too thin.''
  I want to read from a document prepared by the Pentagon. It makes 
five points. It says: ``In the event of a major theater war, assets 
would be required to swing between theaters to support major theater 
war operations and the ongoing operation in Kosovo, just as envisioned 
by the Quadrennial Defense Review.''
  The second thing it says is: ``The total number of Air Force aircraft 
deployed or planned for Kosovo represent only about 25 percent of the 
total number of the services' primary aircraft. Clearly, the Air Force 
possesses sufficient forces to meet an additional regional war with 
some aircraft still in reserve.''
  It also makes the point that the Navy has already taken the steps 
needed to ameliorate the situation in the Western Pacific by making the 
U.S.S. Constellation ready to sail within 96 hours if it is needed to 
support operations in Korea.
  It also makes a number of other points which refute the idea that 
there is such a crisis in military spending that we must wholesale 
abuse the emergency designation in this legislation.
  I want every dollar that is needed for any contingency in Kosovo to 
be provided, but I do not want this Congress to misuse the emergency 
designation in order to simply facilitate moving $3 billion from the 
regular appropriation bill into this bill by pretending it is an 
emergency, thereby making room for the same kind of pork items that 
have been added in the past that, in my view, should not have been 
added. So that is, essentially, the issue that we face.
  And I would also say one other thing. We have heard people say there 
must be a more fair division of burdens between us and our NATO allies. 
I could not agree more. And so I would ask, if people believe that, why 
are they supporting the original bill which forward funds--in other 
words pays one year early--the $240 million military construction 
obligation that we will have for our share of NATO costs next year?
  There is no other country in the world that is providing that money a 
year ahead of time. If we provide that money ahead of time, it takes 
away from our leverage to ask that other NATO allies meet their fair 
share of the cost in dealing with this war.
  So I do not want to hear any rhetoric about how we must oppose the 
Obey amendment in order to support our troops in the field. This 
amendment fully supports every possible requirement of troops in the 
field. What it does not do is engage in the fiction that we ought to 
use this war in order to pretend that billions of additional dollars 
are emergencies when in fact they are not.
  There is no emergency that requires us to build 37 of those military 
construction projects in Europe, which the Pentagon did not even want 
on its list for the next 5 years. This reminds me of the debate just a 
couple years ago where the Congress insisted on providing a billion-
dollar aircraft to the Pentagon that it did not want.
  And one last comment again, because I heard it three times, on JDAMs. 
Yes, we need more JDAMs. This is a new weapon. The administration asked 
that their request be fully funded last year. It was not Bill Clinton 
that cut the funds for that program. It was not the gentleman from 
Wisconsin. It was the committee, under the control of the majority 
party, which cut that request by 18 percent.
  So I remind my colleagues, if they want to know why some of these so-
called readiness problems afflict the military, I would advise them to 
simply look in the mirror; and keep in mind that today we are supposed 
to be funding emergencies on an emergency basis, we are not supposed to 
be using it to play ``let us pretend'' games on next year's budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the big arguments here today seems to be the 
fact that the Congress is recommending more funding for our national 
defense capabilities than the President asked for.
  Well, the President's record on estimating the length of time of a 
military deployment and how much the cost is going to be is not all 
that great. For example, in Bosnia, for those of us who attended those 
first meetings about Bosnia, we were told that we would be in Bosnia 
for about a year, and it would cost about $1.2 billion. But, Mr. 
Chairman, 5 years later and $10 billion later, we are still in Bosnia.
  This administration's record on estimating how long the deployment is 
going to take or how much it is going to cost is not very good.
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) likes to make the point 
that we have included items that the Pentagon did not want, and he 
makes this argument every time there is a defense bill on the floor. 
But let me explain how this works.
  When the administration request comes to this Congress, it does not 
come from the Defense Department. It goes from the Defense Department 
to the Office of Management and Budget, and they decide what the 
Defense request will be to the Congress. So just because OMB does not 
want something does not mean that the warfighters have not already 
identified it and told us that, in fact, it was a requirement.
  And then the point about the Congress doing things that the Pentagon 
does not want, let me give my colleagues an example. One of the 
examples of this was the C-17. There were attempts by the 
administration to kill the C-17. Congress insisted that we needed the 
capability that the C-17 would provide.
  I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that without the C-17 in 
the inventory today there is no way that we could be doing in the 
Kosovo region what we are doing. We just could not get enough of C-5's 
there into the Tirana Airport in Albania. But the C-17's can carry 
significant amounts of cargo into that area.

                              {time}  1415

  The gentleman from Wisconsin likes to continue his conversation about 
the JDAMs. JDAMs is a good system. But a year ago, there were serious 
technical problems with JDAMs. Our committee is very, very careful when 
there are problems not to throw money at it. It does not say we did not 
support the program. We did make a minor reduction in the JDAMs program 
because there were technical problems, and we needed to convince the 
administration that those problems had to be fixed.
  Let me give Members another example of how that works. The THAAD 
program, the Theater High Altitude Air Defense system, everybody that 
understands what that system is knows we have got to have it. We have 
to have what THAAD would provide. But THAAD has been, unfortunately, a 
serious failure, so far, in its development. And so the committee took 
substantial amounts of money from that program to get the attention of 
the contractor and the administration, to say, ``Fix it. Don't just 
throw money at something that doesn't work. Fix it.''
  That is what we did on JDAMs. We said, ``Fix it.'' So they fixed it. 
And JDAMs is a good system, and it is well under way now.
  THAAD will become a good system. We need what THAAD would produce and 
provide for our troops in the field. But we have got to have a THAAD 
system that works.
  So this committee is very careful about what it provides funding for 
or what it does not provide funding for. That is why when we bring a 
bill to this floor it is well thought out and can be easily defended. 
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good bill.
  One of the gentleman from Wisconsin's other complaints is the fact 
that we put a pay raise in this bill for our men and women in uniform. 
He does not object to the pay raise, but he objects to the fact that we 
did not spell out the details of the plan. We had an understanding with 
our authorizing committees, both parties, that we would provide the 
money but we would allow them to function as their jurisdiction 
provides so that they would spell out the details.
  I have confidence in the Committee on Armed Services, and it will 
address

[[Page H2858]]

this. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) that we heard earlier on 
the floor is chairman of the subcommittee that will deal with this. The 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is chairman of the full 
committee. The Senate has already passed their plan. We will go to 
conference on that one shortly, and the pay raise will become 
effective.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned earlier that I had dragged a 
red herring across the debate. If I could use that same phrase, I think 
that argument about the pay raise is a typical red herring.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
amendment.
  It provides a fiscally responsible way to address real emergencies, 
of supporting our troops in Kosovo, aids thousands of fleeing refugees, 
helps farmers who are being left high and dry here at home and the 
Central American communities trying to rebuild after the destruction of 
hurricane Mitch. It is a responsible alternative, rather than the 
Republican bill which is loading up with nonemergency defense items and 
from a group of people who just last week decided that it was not in 
the best interest of our troops who are in the field, men and women in 
the field, to support their efforts, that they come back and try to 
pile on in this supplemental appropriation.
  The Obey amendment represents the values of American families. We 
affirm Congress' commitment to our men and women in the Armed Forces 
who are carrying out a brave and vital mission. It sends an important 
message to Milosevic that his savage campaign of ethnic cleansing 
against the Kosovar Albanians will not be tolerated. Mr. Milosevic 
continues to wage war on ethnic Albanians through his acts of violence, 
mass murder of innocent families and driving thousands of people and 
whole communities from their homes to refugee camps.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman. This is Milosevic's war. If you do not 
want to listen to me, listen to Margaret Thatcher, Jacques Chirac, 
President Schroeder, Prime Minister of England Tony Blair.
  Mrs. Thatcher has said Milosevic's regime and the genocidal ideology 
that sustains it represents something altogether different, a truly 
monstrous evil. If you want to be serious about supporting our troops 
in this effort, support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to seriously question what was just 
said, and I want to quote: ``The Obey amendment affirms the value of 
American families.'' Sending $100 million of Social Security money to 
Jordan is affirming the value of American families? The money comes 
from our seniors and our children. What we are going to do is we are 
going to affirm the value of anybody that is not going to pay for the 
Social Security money that we are going to spend. Who is that? It is 
not anybody. Because we are all going to pay for it. There are no 
family values in that. $100 million to Jordan needs to go, and we 
passed a bill that paid for it by decreasing spending somewhere else. 
The Obey amendment does not address that issue.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  As usual, the gentleman has his facts wrong. Jordan is fully offset 
in the Obey amendment. There is not one dime that adds to the deficit 
under that.
  I wish that if the gentleman is going to attack my amendment, he 
would at least first understand it correctly.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Defense.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but respond to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) when she talks about the 
vote last week, in which a broad cross-section of the membership did 
address that policy by saying that they disagreed fundamentally with 
the way this whole effort has been structured by the administration and 
out of their frustration wanted to express that concern.
  Today is an entirely different debate, however. Today we are talking 
about sending a message to Milosevic by way of the House in a 
bipartisan, almost nonpartisan way, supporting funding of considerable 
amount to the troops who are in harm's way.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed to the fact that, 
by way of his amendment, he is attempting to touch on the reality that 
we have a Kosovo problem and we have a budget problem, but fails to 
discuss very clearly the fact that we also have a military crisis on 
our hands, where we are spread too thin across the world, attempting to 
preserve the foundations for freedom. And in the meantime, it is 
because of a lack of long-term policy that we find ourselves in a 
situation where we are critically low on munitions.
  In the area of readiness, for example, that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin did not really want us to discuss very much today, this 
amendment cuts by two-thirds the funding we added in the bill for 
critical, high-priority readiness items, a $1.9 billion cut. It cuts 
money for spare parts and maintenance, for military training and for 
base operations. For example, it cuts nearly $1.5 billion from spare 
parts and depot maintenance accounts, essential funding needed to keep 
our equipment available in top condition.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the problem is here. For the past 8 
years, the mission-capable rate of our front-line Air Force and Navy 
aircraft has been steadily dropping. It has gotten so bad that on any 
given day one out of every four U.S. Air Force aircraft is rated not 
mission capable. The Navy's numbers are even worse. Thirty percent of 
its aircraft are nonmission capable.
  This problem, which is growing worse, affects many aspects of our 
readiness. Pilots cannot train adequately, and parts are cannibalized 
on the front lines. It is clear that we have problems across the board 
as it relates to readiness.
  Earlier today, I touched briefly on an item that my chairman 
mentioned as well. The gentleman from Wisconsin does speak to the pay 
question. Should we provide funding in this mechanism for assistance, 
additional pay to our men and women who are in harm's way? The answer 
is, absolutely yes. But it is intriguing to me that the ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations, who in the past has talked long and 
hard about the need to cooperate with our authorizing committees, 
continues himself in this case to say, we ought to be doing the 
authorizing here.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important for our colleagues to know that the 
authorizing committees have worked hand in hand with us and have done a 
fabulous job of making sure that their important work is held intact, 
while at the same time we deliver the pay to our troops that is so 
important to their effectiveness.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the Obey 
substitute which supports our troops in Kosovo as Democrats unlike 
Republicans did in their votes last week, which gives a real pay raise 
to our men and women in uniform and which supports emergency assistance 
for Albanian refugees. But we have other real emergencies in this 
process, like the near-Depression conditions faced by farmers in the 
Midwest, like our fellow Americans in Oklahoma and Kansas and like the 
national interest the United States has spawned by the hurricane damage 
in Central America. These are real emergencies which we need to deal 
with responsibly.
  It is scandalous that 6 months after Hurricanes Georges and Mitch 
devastated the Caribbean and Central America the Republican leadership 
has failed to act. The emergency in Central America pressures are a 
national interest in preventing illegal immigration, preventing the 
spread of disease due to unhealthy conditions, preventing the

[[Page H2859]]

spread of the narcotics trade and cementing the democracies we spent 
billions to promote.
  We have failed to address this emergent national interest. For a 
party seeking to stymie illegal immigration and halt the growth of the 
narcotics trade in the Americas, their inaction has given rise to an 
increase in both. It seems to me they have shown the true depth or 
rather the utter shallowness in upholding their responsibility as well 
as the contempt for the Latino community of the United States. Their 
actions truly reflect their priority: Politics over emergencies, 
rhetoric over reconstruction.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), a member of the 
Subcommittee on Defense.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are on the verge of being forced to hang ``Sorry 
We're Closed'' signs like this on the gates of our military 
installations around the world. It is unfortunate that we are on the 
brink of having a hollow force again. Our troops often reach on the 
shelves, and there are no spare parts. The ammunition supplies are low. 
The pay is low. The health care provided is not what it should be 
anymore. Recruiting is down in the Army. In the Air Force we are losing 
pilots, a thousand pilots short last year alone.
  It is mind-boggling to me that there are Members in this body who do 
not care about our military and the future safety and security of this 
country. We must never forget how we got to this point in history. We 
have the greatest economy in the history of the world. We have the 
greatest workforce. We have the greatest technology. We have the 
greatest health care ever seen on the face of this planet. It did not 
happen just by chance. It happened because our military has preserved 
our freedom and liberty for generations through very difficult times.
  I, for one, will stand here any day and support an even higher number 
of funds for our military because they need it. Their families are 
falling apart because they have been overdeployed. They are doing 
social work in causes around the world for our Commander in Chief and 
it is wrong. I say to my colleagues, if we support this cut that is 
being proposed now by some Members, we will be forced to hang this sign 
at the gates of our military installations. If we start doing that, we 
may as well hang one on our country.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  If the gentleman is going to make the statement that there are 
Members of this House who do not care about our servicemen or the 
national security interests of this country, I think he ought to have 
courage enough to identify which Members he is talking about or else 
not say something so ridiculous on this House floor. That is the kind 
of meaningless, nasty rhetoric that discredits this entire institution; 
and the gentleman ought to take back those remarks.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a very important member of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to strongly support the base package and strongly oppose the 
Obey amendment for this reason. We did an analysis and asked the 
Department of Defense under the Clinton administration how short we 
were in basic ammunition compared not to some Republican standard, not 
to some think tank standard, but compared to the President's own two-
war requirement, how short we were in everything from cruise missiles, 
right on down to M-16 ammo. The answer is, $13.8 billion short. Even 
passing this supplemental, even passing the fiscal year 2000 budget, we 
are going to be short.
  We asked the services how short they were in terms of near-term war-
fighting capability. We did not ask contractors. We did not ask Members 
of Congress.

                              {time}  1430

  They gave us a list of $28.7 billion. That includes ammunition and 
equipment.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, ``Well, why didn't you 
spend more money on readiness? '' Well, the reason, Mr. Chairman, is 
because we lost 55 aircraft last year crashing because we have got old 
systems. We have got 40-year-old CH-46 helicopters instead of the new 
V-22. So, we have been forced to choose with this limited amount of 
money between bullets and having safe platforms for our people to fly.
  Now the gentleman said, ``Well, what have you Republicans done with 
this $27 billion that you added? '' Mr. Chairman, I think the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps gave the best answer when our chairman, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), asked him, ``Where 
would you be right now if we hadn't added the 27 billion over the last 
several years?'' The Commandant of the Marine Corps said, ``You 
wouldn't have had a 911 force, the U.S. Marine Corps. You would have 
had a 91 force.''
  So we have done good things with the money we added. This thing 
should have been a lot bigger. I would have liked to have seen a 
supplemental with $20-$25 billion in it. Every dollar of that could 
have been justified by matching the two MRC requirements against what 
we actually have.
  I commend the committee. Let us pass this thing.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman so 
that I could speak on behalf of the bill and for the Coburn and against 
the Obey amendment.
  As my colleagues know, 2 years ago, Mr. Chairman, we debated the 
balanced budget agreement on this floor. In fact, it was supported 333 
to 99. I happen to have been one of the 99 that voted against it, and 
what does that have to do with today's debate?
  Mr. Chairman, I voted ``no'' on May 20, 1997, for the same reason I 
am going to support the Coburn amendment today, an idea called fiscal 
discipline. In 1997 the House voted to increase the deficit by $24 
billion, pushing the burden to balance the budget off into the future. 
It simply pushed the spending cuts and the discipline into it the 
future. All the surpluses that we read about assume that Congress will 
find a way to support those cuts and Congress will demonstrate that 
fiscal discipline. Sometime, somewhere Congress is going to have to 
show this discipline and actually make some tough choices. I think now 
is a good time.
  Two years ago I voted to make those choices then, not later, and 
today I am calling on my colleagues to do the same today, make that 
choice today.
  Last fall President Clinton said he wanted to save Social Security 
first, and I agreed with him. I voted to put off tax relief. Last fall 
he said let us use 100 percent of Social Security for Social Security, 
and then in January in the State of the Union he said, well, no, let us 
just use 62 percent for Social Security. Then he submitted a budget 
that said, well, no, 57 percent was enough. Now the President is coming 
here asking for billions of dollars for Kosovo, all of it coming from 
Social Security.
  We need to exercise fiscal discipline, and we need to support our men 
and women, too, who are risking their lives in the Balkans. I do not 
support the President's decision to go to war. I think it is a terrible 
mistake. But I do support the men and women who are over there 
fighting.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) does not understand that it 
is not just the men and women who fighting in the Balkans that are at 
risk. Our whole national security is at risk. The President has 
overcommitted our military. We have 265,000 troops in 135 countries. 
Since the Gulf War we have shrunk our military by 40 percent. Since 
1990 we have had 33 troop deployments; there were 10 in the 49 years 
that preceded that. Under the War Powers Act, President Clinton has 
submitted 46 reports, more than twice as many as Ford, Carter, Reagan 
and Bush submitted combined, and 90 percent of the President's line 
item vetoes were for military needs.
  To conduct this war the President has diverted planes from Iraq. He 
has

[[Page H2860]]

called up 25,000 reservists. We are short pilots, we are short seamen 
and women, we are short ammunition, we are short parts, we are short 
training, and all the while we are asking our men and women to do more 
and take more risk.
  We have got to make a tough vote today. We got to choose, we got to 
pick priorities. Spending billions of dollars in the Balkans going to 
war is not my priority, but the President made that decision for us. I 
would rather use that money for Social Security, and Medicare, and 
education, and national parks and health care, and to suggest to the 
American people that we can do both is wrong. But to hide from the 
tough choice is wrong, too.
  To all my colleagues on the left who came to this floor last fall 
saying save Social Security first, they need to stand up and support 
the Coburn amendment, and all those on our side who said that they 
wanted to balance the budget and establish fiscal discipline for our 
kids and our grandkids, they need to support the Coburn amendment. Do 
the right thing and support the Coburn amendment, but in any event 
oppose the Obey amendment and support our men and women in Kosovo.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Forbes) a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) for yielding this time to me, and I rise in reluctant opposition 
to the Obey amendment and remind my colleagues that this House has 
dealt with the supplemental dealing with natural disasters, and 
Congress in a bipartisan way has never ever neglected its 
responsibilities to meet those needs, and we will again.
  However, today is about repairing damage that has been done to our 
national security, and I talk specifically about the lack of funding, 
the reduction in funding over the last several years, and we are now, 
as has been alluded to already, involved in more places in the globe 
than ever before, and the men and women in uniform need to know that 
the United States Congress is behind them.
  This package is a good package as reported out by the House Committee 
on Appropriations, and I would urge my colleagues to stand behind it. 
This measure would replenish depleted stocks of munitions and spare 
parts, begin needed military construction projects, boost military pay 
and retirement benefits for a military that is stretched beyond reason, 
and provide humanitarian aid.
  It is a good bill, Mr. Chairman, and we should pass this bill and 
send it to the President.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee 
on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Defense.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
is a very close friend of mine, and I know he has the right heart, but 
I want to answer the gentleman when he said:
  ``Identify those Members that have not supported defense.''
  Mr. Chairman, I want, and let me finish, I want him to read, Mr. 
Chairman. Look on the web page, look at www.dsausa.org. That stands 
for: Democrat Socialists of America. They want government health 
control, they want government control of private property, government 
control of education, the highest progressive tax ever, and they want 
to cut defense by 50 percent.
  There is 58 of them on that side, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to close, I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  With all due respect to the previous speaker, what I did was ask the 
gentleman who spoke earlier to identify which Members of the House, in 
his words, ``did not care about our troops and did not care about the 
national security interests of this country.'' That is what I, and, no, 
I will not yield to the gentleman. He has not shown courtesy to me, and 
I will not show it to him.
  Mr. Chairman, I am simply not going to tolerate that kind of ad 
hominem attack on Members. It is a disservice to this House to attack 
Members with innuendo as the gentleman just did.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our distinguished Minority Leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this debate today should not be about 
politics; it should be about people. The substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) I believe is a better way to go 
about dealing with the problems that we face. We need to support the 
troops in the field.
  However my colleagues feel about the action that is taking place, I 
think by now we have all come to the conclusion that we got our young 
people out there. We need to support them. The President asked us for 
$6 million to support our young men and women in the field. The pay, 
which the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) puts into his alternative 
is obviously needed and sends a strong message to our young people that 
we intend to try to retain people in the service and get people that we 
are trying to recruit.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that makes sense, and that is why he put it in 
the bill.
  There are a lot of other needs in the military. I do not think the 
place to address those needs is in this bill. I do not deny that those 
needs ought to be looked at. Many of them ought to be fulfilled. I 
simply believe that in an emergency bill that we are trying to get 
through here in a expeditious manner, it does not do well to raise a 
lot of issues that are properly raised in the appropriation process. So 
I think the Obey amendment deals with the military needs that we have 
got right now in Kosovo in the best way.
  But further than that, what is also important about the Obey 
amendment is that it deals with emergencies that we have already spoken 
to on this floor that we need to include in this legislation. We have 
thousands of people in Central America who are out of their homes, who 
are migrating northward, trying to come to Mexico, trying to come to 
the United States, because we have been here 79 days and we have not 
dealt with the emergency in Central America. And we have been here 79 
days, and we have not dealt with the emergency in middle America with 
our farmers in agriculture. The Obey amendment, the Obey substitute, 
deals not only in the most sensible way with Kosovo, he also deals with 
middle America and agriculture and deals with Central America and 
Hurricane Mitch and the crisis that is on there.
  If my colleagues are thinking about people both here in the United 
States and in other places in the world that need our support, and if 
my colleagues are thinking about our young people out prosecuting this 
air war in Kosovo, vote for the Obey amendment. It is more sensible, it 
is more intelligent, and it better meets the problems that we, as a 
people, face today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  I was interested in listening to the minority leader's statement 
about agriculture, and I want to remind the Members that when we were 
developing the first supplemental that we dealt with, when we received 
that initial supplemental request from the White House there was 
nothing in it about agriculture. It was an afterthought. The President 
afterwards requested that. So we finally got it in our first bill, and 
it will come to conference basically at the same time that this bill 
goes to conference, and we will all have a chance to vote on it again.
  I would also remind the minority leader that the pay that he is 
talking about that he supports, and I am happy to have his support, the 
pay is in the committee bill to pay for the men and women who wear the 
uniform of our country. It is in the committee bill, increased pay as 
well as the retirement package.
  But in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say this:
  We are in Kosovo deeper than most of us thought we were, and unless 
Milosevic has a change of heart, we are

