[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.
____________________