[[Page H2861]]

going to get in deeper, and it is going to be longer and more 
expensive.
  We are stretching ourselves too thin. We were planning for two major 
regional conflicts, one in the Korean theater, one in Southwest Asia. 
We have taken assets from the Korean theater, an aircraft carrier, U-2 
spy planes, F-15 fighter airplanes, a Marine Corps pre-positioned ship, 
all moving out of that area of responsibility to service the Kosovo 
activity. We have taken EA6Bs out of the no-fly zones over northern 
Iraq and southern Iraq. We are stretched too thin.
  General Hawley made that case very strongly, and I commend him for 
his courage because he is still an active duty general, that the Air 
Force is stretched too thin. So is the Army. So is the Navy. So is the 
Marine Corps. We have got to do something about it, and there should be 
no politics in this debate when we talk about accomplishing the mission 
and giving our soldiers some way to protect themselves while they do 
it.
  Let us defeat the Obey amendment, let us defeat the Coburn amendment, 
and let us move on to get this bill to conference so that we can get it 
back to our colleagues here within the next week or 10 days.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, today, I voted in support of our 
uniformed men and women in Yugoslavia by voting in support of the 
President's emergency request for Kosovo.
  I voted in support of increasing by 4.4% the pay of our military 
personnel and readjusting pension benefits.
  I voted in support of increased humanitarian aid for the refugees 
from Kosovo in the Balkans region.
  I also voted in support of funding for the replenishment of military 
equipment and supplies, as well as military construction, required for 
the NATO operations in the Balkan region.
  In addition, I voted again to move forward the emergency disaster 
relief for American farm families, and the victims of Hurricane Mitch 
and Hurricane Georges in Central America and the Caribbean--a package 
of emergency disaster relief that the President requested 80 days ago.
  This is what I support and what is contained in the amendment to H.R. 
1664 offered by Representative David Obey (D-WI) for which I voted 
earlier today.
  I cannot, however, in good conscience, vote for final passage of H.R. 
1664, the Kosovo and Southwest Asia Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, because it is a public and political lie.
  The majority's defense cookie jar includes hundreds of millions of 
dollars for defense items that were going to be considered part of the 
FY2000 Department of Defense authorizations and appropriations bill--
and quite frankly, they would have been approved at that time as is 
proper. They are not emergency items in any sense of the word, and 
funds from the Social Security surplus should not be spent in FY 1999 
to purchase them.
  In addition, the bill contains $346 million for items not even in the 
Pentagon's five-year plan, despite the Republican claim that the money 
is for pressing defense needs.
  The bill also includes $215 million for military construction items 
that neither the President nor the Pentagon requested.
  This legislation is a fiscal farce. One of the main reasons why 
military readiness, equipment and supplies need to be replenished is 
that the Republican Congress has added $23 billion to the Pentagon's 
budget requests between 1995 and 1998, but only 10% of those funds went 
to Operations and Maintenance. The remaining 90% went to pork-barrel 
procurement projects that the Pentagon neither requested nor wanted.
  By moving items that would normally have been funded in the 
Pentagon's FY2000 appropriations bill, the Republican majority has 
opened up over $2 billion in the FY2000 defense budget.
  Will the Republicans shift these funds to allow for greater education 
spending FY2000? I think not.
  Will the Republicans shift these funds to allow for prescription drug 
coverage under Medicare in FY2000? I think not.
  The Republican majority will fill up the FY2000 defense budget with 
more pork barrel projects with the $2 billion they have just given 
themselves by shoving non-emergency items into the FY99 emergency 
spending bill.
  I simply cannot support such a lack of fiscal accountability, nor can 
I support such a dishonest and insulting budget process.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey 
substitute because it is the responsible thing to do. The substitute 
keeps our promise towards peace in Kosovo, $175 million for emergency 
food assistance, America's military personnel by providing the $1.9 
billion pay raise, U.S. farmers that have been hurt by falling crop 
prices, the new King of Jordan, King Abdullah, the people that were 
affected by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges in the Caribbean and Central 
America last fall and eliminates much of the unrequested funding.
  Mr. Chairman, this substitute keeps the promise of where our 
priorities ought to be in the Supplemental and is fiscally responsible.
  The Appropriations Committee-reported bill provides a total of $12.9 
billion--more than double the Administration's request. These increases 
beyond the request contain spending for items that are neither 
connected to the Kosovo operations nor emergencies as defined by the 
Budget Act. Moreover, much of the $1 billion for military construction 
above the request are for proposals that the Administration says may 
not begin construction for several years and many of which are not even 
included in the long range plan of the Defense Department. Maybe 
someone could tell me why my colleagues across the aisle who repeatedly 
criticize members of my party for so-called spending, spending, 
spending . . . the same members who voted against the air war in 
Yugoslavia . . . why they would vote for this massive increase in the 
defense budget.
  Thus, I strongly support the Obey substitute and I urge my colleagues 
to do the right thing, the responsible thing--vote for the Obey 
amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
amendment. The alternative presented here today provides for the full 
request of the President for Kosovo, provides for a real pay raise for 
our troops, provides high priority operation and maintenance funding 
for DOD, increases amounts for emergency food assistance for Kosovo, 
and most significantly, provides the funds for the Central American 
disaster and for American farmers without offsets.
  It is now over six months since Hurricane Mitch struck Central 
America, and this Congress has yet to provide any of the reconstruction 
assistance that is vitally needed to help our neighbors to the South. 
While the House and Senate have passed bills providing this assistance 
and everyone involved espouses their good intentions, no funding has 
been made available. This amendment adds the full $956 million for the 
Central American disaster as an emergency. The Kosovo bill contains 
about $600 million to address the humanitarian needs of the Kosovar 
refugees, and it does so without offsets. This same standard should be 
applied to emergency funds for Central American. Both of these events 
are true emergencies and should be funded as such.
  I want to remind members that the planting season has begun in 
Central America and many of the 100,000 small farmers wiped out by the 
Hurricane are without credit, seeds or the other inputs necessary to 
plant their crops. Without a significant and immediate input of 
agricultural assistance we will undoubtedly face food shortages again 
soon in Central America.
  No funding is in place to begin the reconstruction of the 3,000 miles 
of rural roads or the 300 bridges destroyed by the Hurricane. Over 
200,000 school children continue to attend classes in temporary open-
air facilities. It is time to put aside our differences and get this 
badly needed assistance moving.
  The amendment also provides $100 million in assistance to Jordan as 
requested. The Obey amendment does offset this nonemergency spending. 
Finally the Obey amendment provides $175 million in food assistance for 
Kosovo. Unfortunately the Administration did not request any additional 
funding to meet needs in Kosovo. With over 600,000 refugees now in 
camps and another 800,000 to 900,000 people displaced within Kosovo, it 
is now clear that the need for food assistance has grown, and that the 
existing resources of the Emergency feeding programs will not meet the 
needs. In addition it appears that ongoing food programs for Indonesia, 
Yemen, Ethiopia, and Rwanda have been cut back to meet needs in Kosovo. 
The $175 million for additional PL 480 in the amendment will enable 
feeding programs to continue all over the world and emerging needs to 
be met in Kosovo.
  The assumptions used by the Administration did not take into account 
refugee needs beyond September 30th of this year. There are no funds in 
this bill to move refugees back into Kosovo. There are no funds in this 
bill to winterize refugee camps, if that becomes necessary. In short 
there is very little wiggle room with these humanitarian accounts to 
respond to changing circumstances on the ground. This $175 million in 
additional food assistance will ensure that all refugees will be fed 
wherever they end up, and it will ensure that cuts are not made to 
other vital feeding programs.
  Support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the supplemental bill before you and in support of the 
Obey substitute.

[[Page H2862]]

  As you all know, my father, along with our colleague Rod Blagojevich 
and a group of ministers and religious leaders, met with President 
Milosevic and other Serbian leaders in Yugoslavia last week.
  As a result of that trip and other factors, I have come to firmly 
believe that the United States and other NATO leaders should pause for 
peace and make another attempt at a diplomatic solution to the conflict 
in Kosovo.
  The release of the American POWs provides an opening that the U.S. 
and our allies should take advantage of.
  I do not support continuing the bombing at this time, but the Obey 
substitute presents an opportunity to support our humanitarian efforts 
in Albania and Macedonia, our continued military presence in the 
Balkans, and disaster relief to Latin America.
  Another point I want to make today is that it is pure hypocrisy to 
classify military construction projects unrelated to the event in 
Kosovo as emergency funding, while maintaining the position that 
funding to assist in relieving the devastation in South and Central 
America be offset.
  This effort to sneak extra funding into the defense budget, outside 
of the self-imposed budget caps, by including it in the Supplemental is 
underhanded and should not be allowed to continue.
  I would love the opportunity to provide similar amounts of 
``emergency funding'' for education, health care, housing and other 
vital domestic programs.
  At the very least, the humanitarian refugee crisis in Albania and 
Macedonia as well as the crisis in Latin America resulting from 
Hurricane Mitch should be classified as an emergency, and they are in 
the Obey substitute.
  The Obey substitute amendment correctly defines an emergency as an 
emergency and I urge its support.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute and to applaud my colleague David Obey for 
bringing it.
  This is an emergency appropriation, and it must be treated as such. 
We should not be engaging in a misguided effort by adding on other non-
emergency measures that should more properly be considered within the 
context of the annual appropriations process.
  In this substitute, we would provide the President's request and 
support our family members who are in harms way in Kosovo, provide 
humanitarian assistance to the refugees from terrible atrocities in 
their homeland, and provide the important and deserved pay raises to 
our armed forces that we tried but couldn't get included last year.
  Mr. Speaker, three months ago we passed a badly needed supplemental 
bill to provide emergency funding to our friends in Central America who 
suffered a terrible natural disaster, and for our own farmers. We need 
to get this done also, and this amendment would include these long 
overdue funds--again relieving suffering in this hemisphere.
  As Chair of the Health Braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus, 
I have another interest in the previously passed supplemental bill, 
because it addresses human suffering here at home by including a 
technical amendment that would allow the release of funds that were 
authorized but never appropriated for the Office of Minority Health to 
address HIV/IDS in communities of color.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

                              {time}  1445

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 159, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn); amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Coburn

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 101, 
noes 322, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                               AYES--101

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Boehner
     Burr
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     LaHood
     Largent
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Smith (MI)
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Toomey
     Walden
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)

                               NOES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns

[[Page H2863]]


     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baker
     Berman
     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     Green (TX)
     Kuykendall
     McNulty
     Slaughter
     Tiahrt
     Wynn

                              {time}  1506

  Messrs. McKEON, POMEROY, and DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COBLE, EHLERS, FOLEY, COOKSEY, WATTS of Oklahoma, HUTCHINSON, 
and BACHUS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to cast a vote on the Coburn 
amendment to H.R. 1664 due to a family emergency. However, had I been 
present I would have voted ``no.''


                announcement by the chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
159, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be 
taken on the amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 260, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 118]

                               AYES--164

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

                               NOES--260

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berman
     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     Green (TX)
     Kuykendall
     McNulty
     Slaughter
     Tiahrt
     Wynn

                              {time}  1517

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 118, except for my 
daughter's wedding I would have been present. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to cast a vote on the Obey 
amendment to H.R. 1664 due to a family emergency. However, had I been 
present I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, namely:

                               CHAPTER 1

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    diplomatic and consular programs

       Notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, an additional amount for 
     ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'', $17,071,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


           security and maintenance of united states missions

       Notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, an additional amount for ``Security 
     and Maintenance of United States Missions'', $50,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $45,500,000 shall 
     be available only to the extent that an official budget 
     request for a specific dollar amount that includes the 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in

[[Page H2864]]

     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.


           emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service

       Notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, an additional amount for 
     ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service'', 
     $2,929,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $500,000 shall be transferred to the Peace Corps and $450,000 
     shall be transferred to the U.S. Information Agency, for 
     evacuation and related costs: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 2

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $2,920,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $7,660,000: Provided, That such amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $1,586,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $4,303,000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Contingency 
     Operations Transfer Fund'', $5,219,100,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount 
     made available under this heading is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That of 
     such amount, $1,311,800,000 shall be available only to the 
     extent that the President transmits to the Congress an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount that (1) 
     specifies items which meet a critical readiness or 
     sustainability need, to include replacement of expended 
     munitions to maintain adequate inventories for future 
     operations, and (2) includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     transfer these funds only to military personnel accounts; 
     operation and maintenance accounts, including Overseas 
     Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement accounts; 
     research, development, test and evaluation accounts; military 
     construction; the Defense Health Program appropriation; the 
     National Defense Sealift Fund; and working capital fund 
     accounts: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall 
     be merged with and shall be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period, as the appropriation to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided under this heading is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided further, That such funds may be used to execute 
     projects or programs that were deferred in order to carry out 
     military operations in and around Kosovo and in Southwest 
     Asia, including efforts associated with the displaced Kosovar 
     population: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a series of four amendments, three I understand 
are in order, but this one has been ruled not to be in order, and I 
will not challenge that ruling.
  The intention of this amendment was to take in this section where it 
says $5,219,100,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund 
and take $3,300,000,000 of that and move it to the four readiness 
accounts that come up under procurement, to put $825 million under 
weapons procurement for the Navy, $825 million under aircraft 
procurement for the Air Force, $825 million under missile procurement 
for the Air Force, and $825 million for ammunition procurement for the 
Air Force.
  The problem apparently with this is that, once we strike in one 
section, according to our relatively recently adopted rule in the 
budget agreement, when we strike it from one section, we cannot put it 
in another section. But I wanted to illustrate several points with this 
amendment, not that it likely would have passed anyway.
  The way the bill is written, it is hard to tell that, in fact, this 
bill forward funds the war in Kosovo because it is not specified 
particularly in the bill. It says, Overseas Contingency Operations 
Transfer Fund. However, in the CRS breakout, the $3.3 billion that the 
President requested for military operations is still in the bill; the 
$335 million for the military portion of the Kosovo refugee operations 
is still in the bill; the $257.8 million for Southwest Asia is still in 
the bill. The only difference from the President's request in this 
section is the readiness and munitions contingency reserve.
  If anybody has a doubt that the $3.3 billion is in this $5.29 
billion, the question that comes is, why on line 5 on page 5 does it 
say $1,311,800,000? That happens to be the difference of the amount 
directly going to Kosovo in Southwest Asia operations from the 
Readiness and Munitions Contingency Fund.
  My goal was to give those Members who favor strengthening our 
military and supporting the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in their efforts to try to recoup 
some of what we have lost in our military effort, in our readiness, in 
our preparedness, in our munitions, in our defense system, rather than 
blowing it up in Kosovo.
  We, in fact, have $3.3 billion here that could be used for our 
readiness. In fact, we have heard from the Air Force that they are $18 
billion short, not the $40 million in aircraft procurement, $178 
million in missile procurement, and $35 million in ammunition. We have 
heard that the Navy is $3.8 billion short, rather than $431 million.
  I wish in this bill I would have been able to redirect the misguided 
efforts in the Balkans and put that into military procurement. Because 
many of us who have grave reservations about this bill and many of us 
who will oppose this bill do not oppose the much-worthy efforts of the 
chairman to address these terrible declines in our military capacity.
  I also want to address this point, and I will refer to this several 
times this afternoon. I was very concerned about some language in the 
earlier amendments that were debated. I heard those of us who oppose 
this war and oppose this funding for forward funding the war and 
possibly escalating this war as monies are transferred, as several of 
my future amendments will address, are putting our children in harm's 
way. We have heard we cannot abandon our own troops. We have heard that 
nothing could be worse than to walk away. We have heard that it is 
sending the wrong signal and that we somehow, at least an implication, 
that we are not patriotic.
  I think an apology, although it was not that direct, an apology is in 
order not only to the Members of Congress who have concerns and believe 
we should stand down but also to our national American Legion which 
yesterday, as their leader said, ``The Legion's National Executive 
Committee unanimously adopted a resolution calling for all U.S. 
soldiers, pilots and support staff to be removed from the region of the 
Balkans.''
  The resolution says, ``The U.S.-led NATO attacks against Serbia'', 
and this is the American Legion, veterans all over in America are, in 
effect, saying stand down, ``could only lead to troops being killed, 
wounded and captured without advancing any clear purpose, mission or 
objective.''
  More particular, here are the whereas clauses: ``The President has 
committed the Armed Forces of the United States in a joint operation 
with NATO to engage in hostilities in the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia without clearly defining America's vital national interests. 
Whereas, neither the President

[[Page H2865]]

nor the Congress have defined America's objectives in what has become 
an open-ended conflict characterized by an ill-defined progressive 
escalation.''
  Mr. Chairman, I will cover the rest of this later, but, clearly, 
there are more than just a few Members of Congress.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. It is amendment No. 
10.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 5, line 5, strike ``of such amount $1,311,800,000'' 
     and insert ``such amount''.

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is in order because it does 
not move the money but addresses the same point.
  If I can explain the technical part of this amendment again so people 
understand exactly what we are doing here. In the operation and 
maintenance account it says, Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer 
Fund of $5,219,100,000 is available to be expended. In that, according 
to the CRS breakout, and I would say evidence illustrates this later in 
the bill, there is nothing in this bill that says we are giving the 
President his $3.3 billion to forward fund this war. But, in fact, if 
we break out the $5.219, we will find that we are forward funding the 
military operations, we are funding the refugee operations, we are 
funding the Southwest Asia.
  On page 5 of the bill, where it says $1,311,800,000, that is the 
House appropriations figure on readiness and munitions contingency 
reserve in munitions. Now, in an effort to keep the $3.3 billion from 
bracket creep, they have included in that, as a ``provided further'' on 
page 5 of the bill, that puts two restrictions on the $1.3 billion. It 
specifies items which meet a critical readiness or sustainability need, 
to include replacement of expended munitions to maintain adequate 
inventories for future operations; and, two, includes designation of 
the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. That is very 
commendable.
  My amendment is very simple. It takes the entire $5.2 billion and 
says, put those two conditions on it. Make sure that they meet a 
critical readiness or sustainability need and includes a designation of 
the entire amount.

                              {time}  1530

  I do not think that this amendment is particularly controversial 
unless, in fact, we are trying to avoid the obvious, which is, in fact, 
we are forward funding this war, and that we do not want something 
coming to Congress that makes us specify or vote on the critical 
readiness needs.
  This would not cut off any funds. This is merely an amendment that 
does what the bill already does but says that the money for Kosovo 
should be subjected to the same rules as the money for readiness and 
munition, and that is, the President should have to defend it, that he 
is not hurting our readiness and sustainability and in fact that it is 
critical and it is an emergency.
  Now, if I can finish in the remaining time I have, the American 
Legion statement of why they believe we should currently withdraw all 
soldiers, pilots, and support staff from the Balkans, they said:
  ``Whereas, the President nor the Congress have defined America's 
objectives in what has become an open-ended conflict characterized by 
an ill-defined progressive escalation; and,
  ``Whereas, it is obvious that an ill-planned and massive commitment 
of U.S. resources could only lead to troops being killed, wounded or 
captured without advancing any clear purpose, mission or objective; 
and,
  ``Whereas, the American people rightfully support the ending of 
crimes and abuses by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the 
extending of humanitarian relief to the suffering people of the region; 
and,
  ``Whereas, America should not commit resources to the prosecution of 
hostilities,'' which, in fact, this bill does, ``in the absence of 
clearly defined objectives agreed upon by the U.S. Congress in 
accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States.''
  So for those of us who have a concern about this forward funding of 
the war, please do not refer to us as disarming our military, or they 
would have the same statement about the veterans of the American Legion 
who said that they do not believe that we should also forward fund and 
continue to fund this war, and in fact are calling for the withdrawal 
of the troops, the pilots and support staff in the Balkans.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise with great hesitation 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, it is with great hesitation 
that I oppose my colleague's amendment for I know that his interest and 
concern are sincere. My concern is that I believe as we go forward with 
this measure we want to be very careful about the messages that we are 
sending from this well, that might be misinterpreted by Mr. Milosevic 
and his supporters.
  This amendment does not do what the sponsor alleges, in my view. 
Indeed, this amendment literally does nothing except perhaps create 
more bureaucracy.
  Let me explain. The President has submitted a budget regarding this 
war. As he has outlined his projections, I have a number of 
reservations that we have attempted to deal with as we have gone 
forward with this legislation. But, indeed, we have tried to be 
careful, to make sure that there is not misinterpretation of our 
intent.
  This amendment supposedly would take some $5.2 billion in the bill 
that we provided to pay for the cost of the Kosovo operation and apply 
it to other unspecified military readiness and munitions needs. But a 
close reading of the amendment reveals that all it does is require that 
before the $5.2 billion can be spent, the President must submit a 
budget request specifying a critical readiness or sustainability need, 
to include replacement of expended munitions.
  Frankly, during the time that we are carrying forward a war, we do 
not need to have a day-in and day-out exchange with the administration, 
but rather continue the oversight that the committee feels is its 
responsibility.
  The amendment does not say money cannot be spent on readiness needs 
or munitions related to Kosovo. It simply requires the President to 
submit a budget request for readiness needs for munitions, period. And 
as this is construed under the Budget Act, all he has to do is submit 
the request and the money is released.
  And what would the President do? He would ask that these funds be 
applied to Kosovo because the drain on dollars and munitions from this 
operation represents the most immediate readiness need that the 
Pentagon has.
  So what does the amendment do? Really it does nothing but perhaps 
send a message that we do not need to send. In a fundamental way, it 
does nothing except force the President to send up a budget request 
again, one that he has already asked for. If it does not restrict him 
in any fashion whatsoever, then what are we doing it for?
  Indeed, if anything, this amendment is harmful, as it simply creates 
a requirement for more paperwork which would potentially delay the 
release of monies that DOD needs, at the very time we want to be 
sending a message that we support our men and women who are in harm's 
way overseas.
  Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the main purpose of this amendment was to 
highlight the fact that, in fact, there was a differential in the first 
section that had $3.3 billion. We are going to have a number of 
recorded votes later that will enable us who are concerned to restrict 
that funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the request of 
the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) is withdrawn.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the House, and I will not use 
the full 5 minutes. There is a group of us that wanted to speak 
earlier, but because of the way the rule was constructed we were unable 
to obtain time. So we have

[[Page H2866]]

chosen to use this procedure to make our statements.
  There is also a group of us in this House who want to be productive 
and not engage in partisan and political fights on this floor even on 
ordinary issues, but especially not on emergency supplemental 
appropriations issues where so many millions of lives are at stake. 
Unfortunately, a partisan political battle is what this process has 
turned into today.
  This group of Members who feel this way is also reminded that the 
Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), is the 
Speaker of the whole House, not just the minority Members. We are also 
reminded that the Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief of the 
whole Nation, not just of the members of his party.
  The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), is a person I have a great deal of 
admiration and respect for. I know he is operating under some very, 
very difficult circumstances beyond his control, created within his own 
conference and by his own leadership.
  But this has turned into a very partisan politicized battle over 
three emergency disasters. Number one, our farm economy; number two, 
Hurricane Mitch relief; and thirdly, our involvement in NATO's efforts 
in Kosovo.
  This is evidenced by the fact that last week the majority voted not 
to support the air strikes in Kosovo and against allowing the President 
to use any ground elements. Then today we hear the same Members who 
will vote to double the President's request for funds to execute the 
NATO actions in Kosovo.
  How can my colleagues in good conscience say they do not support the 
action but they want to double the funds available to take those 
actions? The only answer is that partisan politics and political 
considerations are driving this vote.
  These three emergencies, in the meantime, are tightening the noose 
for millions of people. Our farmers are languishing under a national 
agricultural policy adopted by Republican Congress in 1996 that has 
been a complete failure. My farmers call it the ``Freedom to Fail'' 
policy. Planting dates have come and gone for most parts of our farm 
country, and still this Congress, under the majority's leadership, 
cannot come to grips with a simple emergency package which provides 
credit for our farmers to put their crops in the field for 1999.
  Hurricane Mitch happened over 6 months ago. And this Congress, under 
the present leadership, cannot deliver a package to the President for 
his signature in spite of the fact that most everybody agrees we 
should.
  And lastly, on the defense issue, many Members of this body today 
have blamed President Clinton for cutting back the military. I have in 
my possession a CRS report which shows that the fiscal year 1999 
request for defense from the President was $270.9 billion, and this 
House passed and sent to the President for his signature a bill which 
contained $270.4 billion, $500 million short of what President Clinton 
requested.
  I would like to remind all Americans that it is the responsibility of 
this House, this Congress, to pass the appropriations bill. And I am 
sure that most Members who will vote for the supplemental package today 
voted for the lower than requested defense appropriations bill last 
year.
  Do not be hypocritical. Do not play partisan political games with the 
millions of lives affected by the passage of these supplemental 
appropriations bills.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:
       ``In addition to the funds made available in this bill, the 
     sum of $11,300,000 shall be available for tornado related 
     damage at Tinker Air Force base.''

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) reserves a point 
of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have been working with the chairman. I do 
not believe it is going to be necessary to offer this amendment for a 
vote, but I do think it is important that it be presented.
  Everyone in the Nation, of course, is aware of what has happened in 
Oklahoma City this week with the tornado that has left thousands of 
people homeless and a number of people dead and a great amount of 
devastation. We are appreciative of the assistance and the care and the 
prayers and the concerns of people all over the country.
  This particular amendment is only dealing with one small portion of 
this particular disaster. I offer this amendment not only on my own 
behalf but also on behalf of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. J.C. 
Watts) in whose district most of the devastating damage has occurred.
  Mr. Chairman, part of the damage done by the tornado was to Tinker 
Air Force Base, one of our premier Air Force installations. In fact, 
for those who have seen on television the images of hundreds of homes 
devastated, leveled to the ground, what they may not be aware is that 
happened immediately across the street, across Sooner Road from the 
western edge of Tinker Air Force Base.
  In fact, as terrible as it was, it could have been worse had that 
tornado gone through Tinker as it was headed to do. At the last moment, 
when it came to Sooner Road that tornado veered to the north rather 
than heading across the air force base.
  We have some $11 million in damage to different housing facilities, 
dormitories and barracks on the base that is addressed by this 
amendment. We were very fortunate, however, that the tornado did not 
proceed to go across Tinker. Because there were still on the apron at 
Tinker, where they could not get them out of the path of the tornado, 
half a dozen of our AWACS aircraft, 10 of our tankers, two of our B-
52's, two of our B-1's, about $3 billion of premier aircraft that were 
in the path of the tornado until it took that twist. Nevertheless, a 
number of people on base lost their housing.
  This amendment is to specify that $11 million from this emergency 
supplemental appropriations should be used to restore that damaged 
housing at Tinker. We have several of those units that were damaged, a 
couple of hundred people on the base that were dislocated by the damage 
that are currently being housed elsewhere.
  Some of the buildings have already been condemned by the civil 
engineer on base, the base's civil engineering. Some may be repairable. 
Some may have to be replaced.
  The preliminary estimates which we have received from Tinker are that 
the repairs will be some $11,280,000. That figure, of course, may 
change. But I think it is necessary, when we want to make sure that we 
have the emergency response to the military needs, that we had an 
unforeseen disaster that affected Tinker on top of the, frankly, even 
worse disaster that afflicted so many people in Oklahoma.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I do offer this amendment on behalf of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and on behalf of myself. And at the 
proper time, I would certainly wish to yield to the chairman of the 
full committee for a colloquy.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the comments of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma are well-taken. Certainly the committee has always 
responded rapidly to damage done by natural disasters to any of our 
military facilities.
  However, a point of order does lie against his amendment at this 
point. And I would just say to the gentleman that there are other 
opportunities to address this. We can address it in the conference. 
There is the regular appropriations bill. I understand the urgency 
involved here, but I must make the

[[Page H2867]]

point of order against the amendment. The gentleman may withdraw it if 
he would like. But he has my assurances that we will deal with this 
issue very, very expeditiously.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I think the concerns, as the chairman well 
knows, are that the people of Oklahoma and Tinker want to make sure 
that we address this on an emergency basis; and I know he has provided 
assurances that we are going to address this in an expedited and timely 
fashion, most likely within the conference report of this bill.

                              {time}  1545

  I do understand, of course, because of the timing of this, it 
presents several parliamentary problems to try to bring it up at this 
stage. I appreciate that. With those assurances from the gentleman that 
this will be addressed in conference and otherwise, I would, Mr. 
Chairman, withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', 
     $431,100,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000: Provided, That such amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $40,000,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $178,200,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Air Force'', $35,000,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operational Rapid Response Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       In addition to the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act and the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262), $400,000,000, 
     to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2000, 
     is hereby made available only for the accelerated acquisition 
     and deployment of military technologies and systems needed 
     for the conduct of Operation Allied Force, or to provide 
     accelerated acquisition and deployment of military 
     technologies and systems as substitute or replacement systems 
     for other U.S. regional commands which have had assets 
     diverted as a result of Operation Allied Force: Provided, 
     That funds under this heading may only be obligated in 
     response to a specific request from a U.S. regional command 
     and upon approval of the Secretary of Defense, or his 
     designate: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall provide written notification to the congressional 
     defense committees prior to the transfer of any amount in 
     excess of $10,000,000 to a specific program or project: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer 
     funds made available under this heading only to operation and 
     maintenance accounts, procurement accounts, and research, 
     development, test and evaluation accounts: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided under this section shall 
     be in addition to the transfer authority provided to the 
     Department of Defense in this Act or any other Act: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount made available in this 
     section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $400,000,000, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 201. Section 8005 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262), is amended by 
     striking out ``$1,650,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$2,450,000,000''.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 printed in the Congressional Record 
     offered by Mr. Souder:
       In chapter 2, strike section 201 (relating to additional 
     transfer authority).

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this will be one of the most critical votes 
on this bill. We are faced with a difficult decision because we have 
been given a difficult decision in Congress.
  Those of us who favor strengthening our military, making sure that 
they get some of the funds replaced that we have been trying to replace 
for a number of years and rebuild it as we have seen it weakened, as we 
hear stories of our soldiers in harm's way, who have not fired live 
ammunition, who are being asked often to take weapons into combat in 
ways that they were not intended to come into combat. We are running 
out of missiles. We are very concerned about that.
  But at the same time we see this as well as a pay raise for our Armed 
Forces being combined with an effort not only to fund the war of what 
has been already spent but to forward fund the war. As we established 
earlier in the first section of the bill, $3.3 billion of that forward 
funds the war.
  We have in this section, 201, a very interesting little section. It 
says, ``Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
1999, Public Law 105-262, is amended by striking out $1,650,000,000 and 
inserting in lieu thereof $2,450,000,000.'' What exactly does that 
mean?
  Last week, this Congress sent a very clear message. We believed that 
the ground war should not occur and that the air war on a tie vote 
should not go ahead. Is our message this week, ``Never mind''?
  Under current law, the Defense Department has authority to transfer 
up to $1.65 billion from the specific purposes for which Congress 
appropriated the money to other uses, including the conduct of the war 
in Yugoslavia which Congress has otherwise refused to approve. To me, 
it is an outrage that the President should be able to take money 
specifically appropriated for other purposes and use it for a war that 
is not supported by a majority of Congress.
  It is my understanding that the Defense Department is preparing to 
submit a large reprogramming request to cover its expenses so far to 
conduct the war. Including that request, the Pentagon will have already 
used $1.4 billion of its $1.65 billion in reprogramming authority. This 
would leave them with only about $250 million in transfer authority. 
With war costs as much as $40 million a day, this theoretically at 
least means that there is only enough money left to conduct the war for 
another week without specific congressional action. In other words, 
this clause, in addition to the $3.3 billion, allows other funds to be 
reprogrammed to escalate and to continue this war.
  Many of us have a concern that while we say we are doing long-term 
buildup and while we say we are preparing readiness, in fact in this 
bill we potentially could even fund a ground war. It is clauses like 
this that give us grave concern. I understand that they have to apply 
for reprogramming requests, but in fact evidence shows that about $1.4 
billion has already been spent in reprogramming requests without the 
approval of this Congress.
  Now, for those who say that those of us who, in effect, say stand 
down and negotiate, in fact last week's vote, we were told, boy, that 
could lead to these terrible catastrophes. In fact, what it appears to 
have led to, in addition to Reverend Jackson going over and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) in a delegation working with

[[Page H2868]]

the Russians, it appears to have led to the negotiations that should 
have been occurring before that.
  But when we look at this, for those who say it is wrong for us to say 
stand down before more lives are lost and the situation over there is 
actually getting worse, not better, more refugees are at danger with 
continuation of the war than not continuation of the war, let us get 
the settlement over, it will likely, like Vietnam, be the same 
settlement as earlier.
  For those who would question me and others for voting for this stand-
down, remember, you are also criticizing the American Legion. As I 
pointed out twice, their head yesterday said that the troops, the 
pilots and support staff should be immediately withdrawn. They also in 
a unanimous vote said the resources should not be approved to continue 
this war.
  I believe the number is 6.9 million Americans are in the American 
Legion who have this background. They know what a risk we are putting 
our veterans at. They know the risk of the continuing air war and, for 
that matter, the logical escalating strategy without a clear plan.
  If there is a clear exit plan, if there is an ability to show that, 
in fact, we have an achievable goal that will lead to even a better 
negotiated settlement, perhaps we could vote these resources. But we in 
fact here are not only giving $3.3 billion in forward funding, we are 
giving this waiver in this clause, the potential shifting of funds in 
this clause to fund the ground war. I believe that is inconsistent to 
say we oppose the war but fund it more.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record:


                                          The American Legion,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 1999.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The American Legion, a wartime veterans 
     organization of nearly three-million members, urges the 
     immediate withdrawal of Armenian troops participating in 
     ``Operation Allied Force.''
       The National Executive Committee of The American Legion, 
     meeting in Indianapolis today, adopted Resolution 44, titled 
     ``The American Legion's Statement on Yugoslavia.'' This 
     resolution was debated and adopted unanimously.
       Mr. President, the United States Armed Forces should never 
     be committed to wartime operations unless the following 
     conditions are fulfilled:
       That there be a clear statement by the President of why it 
     is in our vital national interests to be engaged in 
     hostilities;
       Guidelines be established for the mission, including a 
     clear exit strategy;
       That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress 
     and the American people; and
       That it be made clear that U.S. Forces will be commanded 
     only by U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior 
     military leaders.
       It is the opinion of The American Legion, which I am sure 
     is shared by the majority of Americans, that three of the 
     above listed conditions have not been met in the current 
     joint operation with NATO (``Operation Allied Force'').
       In no case should America commit its Armed Forces in the 
     absence of clearly defined objectives agreed upon by the U.S. 
     Congress in accordance with Article I, Section 8, of the 
     Constitution of the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                       Harold L. ``Butch'' Miller,
                                               National Commander.
       Enclosure.

     National Executive Committee, The American Legion, May 5, 1999


     resolution no. 44: the american legion statement on yugoslavia

       Whereas, The President has committed the Armed Forces of 
     the United States, in a joint operation with NATO 
     (``Operation Allied Force''), to engage in hostilities in the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without clearly defining 
     America's vital national interests; and
       Whereas, Neither the President nor the Congress have 
     defined America's objectives in what has become an open-ended 
     conflict characterized by an ill-defined progressive 
     escalation; and
       Whereas, It is obvious that an ill-planned and massive 
     commitment of U.S. resources could only lead to troops being 
     killed, wounded or captured without advancing any clear 
     purpose, mission or objective; and
       Whereas, The American people rightfully support the ending 
     of crimes and abuses by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 
     and the extending of humanitarian relief to the suffering 
     people of the region; and
       Whereas, America should not commit resources to the 
     prosecution of hostilities in the absence of clearly defined 
     objectives agreed upon by the U.S. Congress in accordance 
     with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
     States; now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, By the National Executive Committee of The 
     American Legion in regular meeting assembled in Indianapolis, 
     Indiana, May 5-6, 1999. That The American Legion, which is 
     composed of nearly three million veterans of war-time 
     service, voices its grave concerns about the commitment of 
     U.S. Armed Forces to Operation Allied Force, unless the 
     following conditions are fulfilled.
       That there be a clear statement by the President of why it 
     is in our vital national interests to be engaged in Operation 
     Allied Force;
       Guidelines be established for the mission, including a 
     clear exit strategy;
       That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress 
     and the American people; and
       That it be made clear U.S. Forces will be commanded only by 
     U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior military 
     leaders; and, be it further
       Resolved, That, if the aforementioned conditions are not 
     met, The American Legion calls upon the President and the 
     Congress to withdraw American forces immediately from 
     Operation Allied Force; and, be it further
       Resolved, That The American Legion calls upon the Congress 
     and the international community to ease the suffering of the 
     Kosovar refugees by providing necessary aid and assistance; 
     and, be it finally
       Resolved, That The American Legion reaffirm its unwavering 
     admiration of, and support for, our American men and women 
     serving in uniform throughout the world, and we reaffirm our 
     efforts to provide sufficient national assets to ensure their 
     well being.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the 
amendment.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that we may be comparing apples with 
oranges here. We have made some effort to talk with the gentleman's 
staff relative to the way reprogramming goes, but there seems to be a 
bit of a disconnect relative to what that process is really all about, 
and so I would like to take a few moments to discuss it here for the 
record.
  The amendment would delete from the bill a general provision, a 
section 201 which was requested by the Pentagon involving transfer 
authority. Section 201 of the bill provides for an increase in the 
funding transfer authority available to the Secretary of Defense as 
regards funds in fiscal year 1999 defense appropriations. It increases 
the existing transfer authority ceiling to $2.45 billion.
  This is really a technical provision. We customarily every year 
provide the Department with a $2 billion transfer authority. What this 
then does is provide the Secretary of Defense and the military services 
with the ability to propose the routine reprogramming of funds subject 
to prior congressional approval. Section 201 of the bill raises the 
existing transfer authority to $2.45 billion.
  The DOD needs this additional authority principally to accommodate 
the burden of several unanticipated reprogramming needs which we had to 
deal with earlier this year, relating to the war on drugs and the DOD 
response to Hurricane Mitch. But the important fact here is that this 
additional authority is not a blank check for the DOD to move around 
money.
  When the DOD wants to reprogram funds, any significant amount over $5 
million for reprogramming, the Secretary must come back to the 
congressional committees. There are four committees that are involved, 
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the House and Senate 
Armed Services Committees. These committees must approve the proposed 
reprogramming, the people who deal with it day in and day out in a 
professional way. We do not want to bind the Department of Defense and 
make them totally paralyzed in an emergency circumstance, but we still 
want the Congress to have a chance to have oversight.
  I know some may believe this provision is somehow intended to give 
the administration additional authorities with respect to Kosovo. That 
is not the administration's intent, nor is it the committees' intent. 
This is really a technical fix. I cannot tell Members that the 
administration will not seek to use this additional authority for 
Kosovo. Indeed, they may have to. But, in the meantime, when we are in 
the middle of having troops in harm's way, we do not want to tie the 
hands of the people who are carrying out the war.
  The Congress is not going to be here every day of the week, and the 
reality is there is a requirement for the congressional committees in 
an appropriate way to review such transfers. I frankly would hope the 
gentleman would have faith in the committees' work and recognize that 
we are trying to deal with this in as professional a way as we can.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H2869]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman's comment about the 
American Legion, I have a letter here from the American Legion 
supporting strongly this supplemental appropriations bill. There is 
also one here from The Military Coalition signed by about 25 members of 
The Military Coalition, also one from The Retired Enlisted Association. 
While they may have some concern about whether they support the mission 
or not or the decision to get into the mission, they do support our 
troops.
  That is what this bill does. This bill supports our troops, provides 
them training, provides them equipment, provides them technology to do 
their job.
  The text of the letters is as follows:


                                          The American Legion,

                                    Washington, D.C., May 3, 1999.
     Hon. Tom DeLay, Majority Whip
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative DeLay: The American Legion supports the 
     FY 1999 Defense supplemental appropriations bill. Once again 
     servicemen and women, both active-duty and reserve 
     components, are engaged in yet another international crisis. 
     If America is willing to place the newest generation of 
     patriots in harm's way, America must also make sure that 
     these defenders of democracy are well equipped, properly 
     trained, and adequately compensated.
       Based upon the ongoing conflicts in the Persian Gulf and 
     Kosovo, coupled with a continuing erosion of America's 
     overall defense capabilities, The American Legion supports 
     this $13 billion request for additional DoD funding. The 
     Bosnia peacekeeping operations, as well as servicemembers 
     stationed worldwide, are stretching already fragile DoD 
     resources to the limit.
       The obvious replacement costs for the air campaign in 
     Kosovo and related expenses must be dealt with immediately. 
     Moreover, the $1.8 billion for military basic pay and other 
     critical quality of life funding should be enacted rapidly to 
     hopefully quell the on-going exodus of experienced personnel 
     and declining morale, as well as keeping faith with our 
     servicemen and women.
       As the nation's largest group of wartime veterans, The 
     American Legion appreciates your attention to its views and 
     legislative mandates for maintaining a strong national 
     defense and caring for he who shall have borne the battle and 
     for his widow and for his orphan.
           For God and Country,
                                                 Steven Robertson,
     Director, National Legislative Commission.
                                  ____



                                       The Military Coalition,

                                      Alexandria, VA, May 4, 1999.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, D.C.
       Dear Representative Young: The Military Coalition (TMC), a 
     consortium of nationally-prominent military and veterans 
     organizations, representing more than 5 million current and 
     former members of the uniformed services, plus their families 
     and survivors urges you to vote for final passage of the FY 
     1999 Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations Bill.
       There is no doubt that the armed forces are facing a 
     readiness crisis, driven in large measure by the massive 
     force drawdown. In the last 10 years, the armed forces have 
     been reduced by more than one-third, while worldwide 
     operational commitments have increased by 300 percent. The 
     rapidly increasing commitment in Kosovo is imposing 
     additional strains on family life and the retention of highly 
     skilled and expensively trained servicemembers.
       The significant readiness initiatives in the bill, 
     including the downpayment on more adequate pay raises and the 
     repeal of REDUX (the 1986 law which degraded the value of the 
     military retirement system by more than 20 percent), will 
     send a powerful signal that this Nation appreciates the 
     dedicated service and sacrifices of the servicemembers we 
     daily place in harm's way. Please do all in your power to 
     ensure that the Emergency Defense Supplemental Appropriations 
     Bill passes the House by a wide margin.
           Sincerely,
                                           The Military Coalition.


                             The Retired Enlisted Association,

                                  Silver Springs, FL, May 5, 1999.
     Hon. C.W. ``Bill'' Young,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Young: The Florida members of The Retired 
     Enlisted Association (TREA) respectfully request that you 
     vote for the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriation spending package.
       For years, the Armed Forces of the United States have 
     witnessed a decline in recruitment, retention and benefits. 
     Now, as our Armed Forces are engaged in operations in Europe 
     and the Middle East, as well as continuing to maintain their 
     presence in Asia, they are faced with shortages of equipment 
     and personnel.
       The Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriation spending package provides an opportunity to 
     correct some of these problems. By providing funding for 
     desperately needed equipment, pay raises and an improved 
     retirement system. Congress can display its commitment to our 
     men and women in uniform by working to make their lives 
     better.
       We appreciate your continued efforts in behalf of the 
     retired members of the Armed Forces.
           Respectfully,
                                                  John W. Harrell.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman's contribution.
  I would add to that that there is adequate oversight provided for in 
the process by the committees that deal with this professionally day in 
and day out.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are here talking about $12.9 billion of 
supposed emergency funding. That is $12.9 billion from the Social 
Security Trust Funds. Let us make that clear. That is where this money 
is coming from, the so-called surplus. The surplus is intended and the 
tax is raised for the purposes of Social Security.
  Now, if this were a dire and absolute emergency and there were no 
alternatives and it was essential to the American people, it might make 
some sense. This amendment would make things, in fact, worse, because 
at the core of this amendment is the way to resolve this problem. The 
Pentagon should reprogram other funds to pay for this crisis.
  In a conversation with a senior White House official yesterday, I 
said, what is the crisis the end of this month that you are telling us 
about that you need, the President is asking for $7 billion, for this 
war?
  The crisis is the Pentagon might have to reprogram funds. They might 
have to take money from the seven C-130Js that was stuffed into an 
authorization and appropriation last year for the Speaker of the House 
that the Pentagon did not want and does not need. They might have to 
take money from their $30 billion of appropriated unobligated funds. 
They might have to fix their computer program which has ordered $41 
billion of unneeded parts, many of which are obsolete and still being 
ordered by Hal the computer down there at the Pentagon.
  Yet we are saying we are here in a crisis and they need more money so 
they can keep doing things the way they have been doing them in the 
past, which is to waste money.
  Certainly I support a pay raise for the troops, but it should not be 
on an emergency basis. It should come in the regular order of things, 
and it should not come out of the Social Security Trust Fund. We should 
not set the young people in our military against the senior citizens 
and the future senior citizens of this country by spending those funds 
on a pay raise for people in the military today. It should come out of 
the general fund of the Treasury. It should come out of the Pentagon 
budget in the next year.
  So we should not further restrict the Pentagon from reprogramming. In 
fact, we should require that the Pentagon reprogram all of the funds 
for this activity from that $30 billion of unspent funds from programs 
that they themselves have said they do not want. Let us stick it to a 
few Members of Congress who have gotten their pork in past bills and 
getting their pork in this bill and take that money back and spend it 
on something the Pentagon really needs that supports the troops in the 
field.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1664, making emergency supplementary 
appropriations for military operations in Kosovo. The Department of 
Defense (DOD) has over $30 billion in unobligated and unspent funds 
that it could reprogram for the Kosovo military operations. It does not 
need an additional $6 billion. I further oppose this bill because it 
includes $7 billion in unneeded additional funding for the DOD that has 
nothing to do with the Kosovo operation.
  Last year Congress provided an additional $8 billion in the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill for the DOD under the guise of military readiness. 
Most of that funding didn't do anything for military readiness. It was 
more about campaign readiness. For example, is a study about military 
uses for caffeinated gum crucial to the readiness of our military? If 
the DOD needs funding for Kosovo, it should reprogram some of the 
unneeded funding from that bill. Or perhaps the DOD should look a 
little harder for the $17 billion that it has lost over the past 
decade. The Pentagon simply cannot account

[[Page H2870]]

for $17 billion. It has nothing to show for it, not even an overpriced 
screwdriver. or perhaps the Pentagon should reprogram the funding for 
the 7 unrequested C-130Js that Congress provided last year.
  This bill contains $7 billion that the President did not request for 
the Kosovo operations. For example, it contains $1.34 billion for spare 
parts that was not requested by the President. This is outrageous since 
the General Accounting Office found that the DOD maintains over $41 
billion in obsolete parts. How did that happen? The computer that 
orders spare parts can't communicate with the computer that knows what 
spare parts are currently on the shelf. The DOD doesn't need more money 
for spare parts. It needs to fix the system that orders the parts. If 
Congress keeps giving the DOD more money to cover up a broken system, 
the DOD will never fix it and billions more will be wasted.
  The DOD does not suffer from a lack of aggregate funding. It suffers 
from a lack of discipline necessary to function effectively in the post 
Cold War era. The DOD has over $30 billion in unobligated funding that 
it could reprogram. But the DOD refuses to make changes and cut 
unneeded programs. Congress could force the Pentagon to critically 
examine its spending and cut the waste by refusing to blindly throw 
good money after bad. Congress could take the first step towards fiscal 
discipline at the Pentagon by denying additional funding for the Kosovo 
mission. It is simply outrageous that the Pentagon cannot function 
effectively with a $280 billion year budget. The Pentagon claims it is 
prepared to fight two major theaters at once. Yet every time we 
actually use the military, taxpayers are forced to give the Pentagon 
more money. It's time to stop wasting billions of tax dollars and force 
the Pentagon to be more responsible with our money.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  So the amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 202. Notwithstanding the limitations set forth in 
     section 1006 of Public Law 105-261, not to exceed $10,000,000 
     of funds appropriated by this Act may be available for 
     contributions to the common funded budgets of NATO (as 
     defined in section 1006(c)(1) of Public Law 105-261) for 
     costs related to NATO operations in and around Kosovo.
       Sec. 203. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made available 
     by the transfer of funds in this Act, for intelligence 
     activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the 
     Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security 
     Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414).
       Sec. 204. Notwithstanding section 5064(d) of the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355), 
     the special authorities provided under section 5064(c) of 
     such Act shall continue to apply with respect to contracts 
     awarded or modified for the Joint Direct Attack Munition 
     (JDAM) program until June 30, 2000: Provided, That a contract 
     or modification to a contract for the JDAM program may be 
     awarded or executed notwithstanding any advance notification 
     requirements that would otherwise apply.
       Sec. 205. (a) Efforts To Increase Burdensharing.--The 
     President shall seek equitable reimbursement from the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), member nations of NATO, 
     and other appropriate organizations and nations for the costs 
     incurred by the United States government in connection with 
     Operation Allied Force.
       (b) Report.--Not later than September 30, 1999, the 
     President shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report 
     on--
       (1) All measures taken by the President pursuant to 
     subsection (a);
       (2) The amount of reimbursement received to date from each 
     organization and nation pursuant to subsection (a), including 
     a description of any commitments made by such organization or 
     nation to provide reimbursement; and
       (3) In the case of an organization or nation that has 
     refused to provide, or to commit to provide, reimbursement 
     pursuant to subsection (a), an explanation of the reasons 
     therefor.
       (c) Operation Allied Force.--In this section, the term 
     ``Operation Allied Force'' means operations of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conducted against the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) during 
     the period beginning on March 24, 1999, and ending on such 
     date as NATO may designate, to resolve the conflict with 
     respect to Kosovo.
       Sec. 206. (a) Not more than thirty days after the enactment 
     of this Act, the President shall transmit to Congress a 
     report, in both classified and unclassified form, on current 
     United States participation in Operation Allied Force. The 
     report should include information on the following matters:
       (1) A statement of the national security objectives 
     involved in U.S. participation in Operation Allied Force;
       (2) An accounting of all current active duty personnel 
     assigned to support Operation Allied Force and related 
     humanitarian operations around Kosovo to include total 
     number, service component and area of deployment (such 
     accounting should also include total number of personnel from 
     other NATO countries participating in the action);
       (3) Additional planned deployment of active duty units in 
     the European Command area of operations to support Operation 
     Allied Force, between the date of enactment of this Act and 
     the end of fiscal year 1999;
       (4) Additional planned Reserve component mobilization, 
     including specific units to be called up between the date of 
     enactment of this Act and the end of fiscal year 1999, to 
     support Operation Allied Force;
       (5) An accounting by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 
     transfer of personnel and materiel from other regional 
     commands to the United States European Command to support 
     Operation Allied Force and related humanitarian operations 
     around Kosovo, and an assessment by the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
     of the impact any such loss of assets has had on the war-
     fighting capabilities and deterrence value of these other 
     commands;
       (6) Levels of humanitarian aid provided to the displaced 
     Kosovar community from the United States, NATO member 
     nations, and other nations (figures should be provided by 
     country and type of assistance provided whether financial or 
     in-kind); and
       (7) Any significant revisions to the total cost estimate 
     for the deployment of United States forces involved in 
     Operation Allied Force through the end of fiscal year 1999.
       (b) Operation Allied Force.--In this section, the term 
     ``Operation Allied Force'' means operations of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conducted against the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) during 
     the period beginning on March 24, 1999, and ending on such 
     date as NATO may designate, to resolve the conflict with 
     respect to Kosovo.
       Sec. 207. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     1999, $1,339,200,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000, is hereby appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense only for spare and repair parts and 
     associated logistical support necessary for the maintenance 
     of weapons systems and equipment, as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $457,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $676,800,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $24,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $26,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $118,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', $31,300,000; and
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force'', $6,100,000:
     Provided, That the entire amount made available in this 
     section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $1,339,200,000, that includes designation of the entire 
     amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined 
     in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 208. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     1999, $927,300,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000, is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Defense only for depot level maintenance and repair, as 
     follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $87,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $428,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $58,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $314,300,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve'', 
     $3,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $6,800,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $29,500,000:
     Provided, That the entire amount made available in this 
     section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $927,300,000, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       Sec. 209. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     1999, $156,400,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000, is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Defense only for military recruiting and advertising 
     initiatives, as follows:

[[Page H2871]]

       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $48,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $20,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $37,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', $29,800,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve'', $1,000,000; 
     and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $20,000,000:
     Provided, That the entire amount made available in this 
     section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $156,400,000, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       Sec. 210. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     1999, $307,300,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000, is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Defense only for military training, equipment maintenance 
     and associated support costs required to meet assigned 
     readiness levels of United States military forces, as 
     follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $113,200,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $15,200,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $28,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', $88,400,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve'', $600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $11,900,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $23,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $27,000,000:
     Provided, That the entire amount made available in this 
     section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $307,300,000, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       Sec. 211. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available elsewhere in this Act for the Department of 
     Defense or in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     1999, $351,500,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2000, is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Defense only for base operations support costs at 
     Department of Defense facilities, as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $116,200,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $45,900,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $53,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $91,900,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve'', $18,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve'', $13,800,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve'', 
     $300,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $11,700,000:
     Provided, That the entire amount made available in this 
     section is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $351,500,000, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       Sec. 212. (a) In addition to amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Department of Defense in 
     other provisions of this Act, there is appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2000, and to be used only for increases 
     during fiscal year 2000 in rates of military basic pay and 
     for increased payments during fiscal year 2000 to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $1,838,426,000, to be available as follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $559,533,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $436,773,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $177,980,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $471,892,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', $40,574,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', $29,833,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps'', $7,820,000;
       ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', $13,143,000;
       ``National Guard Personnel, Army'', $70,416,000; and
       ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', $30,462,000.
       (b) The entire amount made available in this section--
       (1) is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended 
     (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)); and
       (2) shall be available only if the President transmits to 
     the Congress an official budget request for $1,838,426,000, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       (c) The amounts provided in this section may be obligated 
     only to the extent required for increases in rates of 
     military basic pay, and for increased payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, that become 
     effective during fiscal year 2000 pursuant to provisions of 
     law subsequently enacted in authorizing legislation.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Fowler

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. Fowler:
       At the end of chapter 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 213. (a) Additional Appropriation for Continuation of 
     ES-3. Aircraft.--In addition to amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act for the 
     Department of Defense or in the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1999, $94,400,000 is appropriated as 
     follows:
       (1) For ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $29,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2000, to be used for ES-
     3 aircraft squadron staffing.
       (2) For ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $30,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2000, to be used for 
     ES-3 aircraft operations and maintenance.
       (3) For ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $31,500,000, to be 
     used for procurement of critical avionics and structures for 
     ES-3 aircraft.
       (4) For ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'', $3,900,000, to be 
     used for procurement of critical avionics spares of ES-3 
     aircraft.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made 
     available in this section is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 
     Such amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in such section 251(b)(2)(A), is transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress.
       (c) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study 
     to examine alternative approaches to upgrading the ES-3 
     aircraft sensor systems for the life cycle of the aircraft. 
     The study shall include comparative costs and capabilities, 
     and shall be submitted to the Congress by October 1, 1999.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I am putting forth this amendment for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Defense, after which time it is my intention to 
withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I introduced this amendment because I am gravely 
concerned about the status of our airborne signal intelligence 
capabilities and, in particular, about the Navy's decision to terminate 
the ES-3 program by the end of fiscal year 1999.
  The 16 ES-3s in the Navy's inventory cost us some $500 million to 
acquire and only made their first deployment in fiscal year 1994. The 
aircraft represents the only carrier-capable signal intelligence 
aircraft in the Department of Defense inventory, and it also 
constitutes some 20 percent of our carrier air wings' in-flight 
refueling capabilities. Moreover, I would note that a comprehensive DOD 
analysis of our signal intelligence needs only 2 years ago called for 
retaining and upgrading the ES-3.
  Despite these important considerations, the Navy has opted to 
disestablish its two ES-3 squadrons for budgetary reasons.
  Now I am greatly disturbed by this decision. Only last Friday the 
Washington Post ran a front-page article featuring comments by General 
Richard Hawley, the commander of Air Combat Command, who lamented that 
the air campaign over Kosovo had made clear the desperate shortage of 
intelligence gathering, radar suppression, and search-and-rescue 
aircraft in the DOD inventory.
  In fact, with the requirement to provide 7-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day 
coverage in the Balkans, which I remind

[[Page H2872]]

my colleagues is not one of the two major regional contingencies in our 
military that we had planned for, our Nation is currently facing a 
serious shortfall of signal intelligence capability. There are gaps 
today in our coverage in other key locations around the world.
  Under these circumstances the Navy's decision to terminate the 
program seems extremely questionable to me.
  I believe that our signal intelligence shortfall represents a 
critical readiness deficiency that merits consideration in the context 
of this supplemental. However I appreciate the gentleman's desire to 
move a clean bill through the House in order to get the conference with 
the other body as soon as possible and to meet our urgent readiness 
requirements.
  So I would just ask the gentleman if he would be willing to get a 
complete brief from the Department of Defense and our intelligence 
community regarding our current SIGINT deficiencies and look into the 
issue of proceeding with ES-3 program termination under the current 
circumstances. If he finds himself in a situation in conference where a 
compelling argument to accommodate these concerns in the context of 
conference arises, I would greatly appreciate it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me respond first by expressing my deep 
appreciation to the gentlewoman for the professional way she is not 
just handling this matter, but the effective service she always 
provides in the authorization committee connected with our work. I 
would be pleased to look into this matter, and I appreciate the 
gentlewoman bringing it to my attention.
  As the gentlewoman may know, I was previously the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, and I continue to 
serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, so I am very 
much aware of and concerned about our signal intelligence shortfalls. 
In light of the current conflict in the Balkans and the requirements it 
has imposed, I do agree that a further review of this matter is 
appropriate at this time, and I would look forward to working with the 
gentlewoman between now and conference.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida is 
withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 3

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  agency for international development

                   international disaster assistance

       For an additional amount for ``International Disaster 
     Assistance'', $96,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       On page 22, line 16, after ``$96,000,000'' insert: 
     ``(increased by $67,000,000)''
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in order to increase 
the amount of humanitarian assistance that is available for the 
refugees in the Balkans. We have disagreements in many areas here, but 
one thing we all agree on and the American people are interested in is 
to provide humanitarian assistance to the refugees.
  With the passage of the Latham amendment we have some breathing room, 
some headroom in the foreign operations programs, and my amendment 
takes $67 million from the Latham amendment activity and adds it to the 
AID disaster assistance account in order to meet the emerging needs in 
Kosovo including the provision, and emphasizing the provision, of food. 
As my colleagues know, both the Obey amendments had a provision for 
$175,000 for additional humanitarian assistance, and Mr. Hall's 
amendment had $150 million for additional food. Neither of these 
prevailed; the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) did not pass, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hall) was not made in order. However, I want us to just stipulate 
to the fact that there is general agreement that more food is needed.
  Many of us, including the distinguished chairman of the full 
committee, were in the Balkans and we saw people waiting in line for 
hours for food. We saw little babies who had crossed the mountains and 
through the forests have only cold tea for 2 weeks of their very young 
lives. The refugee problem is a greater one than was anticipated.
  If we do not increase the humanitarian assistance, Mr. Chairman, I 
believe we will have a second humanitarian disaster. Therefore in this 
amendment I will submit more information for the Record, but in the 
interests of time I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which 
increases the humanitarian assistance in the bill by $67 million and 
with a special focus on food programs.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentlewoman on the 
amendment and I say that I agree to accept the amendment, and I might 
remind her that during this entire process in our conversations with 
the President and our conversations with the Department of State, the 
Secretary of State, that I have repeatedly told them in the beginning 
they are not asking for a sufficient amount of money to handle the true 
needs of the refugees that we are going to need for the next several 
months.
  The response was, as I understood it, Mr. Chairman, that they felt 
like this would at least get them through June or July, and maybe they 
could come back for another supplemental during that period of time. 
But we are going to be very busy during that period of time with the 
other appropriations bills, and I think it was not wise for the 
administration not to accept a sufficient amount of money.
  So I compliment the gentlewoman from California for bringing the 
level of funding back up, with her amendment, to the $566 million that 
the President initially requested, and I would accept the amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
accepting the amendment and for his comments, and I want to commend him 
because indeed he has at every opportunity, impressed upon the 
administration that more funding would be necessary. That is why this 
is a great opportunity for us. It takes some of the pressure off of our 
foreign operations bill where we may be asked to provide even more 
humanitarian assistance. But at least today we can get the $67 million 
especially to focus on the food needs within the disaster assistance 
account.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say on this side we agree 
with the amendment and accept it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the gentleman. 
The administration had intended to use the existing P.L. 480 title 2 
resources and surplus commodities from the section 416(b) program to 
meet the needs in Kosovo. As we know, the needs have exceeded in terms 
of numbers of refugees and the duration in the camps, and I just 
respond to the issue that the gentleman had brought up.
  I want to thank the distinguished gentleman [Mr. Callaham] for his 
leadership, the distinguished ranking member [Mr. Obey], the 
distinguished chairman of the full committee [Mr. Young] for his 
cooperation, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page H2873]]

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman from California for 
offering this amendment. I had an amendment that would have also used 
the $67 million, but obviously, being the ranking member of the 
committee, hers in the prioritization came first. But it is unfortunate 
that we would be looking to use the money for one thing and cannot get 
to the other. The money that I was hoping to use it for would be for 
the construction of refugee camps.
  I was part of the Armey delegation that just got back from Macedonia 
and Albania along with the presiding Speaker, and 19 of us were there 
and heard it was unanimity. Everybody we talked to, from the two star 
General to the AID people, that they desperately needed to build two 
more refugee camps in Albania to accommodate 20,000 people each.
  As my colleagues know, we got to remember there are, according to 
General Wesley Clark, 820,000 internally displaced people and more than 
700,000 people who have exited the borders and are now officially 
called refugees, an enormous number of people, and unfortunately, 
because of budget caps and things of that kind, we are unable.
  Last night I went to the Committee on Rules and respectfully asked 
that I be able to offer $100 million additional moneys for the 
construction of those two refugee camps. They are $50 million a pop, 
and, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and his food aid 
amendment, I was turned down, and that is most unfortunate.

                              {time}  1615

  Let me just say, when this gets into conference, it is my desperate 
hope, because we are looking at the possibility of cholera and other 
contagious and infectious diseases, we need to stabilize this situation 
and the military, no one does it better when it comes to constructing 
these camps.
  I would like to ask our very distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related 
Programs, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), if he will help 
us, because I know his heart.
  He added $70 million to the refugee camp account over and above what 
the President requested and did make that appeal to the President to be 
more generous, not less.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be more than happy to convey your 
message to the conference committee as we convene to try to find some 
resolve to the concern of the gentleman.
  I would like to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), 
as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Porter), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and others who take 
the time and the effort to visit the refugee camps in situations such 
as this and come back and inform us of the true needs.
  Refugee camps, however, have generally, historically, been 
constructed by the Department of Defense. I think that the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Lewis) certainly would be interested in 
seeing that they have a sufficient amount of resources to provide the 
camps that are necessary to house these people that are suffering.
  Yes, certainly during this process I will encourage the gentleman 
from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Lewis) to recognize the needs of the Department of Defense to 
have the necessary monies to build the needed and required refugee 
camps.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to join my distinguished 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
and Related Programs in commending the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) for his leadership on this issue. As I said last night, I 
support his amendment.
  We can all agree to the need for those camps from the standpoint of 
sanitation and hygiene and meeting the needs of these refugees who have 
been dislocated or are grieving or malnourished and the rest.
  I would hope that the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Defense, I understand there is about $100 million unprogramed there 
that can be used for this purpose, and I would support the gentleman's 
appeal to the conference committee with that.
  I want to again acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith). To be in his company and that of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall), two leaders on child survival issues throughout the 
world, is indeed an honor; and I once again commend them.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. The 
feelings are mutual.
  This is a bipartisan effort and I do believe that the money is there 
if we have the priority to get it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to discuss 
this with my colleague, for there are a number of Members on both sides 
of the aisle who have expressed a great interest in this area. Indeed, 
it is my view that the American public are themselves focusing at this 
moment on refugees by way of television cameras that are depicting this 
picture, which is the worst of the fallout from the Milosevic effort 
here of ethnic cleansing.
  Indeed, already the Air Force has spent $25 million for one refugee 
camp. There is little doubt that there is much more to be done. As we 
go forward I am sure the committee, as well as the body, will do 
everything they can to be responsive to the gentleman's interests; and 
I appreciate him bringing the matter to our attention.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, in mentioning all of the people that have 
done so much, I forgot to mention my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), because she, too, has been one of the 
stalwarts and one of the people who have worked so very hard in this 
respect.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the Pelosi amendment and to applaud 
the dialogue and debate that I have heard on the very issue dealing 
with humanitarian need.
  Last Thursday a week ago, I voted on the floor of the House to 
support the effort to eliminate the terrible devastation that Slobodan 
Milosevic has created in the Balkans; in particular, to support the air 
strikes and to recognize that this war, this conflict, is defined. The 
definition is to end the ethnic cleansing that is going on in that 
region.
  By traveling this past weekend with my colleagues, such as the 
chairman, as well as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and the majority leader, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), I can say that this is a defined conflict.
  It is a conflict to save the amount of human tragedy that is 
occurring in that area, and it is an issue that we should be very clear 
about.
  I am unsure when someone says that it is undefined, but it is to 
eliminate the brutality and to ensure that our troops are safe but as 
well to ensure that the refugees have a place to return home.
  As I did in Bosnia, I was able to visit with the people; and we 
traveled in the camps. We talked to the refugees, who indicated they 
had seen atrocities. They had seen women raped. They had seen 
intellectuals killed. They had seen their homes being burned. In these 
refugee camps, although they were very grateful to be safe, there is no 
running water, there is no electricity, there is no sewer, and there 
are long lines for food.
  In talking about the military preparedness, let me say in my 
conversations with General Clark, he was very assuring that he had the 
skills, the tools and the resources to carry on. He was very sure of 
the definition of this

[[Page H2874]]

conflict and that is, of course, to make sure that the refugees have a 
right to return home.
  I would like to support the Pelosi amendment to increase the amount 
of food emergency assistance but, as well, I join in with the words of 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) to indicate that there is a 
need to assist in the building of refugee camps. Because in the one 
that we visited in Macedonia in particular it was built for 20,000 
people and yet it has 32,000 people.
  I supported the Obey amendment because it included concerns that I 
had about making sure we supported the military operation. It had 
monies to increase military pay and, as well, it dealt with the issue 
of emergency food assistance.
  If we can make this legislation better, I am sorry to say that the 
Obey amendment did not pass, we should really emphasize the fact that 
we need more aid for the humanitarian crisis. We need more aid to build 
these refugee camps that are in need, even though we see more and more 
of the refugees leaving to go to other countries. It is extremely 
important that we focus on that.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), who I know as 
well attempted to get his amendment in on emergency food assistance. I 
would only take comfort in the representations by the chairman and 
ranking member that they will work in conference to get us the dollars 
that we need to build humanitarian camps and, as well, they will give 
us the dollars to ensure that we have the monies for more food 
assistance.
  I only hope, as I have written to the President and in light of the 
great success that Reverend Jackson had over the last weekend in 
releasing our POWs, I hope that we will have a pause in the bombing so 
that we can sit down to the table and get a negotiated settlement and 
that Milosevic will agree to all of the points that NATO has raised. I 
think this can be done in light of last weekend, as well as proceed 
with the idea of funding for humanitarian aid.
  I would only hope that we reconsider the form of the Obey amendment 
and ensure that we have that kind of fair representation in that 
effort.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but I do want to stand 
up with great approval and excitement and encouragement for this 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). It 
is a good amendment. The $67 million will help.
  As I read the amendment, it goes to the section relative to disaster 
assistance, but especially in this particular emphasis it will be for 
the Balkans. It does two things. It not only will add to the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriation for the Balkans and that pot of $200 million, 
but, because we are adding more money, it will help in some of the 
trouble spots that we have around the world. We are now facing 
catastrophes and crises and great needs in Sierra Leon, Sudan, 
Cambodia, North Korea, Indonesia, East Timor, a lot of different 
places. So this amendment goes a long way.
  I hope that this is not the end of our help relative to humanitarian 
aid. I hope the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and all the Members 
of the Committee on Appropriations look at certainly a lot more money 
for food. We really need it because we came up very short relative to 
the humanitarian aspect of this bill.
  Again, I want to say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
this is a great amendment, and I applaud her and really appreciate the 
work that she does. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Roukema) for sponsoring our amendment together; the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for accepting it.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and certainly 
congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  I also rise to speak about this supplemental in general. Obviously, 
it is very important; and I do applaud the increase and support the 
humanitarian needs and the needs of those refugees; and I am glad to 
see that we are doing that.
  I am also very concerned because the supplemental should not be a 
partisan issue, as this humanitarian effort should not be a partisan 
issue, because it is about the well-being of our troops. It is about 
the security of our Nation. It is about looking at risks that we have 
across this world, including the conflict that we are currently in.
  As I looked at the papers this morning and saw a crash, an Apache 
helicopter crash, I thought of the two young soldiers that were killed 
there, their families. I was reminded of an era not too long ago when 
we tried to attempt to get some hostages out of Iran, when it was a 
similar time, when military funding was low, when spare parts were hard 
to come by, when cannibalization of other aircraft was taking place, 
when maintenance was a problem, morale was very low, and retention was 
a problem, and we had problems with readiness.
  We had problems implementing that rescue, and I believe it was 
because of the very conditions that we have that exist today.
  I do not know if the decreased funding that we have had for our 
military in the last few years resulted in that crash yesterday, but, 
believe me, do not underestimate how much military morale, maintenance 
and the experience of those that work directly on the aircraft, how 
much influence that has on our military readiness and the ability of 
our pilots and our troops over there to fly safe missions and 
accomplish what they are setting about to do.
  I also read in the paper, there was a Pentagon officer that said, I 
believe he said, that about 10 years ago this battalion of Apaches 
could have arrived to the station on Monday, flown reconnaissance 
missions on Tuesday and Wednesday, simulated attack runs on Thursday, 
live practice runs on Friday and been deployed on Saturday.
  They have been there for 20 days and still not ready, and they are 
asking for more train-up time.
  I have every bit of confidence in our troops, but I think as we 
reduce spending, as has been done over the last few years, or hold it 
straight, not provide the kind of funding, we reduce our troops' 
ability to act and to act rapidly as it is needed in this world and in 
this conflict.
  I think it is very important that we look at this again, that we do 
not underestimate the effect this supplement will have, the message it 
will give.
  As I remember my time in the service, I remembered when military 
spending was cut, when we were not getting the kind of maintenance, 
when retention was poor, of what effect it had on morale and our 
ability to get aircraft off the ground.
  So this is an emergency supplement, not just the direct that has been 
asked for by the President but also those to increase the pay, to give 
a message to our troops there that we are fully behind them.
  Believe me, I have had a lot of conflict personally over this in 
Kosova because I do not believe that it was prepared properly. I do not 
believe we had an entry strategy that we needed, an exit strategy, but 
now that we are there and we have seen the problems we need to make 
sure that we give the kind of support to make sure that we accomplish 
our goals in this conflict.
  We have troops all over the world. There have been 33 U.S. 
deployments across the world, and yet we have not adequately funded our 
troops. In the period of 40 years before that, there were only 10 
deployments. We have 265,000 American troops in 135 countries. This 
administration's defense policy simply does not make sense: decreased 
funding and increased deployments.
  I believe it is easy to see the problems created by this lack of 
funding. The U.S. Air Force will be 700 pilots short for fiscal year 
1999, 1,300 short by 2000. The Navy will be 18,000 soldiers and 1,400 
recruits short in 1999. The Army will be 140 Apache pilots short for 
1999. In the last 14 months there have been 55 Air Force crashes during 
noncombat situations. The USS Enterprise went to sea short 400 
personnel. The Army's budget for new weapons is the lowest since 1959. 
Since the Gulf War, our military has shrunk by about 40 percent.

[[Page H2875]]

  Now recently and yesterday, we on the policy committee heard from 
former Secretary Caspar Weinberger. He spoke beyond politics about our 
threats, other threats, our military readiness; and he expressed 
concerns about what would happen if we do not immediately start 
rebuilding our forces.
  So I ask for support, and I thank the chairman for the supplement. In 
addition to the supplement for humanitarian needs, we need to support 
this amendment and this supplement in order to begin the necessary 
rebuilding.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to 
commend the gentlewoman from California for offering it. I think it is 
clear that the American people expect us to do everything possible in 
our power to alleviate the suffering that the Kosovar refugees are 
enduring right now, and I might add that our NATO allies are 
contributing their fair share to a bulk of the refugee assistance as 
well, so it is not as if we are doing this alone.
  I also want to rise in support of the emergency supplemental bill 
before us today to support our young men and women in American uniform 
who are being asked yet again in this century to restore the peace and 
stability and to bring back some humanity to Europe.
  But I have to be honest, I am conflicted in supporting final passage 
of this emergency spending bill. I am just in my second term 
representing western Wisconsin in this great institution, Mr. Chairman. 
I do not serve on the Committee on Appropriations or the Committee on 
Armed Services or Committee on International Relations, so I am not 
intimately familiar with the details of the specified purposes of the 
listed items in this spending bill.
  I am not sure whether all the listed items in this spending bill are 
truly for an emergency purpose. I do know, however, that our military 
advisers have made a request to the American people through the 
Administration for $6 billion to carry out the campaign in Kosovo. But 
once Congress got its hands on this, it suddenly became a $13 billion 
emergency spending bill rather than the $6 billion that our military 
advisers were requesting.
  I am not sure whether a $35 million operation and control center on 
Bahrain Island in the Gulf is necessary for this operation, or $4 
million for barracks renewal in Bamberg, Germany, or $3 million for an 
indoor shooting range in Stuttgart, or $12 million for three additional 
fire stations in Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, if these are all 
emergency items; or if $3 billion for military construction projects 
that will take years to complete because they are not even on the 
Pentagon's 5-year development plan are true emergency items.
  But I do know that I am the representative of one of the two pilots 
who gave their lives two days ago in their training mission with the 
Apache helicopter in Albania, Chief Warrant Officer Kevin Reichert. 
Officer Reichert was a loving husband and father of three little kids. 
He and his co-pilot, Officer David Gibbs from Ohio, served their 
country with honor and pride, and made the ultimate sacrifice. My 
thoughts and prayers are with them and their family at this time.
  I also know that it would not be right to our troops if voting 
against final passage of this bill would delay for even a little bit 
the utilization and distribution of the resources and supplies that our 
men and women who are carrying out this dangerous operation need in 
order to perform their duties in as safe a manner as possible.
  I would just hope that this Congress would have the decency when it 
comes to issues of war and peace, life and death, to play this 
straight, without taking political advantage of the situation to bypass 
the normal authorization and appropriation process, where these items 
can be debated openly and thoroughly and fairly and within the context 
of fiscal discipline. It is a sad day in this Congress if there are 
some who would take advantage of this emergency situation for their own 
political agenda.
  Lieutenant General John Hendrix, commander of the Apache Task Force 
Hawk, stated, when asked about the loss of these two brave young men, 
that ``We cannot eliminate the risk from this mission.'' That is true. 
In cases of war, the training and the deployment of troops are 
inherently going to be risky, but this Congress can do our part in 
reducing that risk as much as possible.
  That starts today. That is what this bill should be all about, the 
troops, and ultimately the welfare of the troops. That is why I am 
going to give my support for final passage of this bill, so the rest of 
our troops who are deployed in the Balkans can carry out their mission 
as safely as possible, and be returned to their families as soon as 
possible.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in accepting this amendment, I thought seriously that 
we would be able to accept it and move on with business, since we fully 
fund the request of the President, and we respond also to the concerns 
of the gentlewoman from California.
  While we do not want to deny anyone the opportunity to speak on this 
very important issue, I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is time that we 
move on with the vote on the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Support Fund'', 
     $105,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2000, 
     for assistance for Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Bosnia-
     Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Romania, and for investigations 
     and related activities in Kosovo and in adjacent entities and 
     countries regarding war crimes; Provided, That these funds 
     shall be available notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     except section 533 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
     Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (as 
     contained in division A, section 101(d) of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277)): Provided further, That the 
     requirement for a notification through the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations 
     contained in subsection (b)(3) of section 533 shall be deemed 
     to be satisfied if the Committees on Appropriations are 
     notified at least 5 days prior to the obligation of such 
     funds: Provided further, That the entire amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


          assistance for eastern europe and the baltic states

       For an additional amount for ``Assistance for Eastern 
     Europe and the Baltic States'', $75,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000, of which up to $1,000,000 
     may be used for administrative costs of the U.S. Agency for 
     International Development: Provided, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     obligated and expended subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

                          Department of State


                    migration and refugee assistance

       For an additional amount for ``Migration and Refugee 
     Assistance'', $195,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2000, of which not more than $500,000 is for 
     administrative expenses: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.


     united states emergency refugee and migration assistance fund

       For an additional amount for the ``United States Emergency 
     Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund'', and subject to the 
     terms and conditions under that head, $95,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 301. The value of commodities and services authorized 
     by the President through

[[Page H2876]]

     March 31, 1999, to be drawn down under the authority of 
     section 552(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to 
     support international relief efforts relating to the Kosovo 
     conflict shall not be counted against the ceiling limitation 
     of that section: Provided, That such assistance relating to 
     the Kosovo conflict provided pursuant to section 552(a)(2) 
     may be made available notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Roukema

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema:
       After chapter 3, insert the following new chapter:

                               CHAPTER 3A

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS


               public law 480 program and grant accounts

       For an additional amount for ``Public Law 480 Program and 
     Grant Accounts'' for humanitarian food assistance under title 
     II of Public Law 480, $150,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the 
     entire such amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such 
     amount shall be available only to the extent of a specific 
     dollar amount for such purpose that is included in an 
     official budget request transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress and that is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mrs. ROUKEMA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I reserve a 
point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) object to 
suspending the reading of the amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, because we do not have a copy of it, and 
I have no idea whether it is permissible under the Rules or not. We 
have no idea what the content is. I would like the amendment read.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist that the amendment be read?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued reading the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) 
on her amendment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly compliments the so-called Pelosi 
amendment we just passed, but it clearly is a recognition that more 
needs to be done. As well received as the Pelosi amendment was and 
should have been, more needs to be done.
  Yesterday the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and myself offered an 
amendment in the Committee on Rules, this amendment in the Committee on 
Rules, and unfortunately, the Committee on Rules did not make it in 
order. But the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our chairman 
here, spoke strongly in the Committee on Rules to work and add this 
vital funding in the conference.
  I certainly look forward to working with the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Young) and the Committee on Appropriations to ensure that the 
food aid is included in the conference.
  As we all know, there is a great human tragedy unfolding in the 
Balkans. There is no question but that the United States and NATO have 
taken on the challenge of stopping a ruthless aggression. Members of 
Congress may disagree on the merits of this policy, but there must be 
no disagreement, and I stress this, no disagreement on the necessity of 
caring for the basic needs of the thousands of refugees who have been 
forced from their homeland. They are innocent victims of a terrible, 
terrible plight.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been, as has been recognized here with a number 
of my colleagues, a long advocate of fighting hunger across the world. 
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) attended the recent trip, 
accompanying majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and 
he and I have conferred on the problems that they saw among the 
refugees and the needs that they have firsthand. He and I have worked 
for a long time on hunger issues, whether in Ethiopia, the Sudan, or 
visiting the Kurds, the refugee camps for the Kurds in the mountains.
  I will tell the Members, if they have ever seen starvation up close 
and the hollowed eyes of a starving child, they will never forget it. 
That is exactly what we are dealing with here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I might make reference to the fact that we even brought 
the problem back to President Reagan at the time, and he helped us 
provide safe passage for food to refugees. This is not a partisan 
issue. Republicans and Democrats, all of us should be pulling together.
  We recognize that it is mainly the children who suffer. Many families 
have been torn apart by this violence, and they have lost their homes 
and many times they are separated from the children, the children from 
the families. It is our responsibility to accept this, because if we do 
not in this Congress, who will accept the full responsibility?
  I must repeat to my colleagues here the Biblical admonition of our 
Lord Jesus in Matthew 25:40, ``Whatever you do for the least of one of 
these of our brethren, you do it for me.''
  We must provide these funds, and if Members have any doubt about it, 
they should know the people, the groups, the religious and community 
groups that are supporting this amendment and this effort, whether it 
be Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children, Red Cross, Doctors 
Without Borders, Mercy Corps, et cetera, numerous groups are supporting 
this effort.
  The food package, as has been stated, would give $150 million for 
this effort, and that is only the equivalent of barely 1 percent of 
this committee's funding bill. I will tell the Members, it will last a 
long time, for years, in helping these refugees.
  Mr. Chairman, I must urge, and again quoting our president, President 
Ronald Reagan, a hungry child knows no politics. I think that should be 
our guiding light here today. I thank the chairman of the committee for 
this opportunity to discuss this issue, and would hope that we could 
have the gentleman's cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Kosovo supplemental provides some additional 
humanitarian aid, but does not cover the most basic of humanitarian 
needs . . . food aid for the 1.4 million Kosovar refugees. This 
complements the Pelosi amendment just passed, but more needs to be 
done.
  Yesterday Representative Hall and myself offered an amendment in 
Rules that would have added $150 million in humanitarian food aid 
through title II of the PL-480 ``Food for Peace'' program. 
Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not make the amendment in order.
  Representative Lewis spoke strongly at the Rules Committee to work 
and add this vital funding in the Conference. I look forward to working 
with you Mr. Young and the Appropriations Committee to ensure that food 
aid is included in the Conference.
  As you all know, there is a great human tragedy unfolding in the 
Balkans. The United States and NATO have taken on the challenge of 
stopping the ruthless aggression.
  Members of the Congress may disagree on the merits of this policy but 
there must be no disagreement on the necessity of caring for the basic 
needs of the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have been forced 
from their homeland. They are the innocent victims of this terrible 
situation.
  I have long been an advocate of fighting hunger across the world. Mr. 
Hall attended the recent trip of Members to the Balkans led by the 
Majority Leader Armey. Those Members saw the refugees and the need 
first hand. Shortly, I hope to also visit the Balkans. I have visited 
Ethiopia, the Sudan, the Kurds isolated in mountain refugee camps and 
have seen starvation up close. I have seen the devastation of hunger in 
the hallow eyes of a starving child. That is something none of us want 
to see in the refugee camps surrounding Kosovo.
  In the eighties, I sat down with President Ronald Reagan to convince 
of the need to fight hunger around the world: And with his kind 
reasoning, he made the strong decision to do all we can to fight hunger 
and provide safe-passage for food supplies to refugees.

[[Page H2877]]

  It is, after all, mainly the children who are going to suffer. So 
many families have been torn apart by this violence, so many have lost 
their homes and means to survive. These poor people have no one to turn 
to. We must accept the responsibility because if it is not us . . . the 
who? It is our moral obligation to care for those who need the most. As 
the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 25:40, ``I tell you the truth, whatever 
you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for 
me.'' This is the Biblical admonition.
  We must provide these funds in Conference to take care of their most 
basic food needs. The coalition of humanitarian organizations that are 
working with Kosovar refugees--Catholic Relief Services, Save the 
Children, World Vision, CARE, Mercy Corps, the Red Cross, Doctors 
Without Borders--all support this adding the funding.
  This food-aid package that would get 1.4 million refugees through the 
end of 2000 would cost what we're spending in just one week fighting 
this war ($150 million versus $718-$990 million per month). The amount 
we are asking for represents just barely 1 percent of this bill's total 
funding.
  If there is any emergency in Kosovo it is ensuring that the refugees 
do not starve. The situation in these camps is already tragic with the 
refugees fending off depression, poor sanitation, and questionable 
living conditions. Hunger will amplify this situation into a 
catastrophe.
  I urge the Appropriations Committee to work in the spirit of 
President Ronald Reagan's famous quote. ``A hungry child knows no 
politics.'' The issue of a hungry child is never debatable. I look 
forward to working with you to add the needed $150 million in food aid 
and I greatly thank the Chairman, and the entire Committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
for bringing this to our attention. She has done a tremendous amount of 
work on this issue for the many, many years she has been here in the 
Congress. I want to assure the gentlewoman that we will give her 
proposal every consideration as we proceed to conference with the 
Senate.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, do I understand of the gentleman that 
there would be an intention to raise the subject in the conference?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, yes, 
we would be more than happy to raise the subject in the conference, and 
we will be pleased to work with her and Mr. Hall in the coming days. As 
the gentlewoman knows, we can never predict what a conference might or 
might not do. We will certainly make sure the issue is considered.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I was hopeful for a commitment of conference, but I do 
understand that the gentleman does not have control of the conference. 
There is no doubt but that the need is obvious and there. I thank the 
chairman.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               CHAPTER 4

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                         MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

     North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program

       For an additional amount for ``North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization Security Investment Program'', $240,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of Defense may make additional contributions for the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization, as provided in section 2806 of 
     title 10, United States Code: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for 
     $240,000,000, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                    GENERAL PROVISION--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 401. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in the Military Construction Appropriations 
     Act, 1999, $831,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense, to remain available until September 
     30, 2003, as follows:
       ``Military Construction, Army'', $295,800,000;
       ``Military Construction, Navy'', $166,270,000;
       ``Military Construction, Air Force'', $333,430,000; and
       ``Military Construction, Defense-wide'', $35,500,000:
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     such funds may be obligated or expended to carry out military 
     construction projects not otherwise authorized by law: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for $831,000,000, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Deutsch

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in the Congressional Record offered 
     by Mr. Deutsch:
       After chapter 4 of the bill, add the following new chapter:

                               CHAPTER 4A

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                 Immigration and Naturalization Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     enforcement and border affairs

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     Enforcement and Border Affairs'' to support increased 
     detention requirements for Central American criminal aliens 
     and to address the expected influx of illegal immigrants from 
     Central America as a result of Hurricane Mitch, $80,000,000, 
     which shall remain available until expended and which shall 
     be administered by the Attorney General: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $8,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That of 
     such amount, $5,100,000 shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $7,300,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of such amount, $1,300,000 shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Air Force'', $1,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $69,500,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $16,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $300,000:

[[Page H2878]]

      Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $8,800,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $46,500,000: Provided, That the entire amount 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For an additional amount for ``Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid'', $37,500,000: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                  agency for international development

                   international disaster assistance

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``International Disaster Assistance'' 
     for necessary expenses for international disaster relief, 
     rehabilitation, and reconstruction assistance, pursuant to 
     section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as 
     amended, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.


              central america and the caribbean emergency

                         disaster recovery fund

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for 
     necessary expenses to address the effects of hurricanes in 
     Central America and the Caribbean and the earthquake in 
     Colombia, $621,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2000: Provided, That the funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 4 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
     and, except for section 558, the provisions of title V of the 
     Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in division A, section 
     101(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)): Provided 
     further, That up to $5,000,000 of the funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph may be transferred to ``Operating Expenses of 
     the Agency for International Development'', to remain 
     available until September 30, 2000, to be used for 
     administrative costs of USAID in addressing the effects of 
     those hurricanes, of which up to $1,000,000 may be used to 
     contract directly for the personal services of individuals in 
     the United States: Provided further, That up to $2,000,000 of 
     the funds appropriated by this paragraph may be transferred 
     to ``Operating Expenses of the Agency for International 
     Development Office of Inspector General'', to remain 
     available until expended, to be used for costs of audits, 
     inspections, and other activities associated with the 
     expenditure of the funds appropriated by this paragraph: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be obligated and expended subject to the regular 
     notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be subject to the funding ceiling contained in section 
     580 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in Division 
     A, section 101(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)), 
     notwithstanding section 545 of that Act: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be 
     made available for nonproject assistance: Provided further, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request for a 
     specific dollar amount that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                           Debt Restructuring

       Notwithstanding section 10 of Public Law 91-672, for an 
     additional amount for ``Debt Restructuring'', $41,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That up to 
     $25,000,000 may be used for a contribution to the Central 
     America Emergency Trust Fund, administered by the 
     International Bank for Reconstruction and Development: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             FOREST SERVICE


                    reconstruction and construction

       For an additional amount for ``Reconstruction and 
     Construction'', $5,611,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to address damages from Hurricane Georges and other 
     natural disasters in Puerto Rico: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the amount provided shall be available 
     only to the extent that an official budget request that 
     includes designation of the entire amount as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, 
     is transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That funds in this account may be transferred to and 
     merged with the ``Forest and Rangeland Research'' account and 
     the ``National Forest System'' account as needed to address 
     emergency requirements in Puerto Rico.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) reserves a point 
of order on the amendment.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would put in the emergency 
supplemental that we passed earlier this year, House bill 1141, as an 
amendment onto this emergency supplemental bill, and specifically, the 
reason for that is there is a very true emergency going on right now 
that appropriately this House and the Senate both passed legislation to 
deal with.
  It is interesting, following the comments of my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) about hungry children, there 
are not only hungry children today in the Balkans, but there are 
literally tens of thousands of hungry children in Central America, much 
closer to our shores, much more directly impacting the United States.

                              {time}  1645

  And, in fact, the hurricane that occurred in October was of 
incredible proportions. I had the opportunity to travel to Central 
America, to Nicaragua, with the President and had a chance actually to 
view firsthand some of the destruction, where literally entire villages 
were wiped out.
  I remind my colleagues, and, again, this House passed 1141, but I 
remind my colleagues of what is happening in Central America. Up until 
the hurricane, a lot of very good things were happening: Economies were 
growing, had been growing, through the dynamic progress of a 
capitalistic, democratic, emergent democratic society; there were 
vigorously contested elections and vigorous opportunities in terms of 
an economic future. Right now that is on hold, and it has been on hold 
effectively since October.
  We have no choice, and not just because of the humanitarian reasons, 
but I think, really, for America's national security reasons. Many in 
this Chamber remember a different Central America, where the United 
States was spending far in excess of $1 billion for issues other than 
humanitarian aid, and I would hope and I would pray that that does not 
happen again.
  Without this aid package that we have approved, to do things like 
build infrastructure, to do things like deal with potential immigration 
problems to the United States of America, I am not sure what the future 
holds for Central America.
  And if the chairman of the committee would enter into a colloquy with 
me, I would appreciate knowing if my understanding is correct that the 
Senate's desire is to merge the two bills, the two emergency 
supplementals.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me explain where we are here. 
The House expedited the consideration of that first supplemental, and I 
will concede there has been some undue delay in going to conference on 
that bill. I want the Members to know it is not the fault of the 
leadership of the

[[Page H2879]]

House, and it is not the fault of the Committee on Appropriations, but 
I will not go any further than that.
  The answer is, yes, we do expect that the leadership will sign off on 
a plan that would allow this bill that we will vote on today and the 
original supplemental to be considered in conference at the same time.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Florida was very 
supportive, obviously, of the early supplemental, but is it fair to say 
the gentleman's current position is to be supportive and to include the 
Central American aid package, House bill 1141, as part of the final 
product that will come with this?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that 
is correct, yes.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be withdrawn; and I thank the gentleman for that assurance.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have now had a number of amendments brought to the 
House floor which the authors understand are not in accordance with the 
House rules and which the committee understands are not in accordance 
with the House rules. I had been under the impression that we were 
going to recognize that a lot of Members have other time obligations 
and we would not be debating issues which we do not have the right 
under the rules to debate.
  So what I would simply ask of the gentleman from Florida is this: I 
wonder if we could have an understanding that if there are any further 
amendments that are offered that are clearly subject to points of order 
that we will immediately make those points of order unless the sponsor 
of the amendment agrees to limit the time they want to discuss them to 
1 minute. Otherwise, we are going to inconvenience many Members.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising 
the issue, and we do have a time problem. I had set the goal of being 
completed by 4:30 today. Obviously, we did not make that.
  I wanted to assure all the Members that they would have an 
opportunity to have full and open debate, as we had promised an open 
rule, which we did. But I think the gentleman makes a very good point, 
and I would hope that those where a point of order does lie would be 
willing to limit the time they would use in describing that amendment 
to the 2 minutes the gentleman has suggested. Otherwise, we could go 
straight to the point of order and eliminate any conversation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to have an 
understanding that unless the sponsor of an amendment which we know is 
out of order agrees to a 1-minute discussion of it, we will immediately 
move to make the point of order.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am 
happy to join him in that announcement and also to say we have about 10 
more amendments that we need to consider here this evening, about half 
of which a point of order will lie against.
  So I agree with the gentleman, and I think it is proper we put the 
Members on notice.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                           GENERAL PROVISION

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in the Act 
     shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 602. It is the sense of the Congress that there should 
     continue to be parity between the adjustments in the 
     compensation of members of the uniformed services and the 
     adjustments in the compensation of civilian employees of the 
     United States.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 503. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for the implementation of any plan to invade the 
     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with ground forces of the 
     United States, except in time of war.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I might mention that this amendment is 
identical to one that has previously, under the precedence of the 
House, been held in order, and that was an amendment that was filed in 
1967 during the time of the Vietnam War. The language is identical in 
this case, only changing the words North Vietnam to Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment our chairman on this bill 
that meets some very vital and important needs of the United States 
Armed Forces. I support this bill. I intend to support the bill whether 
this amendment is approved by the House or not.
  Our military has been depleted; it has been overused. This bill is 
intended to replenish our military. This bill is intended to restore 
strength and vitality that has been taken from our military. This bill, 
as I believe most proponents say, is not, however, intended to expand 
the war that currently is being waged in Yugoslavia, which has not been 
declared as a war by the Congress of the United States. This bill is to 
replenish our military but not to expand past the air campaign that 
currently is under way.
  We cannot take up a more serious issue in this House than committing 
the men and women of our Armed Forces into combat and the potential of 
having them sent in a hostile environment into Yugoslavia. The 
President of the United States has said he does not intend to do so, 
but, nevertheless, he is having plans drafted for the contingency of 
doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, that cannot occur; that must not occur under our system 
of government, under our Constitution, unless the Congress of the 
United States so specifies. That is what this amendment says, that no 
ground forces of the United States can invade Yugoslavia absent a 
declaration by this Congress to do so.
  I should mention, Mr. Chairman, the significance of this issue. The 
great import of this issue is such that in 1991, when the Persian Gulf 
War, Desert Shield and then Desert Storm, was being put together, the 
President of the United States, George Bush, thought it crucial to make 
sure that he sought not only consultation but approval of the Congress 
at that time.
  Then Senator William Cohen of Maine, now the Secretary of Defense, at 
the time that the Persian Gulf campaign was being contemplated took to 
the floor of the United States Senate, the other body, and made it 
clear that our Constitution would not permit that campaign to go 
forward unless Congress approved.
  In fact, in the Congressional Record of January 12, 1991, Mr. Cohen 
stated, and I quote him, ``The President has said that he has the 
authority to go forward without congressional consent. I disagree with 
that particular position. He has also said that even in the face of 
opposition from Congress, he will go forward. I think that not only is 
a constitutional error but a tactical one as well.''
  What does the administration say and do? They said, well, we will 
talk to Congress, but we will not agree that we will not send our 
troops into the ground in Yugoslavia in a hostile environment unless 
Congress approved it.
  This amendment seeks to honor what the House voted last week by 249 
to 180, that, absent congressional action, no ground forces were to be 
sent in. Without this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the press and the public 
will claim that we have voted this money, this $12 billion, to widen 
this poorly conceived military effort.
  I do not think that is the intent. I do not think that is the intent 
of the chairman in bringing this bill forward. I do not think that is 
our intention, to enlarge this war. But we want to make sure it does 
not deplete the resources of our military.
  Does this amendment pull us out of what is going on now? No. Does it 
endorse the air war? No. Does it stop the air campaign? No. Does it 
prevent peacekeepers from going in should peace break out? No, it does 
not. Does it prevent rescue of our forces? Of

[[Page H2880]]

course not. But it does make it clear that we are not going to send any 
ground troops in in an invasion unless it becomes a time of war, which 
under our Constitution can only be declared by the Congress of the 
United States.
  It does not undercut our strategy. The President has said ground 
troops are not our strategy. It does not undercut our Armed Forces. It 
clearly is following the Constitution on who makes decisions of this 
tremendous import.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment; and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and 
under my reservation I ask the gentleman a question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) does not have time under his reservation of a 
point of order. The gentleman may make his point of order or withdraw 
his point of order or continue to reserve his point of order at this 
point.
  Mr. OBEY. I am continuing to reserve my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman move to strike the last word while 
continuing to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Well, I continue to reserve my point of order; and I would 
ask if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) would yield.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin continues to reserve his 
point of order.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida rise?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Oklahoma if he could 
explain to us what the words in his amendment ``in time of war'' mean? 
Is that a declaration of war or is it something else?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
this means, of course, the same as has been established in the 
precedence of the House with this particular language. I mean it, of 
course, to mean a declaration of war or any act by the Congress that 
would be any equivalent approval of a declaration of war.
  Congress, of course, has not given any authorization for such a 
commitment of our forces.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that 
means it would not apply to Kosovo?
  Mr. ISTOOK. When the gentleman says it does not apply to Kosovo, 
Kosovo is part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, so certainly it 
applies to Kosovo.
  Mr. OBEY. But the gentleman is saying there must be a declaration of 
war for a time of war to exist, or is he saying there are other 
conditions which might pertain?
  Mr. ISTOOK. There is no condition under our constitution which 
constitutes an official war absent an official action by the Congress 
of the United States. That is Article I, Section 8, of our 
Constitution.
  Mr. OBEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
under his time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I continue my 
opposition to the amendment.
  The House has already voted on this issue. Every Member has had a 
chance to be recorded, and I think all of us agree that we would hope 
American ground troops would not be deployed anywhere unless the very 
direct security interests of the United States is threatened.

                              {time}  1700

  But here is why I oppose this amendment today. This is real. This is 
an appropriations bill. It is real. I just do not think Congress should 
micromanage any kind of military activity, number one.
  Number two, it is a mistake to tell an enemy what we will do and what 
we will not do in a military situation. If we tell Milosevic that we 
are not going to send any ground troops to the area, Milosevic then 
only has to focus on the air war. He can put all of his attention on 
the air war. If we do not give him any direct answer one way or the 
other on ground troops or anything else, then he has got to plan for 
all kinds of contingencies, he has got to make his preparations very 
diverse, and it is not easy for him to do that. It is easy for him to 
focus just on the air war.
  So I think we would make a big mistake by adopting this amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the one thing the administration has asked 
us to do is expedite this supplemental, to get it done so they can get 
the money so we can do the rearmament on things like JDAMs that are 
critically important.
  This will ensure a veto of this bill and that, therefore, we are 
going to slow this process down. It is going to mean it is going to 
have to come back to this body. I would hope that the House would agree 
with our chairman and defeat this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very good 
point. I think it is ill-timed at this point, and I would hope that the 
House would reject the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the chairman being flexible 
here in terms of yielding.
  I think he made a very important point at the beginning that needs to 
be repeated. That is, we already had a vote on this amendment. There is 
an authorizing committee that is alive and going forward, but it does 
not interfere with the appropriations process. This bill needs to move 
forward quickly. We do not need to be threatened with a veto. It is 
unnecessary at this time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as Franklin Roosevelt said once, I hate war. And I am 
sure everybody in this room does. But I have to tell my colleagues that 
I think this amendment, while it may be well-intentioned, I think would 
have very pernicious results.
  Back in 1982 when my son was a student in Germany, I went to the 
University of Friedberg and I gave a speech to the student body right 
after Germany had recognized Croatia. What I said was essentially this: 
I said,

       Look, your country has just recognized Croatia, against the 
     wishes of the United States Government. I said, the United 
     States in 1948 recognized Israel; and when we did that, we 
     incurred a permanent obligation to defend their security.

  And what I said to them was that,

       You may not like it, but the fact is that when you 
     recognize Croatia the way you did, you triggered certain 
     events; and Mr. Milosevic is not going to stand by and watch 
     Yugoslavia slowly fall apart. He will be taking serious 
     military action. And in fact, in the end, we will have to be 
     involved militarily and so will you.

  Now, when I said that to that German audience, they booed. They did 
not like what I said. But the fact is that I believe I was correct, and 
I think events have borne that out.
  I am convinced that if we had bombed Milosevic immediately after he 
began his first ethnic cleansing campaigns, that within a week he would 
have been out of power because there was a strong political opposition 
to Mr. Milosevic at that time. But the West temporized for 10 years; 
and so literally we have had the number of people die because of Mr. 
Milosevic's actions which are equivalent to more than half of the 
population of my congressional district.
  Now, they were not Americans, so maybe we are not all that concerned, 
but I think we should be. I think we need to have meant it when we said 
about Europe after Hitler in World War II ``Never Again!'' And I think 
when the President walked into this problem and we saw what was 
happening in Yugoslavia, that we had an obligation to try to stop it.
  Now, if this Congress had an objection to that action, then it should 
have

[[Page H2881]]

stated so when we were at the beginning of the war. The Senate did take 
action in supporting what the administration was doing. This House did 
not act.
  Now that we are in this situation, I think we have an obligation not 
to make it worse. I think we make it worse for the refugees. I think we 
make it worse for our troops whose lives are now on the line, including 
those Apache helicopter pilots. I think we owe it to them to support 
policies that can get us out of this war as quickly as possible.
  I do not know whether we should use ground forces or not militarily. 
That is a military judgment which ought to be made by our military 
commanders with the agreement of the Commander in Chief. That is the 
way the Constitution is set up. The Congress has the power to say 
whether we should or should not be in a war. But if we are in it, we do 
not have the power to micromanage it, in my view. And we certainly do 
not have the talent to or the information to.
  And so it seems to me that the best way that we can try to assure 
that the air war succeeds, and I have grave doubts about that, I come 
much closer to John McCain on that than I do anybody else in this 
Congress, but the best chance we have to make that air war to succeed 
is to let Mr. Milosevic think that he may be facing a ground attack if 
it does not.
  If we want the Russians to play with this issue for real rather than 
just around the edges for domestic consumption, we also need to let 
them know that if their efforts at negotiation do not succeed, they may 
very well see a ground situation. That is, in my view, the best way to 
try to assure that the air war will achieve its desired ends.
  I respect the opinion of every single person in this institution, but 
I would urge them not to take this action and support this amendment 
because I think it will be immensely counterproductive and could in 
fact lead to the loss of more lives.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook amendment. I 
think that this would send a strong message that we do not endorse this 
war. It was said that this is the same vote that we had last week, but 
last week's vote is sitting on the table and it is going to sit there.
  This one may well go someplace and have an effect. So this is a much 
more important vote that we had last week. It is very important that we 
vote the same way as we did last week.
  I think it is interesting, I think we have an interesting 
constitutional question here, because I agree with the chairman of the 
committee and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that it is not 
the prerogative of the Congress to micromanage a war. That is correct. 
It is the job of the Congress to declare the war. But here we have a 
Congress involved in diplomacy and micromanaging a war that has not 
been declared. That is the issue. The issue is not the micromanaging.
  I can support this amendment because the war has not been declared. 
The issue is how do we permit the President to wage a war without us 
declaring the war. Once we declare the war, it is true, we should not 
be talking about whether or not we use airplanes or foot soldiers or 
whatever. We do not micromanage. We do not get involved in diplomacy 
maneuvers.
  But today we have things turned upside down. We have the President 
declaring where and we say nothing and the Congress micromanaging the 
war that should not exist. We need to consider that. And we can 
straighten this mess out by rejecting these funds.
  It is suggested that this amendment would go a long way to doing it. 
I am not all that optimistic. For us to say to the President ``thou 
shalt not use these funds for the ground war,'' well, he has not had 
the authority to wage his air war. Why would he listen to us now?
  Can we trust him and say that he is going to listen to what we tell 
him? Of course not. He is already fighting his air war and he will 
continue to. And he has set the standard, and not he alone, all our 
Presidents from World War II have set the standard that they will do 
what they darn well please.
  This is why I have been encouraged in the last couple weeks that this 
debate has been going on, because it is an important debate. I have 
finally seen this Congress at least addressing the subject on whether 
or not they should take back the prerogatives of war and not allow it 
to remain in the hands of the President.
  This is very, very good. I have come to the House floor on numerous 
occasions since February, taking this position that we should not be 
involved. As a matter of fact, we had a couple dozen, maybe three dozen 
Members in this Congress who signed on a bill in February, a month or 
so before we even saw the bombs dropping in Yugoslavia, that would have 
prevented this whole mess if we would have stood up and assumed our 
responsibilities.
  It is said that we must move in now to help the refugees. Have we 
looked at the statistics? How many refugees did we have before the 
bombing started? Others say, well, we must move in because Milosevic is 
so strong. Prior to the bombing, Milosevic was weak.
  Talk about unintended consequences. They are so numerous. What about 
the unintended consequence of supporting the KLA who are supported by 
Osama Bin Laden? How absurd can it get? Osama Bin Laden was our good 
friend because he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan and we gave him 
our weapons and supported him. But then we found out he was not quite 
so friendly, so we captured a few of his men and he retaliated by 
bombing our embassies. Of course, we retaliated by bombing innocent 
chemical plants as well as people in Afghanistan that had nothing to do 
with it.
  So where are we now? We are back to supporting and working hard and 
just deliberating over whether we should give weapons to the KLA. I 
mean, the whole thing is absurd.
  There is only one thing that we should do, and that is stop this 
funding and stop the war. My colleagues say, oh, no, we are already too 
far in that we cannot. It is not supporting the troops. Well, who wants 
to get down here and challenge me and say that I do not support our 
troops? I support our troops. I served in the military for 5 years. 
That is not a worthwhile challenge. We all support our troops.
  They say, well, no, they are in a quagmire and we have to help them 
and this is the only way we can do it. So the President comes and asks 
us for $6 billion and then, in Congress's infinite wisdom, we give him 
$13 billion. And yet, we do not declare war.
  This appropriation should be defeated.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, last week I called our friend Tom Foglietta, who is the 
Ambassador to Italy, and I said, ``Mr. Ambassador, tell me what the 
reaction in Italy is to the debate going on in the United States 
Congress.'' And the Ambassador called me back 2 days ago and he said,

       The Italian papers in their editorial section said we do 
     not have to worry about the communists. We do not have to 
     worry about the Greens. We have to worry about the United 
     States Congress destroying the NATO allies, the alliance.

  Now, that was in reaction to the fiasco we had last week. We have two 
ways that we can limit the President. One is, by a two-thirds vote we 
can override his veto. The other way is to limit the funds that the 
President has to use for readiness.
  For 5 years we have limited the funds of the President for readiness 
because for 2 years this Congress, this House, insisted we offset the 
money that the President asked for in his emergency money for Bosnia 
because there were a number of people that asked for those funds or a 
number of people who opposed that position of us being in Bosnia.

                              {time}  1715

  We were not successful in getting out of Bosnia, but we did limit the 
readiness money. Our troops are now at a precipice of readiness.
  I went aboard the Abraham Lincoln. The Abraham Lincoln has 5,000 
troops normally. It was 800 people short. If Members think they are 
hurting anybody but the troops, they are wrong. They are hurting our 
American servicepeople when they limit the money. If we do not have a 
two-thirds

[[Page H2882]]

vote on the floor of the Congress of the United States, in both Houses, 
we cannot override a veto, and we know the other body has already voted 
to go along with what is happening.
  So what we are doing is sending a message to Milosevic, and we are 
saying to him, ``We're divided.'' We are playing into his hand. We are 
making him think we are divided as a country, and we will never solve 
the problem. As the refugees stream out of Kosovo, as they stream into 
the refugee center with mud and no facilities, we are helping them with 
that.
  Unless we see a two-thirds vote, the only recourse we have is to 
limit the funds that are available to the President. We have done that, 
and we have reduced readiness substantially. Everybody here knows that. 
Everybody knows that the carriers are short, the destroyers are short, 
the Army is short 12,000 people, the Navy is short 7,000 people. The 
infantry fighting vehicles do not have any infantry in them. They only 
have the driver and the commander.
  I would ask my colleagues to think very hard. This amendment will 
cause a veto of the bill. It will slow down money we need to have by 
Memorial Day for the troops that are overseas. If Members support the 
troops, I ask them to vote against this amendment and then vote for 
passage of the bill, of the $12.8 billion for the troops that are 
serving in harm's way in the Balkans.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Let me just say to my esteemed colleague, when the President sent our 
troops into Bosnia, he said they would be out in 6 months. It has now 
been over 3 years, and we have spent billions of dollars. That is why 
many of us were very concerned and are still concerned.
  Now, we all want to support our troops. We all want to put additional 
funding into the hollowed-out military that has been hollowed out to 
such a degree that we cannot deal with the crises around the world. But 
let me just give my colleagues a fact. The fact is, from 1950 to 1990, 
military operations, we had 10 of them. In 40 years, we had 10 of them. 
In the last 7 years, we have had 25 deployments without the Congress 
being involved, unilateral actions taking place by the administration, 
by the President.
  Now, let us take a look at what happened when George Bush was 
President. The Democrat Congress, in 1991, insisted that we have a vote 
on whether or not we go to war in the Persian Gulf. There was proper 
planning. We had 550,000 troops. General Schwarzkopf was in charge. We 
planned it fully before we did anything. But still the Congress 
insisted that George Bush come before this body before we started any 
military operations. I remember Lee Hamilton standing right there 
debating against that operation. But it passed both the House and the 
Senate.
  Mr. MURTHA. How did I vote?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I do not know how the gentleman voted.
  Mr. MURTHA. I led the fight.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is great. I am glad he did.
  But the point is we have got a similar situation today, and they do 
not want a vote of the Congress of the United States. Why? Why is it 
that it was important back then and it is not important now? We are 
going to be taking young Americans' lives and putting them at risk in 
Kosovo in a ground war, in a mountainous area that is not like what we 
faced in the Persian Gulf.
  The fact of the matter is that the Congress of the United States and 
the American people need to be on board if we are going to send our 
troops into harm's way in a ground war. They have said that they would 
need as many as 300,000 troops if we had to go in there. Do Members 
want to commit them without the people's voice being heard through 
their elected representatives? I think not. We need proper planning.
  Let me just say one more thing to my colleague. When Mr. Tudjman in 
Croatia killed 10,000 people and ran 750,000 out of that country with 
an ethnic cleansing, what did this body do? What did we say? Not a 
darned thing. But now we are talking about possibly giving this man 
unilateral authority to send in ground troops in Kosovo. It is an 
insane policy.
  The American people ought to be heard through the people they elect 
in this House and in the other body. It is no different, Mr. Chairman, 
than it was in 1991 when we went into the Persian Gulf. They insisted 
on a vote then, and I insist on a vote now.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words; and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is missing my point. We have 
two ways to stop it, reducing readiness by reducing money available or 
having a two-thirds vote, or allowing Milosevic to see we are divided. 
That is the point I am making.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I would just like to make this case to the gentleman from Indiana. 
There is nothing in this bill that would authorize any money to be used 
to deploy ground troops into Kosovo, to invade Kosovo or anything else. 
There is nothing in this bill for that purpose.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I was one of those Democrats in 1991 that 
voted to support President Bush. President Bush was right in the 
Persian Gulf War and President Clinton is right today. In fact, when 
President Bush did come before us, he had all his ducks lined up. That 
is true. But it was basically a fait accompli. The troops were there, 
and we voted to support the President. We should not pull the rug out 
from under the President now.
  A lot of my colleagues say, ``We shouldn't fight this war with one 
hand behind our back. Vietnam was fought with one hand behind our back. 
We shouldn't let the politicians control the war. We should let the 
military people fight the war.''
  Then let us let the military people fight the war. All options should 
be on the table. We do not announce to a tyrant like Milosevic what we 
will do and what we will not do ahead of time. The only thing he 
understands is force, and the only thing he understands is unity. This 
man is an absolute tyrant. And so we need to have all options on the 
table, in my estimation, including the use of troops on the ground.
  I hope the bombing campaign will work. I have my doubts, but I hope 
it will work. But isolationism is not the way to go. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Chairman, there is a sense of isolationism in this Chamber in some 
quarters, and that is why this amendment should be absolutely defeated. 
The votes in my estimation last week were irresponsible not to support 
the bombing war, irresponsible to want to micromanage every aspect of 
the war. We should not be doing that. It is absolutely wrong.
  Now, ethnic cleansing. This is not a civil war. People say it is a 
civil war. This is ethnic cleansing. This is genocide. This is a tyrant 
like Milosevic killing people because of their ethnicity, driving them 
out because of their ethnicity. This should not be allowed.
  I hear my colleagues talk about the KLA and Bin Laden. There is no 
evidence, believe me, from the highest sources, there is no evidence 
that Bin Laden or any of those Islamic fundamentalists have infiltrated 
the KLA. That is a smear, just because the Albanians happen to be 
Muslims; and, frankly, I resent the smear because it is not what we 
should be doing. This is about ethnic cleansing. This is what we really 
ought to be concerned about.
  I had an amendment which I am not offering which would give more 
money to the Economic Support Fund because I believe that the countries 
in the area like Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania and Montenegro 
need our help and we are going to need to come there and help. Because 
this is, again, a crisis of paramount proportion.
  In my estimation, we should be aiding the KLA. They are the only 
counter to the Serbs on the ground. When we bombed in Bosnia, we were 
successful, in my estimation, because the Croatian army was on the 
ground as a counter force to the Serbs. We ought to be helping. If we 
do not want NATO troops on the ground or U.S. troops on the ground, 
then we ought to be helping the people that are on the ground and that 
is the KLA. I think we should be dropping antitank weaponry to them. 
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and I have a

[[Page H2883]]

bill that would arm and train the KLA as Mitch McConnell and Joe 
Lieberman have in the Senate.
  We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Ultimately, the situation 
for Kosovo I believe is independence. I think that the Serbs have ceded 
any moral authority to ever govern the ethnic Albanians again. There is 
no future for the ethnic Albanians under Serbian rule.
  Kosovo ought to be independent. There ought to be no partition of 
Kosovo. We should not reward Milosevic for his campaign of ethnic 
cleansing.
  Saying that somehow the bombing brought on ethnic cleansing, Mr. 
Chairman, this ethnic cleansing against the Albanians has been going on 
directed by Milosevic for years and years. I called it slow ethnic 
cleansing and quiet ethnic cleansing, and 3 years ago I took to the 
floor and I said what Milosevic is doing to the Bosnians, he will do to 
the Kosovars and make Bosnia seem like a tea party. He will drive a 
million over the border and try to kill another half million.
  I was right about the million over the border. I hope I am wrong 
about the half million. But when we finally get into Kosovo and we see 
the mass graves, we are going to see tens of thousands if not hundreds 
of thousands of people being butchered by this butcher, Milosevic.
  I commend President Clinton for having the courage to stand up and 
say no. It would have been politically easier for him to sit back and 
do nothing.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment ought not to be supported. All options 
ought to be on the table. I am going to vote for the finished product 
of this bill even though it is laden with pork, but we need to be firm, 
and we need to be united.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My reasons are 
different from some of those that have been expressed on the floor this 
afternoon, because, as many of my colleagues know, I was opposed to 
this air war that the President and his advisers started without coming 
to the Congress for consultation, and I have definitely been opposed to 
any expansion of it on the ground.
  As a result of my concerns, I introduced H.R. 1569 the last week, on 
April 28, which passed by an overwhelming majority of the Members of 
the United States House of Representatives. 249 Members of this body 
voted in favor of that bill. That bill sent a very clear message to the 
President. It was not micromanaging, because the wording in that bill 
was very different from the wording in the amendment before Members 
today.
  I want to make clear that the people who voted for my bill last week 
understand that there is a difference. Because in order to make this 
amendment germane, the gentleman from Oklahoma had to change the 
wording of his amendment. So Members need to look carefully at the 
wording of this amendment and the wording that they voted on a week 
ago, because there is a difference.
  Last week, the bill that passed by this House, bipartisan vote, 45 
Democrats voted for it, said that none of the funds appropriated, I am 
going to skip over, could be used for the deployment of ground elements 
of the United States Armed Forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 
unless such deployment is specifically authorized by law enacted after 
the enactment of this act. So it talked about deployment of forces and 
it could not be until after the enactment of a law.
  This amendment before Members today refers to none of the funds being 
appropriated in this act shall be available for the implementation of 
any plan to invade the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with ground 
forces of the United States except in the time of war.
  There are major differences in the wording and the meaning of each of 
these. We need to understand that. Those of us who believe in Article 
I, Section 8, of the Constitution and believe that the President should 
come before this body, as I do, before ever starting a war, should have 
done that before starting the air war, much less commit them on the 
ground, this amendment today is not the way to express that. We 
expressed it last week when we passed H.R. 1569.
  I am urging the Senate now to take it up. We need to each urge our 
Senators, because the Senate needs to act on that bill, because the 
President I think would have to sign that bill. Because that bill, as a 
result of that bill, the afternoon of the vote, the President sent a 
letter to the Speaker, I want to submit this letter for the Record, in 
which the President committed to the Speaker of the United States House 
of Representatives, he said, ``Indeed, I would ask for congressional 
support before introducing U.S. ground forces into Kosovo into a 
nonpermissive environment.''
  That was a result of that bill being on the floor and a result of 
that vote being taken.
  I am hoping the President meant it. We are going to put this in the 
record, on the official record, that he did. Because I do not think the 
President would dare now, after a majority of the Congress vote, to 
send our forces on the ground without coming to this Congress.
  But this is not the place. This bill today is about the readiness of 
our Armed Forces. We are at a critical time. We have got to get this 
emergency funding, because the President is going to continue to spend 
it. It is coming out of the hide of our troops right now.
  When I have got 16 P-3s on the tarmac at my Jacksonville Naval Air 
Station that will not fly because they cannot get the parts, they 
cannot get the engines because the money is being taken and sent to the 
Balkans, we have got to get the money in now. We cannot let this bill 
get hung up.
  I would hope the gentleman from Oklahoma would withdraw his 
amendment; but if he will not withdraw it, I want to urge my colleagues 
to vote against the amendment and then to vote for this bill. We need 
to send a message to our troops that we do support them, but we are 
certainly not going to let them be sent on the ground without the 
President coming back to us.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record:


                                              The White House,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 1999.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the opportunity to continue 
     to consult closely with the Congress regarding events in 
     Kosovo.
       The unprecedented unity of the NATO Members is reflected in 
     our agreement at the recent summit to continue and intensify 
     the air campaign. Milosevic must not doubt the resolve of the 
     NATO alliance to prevail. I am confident we will do so 
     through use of air power.
       However, were I to change my policy with regard to the 
     introduction of ground forces, I can assure you that I would 
     fully consult with the Congress. Indeed, without regard to 
     our differing constitutional views on the use of force, I 
     would ask for Congressional support before introducing U.S. 
     ground forces into Kosovo into a non-permissive environment. 
     Milosevic can have no doubt about the resolve of the United 
     States to address the security threat to the Balkans and the 
     humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. The refugees must be allowed 
     to go home to a safe and secure environment.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the Istook amendment. As one of the people that 
helped construct the amendment last week, I believe sincerely that this 
amendment is absolutely consistent with what we did last week. I think 
if Members voted last week to send a message to the administration that 
they did not want to escalate this war, I believe they should come to 
the floor and support the Istook amendment.

                              {time}  1730

  I have heard some discussion out here about the role of the Commander 
in Chief, the President of the United States. Well, let us make it very 
clear. Our Founders did not believe that one individual and an click 
that surrounds the President of the United States ought to be the one 
to carry out war-making in America. In fact, our Founders believed that 
it was essential for the House and the Senate to have their say. Why? 
Because the Founders really believed that it was absolutely essential 
that the people have their say, and the people can have their say best 
by expressing their opinions through their

[[Page H2884]]

representatives in the Congress of the United States.
  In fact, in a poll just this week in one of the national newspapers 
the indication was the people were far more comfortable having the 
Congress of the United States direct this war and where we head than 
they were with the President. Why? Because frankly I believe they are 
very dissatisfied with where we are.
  Why is it that we would come to the floor and support an amendment 
that says that we should put no one on the ground? Well, for 
fundamentally three reasons. One is, and these are not confusing, they 
are simple, and we ought to follow them all the way through: Does 
America have a direct national interest in Kosovo? Well, the answer is 
no, we do not have a direct national interest in Kosovo.
  But as my colleagues know, is it possible that America ought to 
intervene in conflicts where we do not have a direct national interest, 
and the answer to that is certainly yes. However, we should not 
intervene in conflicts where we have no direct national interest if we 
do not have an achievable goal that is accompanied by an exit strategy.
  Now, for those that have studied this region, the region in Kosovo, 
there has been ethnic and civil war and religious civil war going on in 
Kosovo bordering on six solid centuries. There was a time, in fact, 
when the Turks had invaded Kosovo and were brutalizing the Serbs, and 
their administrators were the Albanians. The fact is in that part of 
the world there has been ethnic and religious fighting for centuries, 
and the idea that the United States and its friends can fly into this 
region, and drop bombs and think that that is how we are going to solve 
this, it borders on arrogance and represents a misunderstanding of this 
region. In addition to that, the notion that now that we are dropping 
bombs, that the solution lies in escalating a bad policy, is really 
wrongheaded.
  So what I would suggest to all of my colleagues in light of the fact 
that there is no national interest, in light of the fact that dropping 
bombs is not going to solve the problems that have been raging here for 
six centuries, and in light of the fact that escalating the war does 
not make any sense because starting this war did not make any sense to 
begin with; frankly, we should have used the economic incentives that 
we had to strangle Milosevic. He is not a popular man at home. He 
should have been isolated and toppled, and the United States should 
have been involved in that.
  Well, what do we do today? Well, we have started this policy of 
bombing. Last week I voted against pulling troops out precipitously 
because I believe we must keep the pressure on Milosevic. But I urged 
several weeks ago that we enter into mediation, that we call on the G-
8, the President, to convene a special G-8 conference to get our allies 
together, particularly involving the Russians. As my colleagues know, 
we have alienated the Russians. We worked hard to bring them into our 
orbit, and we have now alienated them, we have gone backwards.
  I believe what we need to do now is keep the pressure on and keep our 
eyes on the goals. What are the goals? Return the refugees, withdraw 
the military forces of Milosevic, have an international force that can 
provide protection to the refugees that return and build liberal 
democratic institutions in the region. The fact is we ought to be 
looking for opportunities to mediate a solution, and stabilize the 
region, and rebuild our alliances, not looking for opportunities to 
escalate this war, and I am happy to say today that there appears to be 
some progress through the G-8.
  There appears to be some movement to involve the Russians and I hope 
ultimately the Greeks in being able to stabilize this region and accept 
our goals, accomplish our goals, but preconditions and dictating our 
way through this will not reach our goals. We will not have a 
successful conclusion like we can in my judgment if we search for 
peace, search for mediation, keep the pressure on. At the end of the 
day I think we will be successful.
  Let us support Istook. It does not allow us to escalate this any 
more.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook amendment. Last 
week Congress, all of us, took some stands publicly. Basically Congress 
was posturing last week. We postured for the public. We let the public 
know apparently what we believe.
  This is where we make it real. This is the real vote. This is when we 
determine what we were sent here to determine, what the future of the 
United States of America will be, not just posturing, not just saying 
what we would like it to be. We are here to determine what the actual 
policy of our country is.
  This legislation, the base legislation that we are describing, is 
designed to do what? We are here trying to upgrade the readiness of 
America's military forces, of our Armed Forces. That is the purpose of 
this amendment or this legislation. Frankly, if this amendment does not 
pass, we are striking yet another blow to undermine the readiness of 
the American military. Throughout the world we will make our country 
vulnerable. In all these other regions we are depleting those forces in 
order to fight a battle in the Balkans that has nothing to do with our 
national security. It is up to us to determine right now whether or not 
we agree with that policy, that money should be spent in the Balkans 
when there are threats elsewhere in the world to our national security.
  The President's threat to veto our efforts if we do not continue to 
pour money down this rat hole in the Balkans, is an insult to this 
Congress. For 6 years this President has starved our military, and he 
has abused those people in our Armed Forces by sending them on all 
kinds of military missions that were not important to our national 
security, and in doing so he has brought us to a state of unreadiness. 
Now if we continue this operation, we will be in jeopardy in Asia, in 
jeopardy in the Persian Gulf; tens of thousands of American troops in 
jeopardy because of the President's strategy for these 6 years, and now 
we are not up to facing this challenge.
  Mr. Chairman, that is our challenge right now, that is what we are 
determining. Are we going to upgrade the readiness of our troops, or 
are we going to give the President a blank check, a blank check to 
spend what he wants to spend, further deteriorating our readiness in 
this Balkan campaign that has nothing do with our national security.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), I have respected him for 
many years, and we worked together on many human rights issues. Mr. 
Engel offered an alternative that was a good alternative. We need not 
send American troops all over the world, we need not be the policemen 
of the world, we need not carry the burden of the Europeans and 
everyone else in the world. We can arm people like the Kosovars, let 
them defend themselves.
  That is what we did in Afghanistan. How would we have voted had 
President Reagan sent troops into Afghanistan and then said, ``Well, 
we're already in. We have got to spend even more billions of dollars.'' 
That would have been an insane policy, and do my colleagues know why? 
It would have made us vulnerable throughout the world and the Cold War 
would still be on.
  Today we have another option, and it is the same option that we 
should have taken in the beginning. Let us work with those people who 
want to defend themselves, but let us not be the policemen of the 
world. Let us not send a signal to the Europeans that after we have 
defended them for 40 years, and bore the burden of the Cold War. Now we 
will signal them through this vote, through this vote, that America, 
that Members of Congress, are going to continue to spend our hard-
earned tax dollars, put our people in harm's way for their security. 
Europe is rich enough, Europe is strong enough to defend themselves.
  Please do not buy this argument that it is all or nothing, that we 
have to send our troops in, we have to conduct this air war, we have to 
spend our tens of billions of dollars or do nothing. That is a false 
dichotomy. It is false, and it is even worse because not only do we 
then get ourselves involved in a conflict that we do not need to be 
involved in, but we deplete those scarce resources that we are trying 
to replenish today.
  What is this legislation all about? Why are we here? We are here 
because

[[Page H2885]]

we care about the well-being of our military personnel. The Istook 
amendment is going to make sure that that is what we care about, that 
is our number one priority, the national security of our country and 
the well-being and security of our own military personnel. Because if 
we do not pass the Istook-Burton amendment, or if we do not pass the 
Rohrabacher-Kucinich amendment which comes on after this, what we are 
saying is those forces will continue to be depleted because we are 
giving the President a blank check. I, for one, will not vote for a 
blank check for this President.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I know Members are anxious for the debate to quit, but 
in the 8 years I have been here I do not think there is very many 
things as important as what we are discussing here today regardless of 
what side colleagues come down on the issue, and I think there is a 
strange dichotomy for people that basically do not support the 
military, understand it or even, in some cases, loathe the military. 
They find themselves in a strange dichotomy. They try to use the 
vehicle of the military, which they have not supported, for a 
humanitarian issue, and I understand that. But I think in many cases 
those decisions have been faulty and inept.
  I agree that it is an absolute mistake to tell an enemy that we are 
not going to use ground troops if we are trying to change his heart and 
mind, that we are only going to conduct an air war. I mean it is 
absolutely ludicrous. I spent 20 years planning the invasions of 
Southeast Asia in European countries. One would never do that. I am 
against putting in ground troops for other reasons, but to tell one's 
enemy that they are not going to do that is foolhardy. It limits 
actions and allows him to prepare for other things and put that aside.
  And I have heard that we ought to leave it up to the military. The 
military, the Pentagon, recommended that we not conduct air strikes in 
the first place. They said unless we are willing to commit ground 
troops that we will not stop any of the problems on the ground, that we 
will actually exacerbate the problems, we will not achieve our goals 
and we will cause the forced evacuation which people call ethnic 
cleansing of millions of Albanians.
  I would like to tell my friends, first of all, if I was an Albanian 
and I lived in Kosovo, I would be a member of the KLA. But I also want 
my colleagues to know if I was of Yugoslavian decent I would be part of 
that force, and that is the whole problem is understanding both sides 
of the issue. People to their guts, to the blood of their families, 
feel that they are right, and unless we understand that, we are never 
going to arrive at a peaceful settlement in this issue. And to go 
against the military when they said that we are going to cause ethnic 
cleansing? And that is exactly what happens. I do not care what kind of 
spin we try to do it to try and justify a position, the bombings 
accelerated any ethnic cleansing that was in Kosovo.
  There are millions of people. Look at the interviews. Ninety-nine 
percent of them when they are interviewed say, ``What happened to 
you?''
  I was told to leave my home.
  I had 10 minutes or I had 5 minutes.
  Or I was told now.
  They were not refugees, they were in their homes. The bombing 
accelerated it, and there are millions of people today suffering.
  Look into the eyes of those children. They do not know what is going 
on. They are not KLA, they are not mujaheddin or Hamas. All they know 
is that they are being brutalized.
  But we are responsible in part for forcing many of those refugees to 
be refugees; I mean it goes beyond logic to disagree with that because 
it is a fact.
  The gentleman said that Osama bin Laden from the highest source. 
There are mujaheddin and there are Hamas working with the KLA. Now that 
same source said, ``Is it a major force?'' We asked, ``Is it a major 
force?'' He said no, but there are mujaheddin and Hamas working with 
KLA, and the drug traffic that goes through there, they said it is 
logical that the drug traffickers are using that to supply arms and 
weapons because they are sympathetic like they have been in Bosnia and 
other parts.

                              {time}  1745

  The whole point is, unless we draw a termination of this, and I 
disagree with Jessie Jackson most of the time but I want to publicly 
thank Jessie Jackson. I think he has had more vision, more insight, not 
for just bringing the POWs back but for looking for directions for 
peace instead of everything I hear directions for war.
  It is easy to kill. It is very difficult to work to live. That is 
what I would ask my colleagues, instead of saying, let us bomb, let us 
put in troops, damning the Serbs or damning the Albanians or whatever 
it is, there are peaceful solutions to this.
  Let the Russians be a part of the solution and the Greeks and the 
Scandinavians by putting them in instead of the United States and 
Italian and German troops that neither side trusts, and having 
withdrawal.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get an idea of 
how many more speakers there are on this subject.
  Mr. HOYER. Can I reclaim my time and perhaps the gentleman, on 
unanimous consent, can do that, spend the time finding that out? I am 
interested in the question myself. I will not object.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Would the gentleman ask the question then, 
because we have to get an idea of how much longer this is going to 
take. We had planned to have this conferenced by Tuesday. We may not 
have this bill finished by Tuesday.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my problem is I want to 
have 5 minutes. If the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) can do that 
on unanimous consent, I will not object.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to read a couple of portions of speeches that 
have been given recently about this issue, and I would hope my 
colleagues on the Republican side would listen.
  I came into the Chamber to make my remarks as the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kasich) was speaking. Shortly thereafter, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) spoke. Both of those gentlemen in 1991 
voted on the Durbin amendment that the President did not have to come 
to Congress for approval of taking military action. Both the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and, I might add, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell) in 1991 took a different position with respect to the 
President's authority.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is wrong about 
my vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Here is the roll call.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not, as John McCain said, about Bill Clinton's 
credibility. This is not about the credibility of this Congress. It is 
about America's credibility. It is about NATO's credibility.
  My colleagues heard me say on this House floor, after that 213 to 213 
vote, that it was the lowest point in my congressional career. This 
Congress, in my opinion, did not stand for the principles for which 
this country stands at that hour. It did not stand for the kind of 
bipartisanship that we ought to have when we confront despots abroad.
  Let me read from a speech by Margaret Thatcher just given a few days 
ago. She said this, I understand the unease that many feel about the 
way in which the operation began but those who agonize over whether 
what is happening in Kosovo today is really of sufficient importance to 
justify our military intervention gravely underestimate the 
consequences of doing nothing.
  There is always a method in Milosevic's madness. He is a master at 
using human tides of refugees to destabilize his neighbors and weaken 
his opponents.
  She went on to say, there are, in the end, no humanitarian wars. War 
is a serious and deadly business. The goal of this war, she said, is 
victory.
  Let me read another two sentences. Mr. President, in a letter to the 
President, nothing could be worse than surrendering our principles, 
values and credibilities because we lack the will to do what it takes 
to win.

[[Page H2886]]

  That letter went on to conclude, history, history, my friends, he 
said, will record that at the end of the 20th century the United States 
and its NATO allies had the means to defeat a brutal, belligerent but 
second rate dictator in Europe. The only question, he said, not yet 
answered is whether history will record that there was the will to do 
so.
  That was a letter written by Bob Dole to the President of the United 
States just a few days ago.
  The rhetoric of confronting a dictatorship, the rhetoric of standing 
up for human rights, the rhetoric committed to political self-
determination is useless, without effect, hypocrisy, if we are not 
prepared in the final analysis to stand and fight for those beliefs.
  This is, as John McCain has said, not about the credibility of Bill 
Clinton, not about the trust for this President. This is about the 
credibility of America.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment and the support of this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes 
and that the time be equally divided.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook amendment. Let me say, 
I was reserving the right to object, but I am not the Member who 
objected. I have tried to cooperate throughout this day in not calling 
for votes. Even though I was denied an earlier right to vote, though, I 
could have called for a quorum or an adjournment to get Members over. I 
have tried to cooperate, but I believe Members have a right to be heard 
on a question of whether we are going to war, whether we are going to 
escalate that war and whether we are going to have ground troops in 
that war.
  What we have established so far in the process of the debate in the 
Committee on Rules yesterday and today's debate is waivers were not 
granted. When we tried to offer amendments about whether to reach back 
to previous appropriations bills in order to try to restrict the 
expansion and escalation of this war, amendments that were proposed to 
transfer funds that I had to move the war funds, the $3.3 billion to 
refugee assistance, were ruled out of order.
  A point of order was made on an amendment that I originally thought 
was in order to try to move the war money. A point of order was made, 
and I withdrew the amendment. I tried to move the $3.3 billion war 
money over to readiness, because many of us who strongly favor the 
efforts of both the full committee chairman and the Subcommittee on 
Defense chairman to increase readiness would like to see more dollars 
in readiness. We do not favor dollars to war.
  The leadership opposed an attempt to try to specify that the 
President would have to come and designate the funds as an emergency. 
That was an earlier amendment that I withdrew to try to say that there 
had to be a specific designation, and that was opposed.
  There was an attempt to block a vote on reprogramming, when, in fact, 
there are billions of dollars pending to come in to reprogramming, at 
least $700 million pending and an additional $1.2 billion coming for 
reprogramming funds beyond the nature of this.
  So when it came down to real money questions, as opposed to a 
resolution last week on the ground war and a resolution on the air war, 
when it came down to real money questions, the fact is that there is 
$3.3 billion in this bill, that there is reprogramming money in this 
bill, that there is a $400 million rapid response team that many of us 
strongly favor, but without a Balkans limitation becomes another $400 
million to expand and escalate this war.
  There is no protection, substantive protection, on the $6.9 billion 
even for pay to keep it from being moved because of the way there is 
the fungibility of funds. That is why it is so essential that at least 
we make a statement.
  My friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), pointed out 
earlier that the language was changed. That is not because the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) wanted to change it. It is because 
in the Committee on Rules the leadership opposed a waiver for him and 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) where they could have had the 
same language on ground war.
  So now it is slightly different, but it is the best we can do in this 
bill.
  For those of us who do not want any more blood on our hands, who do 
not want any more Apache helicopter pilots going down, who realize 
that, yes, as my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, one of the 
greatest crusaders for human rights in the world, said earlier, it has 
been a terrible tragedy. It is not clear why this is not like Vietnam, 
why we are not hearing the Lyndon Johnsons and the General 
Westmorelands now telling us just a couple more weeks, just a few 
thousand more soldiers, it will all change. When we know apparently 
only the American people are deceived about whether or not we are going 
to have loss of lives and a ground war, how much the loss of lives will 
be.
  Milosevic knows all of this. He knows the history of Serbia. These 
underground things that he has in his army were set up by Tito. They 
have been fighting in this turf for 700 years.
  The only people who are not being leveled with are the American 
people, and it is time they understood that this bill not only funds 
the current war, it forward funds the war, it potentially escalates the 
war. And for all the good things in the bill that I will always vote 
for and for all the refugee money that is so desperately needed that I 
will vote for and the help for Macedonia and other countries that have 
been decimated in this process I will always vote for, but I will not 
vote to spend more money to increase this war.
  I will support the efforts of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) to at least 
try to limit those funds.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, if the walls could talk, at least twice in this century 
these walls have heard those familiar strains of isolationism, of 
America should not get involved with serious problems elsewhere that do 
not have a direct interest on our country; and they do in this 
instance. The stability of Europe, the stability of the Balkans, 
economically, culturally, morally, is important to the United States of 
America. Oh, if these walls could talk, they would say, we have heard 
this before.
  It is also kind of like the song we used to sing at Boy Scout camp lo 
those many years ago, and let the rest of the world go by.
  We cannot, Mr. Chairman, let the rest of the world go by. This is a 
very, very important piece of legislation. The purpose of this 
legislation is to take care of the troops. This is the year of the 
troops. We must in this Congress reflect what is good and best about us 
in looking after those young men and young women in uniform. That is 
what this bill is all about.
  The battle on this issue was fought the other day. It has no business 
here. I certainly hope that we can put this to rest, defeat it soundly 
and move on and take care of the young men and young women, the troops 
of whom we are so fond.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment; and I 
rise in strong support of the supplemental amendment.
  I listened to the debate in my office, and I just wanted to be sure 
that the record was clear when historians went back and looked at what 
we are doing today.
  This activity in the Balkans began in a little village called Vukovar 
in 1991 where Milosevic sent in his people, and after we later got in 
we found actually mass graves all over Vukovar.

                              {time}  1800

  They went into the hospitals, took the people out, and they shot 
them. Two hundred fifty thousand people died in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 
the war. They died at the hands of Milosevic. This is not a recent 
action. This has been going on for years.
  Do Members remember that cold Saturday afternoon when the shell hit 
in

[[Page H2887]]

the Sarajevo marketplace, and only then finally did the United States 
and the West do something there.
  Read Peter Moss's book, the Washington Post reporter, Love Thy 
Neighbor, where he talks about the rape houses; that the Serb forces 
would come in and rape young girls 14, 15, and 16.
  Read the portion where he says that the Serb forces put the gun up 
against a father's head, and tells the father, rape your daughter. And 
the father says, no, I can't do that. And then he turns the gun and he 
puts the gun up to the daughter's head, and then he says to the father. 
And the father says, oh, no, and he knows what is happening.
  This just did not begin 30 days ago or 42 days ago. What we do in 
this body today, we are setting a precedent for future presidents, 
hopefully future Republican presidents, but for future presidents. We 
are also sending a message to the Chinese as to whether or not they 
will deal with Taiwan and North Korea, whether or not they will deal 
with South Korea, and many other nations.
  I wanted to make sure that everyone knows that Milosevic was not just 
bad for what he has done for the last 42 days, but he is bad for what 
he has done for the last years. I, too, for my party do not think that 
our party should be an isolationist party. We are the party of Ronald 
Reagan, who down in Orlando called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire. 
And many people who were liberal criticized Reagan, but Reagan had a 
vision for the future, to make sure that we did what we could to make 
the world safe for people.
  I rise in strong support of this bill. Let us pass it to help the 
troops. I rise in strong opposition to the Istook amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise because I want the leadership of the full 
Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee to know that there are 
a number of people, Members, who have consistently and strongly 
supported this bill, but that if this amendment is attached, will vote 
against this appropriations bill. I think they know this, and I think 
they know how much we respect the leadership on the Committee on 
Appropriations. But I think they also understand what is at stake here.
  There are, as I see it, three reasons why this amendment should not 
be passed and why in fact our action in the Balkans today is justified.
  The first is our interest in having a strong and resolute NATO. The 
second is our past experience with Mr. Milosevic. The third is the 
strategic location of Kosovo and the Balkans.
  Mr. Chairman, it is in our vital national interests, Mr. Chairman, 
that we have a strong and resolute NATO. This is not a unilateral 
action, this is a multilateral action. This is a result of 19 
democratic, free European nations deciding that they will now take a 
stand, take a stand for human rights, for democracy, for all the things 
that Mr. Milosevic and the Communist empire have been opposed to.
  We lost 292,131 American soldiers in World War II, and we would not 
have lost those men and women if we had had a strong and resolute NATO. 
That is why we invested in NATO. That is why we have put everything we 
stand for behind NATO, because it is in our vital national security 
interests.
  If NATO yields, if NATO does not prevail in this conflict, NATO will 
not be worth the paper that its charter is printed on. We cannot let 
NATO fail in this mission.
  Secondly, our experience with Mr. Milosevic. This is the man that is 
responsible, as my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) said, for over 200,000 deaths of innocent civilians; 40,000 
women, these were not soldiers who were raped; 2\1/2\ million people 
displaced in the Bosnia war. This is the same man. And because we did 
not and NATO did not stand up to him, he knows how far he can go.
  What is his greatest ally? It is a lack of resolve on the part of 
politicians. He watches very closely exactly what we do on the floor of 
this House. Too often we give him comfort instead of reason to fear us.
  Thirdly, it must be understood, the strategic location of Kosovo, on 
the fault line between the Muslim and orthodox worlds. We know what Mr. 
Milosevic's plan was. It is not any classified intelligence. He amassed 
his troops to do the same thing he did in Bosnia, to drive out the 
Kosovar Albanians.
  If he went ahead and was able to do that without NATO standing up to 
him, do Members believe for a moment that the rest of the world would 
have stood by, the Muslim world? Do Members think that the extremists 
in the Muslim world would not have gotten engaged? Do Members think the 
Slavic world would not have gotten engaged? It would have spread 
throughout the region. It is the same kind of thing that created World 
War II.
  NATO stepped in because they realized what the alternative was. They 
realized that they were stepping in for the kind of principle that they 
and we believe in, and it was worth what resources it took. It is worth 
whatever resources it will take to prevail, not to yield.
  Milosevic is an old line Communist. He is head of the Serbian 
Communist league. He uses people for his own political purposes. He 
does not believe in human rights and individual freedom and liberty. He 
controls the media. He has fed the Serbian population toxic lies for 
over a decade. This guy is bad news. He is representing evil forces. 
And there are evil forces in the world, and we should be darned proud 
that we are standing up for principle.
  Let us continue to do the right thing. Support this action. Vote 
against this amendment and pass this bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have to come down here to yell 
and scream, I come down here to speak in a more practical sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the emergency supplemental bill, and I 
reluctantly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook).
  Let me just say to all those members on this side of the aisle who 
are thinking about supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). This is a crucial question we have to think 
about. We have already had the vote with the Goodling-Fowler amendment. 
It was very clear how Members felt when they supported it: No 
deployment of ground forces, of the United States Armed Forces in the 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, et cetera, et cetera. It is very clear. 
Members have had their vote on this side of the aisle, so Members do 
not have to go out and make their strong stand on this, because there 
is a much larger issue we are talking about.
  When we read the Istook language, the Goodling-Fowler has the word 
``deployment'' and Istook had implementation. They are very, very 
similar. Do Members think they have to make another stand on an 
emergency supplemental appropriations that is going to affect our 
military?
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say, our forces have been engaged in 26 
different engagements over the past 8 years, while the U.S. forces had 
only been engaged in just 10, just 10 from 1961 to 1991.
  There has been obviously a dramatic escalation of the number of 
missions, and it has stretched our military dangerously thin, to the 
point where our military's ability to conduct a two-war strategy is now 
in question and our entire military readiness is in question.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, if 
they are going to support the Istook amendment, they must realize that 
those colleagues like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and 
others who are going to vote against the emergency supplemental are 
going to effectively stop the military from having its resources. In 
other words kill this funding for the military.
  So I do not think the day in court on the deployment or the 
implementation of forces in Yugoslavia is at this point, at 6:10 
tonight, that is not the question. The question is, do we want to 
support our military.
  Mr. Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, said, 
``without relief, we will see a continuation of our

[[Page H2888]]

downward trend in readiness next year, and extension of the problems 
that have become apparent in the second half of this fiscal year.'' The 
Army Chief of Staff talked about the degradation, complete degradation, 
of our military.
  Mr. Chairman, the fight on the budget for our military between us and 
President Clinton and the administration is not on the Istook amendment 
tonight. No tonight, it is a vote to support our military.
  For those who go back to Ronald Reagan and other great conservatives, 
they are standing tall this day and for this evening for our military: 
to provide a clear message that we are going to help increase our 
readiness, and we are not going to get caught in the technicalities on 
a vote that we have already voted on by saying we are going to draw the 
straws and defeat this emergency supplemental because the Istook 
amendment passed.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this matter in a practical sense, in 
a broad view here. We stand for increased military readiness, and this 
is a vote on military readiness. It is not a vote on deployment of the 
troops. We have already had that vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding, and appreciate his calmly-made point that is fundamental: The 
House has had this vote. That is why the Committee on Appropriations 
rejected another vote out of hand in committee.
  This is a money bill that deals with delivering funds needed for the 
troops. Let us not put those in jeopardy, for we have already had the 
other vote. I appreciate my colleague making that very important point.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that our 
nation's security cannot be ignored, no longer. If Members, my 
Republican colleagues, decide to support the Istook amendment at the 
expense of perhaps bringing down the whole entire emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, that is not going to be good. If 
Ronald Reagan was here tonight, I think he would urge my Republicans 
colleagues by saying, let us defeat the Istook amendment. Think of our 
military and their readiness.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, about 2,000 years ago, this time of year, an angry mob 
hauled a Jewish carpenter before a Roman governor, a man that he knew 
to be innocent. The Roman governor, though, let the mob have their way, 
and to wash away his dereliction of duty he symbolically washed his 
hands, thinking it would kind of absolve him from what happened. 
History has proven that it did not.
  ``On Wednesday, April 28, Congress proved itself unwilling to fulfill 
or incapable of discharging its own constitutional responsibilities. In 
two successive votes, the House of Representatives rejected resolutions 
that would have either declared war or have pulled U.S. troops out of 
the quagmire in Kosovo. The best the House could manage was a 249 to 
180 vote on a nonbinding requirement that Mr. Clinton get their 
permission before committing U.S. ground troops to combat. Then late in 
the evening the House demonstrated its ultimate ambivalence in a 213-
213 vote whether air strikes should continue.
  ``But the votes on April 28 made it clear, Congress has now joined 
the Clinton administration in its failure to devise a clear strategy 
for ending what is undeniably an undeclared war in the Balkans.''
  The latter part of my remarks were written by an unsuccessful 
Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. His name is Oliver North, and 
it appeared in today's Washington Times.
  If Members think this vote on the Istook amendment somehow absolves 
Members of their constitutional duty to declare war and to look out for 
the benefit of the Army and the Navy, it does not. Members had that 
vote last week. They had the opportunity to get the troops out of 
Kosovo last week. The majority of this body did not vote to do that.
  They had an opportunity to declare war and do it right. They did not 
do that, either. They in effect did nothing. They did what Pontius 
Pilate did. He was not absolved then, and Members are not absolved now.
  This is a funding bill for the United States military. It does not 
need this nonsensical language attached to it. We are at war. Who is 
kidding who? Ask the kid climbing into an F-16 tonight, ask the kid 
climbing into an F-15 tonight, ask the kids getting into the A-6s 
tonight, ask the families of two airmen who died 2 days ago.
  We cannot walk away from our job. Members were not anointed to it, 
they were not appointed to it, they begged people for it. They were 
elected to this job. I ask the Members to do their job, admit we are at 
war, fund the war, and let us do this right. And above all, let us be 
worthy of those kids over there who have sworn to defend our Nation.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would just wish to state my support for 
this emergency supplemental bill and for all the hard work that the 
chairman and the minority members have done to put this together.
  I hear the passion here today, and I appreciate all the effort. I 
have friends on both sides, and I always support my friends, but I do 
appreciate the passion here today.
  The President has offered a version of this emergency defense bill. 
That represents a first step. It is just not enough. It is inadequate 
in meeting the emergency before us.
  We owe it to America and our troops to do more than just return the 
military to its previous unacceptable level of readiness. We have a 
moral obligation to give our pilots and soldiers and sailors the tools 
to do their mission. Just as they are doing their duty to protect us, 
we must do our duty to support them.
  Mr. Chairman, we need this emergency legislation. I would hope we 
would put this amendment aside, bring the bill forward, support it, and 
vote for it. Let us do it for our troops.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Fowler bill. I do not 
support ground troops in Kosovo, but I do support our leaders in this 
Congress who have imparted some wisdom here today. Many of them are 
appropriators and authorizers, and many times I take question with 
appropriators, but today they have given us fine counsel.
  My colleagues, we would trigger a veto by passing this amendment. The 
money would not get to the troops. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) have stated, we will send unusual 
signals to Milosevic. That is not the way to proceed.
  I am going to vote ``no'' on this amendment for that reason and for 
the following reason, for anybody else who joined with Jim Traficant in 
supporting the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Tillie Fowler) last week. 
Clearly, the President must come before us for authorization, but why 
should we tie the hands of our military and why should we not make 
available every option that we have?
  Today we are funding. Although funding is policy, let there be no 
mistake we have yet to address the total policy. In 1986, we were 
advised that a free and independent Kosovo should be recognized. We 
failed to do that. Now we reap the harvest of that mistake.
  We, today, must provide the money for our military; and we, today, 
must support the leaders who themselves do not want to see ground 
troops.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
comments; and I want to just add a paragraph that the President sent us 
on April 28.

       However, were I to change my policy with regard to the 
     introduction of ground forces, I can assure you that I would 
     fully consult with the Congress. Indeed, without regard to

[[Page H2889]]

     our differing constitutional views on the use of force, I 
     would ask for congressional support before introducing U.S. 
     ground forces into Kosovo into a nonpermissive environment.

  I think that says it all, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to support 
the statement of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as well. I 
think today we have to stand up to provide the money for our troops 
that are in harm's way, and I want to congratulate the Members who have 
made such a tough decision in light of the popularity, the low 
popularity of ground troops going possibly into Kosovo.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The author of the amendment is a good friend of mine. I might even 
express some genuine appreciation for the sentiments that has prompted 
him to bring this amendment here. But it seems to me we have to keep a 
focus on what it is we are trying to do today.
  I asked myself this question on so many occasions: What is this 
about? This bill is about funding our military.
  Our colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, people like the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Norm Sisisky), people like the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), people like the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Duncan Hunter), and the distinguished chairman of the 
committee have been telling us for some time how seriously hollowed out 
is our defense readiness, what a strain it puts on the nerves and the 
lives of our brave young men and women in uniform, what a hazard it is 
seen by their families.
  Many of us have heard testimony from wives of service people who have 
said, my husband is not safe. He is not properly trained. He does not 
have the equipment, the time to train properly for a mission.
  I suppose we have all had a sense of the accuracy and the need for 
that, perhaps in the abstract, but this deployment, this deployment, I 
think, has made us all come to a sharp understanding of this.
  We have moved aircraft carriers from other appointed positions where 
we thought they were needed to support this mission, and we have seen 
them move 400 sailors short. We see deployments of people who are 
exhausted from being away from their family. We see the sense of 
urgency and the fear for shortages of materials. We see the sense of 
deprivation by people stationed in other theaters where the concern and 
the danger and the threat is great and they feel themselves somewhat 
less prepared to meet with the threat that might emerge.
  We have had our debates, and, quite frankly, good decent, honorable 
debates of different points of view regarding the question of should we 
be involved here, should we have this deployment, should we be engaged. 
We have discussed that. How did the decision get made and were we 
properly consulted. We have discussed that. We laid down a marker 
saying please do not escalate this involvement or change its definition 
or direction without coming back and consulting us. We have made that 
point.
  Throughout all of those debates, we have always understood one very 
critical reason: If we are going to ask these people to serve, if we 
are going to have them out there, indeed as we see here in the Balkans, 
in harm's way, then we have a moral obligation to get them funded and 
get them funded now.
  When the President sent up his request, we said it may be enough for 
this operation at this time but it is not enough to fulfill the 
overreaching need of a hollowed-out military where servicemen and women 
are beginning to worry and even, in fact, despair for shortages they 
face. So we said we must do more.
  We were right. We were good to see that need and respond.
  And now we have brought a bill, a bill the purpose of which is to 
fund the needs of our military for readiness now in this theater and in 
every other theater where this great Nation is committed to defending 
liberty and freedom.
  What will happen to the urgency of that? Do we really believe that we 
must do this and do it now as a moral obligation of this body to the 
brave young men and women that serve? We should ask ourselves, what 
will be the consequence of passing this amendment here tonight? The 
consequence can be spoken of in one word and one word only: delay. It 
will not change whether or not the mission goes forward. It will not 
answer the question of some future redefinition of the mission. It will 
only delay the process.
  We will say to these young men and women, yes, we know the urgency of 
your need; yes, we know the breadth of the need; yes, we know the depth 
of the need; yes, we know we must act now, but only within the context 
of this statement which says we know it must be done now, but later is 
okay, too.
  No, I am afraid that we must understand our duty is broader than this 
statement made by this amendment. Our duty is more urgent. We must vote 
this amendment down. We must vote this money. We must get the men, 
materiels, preparation and readiness in the hands of these brave men 
and women.
  I was there last weekend. I talked to a lot of these servicemen at 
all rank, and I will tell my colleagues something, they did not 
complain. They take their duty to this great land and they vow and 
commit to do their duty.
  Let us tonight honor that. Let us say to each and every young man and 
woman in uniform on behalf of this Nation's commitment to freedom and 
dignity in the world that they have a right to understand that they 
will be equipped by this Congress now to perform whatever mission they 
accept with the highest possible degree of effectiveness and speed and 
at the highest possible degree of personal safety.
  Any action that we take less than that tonight will be, in fact, an 
action that we will regret for a lifetime.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have heard this debate. I have sat here 
for a few hours, and I can say that I understand the passion that has 
been expressed because I have a passion about this as well.
  The Constitution of the United States says that only Congress has the 
war power. I think all of us have read the Founders. We have read 
Washington, who talks about that; we have read Madison, who talks about 
the power to declare war being vested in the legislature; we are 
familiar with Thomas Jefferson, who has spoke often about that in 
messages to Congress and in various letters.
  This Congress has actually voted against the declaration of war. That 
has been stated today. Yet today Congress will pay for the continuation 
of an undeclared war. Congress voted against bombing, yet this vote 
will pay for future bombs. Congress has voted against sending ground 
troops. We have had the assurance of the White House that ground troops 
would not be sent without the President asking for it. Yet this vote 
would, in effect, pay for ground troops.
  Now, I believe that we can best support our young men and women in 
uniform by not sending them off to advance a speculative ground war 
which cannot be imposed without massive loss of life. Perhaps this vote 
would support troops we have not sent, perhaps this vote would support 
bombs we have not dropped, perhaps this vote will support a war we have 
not declared, but I cannot support any of this because this Balkan war 
has become a rough beast of a catastrophe slouching towards Washington 
to be born.
  We are being drawn along in the name of NATO, which is not 
accountable to this Congress and which has its own momentum.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer for the Record this quote:

       By the ``self-momentum'' of a power or a system I mean the 
     blind, unconscious, irresponsible, uncontrollable, and 
     unchecked momentum that is no longer the work of people, but 
     which drags people along with it and therefore manipulates 
     them.

  I want to thank Vaclav Havel for that quote in his book ``Disturbing 
the Peace''.
  We cannot settle the conflict by military means, so why provide funds 
for

[[Page H2890]]

further war? It is time to turn to diplomatic means of ending the war. 
We need to remember the message which comes from the meeting in Vienna 
with Members of Congress and leaders of the Russian Duma, that peace is 
at hand if we are willing to pursue it with the same vigor which we 
would pursue war.
  We have a plan to extricate ourselves, the Kosovar Albanians, the 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, all of Europe and the world. That plan 
involves the stopping of bombing, the withdrawal of the Serbian armed 
forces from Kosovo, the return of refugees to their homes under the 
protection of international peacekeeping troops, and the rebuilding of 
the homes of the people. All this can be accomplished and all of it 
must be accomplished without further escalation.
  Let us keep thinking peace and talking peace and working for peace 
instead of spending our resources for the escalation of an undeclared 
war.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment and in 
support of this very important supplemental defense bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Emergency Defense 
Appropriations bill. Approving this measure sends a strong message to 
our men and women in uniform and to our adversaries around the globe 
that we are united in providing the resources necessary to ensure 
national readiness.
  The bill also includes much-needed funding for a military force with 
serious readiness shortfalls. Our Armed Forces are being dispatched to 
more places around the world today than at any time in history. They 
are being asked to perform more missions with fewer personnel. This 
operations pace has produced a critical shortage of the spare parts, 
weapons, and support services necessary to be successful.
  As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, 
I have seen first-hand the poor condition of many of our military 
facilities in Europe. This bill contains money to make much-needed 
upgrades including combat communications, radar approach sites, crash 
and rescue stations, and other facilities where U.S. troops are 
stationed in support of this mission in Yugoslavia. These improvements 
will boost morale, as will funding for pay raises and benefits.
  I was disappointed to hear members of the Democratic leadership last 
week accusing Republicans of partisanship in voting against a 
resolution supporting the air campaign in Yugoslavia. The fact is that 
26 Democrats also opposed that resolution. We are told that somehow it 
was a matter of conscience for Democrats to vote ``no'' and a matter of 
politics for Republicans to do the same thing.
  But last week's vote was on a sense of the Congress resolution with 
no force of law. The key vote on supporting the troops is on this 
Appropriations bill. This goes beyond the rhetoric to actually provide 
for the safety of our troops, and give them the equipment and material 
necessary to carry out their mission.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is some of my colleagues on the other side 
who are sending the wrong signals by opposing this measure. They seem 
to be willing to commit American troops to missions around the world, 
but they are reluctant to provide the resources to equip, train, and 
house them adequately.
  Last week's votes in the House indicate Members of Congress in both 
parties have concerns about our policy in the Balkans. There should be 
no disagreement, however, on the strong level of support we show our 
Armed Forces while they are engaged in this operation. We want them to 
succeed. This funding is critical to their efforts.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to set aside the 
Yugoslavia policy debate and join in a bipartisan effort to ensure our 
military personnel have the resources necessary to perform the duties 
assigned to them.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a conversation with one of my 700,000 
constituents to whom I am accountable under the Constitution of the 
United States, and she said, ``Congressman, my three brothers and my 
husband fought in World War II. My two sons fought in Vietnam. What are 
you going to do to keep my grandsons from fighting in the war in 
Kosovo?''
  And I told her, I said, ``Under the Constitution, Congress has two 
powers and the President has one. And the power that Congress has under 
the Constitution is to declare war and to provide the funds for war. 
And the power that the President has is to be the Commander in Chief.''
  Now, we have had votes this past week, the so-called limitation 
votes, but I would submit to my colleagues that those votes do not mean 
anything. First of all, the Fowler amendment and the other votes that 
we took here at the end of April are not finding their way to the other 
body to be voted upon, so they will die.
  So the only way to limit any type of use of the funds would be to 
occur through curtailing of our constitutional power of the purse. This 
is our obligation. We are called to this under the Constitution, and I 
have to follow the Constitution.
  Now, if there were separate votes on increasing the pay for the 
military and for beefing up our military forces, I would vote for that. 
But I cannot vote in favor of $6 billion to bomb Kosovo, having just 
voted against the air strikes.
  This is the only authority that we have. This is the only authority 
that the people that we represent have. And is it not interesting that 
the Founders of the Constitution gave to us, to us, the Members of this 
body, accountable to them every 2 years, the sole power to declare war. 
Because if they do not like what we do with regard to the declarations 
of war, they have the authority to vote us out at the very next 
election, the genius of the Constitution to protect the people against 
going into war.
  And what are we doing? There are 900 planes involved in the air 
strikes. 600 are American planes. 300 more are on their way. And guess 
how many planes come from Tony Blair's United Kingdom? Just 20. Twenty 
aircraft.
  And is NATO united? I dare say not. At a time when NATO planes were 
bombing the oil refineries, members of NATO themselves were still 
involved in the shipping of petroleum to Serbia. That does not make 
sense. It simply does not.
  The Istook amendment simply says what the President has promised, 
that these funds cannot be used for ground war, period.
  Now, we have heard talks from many Members here. The gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel) talked about this war, this war, this war, this 
war. And he appropriately used that word. The problem is that this body 
has voted not to go to war, and yet today it is ready to spend the 
funds to go to war. Supporting the troops means something besides 
giving them the weapons of war, it is giving them the constitutional 
protection not to be put into the war if we follow our obligations 
under that great document.
  Those of us who are opposed to this supplemental are simply saying, 
what obligation do we have as Members of Congress? What obligations do 
I owe this grandmother back home? What obligations do I owe the 115,000 
children in the district that I represent? What obligations do I owe to 
the sons and daughters who may have to go into combat in that very 
rough terrain?
  The obligation that I owe them is that if they go, I will be 
accountable to them on whether or not I should vote for war or not, and 
that is precisely what the Istook amendment says. It says if we are 
willing to commit this money, then it should be with the approval of 
Congress in a situation of war.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this supplemental, but I 
want to make some remarks relative to the amendment which is now before 
us. The truth is that because of long procurement cycles, essentially 
none of the money in the supplemental will ever have anything to do 
with support of this war. It just takes too long to build the equipment 
and get it there.
  I am very strongly in support of this supplemental bill because it 
does two things that I want to do. I want to put back all of the 
resources that have been expended in this war which I do not think 
should ever have occurred and I do not think it should continue. I want 
to put back all of those resources that we have been denied through 
several years of underfunding our military.
  I will tell my colleagues, I wish that this supplemental were a great 
deal larger than it was because our military needs far more money than 
this. I am

[[Page H2891]]

as much in support of our troops as anybody in this Congress, but 
please do not confuse support of the troops with support of use of the 
troops. Do not impugn to us who are going to support this amendment 
motives that we do not have.
  I support the supplemental. I support the troops. I will not support 
this war. And I can support the troops without supporting the use of 
the troops. And I know that America understands. I hope that more 
Members of this body understand this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take a great deal of 
time. Let me just state, it was mentioned earlier about a vote that I 
took earlier and I just thought I would clear that issue up. Let me 
make it very clear.
  During the Gulf War, when I was here, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cox) and myself spent considerable time at the White House trying 
to convince the White House to come here for a vote and to make sure 
that they sought Congressional approval.
  Let me just say that, on that vote that was brought up by my good 
friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), it is 10 years later and I think I am 
10 years wiser. I think I would have voted differently at that time.
  Even then I knew it was important for the White House to come here 
and seek approval. Now, after thinking about it and seeing it and 
having experienced this body, I do believe that in a free society it is 
important for our power, the legislative branch, to express itself on 
such issues as this. I do not believe that is hypocrisy. I think that 
is learning. But even then I knew it was important for the President to 
come here.
  I thought I would make that clear.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook), and I support the passage of the final legislation before 
us.
  But first I want to just say, I want to thank the distinguished 
majority leader for his very eloquent words here not so very long ago 
in opposition to the amendment. And then I want to make some comments 
about the earlier comments that have been made by the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) asked the question, ``Is it in 
our national interest to be in Kosovo?'' And I think, to use his words, 
that it certainly is in the national interest to be there because we 
are there as part of the NATO alliance, all 19 countries.
  It is difficult to keep them together. That is part of the problem, 
why it is so difficult to keep a process and a strategy that many of us 
might disagree with. But all 19 are together and they are together at 
stopping a pathological killer from continuing what is this most odious 
kind of operation of ethnic cleansing that he has been involved with 
over an historical period, at least the last 10 years.
  We heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who could have stood 
at the microphone and regaled us for 2 hours, 2 hours without stopping, 
with the incidents, one after the other. He gave some of the most 
graphic ones, but there are others, each as graphic, each as odious or 
more odious than the last, of the history of what Slobodan Milosevic 
had done in Croatia and then in Bosnia.
  But we are talking about Kosovo and it is right there in Kosovo. He 
has now driven out three-quarters of a million of the citizens of 
Kosovo. His own Yugoslavian citizens he has driven out. He has been the 
cause of the burning of hundreds of Albanian ethnic villages where 
people in the middle of the night were told they must be out within 5 
minutes or 10 minutes and then their villages were burned.
  We could go through a whole series as long as the series in regard to 
Bosnia or in regard to Croatia, of the whole communities where every 
man, woman, and child was killed, everybody. We can find a considerable 
number of others where all the men were separated from the women and 
the children, and the men and boys from 15 and older, 16 and older, the 
men have not been seen again. The number that we will find when we get 
into Kosovo will surprise us all.
  The distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget then gave 
what I think almost everybody here would agree unanimously are the 
principles that we are there for, which are, as he put it, that there 
must be an international force that could provide security so that 
refugees could return to their homes, homes that they have lived in for 
in some cases several generations or hundreds of years, and to build 
democratic institutions in Kosovo.
  I think we would almost all agree that those are principles that we 
ought to be for, and almost all of us could agree that those are 
important principles.
  I would submit to my colleagues that the adoption of the Istook 
amendment tonight would make it considerably harder to achieve any one 
of those principles or all of them in their totality. It would make it 
much more difficult for NATO, the 19-member alliance in which we have a 
very strong interest, to achieve what we went there to do, which was to 
stop the ethnic cleansing, to stop that most odious action, which is 
rape and expulsion and intimidation and the killing of men, separation 
of families, the men from the women and children, the separation and 
the killing of the men. That is why we are there.
  The adoption of the Istook amendment would make it much more 
difficult for us to achieve those ends, and I hope the amendment will 
be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 117, 
noes 301, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No 119]

                               AYES--117

     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Lee
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ose
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Towns
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--301

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)

[[Page H2892]]


     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bliley
     Brown (CA)
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     King (NY)
     Kuykendall
     Lewis (GA)
     McNulty
     Packard
     Slaughter
     Tiahrt
     Wynn

                              {time}  1903

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to cast a vote on the Istook 
amendment to H.R. 1664 due to a family emergency. However, had I been 
present I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________